House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Foreign Secretary cannot be at today’s Question Time because he is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa with His Majesty the King and the Prime Minister. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) is also travelling, in Vietnam.
We will not give a running commentary on our discussions with the European Union. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and others have already made a clear statement on the matter. We will continue to look at EU proposals on a range of issues, but we will not return to freedom of movement. However, we are committed to finding constructive ways of working together and delivering for the British people.
Ian Roome
Does the Minister agree that if Iceland and Monaco can be approved countries under the reciprocal UK mobility scheme, our closest neighbours, such as Ireland and France, should be too? Many schools in my constituency would like a youth mobility agreement because it would be beneficial to our youth.
Stephen Doughty
I was in Iceland the other day. Iceland is, of course, a member of the European economic area and we are not, and we do not seek to rejoin the single market, the customs union or the EU, or to return to freedom of movement. However, the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission met in Brussels on 2 October and agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK and put it on a more solid and stable footing. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 14 October. Both those meetings mark a significant moment in our reset with Europe.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is welcome to hear the Minister talk about looking at what the EU might suggest. It is important to be clear that the youth mobility scheme is not freedom of movement. We already have schemes with Uruguay, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and it is clear that strict conditions apply to when somebody can come here. Will the Minister update us on when he next expects to discuss the subject with the EU?
Stephen Doughty
Of course, we discuss a range of issues with our partners and friends in the EU. As I said earlier, I will not give a running commentary on those discussions. We have been clear that we will not return to freedom of movement or rejoin the EU.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I can confirm that, alongside our G7 allies, UK support for Ukraine is iron clad. We have already made it clear that we will provide £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine for as long as that is needed. We are investing in Ukraine’s defence industrial base and we are ratcheting up the pressure on Putin’s war machine and on third-country supplies. I am delighted that the Chancellor has today announced that we will provide £2.26 billion in additional support to Ukraine as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme.
Alex Baker
Ukraine is facing a difficult winter. What steps are the Government taking to help ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position to deal with the challenges that that will bring?
Stephen Doughty
I agree with my hon. Friend: Putin’s shocking and barbarous attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure have increased the vulnerability of millions of Ukrainians before this winter. That is why I have announced and signed off £20 million in additional support for Ukraine’s energy system. We are working with partners across Europe and in the G7 to support Ukrainians in this area.
Luke Akehurst
Does my hon. Friend agree that Ukraine’s rightful place is with other European democracies in the NATO alliance?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend will know that the NATO Secretary-General was in London recently alongside President Zelensky, where the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary welcomed them. Our allies have made it clear that Ukraine’s future is in NATO and, indeed, in Washington they confirmed that Ukraine is on an irreversible path to NATO membership. We will play a leading role in supporting Ukraine’s pathway to membership.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Given that answer, does the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office consider that the reported presence of the United Nations Secretary-General at Putin’s summit in Russia will be helpful or unhelpful to Ukraine? If the latter, what is the Minister doing about it?
Stephen Doughty
While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, obviously the meetings that the United Nations Secretary-General chooses to attend are a matter for him, not for the Government. We continue to work with a wide range of allies to support Ukraine across the G7, as we have in relation to today’s announcement, and with our partners in Europe.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern about worrying reports of North Korean troops fighting for Russia in Ukraine? What message would he give from the Dispatch Box to Pyongyang?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that we condemn in the strongest terms the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s continued unlawful arms transfers, and the reported deployments of its troops to the Russian Federation to support the unlawful war of aggression in Ukraine. That is not only in violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions, but it will also prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people and threatens global security, so we condemn it in absolute terms.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
To move us beyond the condemnation, in the last week, troops from North Korea have arrived in Russia and are training in Russian fatigues, based on videos that we have seen. In addition, we know that Russia has procured multiple weapons from North Korea to aid the murder of Ukrainians. Putin has seized the escalation ladder, so will the Minister now declare North Korea a combatant in the renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine, démarche the North Korean chargé and confirm what unilateral and multilateral action we will be taking in response?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Minister for her points. We absolutely condemn what North Korea is reported to have been doing. She will have seen in our response to the Iranian transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia that we acted strongly, swiftly and firmly. We are closely monitoring what Russia is providing to the DPRK in return for its provision of arms and military personnel. We are deeply concerned about the potential for further transfers, including of ballistic missile-related technology. That would obviously jeopardise peace and stability not only in Ukraine, but across the world, and we condemn it absolutely.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Government inherited a situation where the long-term secure operation of the Diego Garcia military base was under threat. The agreement that we have reached secures the future of the base and strengthens our role in safeguarding global security. The agreement is subject to the finalisation of a treaty that the Government intend to complete in the coming months. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in the usual manner, following its signature.
Nigel Farage
Since the mistaken opening of negotiations by the last Government on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, it turns out that the British high commissioner and others appear to have been bugged by the Government of Mauritius. If the police investigation proves that to be true and we can see that Mauritius—their Government at least—are bad actors, is the 99-year lease on Diego Garcia even worth the paper that it is written on?
Stephen Doughty
We note the reports with significant concern, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on an ongoing police investigation. As I pointed out yesterday, the reports relate to historical conversations, not during the current round of negotiations. We are confident that we have achieved a treaty that meets our national security objectives, closes off a migration route and fundamentally respects the interests of the Chagossian people.
Gregory Stafford
How can the Minister continue to defend the ceding of the Chagos islands to Mauritius when China is rapidly expanding its influence in the Indo-Pacific? With no binding agreement against Chinese military involvement in the future, have the Government recklessly compromised British and allied security just to appease vested interests?
Stephen Doughty
I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman suggests about Mauritius somehow being in hock to China or the agreement somehow opening up a place for China. Let me be clear: Mauritius is one of only two African countries that have not signed up to the belt and road initiative. There is absolutely no way that we, or the United States, would have signed off a treaty across the national security apparatus that compromised any of our security interests or those of our allies. The unequivocal support from the United States—the President, the Secretary of State, the Defence Secretary and across the establishment—makes it clear that this is the right deal for our security and that of our allies.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
October is likely to see the least aid enter Gaza since the start of the conflict. That is unacceptable. As the Foreign Secretary stated on 16 October, the UK is pressing Israel, alongside our partners, to allow the aid into Gaza that is so clearly needed in this desperate situation, and to enable the UN and its humanitarian partners to operate effectively.
Deirdre Costigan
I recently met representatives from the West London Islamic Centre in my constituency of Ealing Southall, who told me that they are deeply concerned about the plight of severely injured children in Gaza who need urgent medical help. Will the Minister outline what work she is doing to ensure that those children have access to the very best medical attention?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and to her constituents and the very many people across the UK who are determined to do what they can. We have seen that with the UK public’s response to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, matched by the Government up to £10 million. She asked specifically about young children who have been caught up and injured. The extent of disease and injury is significant and deeply concerning. We have provided significant support, including through UK-Med for its field hospital in Gaza. Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced £1 million for the Egyptian health Ministry to support medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza.
Will Stone
Many residents from Swindon North have contacted me expressing their concerns about Gaza. What steps is the Minister taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. We see people up and down the country who are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Clearly, we now have extreme levels of food insecurity. We are very concerned about the situation in northern Gaza in particular. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and all of us in the ministerial team have been very clear to all actors in the region and others that there must be access to the aid that is so desperately needed in all of Gaza.
Anna Dixon
Since the devastating Hamas attack on Israel more than a year ago, an estimated 42,000 Palestinians have died, including many civilians, and many more families have been repeatedly displaced. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that the Government are using the full diplomatic force at their disposal to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and to allow the free flow of humanitarian aid?
Anneliese Dodds
Yes, I can. A resolution to this conflict has been a priority since day one of the new Government. We are calling for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages still cruelly detained by Hamas, and much more aid to enter Gaza. The death and destruction in Gaza is intolerable and we have made that clear at every possible moment.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I declare an interest as a former board member of the Disasters Emergency Committee. I am delighted to see the British public’s generous response to its appeal. I know that its member agencies are doing everything in their power to get aid to those who need it, but one of those agencies, Islamic Relief, told me yesterday about the situation in Jabalia where people are being “starved, bombed and shot on sight”. What conversations has the Minister had with Israeli counterparts to end the indiscriminate attacks on people in Gaza and let in the lifesaving aid that the British public are so generously supporting?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Again, I express our gratitude to the DEC for its work in ensuring that there has been that emergency appeal for the middle east. I should have mentioned earlier that that is covering not just Gaza, but Lebanon and the broader middle east where there is also that urgent humanitarian need. I can reassure her that, on issues of access to aid, the UK Government have been crystal clear on the need for the maintenance of international humanitarian law across the region, which of course includes Israel as well, as the Foreign Secretary underlined at the end of last week.
Dr Ahmed
Will the Minister reassure me that September’s export licence ban with Israel covers items that we reasonably believe could be used to breach international law in Gaza? Will she further reassure me that the remaining export licences with Israel largely do not cover the Israel Defence Forces or military equipment?
Anneliese Dodds
I wish to be very clear as I think there is some confusion on this important point. Following the 2 September suspension, there are currently no extant UK export licences—I repeat, no extant export licences—for items to Israel that we assess might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. There is only one exception, which is for F-35 components, and the Foreign Secretary has explained that to the House. My hon. Friend is right to say that most licences for exports to Israel are not for the IDF, and I am pleased to be able to put that on the record for the House.
Neil O’Brien
The footage of children caught up in the fighting in Gaza is horrendous, and so is the footage of those who are still held hostage. First, what is the Minister doing to ensure the protection of aid workers in Gaza and Lebanon and, secondly, given that she has just told us that our efforts to get more aid in are not working, what are her next ideas? Where will we go from here, because clearly it is not working?
Anneliese Dodds
We have indeed seen some extremely disturbing scenes. Of course, it is important that we ensure that there is verified information in the fog of such a horrendous war. We have all seen those scenes and been disturbed by them. The UK Government are determined to do all that we can to ensure that aid is accessed by those who need it. We are using every opportunity to do so, which involves working with UN agencies in detail. I have had many meetings with them. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have resumed support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have been in close contact with it, the World Food Programme and all others working on this, and we have also been working bilaterally with all our partners in the region. There are a number of different countries working with us to try to ensure that there is access to aid, which is desperately needed.
Catherine Fookes
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that she has done so far on this issue. My constituents, including Damon and Annie, are extremely concerned that every day things are only getting worse. The UN says that all essential supplies for survival are running out. Given the abject conditions in north Gaza, the fact that humanitarian access is nearly non-existent is unconscionable. A year on from the start of the conflict, we are still debating restrictions on the flow of aid by Israeli authorities. What more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that people who are dying from hunger, thirst and lack of medical care receive the attention they need?
Anneliese Dodds
I can only underline the fact that the new UK Government are doing all that we can to get aid in as quickly as possible, supporting trusted partners on the ground to deliver life-saving humanitarian aid. As has been mentioned, we have agreed to match up to £10 million of public donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east humanitarian appeal. That will provide life-saving aid, including medical supplies, shelter and clean water, to people in need, on top of the support that we have released to UNRWA. That aid needs to get to the people who desperately need it, and I refer to my response to an earlier question on that point. We are using every avenue to advance that cause.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The images coming out of northern Gaza have horrified many, as has the news of yet more indiscriminate bombing, and many people have reached into humanity’s darkest periods for historical comparisons. I do not know which of those is appropriate, but I do know that on each of those occasions we told ourselves that this time was different, yet it never was. Does the ministerial team realise that what they do now is what they would have done then? If they do, do they believe that the conversations that they are having are enough, and if they do not, when will they act positively to bring about a ceasefire?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his question, but he must recognise that from the first day of the new Government coming into position we have sought to do all we can to advance the cause of a ceasefire. On the issue of international humanitarian law, which he rightly and clearly stated as an imperative, we have been consistently clear as a new Government that Israel must comply with international humanitarian law. It must allow unfettered aid access. Our message is clear: Israel could and must do more to ensure that aid reaches civilians in Gaza. We have upheld our legal requirements around that, as he will have seen in relation to decisions taken around arms export licences.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Last month, the Minister of State told the House that
“we could not be clearer: intentionally directing attacks at civilian objects is a war crime. Those attacks threaten civilian access to power, heating and water supply, impacting the safety and livelihoods of millions of Ukrainians.” —[Official Report, 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 29.]
She was right, so why is it that the Government can call out Putin’s war crimes the moment they happen, but they seem utterly incapable of doing that when the perpetrator is Netanyahu and the victims are Palestinians?
Anneliese Dodds
I regret the tone of the hon. Member’s question. Surely he can recognise that the new Government prioritise doing all that we can to secure the required ceasefire. The Government have repeatedly conveyed not just messages but action time and again to make sure we play our part, and that has been recognised internationally. The changes we have made around UNRWA, our commitment to the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, ensuring we hold to our legal requirements around arms exports—that is a Government that are committed to international humanitarian law.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Intercepted communications demonstrate that Hamas are struggling to find room in their warehouses for the aid that is arriving. What action will the Minister take to ensure that UNRWA actually gets that aid to the people who need it—and we accept they need it desperately—when Hamas are preventing it from reaching the Palestinian population?
Anneliese Dodds
The Government are clear that UNRWA plays a vital role in saving lives in Gaza, providing much needed food and basic services and supporting stability in the west bank and wider region. Wherever there are allegations or reports that there may have been unacceptable activity—such as that covered in the Colonna report—we have stated clearly to UNRWA that they must be investigated. It did do that with the Colonna report, and the UK Government have supported the implementation of the findings of that report. We continue to discuss that in detail with UNRWA so that it can operate in the manner that it is mandated to do by international law.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
While I appreciate the comments about aid, does the Minister condemn the ethnic cleansing and annexation of northern Gaza under the general’s plan, with aid not being allowed in? If so, what action is being taken to demonstrate the UK’s strongest objection?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government are extremely concerned by the situation in northern Gaza. This morning I was discussing it with humanitarians, as I have been doing just about every day. We really see a deterioration in people’s circumstances there in terms of health and access to aid. As I said at the beginning of the question, the fact that this month will likely see the lowest amount of aid since the start of the conflict is unacceptable. We are deeply concerned that we have now seen many people who have been displaced not just once, twice or three times, but up to nine times. We will continue to argue for the need for humanitarian access to Gaza.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Further to the answer the Minister gave a few moments ago, UNRWA supplies were found in the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar’s underground hideout. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, Hamas terrorists are struggling to find warehouse space to store all the misappropriated aid. When will the Government review their commitment to funding UNRWA and actually take action to stop the misappropriation of that aid?
Anneliese Dodds
I refer the hon. Member to my previous response on that. The UK Government take any such allegations very seriously. We have ensured that those are taken up with UNRWA, and with the Colonna report we saw a thorough investigation into the allegations, some of which were proven. UNRWA has been taking action in order to deal with them. It is really important that neutrality is held to, and we as the UK have played our part by ensuring that UNRWA has the funding required to implement those recommendations.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Following the removal of the international terrorist Yahya Sinwar and the possibility of an amnesty for those who now release the 97 remaining hostages, what pressure are the Government bringing to bear on Hamas to urge them to lay down their arms and release the hostages, both of which are necessary for full, unfettered access for humanitarian relief in Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this incredibly important issue. The suffering, especially of the family and friends of the hostages, is indescribable. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have met with them, particularly those who have UK links, and have repeatedly ensured that the release of hostages must be prioritised. They have articulated that message time and time again, and will continue to do so until the hostages are able to return home, as they must be able to do.
Mr Mitchell
Co-existence is inescapable, and a two-state solution is one day inevitable, as both Israelis and Palestinians are here to stay. Just as the first intifada ushered in the historic breakthrough at Oslo, so too Britain—with its deep regional connections, UN responsibilities and brilliant diplomatic service—has a key role in lifting people’s eyes to a very different future. What discussions are the Government having on this issue, building on the significant efforts started under the last Government?
Anneliese Dodds
We do not always agree across the Dispatch Box, but I strongly agree with the right hon. Member’s characterisation of the need for a two-state solution. Ultimately, that is the only way of delivering the peace and security that the people of Israel and Palestine deserve. Making sure that we play our part in exercising leadership towards that two-state solution is a long-term commitment of this Government, but of course—as he would expect—we need to show what that can deliver. A huge amount of work is ongoing around reconstruction, and I have discussed that issue in detail with the World Bank, for example. It has been conducting a survey of the needs that will have to be met, making sure that work is fully co-ordinated so that we can achieve that secure future for those who are in Gaza at the moment.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The attack saw
“more than four, five residential blocks...razed to the ground. Some…reached the hospital, some…remain under the rubble.”
That is the account of Dr Eid Sabbah of Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza, which he gave to the BBC yesterday. I have noted the Minister’s qualified response earlier, but as the UN special envoy for the peace process warns that
“nowhere is safe in Gaza”,
does she agree that the UK should now cease all arms exports to Israel?
Anneliese Dodds
With all due respect the hon. Member, my county colleague, I urge him to look again at what I stated, which stipulated very clearly the legal grounds for that decision about arms exports. I was clear that the restrictions that have been placed on arms due to that legal regime, which the UK Government were determined to fulfil, are because the other licences are not going to be used in the manner that some would suggest. We are very clear about the need to fulfil our international responsibilities in that regard. The hon. Member also talked about the role of healthcare workers within Gaza, and we pay tribute to all those who have been delivering healthcare. Many are British citizens; the British Government have supported UK-Med, and we pay tribute to them.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Hamish Falconer)
The Foreign Office works closely with our allies and partners to counter Iran’s support for proscribed groups, which include Hamas—as many Members have mentioned—as well as Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. We currently have over 400 sanctions in place on Iran in response to its human rights violations, nuclear escalation and terrorism. We also continue to hold Iran publicly accountable for its direct support of terrorism, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did in his intervention at the Security Council on 25 September.
Jonathan Davies
Iran’s malign activity and support for its proxies is destabilising the middle east. Does the Minister agree that this must end, and will he say a little more about what steps he is taking?
Hamish Falconer
I do agree. In all of our efforts in the region, we are clear that Hamas and the other Iranian proxies that are doing so much to destabilise the region must stop. We are working with our allies to that effect, including by reviewing new measures that we can take.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
For years, the Foreign Secretary and the Labour party have promised to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the chief sponsor of global terrorism. Are the Government going to take action to tackle terrorism and extremism in the UK, or are they going to break yet another promise?
Hamish Falconer
As I understand the question from the former Home Secretary, she is saying that when she was Home Secretary she did not proscribe the IRGC, but she thinks we should have done so within 100 days. I say to my hon. Friends that we will take the necessary steps in the UK to prevent the IRGC from taking action on these streets, but as she knows well, we do not comment on whether an organisation is under consideration for proscription in the normal way.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of illegal migration. This Government are strengthening key international relationships to tackle organised immigration crime, increase returns and secure our borders. My Department is also funding activity to address the drivers of irregular migration by improving the prospects of people in their home region, tackling humanitarian crises and targeting trafficking.
Jodie Gosling
Will the Minister please outline the ways in which the new Government are working with our French partners to tackle the shared challenges of dangerous channel crossings?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have been absolutely determined to work with our key partners on these questions. My Department has also focused on ensuring support for what is often called upstream migration—the drivers of the reasons why people feel they have to leave their home country or region in the first place. That has included, for example, support to help refugees in Jordan to stay in the region from which they come and support for the UN’s migration multi-partner trust fund.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that response. Legal immigration is very important, and people should have that opportunity if they have been persecuted or there are human rights issues, but economic migrants have to be stopped in their countries. France also has a very clear part to play, and we sometimes feel that it has not done so as strongly as it should have done. Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to her French counterpart to ensure that France plays its part in stopping the economic migrants coming across the channel?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his important question. This new Government have been determined to strengthen our relationships with all of our partners, including France, on these questions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has viewed this as a priority from day one, and she has been determined to ensure that we have both the right legal framework and the right logistical measures. As I have said, we of course need to tackle the reasons why people cannot have a livelihood in their own countries, and we are doing a huge amount in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure we deliver on that.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Culture, Media and Sport Ministers are responsible for Government policy on touring artists, with support from colleagues across Government. The Government provide support for artists via the music export growth scheme, funded by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the international showcase fund, funded by the DBT. We are engaging with the EU and member states to explore how best to improve arrangements for touring in Europe without a return to free movement.
Zöe Franklin
Young emerging artists, the very future of our multibillion-pound music industry, are the worst impacted by the bureaucracy we now have. Will the Minister reconsider negotiating a European-wide exemption from visas, work permits and travelling restrictions to set UK artists free from frustrating red tape?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady raises very important issues, and we recognise the challenges faced by the sector that she sets out. We are committed to helping our touring artists without seeking a return to freedom of movement. I will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, as well as with Culture, Media and Sport Ministers and other colleagues, on these issues. We are committed to seeking allowances for cabotage, carnets, and customs rules for music, performing arts and culture touring, but at this stage it is too early to discuss that in greater detail.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission on 2 October, and agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK and to hold regular UK-EU summits. The Foreign Secretary attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 14 October in Luxembourg, and he and the High Representative agreed to advance discussions towards a new UK-EU security partnership. I have had many meetings bilaterally, and indeed as part of processes alongside EU colleagues, on issues from Moldova to the western Balkans in recent weeks.
Tim Roca
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s attendance at the EU Foreign Affairs Council. Will the Minister confirm if this will be part of a more regular, structured engagement with our European colleagues?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely confirm that that is the case. We are committed to resetting our relationship and to delivering outcomes in practice. As I mentioned, I attended the Moldova partnership platform in Chisinău last month. It is particularly important that we work alongside our EU partners when it comes to the attacks on Moldova’s democratic future by Putin’s Russia. We also had important discussions about the western Balkans in Berlin last week. I was there with the President of the European Commission and Chancellor Scholz, and it is absolutely important that we work together on these critical challenges.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
While we hope that it never happens, if a future American President wished to withdraw support from Ukraine, will the Government assure us that that would be a prominent item on the agenda in their conversations with EU leaders?
Stephen Doughty
Obviously, decisions in America are for the American people, but the special relationship endures, regardless of the Administration or who is in the White House, and it is deep and enduring, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well from his important former roles. We absolutely need to co-operate with our EU partners on support for Ukraine, and that is why today it is so fantastic to hear the news that we have agreed, as promised, with the G7 and with our European and indeed our American partners, the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme that will deliver new money to Ukraine now.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As a matter of long-standing policy, which the hon. Gentleman will understand, the Government do not comment on the detail of national security matters, but let me be clear: any attempt by any foreign power to threaten or undermine the UK’s democracy will not be tolerated. The National Security Act 2023 brings together vital new measures to protect our national security, which we are committed to as a new Government. I regularly meet my ministerial colleagues, including the Minister for Security, to discuss those matters.
Bobby Dean
Thousands of Hongkongers have made my local community their home under the British national overseas visa scheme, but too many of them still face the threat of surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by the Chinese state. Will the Government confirm that they have raised the issue of transnational repression in conversations with the Chinese Government, and made clear that it is a totally unacceptable interference in British democracy?
Stephen Doughty
The Government will take a consistent long-term and strategic approach to our relations with China, rooted in the UK and global interests, and the Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I reiterate that any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm their critics overseas are unacceptable, and regardless of nationality, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under our domestic law.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
My constituency is also home to a new and growing population of Hongkongers who, although they are now in a free country, live in fear of the repression that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) described. That is not least because of the reported presence until recently of a secret police station in Glasgow, run by the Chinese Communist party. Will the Minister join me in sending a clear signal to the Chinese state: “hands off Hong Kong Scots”?
Stephen Doughty
I have made clear our support to the Hong Kong community in the UK, and we have made clear to Chinese authorities that the existence of undeclared sites in the UK is unacceptable, and their operation must cease. We have been told that they have now closed. The Foreign Secretary was in China on 18 and 19 October, where he met his counterpart Foreign Minister Wang Yi and other senior Chinese figures, and he raised human rights, including issues related to Hong Kong.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy, yet Jimmy Lai’s sham trial is due to resume on 20 November. The Foreign Secretary has so far failed to meet Jimmy’s family, as well as that of Jagtar Singh Johal, whom he promised he would meet within weeks at the last Foreign Office oral questions. Five weeks ago, I wrote to Ministers about Ryan Cornelius and Alaa Abd el-Fattah, who should both be free by now, but I have received no response from the Department. When will the Government bring forward their promised special envoy for arbitrary detention, come back to shadow Foreign Ministers, and get our people home?
Stephen Doughty
We call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release British national Jimmy Lai. His case remains a high priority for His Majesty’s Government, and UK diplomats attend his court hearing in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary recently raised the case with Wang Yi during his visit to Beijing on 18 October. On 24 July the Foreign Secretary raised the case of Jagtar Singh Johal with the Indian External Affairs Minister, and I am happy to write to the hon. Lady further about those matters. She can be assured that we take these cases incredibly seriously.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Hamish Falconer)
The UK was the first G7 country to call for an immediate ceasefire between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, when we did so on 19 September. A political solution consistent with resolution 1701 is the only way to restore security and stability for the people living on both sides of the blue line. We continue to press for that with vigour and urgency with our international counterparts. The Foreign Secretary did so last week, and so did I. We will continue to do so this week and every day.
Alex Ballinger
We are appalled by the increase in violence after Israel’s ground invasion of Lebanon. As somebody who used to work in Beirut when the country welcomed a million Syrian refugees, it is upsetting to see people on the move again after so much violence. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his diplomatic efforts so far. Does the Minister agree that there is no military solution to the conflict in Lebanon? Will he outline again in more detail what diplomatic efforts he is making to ensure that we have a ceasefire so that Lebanese and Israeli civilians can return to their homes?
Hamish Falconer
We agree very much. Only a political solution will enable Lebanese civilians to return to their homes and Israeli civilians to return to the north of Israel. Clearly Hezbollah has been conducting terrible attacks on northern Israel for a long time—from 8 October, which was a terrible day to choose to start. We are working with all our allies on a plan based around resolution 1701. We talk regularly with all the key players in the region and in particular with Amos Hochstein, the US envoy working on a proposal to achieve the effect of 1701. We will continue to do so.
Mary Glindon
The reported attacks on United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon bases by the Israel Defence Forces show disregard for resolution 1701 and the existing diplomatic framework for peace. Last week’s joint statement by Foreign Ministers and our allies condemning all the threats to UNIFIL’s security was welcome, so can the Foreign Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with Israeli political leaders to supplement that action? Were they productive?
Hamish Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. We are absolutely clear that attacks by the IDF on UNIFIL bases must stop, and they must stop immediately. We have called on Israel to that effect. We have called on all parties to uphold their obligations in ensuring the safety and security of UNIFIL personnel. I am sure that many in this House will be looking each day at the reports from UNIFIL on the situation there. As I have said in answer to previous questions, only a political solution consistent with UN Security Council resolution 1701 can restore stability and security. We continue to raise these matters with the Israelis at every level, and I will continue to do so this week.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
UNIFIL and UN Security Council resolution 1701 plainly have not prevented the construction of tunnels and forward attack positions by Iranian proxies south of the Litani river. What discussions will the Foreign Secretary be having with the United Nations to ensure that something is put in place to replace 1701, to strengthen the role of UNIFIL and prevent aggressive action by Hezbollah and its fellow travellers?
Hamish Falconer
The first thing we have to do is get Hezbollah back north of the Litani river, consistent with 1701. We should not move away from 1701 until we have made progress under it. I recognise the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says about the concerns about Hezbollah’s presence close to the Israeli border, in breach of UN Security Council resolutions. I condemn the attacks, including the missile strikes that have been happening since 8 October, and all the other violence that Lebanese Hezbollah has been responsible for. It is proscribed under UK law and we hold no truck with it, but the way to get Hezbollah away from the border is 1701, and that is what we have to stick to.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Finn Pugh, who is eight years old and is one of my constituents, wrote to me. He said:
“Lebanon is a wonderful place. It does not deserve this. I would like the Government to protect the people of Lebanon and give them supplies like food and water.”
What reassurances can the Minister give Finn?
Hamish Falconer
I thank Finn for the question. Over the course of the past few weeks, we have announced £15 million of aid for the people affected by the strikes in Lebanon and those who are now crossing towards Syria, which is a concerning development in the conflict. Finn is right to have the people of Lebanon in his mind, and we are doing all we can to try to ensure that the humanitarian system in Lebanon can support the people Finn is concerned about.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The new Government’s call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon and in Gaza is, of course, greatly welcomed. However, today we hear that one of UNIFIL’s watchtowers was bombed by the Israel Defence Forces. First, was that one of the watchtowers that we have provided? Secondly, what conversations has the Minister had with his colleagues about beefing up our support to UNIFIL and taking our troop numbers up from one?
Hamish Falconer
I will have to write to my right hon. Friend about the specific watchtower and whether we have provided any aid. Underlying her point, I think, is a question about what we do when our statements about UNIFIL are not abided by. Let me be clear with the House: the current situation is unsustainable, and we continue to raise the matter through all diplomatic measures and will do so until there is progress. I can perhaps write to my right hon. Friend about our future plans regarding peacekeepers in Lebanon.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
There is only one route to sustained peace in Lebanon, and that is for the UN and the Lebanese state to stop Hezbollah carrying out its operations. That’s right, isn’t it?
Hamish Falconer
We agree that Lebanese Hezbollah should not be conducting the actions that it has been conducting. As I said in response to the previous question, this situation needs to be resolved in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me whether we think what Lebanese Hezbollah is doing across the blue line is correct or justifiable, my answer is that it is not. We call on it, as we have always called on it, to stop. We have proscribed the organisation domestically and have absolutely no truck with it whatsoever. Iran’s malign influence in Lebanon must stop, and we are taking actions to try to effect that.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
Over the last four months, we have been reconnecting Britain for our security and prosperity. Last week I set out my vision for modernising international development, and as I speak the Foreign Secretary is in Samoa, meeting Heads of Government from the Commonwealth, and he has engaged with countries from every continent.
Peter Prinsley
The BBC World Service is vital UK soft power. The Foreign Office’s contribution to its funding is about £100 million per year—about the cost of an F-35 fighter jet. The UK has plans to acquire 74 of these fighter jets. Would the Minister agree that we might consider acquiring only 73 of them, if that was the price of preserving the BBC World Service?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Hamish Falconer)
That is a very fine question. The BBC World Service is a UK soft power asset. We give £104 million to the BBC World Service—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Would the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) please not walk behind the Minister while he is in the middle of his answer? I am really going to have to say something to the Whips.
Hamish Falconer
We provide £104 million to the BBC World Service. That is very good value indeed. I will not seek to get into budget negotiations in advance of the Budget—I know better than that—but I agree very much about the importance of the World Service and the vital function it provides internationally.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Recent events in Moldova are yet another example of the importance of combating the modern scourge of weaponising disinformation. What new measures are the Government planning to implement to counter disinformation spread by our adversaries?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for raising such an important issue. We are launching a new global programme to support resilient, free, open and trustworthy independent media as a bulwark against disinformation. That builds on the success of previous media development programmes. We are also determined to work with international partners, including UNESCO, to make sure that we play a role in combating disinformation.
Mr Mitchell
Further to the comment from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), does the Minister share my dismay that, although the director general of the BBC professes that it represents a key source of democratic soft power in the face of the spread of state and non-state disinformation, it now intends to cancel its internationally admired interview programme “HARDtalk”, which has a global reputation for holding those in power to account?
Anneliese Dodds
Any editorial decisions on BBC content will be made by the BBC alone—that is right and proper. All I can say is that wherever I am in the world, it is clear quite how powerful the BBC is—a soft power perhaps, but a very important reflection of our values as a country and of deep connections between the people of Britain and other nations. We are determined to ensure that that remains the case.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I would be very happy to meet him and other Members, particularly from the Government Benches, where we have a considerable number of MPs with direct experience of international development work. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is committed to bringing order to the asylum system. She has taken steps to unblock the backlog of claims. The fact that we lacked a plan to do that previously led to spiralling costs, which hit the international development budget very hard.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have to get through the list of questions, and you are not helping me. You are taking far too long. I have to get the Back Benchers in—it matters to them and to their constituents. You have to work with me, and today has been a pretty awful day all round. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson to give us a good example.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Laila Soueif is in the Gallery with us today. She is currently on hunger strike in protest against the continued imprisonment of her son, the British-Egyptian citizen Alaa Abd el-Fattah, in Egypt despite the end of his five-year sentence on 29 September. In 2022, the then shadow Foreign Secretary talked about serious diplomatic consequences for Egypt failing to release Alaa, and of leveraging our trading partnership with Egypt to progress the case. Does the Minister agree with the now Foreign Secretary on those points, and will the Government take steps—
Hamish Falconer
I welcome Laila to the House. I saw her in Cairo last week, and raised these issues with the Egyptian Foreign Minister. Alaa’s case is very much in our mind, and we will do everything we can to secure his release as quickly as we can.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Hamish Falconer
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Peace building at a civil society level has an important role to play in trying to resolve this conflict. I will write to him with details of our plans.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for a very important question. The UK Government could not have been clearer that climate and nature must be at the heart of all that we do, including in foreign and development policy. The Foreign Secretary underlined that at Kew, and I underlined that in the Chatham House speech that I gave last week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Members who are on the list do not need to stand. It is more confusing.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Anneliese Dodds
The amount of unexploded remnants of war throughout Gaza poses a serious threat to life and the provision of humanitarian assistance. The UK is working proactively with a number of key stakeholders. We very much recognise the expertise of the HALO Trust, and we will redouble the work done, particularly towards reconstruction.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Hamish Falconer
I referred to our actions against Iran in the region, and the importance of removing its influence in Lebanon as best we can. This week I will attend the Lebanon conference in Paris, where these matters will be discussed.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. It is critical that the UK can speak with credibility on these issues—and now, under the new UK Government, we can, given the creation of GB Energy and the other measures that we have taken. We are ensuring that climate leadership is always to the fore, including in the conferences of the parties. Of course, the COP nature summit in Colombia is fast approaching.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important question. Many displaced people have very few of the clothes and belongings that they desperately need, particularly given that the threat of winter and much worse weather is coming speedily down the track. The Government have been discussing the issue with many of our partners.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Hamish Falconer
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer. I will also write to him with further details of what we will do.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
We are experiencing a global hunger crisis, exacerbated by ongoing conflicts and climate change. That makes the forthcoming Paris Nutrition for Growth conference even more important. What preparations are the Government making for an effective contribution to the summit?
Anneliese Dodds
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point. We are preparing at pace for that Paris conference, which is incredibly important. We need to do all we can to secure access to the food required, and it must be nutritious, healthy food. In addition, the UK is preparing to sign up to the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty—something that I committed the UK to doing in Brazil just a few weeks ago.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Government are committed to working more closely with partners across Europe, including Albania and partners across the western Balkans, to tackle people trafficking and the gangs profiting from it. That has been a regular part of my bilateral discussions. In July, we announced steps to reinforce our co-operation with Europol and committed £4 million towards the Rome process—an Italian Government project to tackle the root causes of irregular migration.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
What discussions have Ministers had with their Israeli counterparts about the application of distinction and proportionality in international humanitarian law?
Hamish Falconer
The Foreign Secretary has set out our views on the Israeli application of international humanitarian law at greatest length in relation to the decision to suspend arms licences. We keep those issues under regular review and will update the House if there is a change in our assessment.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
As we have heard again today in the Chamber, war crimes in Gaza continue, making it clear that the time for empty promises and hollow words is over. Does the Minister agree that the international community must finally fulfil its responsibility and take real action, starting with immediate sanctions on the hard-right extreme Ministers in the Netanyahu Government?
Hamish Falconer
I hope Members recognise that the words that we have been speaking at this Dispatch Box have not been hollow. Since coming into government, we have restored funding to UNRWA. We have also taken steps in the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and in relation to the arms suspension that I referred to a moment ago. As for the far-right settlers to whom I think my hon. Friend was referring, we introduced sanctions last Thursday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear during Prime Minister’s questions that we continue to review these issues, and we will return to the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The outgoing President of the United States has indicated that he has been told where and when the Israeli Government will respond to the Iranian terror threat. Have our Government been informed?
Hamish Falconer
I think that you, Mr Speaker, and other Members will understand that it is not appropriate to comment on that in the House.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, the ICJ has ruled that member states such as the UK are obliged to distinguish in their dealings between green-line Israel and occupied territory. In line with that ruling, as well as obligations under United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, what steps are the Government taking to address the issue of products entering the UK from illegal settlements?
Hamish Falconer
I will write to my hon. Friend about the complex issue of trade with Israel and how we make that distinction, if that is okay.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the tragic case of Sara Sharif, which occurred in my constituency, but he may not be aware that when Sara’s family fled from Woking to Pakistan, they took Sara’s two siblings, and when the parents returned to stand trial, those siblings did not return with them. Will he write to the Pakistani Government informing them that unless they vouch for the siblings’ safety, those children should be returned to the UK?
Hamish Falconer
I can assure the House that the safety and wellbeing of British children overseas, which appears to be relevant in this case, is of the utmost concern to the Government as a whole, and to me as the Minister responsible for consular affairs. I will write, and will meet the hon. Member, if that will be useful in helping us to understand the case and what we can best do to support those children.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Even before the start of the current conflict in Gaza, 98,000 children there had a disability. Thousands more have now been horrifically injured, and those with long-term conditions have not received any medical support. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to facilitating medical evacuations, how is that possible when Israel is controlling the Rafah crossing?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend has detailed knowledge of this issue through her work on the International Development Committee. We are of course determined to do all that we can for the wellbeing and safety of children in Gaza, in partnership with other countries. She raises the issue of healthcare; we have been supporting UK-Med and other organisations in that regard, and also in respect of education. Many children have been out of school for a year, and we are determined to rectify the situation.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Will the Minister update the House on the grim situation in Sudan? In particular, what pressure is being put on regional actors to stop fuelling the crisis, and what is the UK doing to help the 16 million children who, according to an estimate from Save the Children, face severe food shortages right now?
Anneliese Dodds
The humanitarian crisis in Sudan is the worst in the world. Millions of people face food insecurity, and disturbingly, it has now been verified that there is famine in the Zamzam refugee camp. We in the UK will continue to do all that we can, for instance in our role as a penholder. We will work with partners to raise the profile of this situation and make it clear to the warring parties that they must allow access to aid.
Ukraine
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine. I apologise for the delay in getting you and Opposition Front Benchers a copy of my statement; the responsibility is entirely mine.
I have just returned from three days of intense defence diplomacy—first, at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels, where we welcomed President Zelensky, and then at the G7 Defence Ministers meeting in Naples, where we had important updates from the battlefield, agreed that this is a critical point in the conflict, and stressed the need to step up and speed up support for Ukraine. The G7 joint declaration strongly condemned Putin’s illegal invasion and reinforced our unwavering support for Ukraine. It also rightly stated that
“Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is posing a threat to international security, the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and the rules-based international order.”
That is what is at stake for us all. If President Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop there. If big nations redraw international boundaries by force, the sovereignty and security of all nations is undermined. That is why the UK’s military, economic, industrial and diplomatic support, alongside that of our allies, is so important.
I have returned to the UK knowing that NATO and the G7 are united for Ukraine, just as the UK is united for Ukraine. Our job now is to turn the talks into action, which is exactly what the Government are doing. Today, the Chancellor and I are announcing that the UK will provide an additional £2.26 billion to Ukraine. This is new money, which will be delivered under the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. It is part of the $50 billion loan package from G7 countries to support Ukraine’s military, budget and reconstruction needs—loans that will be repaid using the profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets. Profits on frozen Russian money will support Ukraine’s fight against Putin, turning the proceeds of Putin’s corrupt regime against it and putting them in the hands of Ukrainians.
I want to be clear: today’s new money is in addition to the £3 billion a year of military support that this Government have committed to Ukraine each year for as long as it takes. The money is in addition to that in the £3.5 billion defence industrial support treaty that I signed with Defence Minister Umerov in July; that is money that Ukraine will use to procure military equipment from British companies, boosting British jobs and British industry. Today’s new money is also in addition to the extra artillery, air defences, ammunition and missiles that we have announced and delivered in the first four months of this new Government. Ukraine is a first-order priority for me as Defence Secretary, and for this Government. We will continue to step up support, to lead, and to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
It is 973 days since Putin launched his full-scale illegal invasion, and Ukraine’s civilians and military alike have been fighting with great courage. There have been important battlefield developments in recent weeks. When I last updated the House, Ukrainian forces were one month into their remarkable offensive in Kursk. Three months on, they continue to hold Russian territory. Ukraine’s strategic surprise has put Putin under pressure, forcing the diversion of some Russian troops and equipment. Despite the increase in brutal Russian counter-attacks and aerial bombardments, they have so far failed to dislodge the Ukrainian incursion.
It is not just in Kursk that Ukraine is fighting back. Ukrainian forces have launched long-range attacks into Russian territory and on military targets that are directly supporting Putin’s illegal invasion. In September, Ukraine used long-range drones to attack four ammunition storage facilities—strikes that successfully destroyed thousands of tonnes of ammunition—and both the defensive thrust into Kursk and the strategic defensive strikes into Russia have had an impact on the battlefield. Russia’s advance towards Pokrovsk in the east—Putin’s main line of effort —has been slowed.
Russian losses continue to rise. Since the start of the conflict, Russia is likely to have suffered 675,000 casualties. In September, the average casualty rate of Russians on the battlefield in Ukraine each day was 1,271—a record high, two and a half times the rate this time last year. As for equipment, Russia has now lost 3,400 tanks and 8,500 armoured vehicles, and 26 vessels in the Black sea fleet have been destroyed or damaged.
Despite the incredible resilience of the Ukrainians, they remain under great pressure from Russian forces across multiple fronts. Russian troops continue to advance and to attack Ukrainian infrastructure, targeting the important port of Odesa and striking energy infrastructure. As we head into winter, Ukraine’s energy generation capacity has been reduced by up to two thirds of pre-war levels. Russian industry remains on a war footing. Russian artillery is outfiring Ukraine by at least three to one, and Russia is recruiting an additional 400,000 troops this year. Defence will account for 32%—one third—of the total Government budget in Russia next year.
In a concerning new development, it is now highly likely that the transfer of hundreds of combat troops from North Korea to Russia has begun. For North Korean soldiers to support Russia’s war of aggression on European soil is as shocking as it is desperate. North Korea already sends significant munitions and arms to Russia, in direct violation of multiple UN resolutions. The developing military co-operation between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has serious security implications for Europe and the Indo-Pacific. It represents a wider growing alliance of aggression that NATO and the G7 nations must confront.
Despite this dangerous development, Ukraine remains determined to fight on its frontline in the east and in the territory in Kursk, and President Zelensky will continue to seek support for his victory plan. We want the plan to succeed, and we stand ready to work closely with the Ukrainians and allies to help it to do so. As we approach 1,000 days of this war, the conflict is at a critical moment, which is why the UK continues to step up its support for Ukraine. Ukrainians are fighting to regain their sovereign territory and to protect peace, democracy and security for the rest of us in Europe.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I offer my condolences and those of Opposition Members to the family and friends of Corporal Christopher Gill, who we understand tragically lost his life during a training exercise recently. We understand that he served his country for 13 years, including in Afghanistan, and more recently volunteered to train Ukrainian soldiers in the UK.
Having visited Salisbury plain last May to see Operation Interflex, I know that we should be grateful to all our service personnel, including Corporal Gill, who have played such a huge role in training the Ukrainian armed forces so that they can continue to fight and defend their homeland. That fight goes on, and we continue to offer all support to the Government for that, as well as standing by the Government, people and armed forces of Ukraine.
We therefore warmly welcome the G7 joint declaration and funding announcement, but we share the Government’s concerns in relation to North Korea. I have lost count of the many times that Vladimir Putin has accused us and our allies of so-called escalatory action in our support for Ukraine, but today we are considering the very real threat of North Korean combat troops being sent to support Russia’s illegal invasion. Let us be in no doubt: any potential agreement between Putin and Kim Jong-un to have North Korean boots on the ground in Ukraine at all—let alone in the numbers that have been reported—would be a major escalatory ratchet by Putin himself.
After all, as the Secretary of State confirmed, Russia has already procured munitions and ballistic missiles from North Korea. The transfer of those weapons in the first place was not only completely unacceptable, but a blatant violation of the UN sanctions that Russia itself voted for. The transfer of North Korean weapons and now the threat of combat troops show weakness and desperation, not strength, on Putin’s part, as the Secretary of State said. Above all, this raises the question of what Putin is offering North Korea in return, but we should not be deterred and must respond.
We took decisive countermeasures to help constrain the transfer of weapons between North Korea and Russia. The Conservative Government imposed sanctions on the arms-for-oil trade between Russia and North Korea, including asset freezes, travel bans and transport sanctions. The new Government, in turn, must now respond to this latest threat of combat troops. Can I press the Secretary of State to look at how the UK should respond in the round? Yes, we need to look at the diplomatic tools we can use to disrupt co-operation between North Korea and Russia, but we also need to urgently look again both at our military aid to Ukraine and at the freedom we offer it to use the munitions that we supply, particularly long-range missiles.
Given the need to continue providing further capability to Ukraine, we welcome yesterday’s announcement that the UK will contribute £2.26 billion to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme for Ukraine. The Conservative Government were a vocal advocate for mobilising frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. We strongly welcome the additional funding. When will the money be made available to Ukraine, and over what term? The sooner those funds are mobilised, the better. When exactly will Ukraine receive the funding?
Finally, we have spoken many times of the reality that we are facing not just Russian aggression, but a broader authoritarian axis that ultimately threatens the UK. We have seen that explicitly with Iran and the Red sea, and now we see it coming ever closer to home with the prospect of North Korean troops deploying in a European theatre of war. Surely that strengthens even further the argument that the Government need to deliver on their supposed cast-iron guarantee to spend 2.5% on defence. As the Secretary of State failed to answer me at Defence orals, can I once again press him to confirm that he is fighting hard, with the Treasury, to deliver a clear pathway to 2.5% in the Budget at the end of this month?
John Healey
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Corporal Gill. I will pass them on to his widow and make sure that his family are aware of them and of the sentiments of the whole House. The hon. Gentleman is right about the enormous contribution that Corporal Gill made, including to the Interflex training programme, which I was proud to be able to commit to extending throughout 2025. The Chancellor and I visited the programme together on Sunday; we met Colonel Boardman, the commander of Operation Interflex, and the officers and soldiers of 3 Scots, together with instructors from Kosovo, Australia and Sweden, illustrating the way the UK is leading a multinational effort to support Ukrainian soldiers.
The hon. Gentleman is right and I suspect that there is unanimity in the House on concern about the developments in Russia and the growing alliance with North Korea, and that it is united in its determination to take the action required to respond and united in recognising that we must do so alongside NATO and other G7 allies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the new loan funds available for Ukraine through the proceeds of the interest on frozen Russian assets. We expect those to be available and in Ukraine’s hands from early in the new year, which will put the UK ahead of many other nations participating in the scheme.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final question, we remain totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence. We must do this to meet the threats that this country faces. The Prime Minister confirmed the commitment to set out a clear path to 2.5% in our first week in Government at the NATO summit in Washington. I gently say again to the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under a Labour Government, and that that level was never matched in any of the 14 Conservative years since.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement today of the UK’s increased support for funding for Ukraine as part of the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme. The Secretary of State spoke about what is at stake for us all, but can he say more about what discussions he had with his counterparts at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting about the need for them to substantially increase their support? Further to our Prime Minister’s recent meeting with the US President, what update is there on the use of Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine?
John Healey
I welcome the new Chair of the Select Committee, who I believe now has a Committee to chair. I look forward to an invitation to give evidence and to discuss these issues with the Committee soon.
At the NATO Defence Ministers meeting, there was unanimity among the 32 nations that the important commitments that NATO nations made in Washington, particularly to the $40 billion of extra support for Ukraine, must be delivered. There was a recognition, too, that pledges made must be pledges delivered. One of the Ukrainians’ striking concerns is that just a third of the equipment and support pledged has so far been delivered, so there was a determination to step up not just what we can provide, but how quickly we can provide it. That is something that as a new Government we did from day one.
On Storm Shadow, only Putin benefits from a discussion about this. There is no single weapon that has turned the tide of any war. Whether it is artillery, ammunition, armoured vehicles or missiles, the UK provides support to Ukraine to pursue its UN right to defend its territory and its people.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Liberal Democrats welcome the new measures announced today to use the profits of frozen assets for Ukraine. That £2 billion will be of immense value to our Ukrainian allies as they seek to repel Putin’s illegal invasion, not least following the alarming news that 1,500 North Korean troops are currently being trained in Russia to fight in Ukraine, but we must go further, faster. Russia must not and cannot succeed.
Some £22 billion in frozen assets remains locked up in our country. We urge the Government, as we have done for years, to seize those assets and repurpose them for Ukraine right away. Will the Secretary of State commit to doing so? Is he having conversations with our democratic partners to that effect? With the US elections fast approaching, it is deeply worrying that our commitment to our Ukrainian allies is uncertain. A second Trump presidency could have a devastating effect on the security of Europe and of Ukraine, so we urge the Government to seize these assets now so that we can support Ukraine come what may.
We must lead with Europe on this. The EU countries between them have close to €20 billion-worth of frozen assets. Will the Secretary of State consider convening an urgent summit with European counterparts to begin that process? Does he agree that if the US cannot, Europe must?
John Healey
In fairness to the Conservatives when they were in government, and to the hon. Lady’s party before the election, we were all united in the efforts to get the interest drawn down from the frozen Russian assets put into Ukrainian hands. The UK Government, before the last election and since, have been leading this work.
These are practical steps that we can take now. Whatever declaratory position the hon. Lady wants to adopt about seizing Russian assets, this is valuable additional funding that, from the new year, will be in the hands of the Ukrainian Government to spend on, in the UK’s case, the military aid that they need. That comes in addition to all the other increases that we have put in place since the election. I hope that despite the hon. Lady’s calls for going very much further, she will recognise how significant this move is and recognise that the UK is among the first of the nations to move on this. I hope she will give this House her full support when we introduce the primary legislation that will seek the parliamentary spending authority to provide this financial assistance in pursuance of a bilateral agreement that we will strike with Ukraine over how to do it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
When this Government said that our support for Ukraine was absolute, we meant it. My right hon. Friend referred to the recently signed defence export treaty between the UK and Ukraine, which will support Ukraine’s defence industrial base while helping to replenish our own stockpiles. As far as he is able, will he update the House on the treaty’s progress?
John Healey
I was proud to sign that treaty, which means that Ukraine can draw down the export credit cover and contract with UK companies. It is also a framework that, like some other frameworks the UK has put in place, other nations and their companies can use to deal with the difficulties that many face in contracting with Ukraine. The Ukrainians will use it for contracting and procuring munitions and ammunition. It will allow us to step up not just the provision but the production of essential military aid to Ukraine.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but the BBC reports that the money will be paid not in one go but in tranches over time. We have the Budget next week. Will the Secretary of State assure us that, given that the money is what accountants would call an “exceptional item”, it will in no way be included in the overall defence budget next week, or attempt to bolster or bump that up? There are rumours of cuts, so will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the money is a one-off that will be treated completely differently in the Red Book?
John Healey
I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. The money is a one-off. It is additional and separate, and it will be accounted for and set out separately in the Treasury documentation. Its significance is that it is a loan to Ukraine that Ukraine will not have to pay back, because it will be serviced by the interest on the frozen Russians assets. He asks whether the sum will be paid all in one go. It will be made available soon in the new year, and the Ukrainians will be able to draw it down as they need it for the purposes that they determine.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about North Korea and the growing alliance of aggression that needs to be confronted. I hope that we will have a strong response to that. I also welcome the extra £2.26 billion. My right hon. Friend made the important point—one of many—that the Ukrainians are being outgunned three to one in artillery by the Russians. Although the additional support is vital, how quickly can we ensure that we get extra munitions, artillery and missiles from the alliance and the G7 to Ukraine?
John Healey
We can get that into the hands of Ukrainians as soon as it is available for that purpose. I announced the new contract to produce short-range air defence missiles, the LMMs—lightweight multirole missiles—in the UK. The initial contract is for 650 and they will be in the hands of Ukrainians from the beginning of next year. We hope to step that up during the course of 2025. Where other nations are ready to make available the weaponry that Ukrainians need, the established arrangements for getting it into the hands of Ukrainians are in place. It is a question not of how, but of how quickly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The delicious irony of the interest on Kremlin kleptocrats’ ill-gotten gains being used to fund the resistance against Russian aggression will not be lost on Members across the House. I welcome what the Defence Secretary has said in its entirety. He will know better than any of us the crucial importance of the NATO alliance machinery in assisting Ukrainian resistance. Given that one recent former American President and one current French President have both made disobliging remarks about the NATO alliance in the fairly recent past, will the Secretary of State reassure us that at least President Macron is now fully on board with the alliance and France’s important contribution to it?
John Healey
I will indeed. At no point during the two days of NATO Defence Ministers’ talks was there any indication of the sort of views that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that some in America may hold, or that President Macron might have previously expressed. Indeed, in the good bilateral meeting that I had with the French Minister for the Armed Forces, Sébastien Lecornu, it was clear that the French commitment to supporting Ukraine is as strong as the UK’s. I am glad to say that the determination of the French to work more closely with us on security and defence is equally strong.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the announcement of further funding. To ensure that we sustain the pace with which we are providing aid to Ukraine, and that we energise our own logistical enterprise, what action is my right hon. Friend taking to boost UK defence industrial production to support the Ukrainian armed forces and defence supply chains throughout the UK?
John Healey
My hon. Friend knows this territory as well as anybody else in the House. He will know that over the 973 days the UK Government have changed fundamentally the way in which we go about procuring what is required. British industry has responded magnificently to that. It has been able to respond more quickly, innovate more rapidly and devise what it can produce to meet the needs that Ukraine says it has on the frontline. The UK Government’s task is to be the middle man to ensure that that can happen at greater volume and speed. We will continue to do that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Do the Government think that Ukraine is winning or losing?
John Healey
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to my statement, but I made it clear that this is a critical period in the conflict. Ukraine is under huge pressure, especially on the eastern front, but it is fighting, conducting a counter-offensive and putting Putin under pressure. The only conclusion that the 32 nations drew from the discussions in Brussels, confirmed by the G7 nations in Naples, was that now is the moment when Ukraine’s allies must step up our support, put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to withstand the Russian onslaught and put pressure on Putin—a military, economic and diplomatic response.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, which is good news for Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ukraine is the frontier of war with the Kremlin, that international support is now more critical than ever and that we must be absolutely clear that defence of the UK begins in Ukraine?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. Her very words were spoken by several Defence Ministers in Brussels. Defence of the UK and of Europe starts in Ukraine. Ukraine is fighting for the same values and for the rest of us in Europe.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
In sharp contrast to the presence of the United Nations Secretary-General at Putin’s summit in Russia, which sent out all the wrong signals, this statement is hugely welcome, so I thank the Secretary of State. Further to the question that the Chairman of the Defence Committee asked, is it not now time that not only Storm Shadow but all the matériel supplied to Ukraine by the western alliance should be used by Ukraine in the manner that it sees fit?
John Healey
We provide Ukraine with the weaponry and support to defend its country, freedom and people. There is a consistency in that and there is no bar to Ukraine striking Russian military targets, so long as that is consistent with international humanitarian law and part of the proper defence of the country. I spoke about the long-range drones and the successful attacks they have been making—defensive attacks, but nevertheless on military targets in Russia. It is for the Ukrainians to determine how best to defend their country, and we will support them in whatever ways we can.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the £2.26 billion of aid announced today. It is great news for those fighting for democracy in Europe and a day of low morale in the Kremlin—it is fantastic. The Ukrainians might well use some of the money to continue to innovate at pace. Every few weeks they create new cutting-edge and adaptive technologies to use in the fight against Putin. Will we learn from our friends in Ukraine and ensure that we, as a country, invest in our own small and medium-sized defence enterprises, so that we can have the same output in the future?
John Healey
While there has been no change in the basis on which we provide military aid to Ukraine, there is a change in the approach we take not just to providing aid but to producing some of the military equipment and ammunition. Our challenge now is to take the lessons of what we have demonstrated can be done to support Ukraine to equip our own forces better to fight in the future.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, its content and for advance sight of it. The additional funding for Ukraine is very welcome, but it is what matériel they turn the funding into that will have the effect on the battlefield that we wish to see. With the shell production of European partners still well short of a million units per year, will the Secretary of State indicate how UK shell production has grown, either in numeric or percentage terms? If he cannot share that with the House, will he give us an assurance that it is increasing?
John Healey
I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that it is increasing. I have already spoken about the production of short-range air defence missiles—the LMMs—which is increasing to meet what the Ukrainians need. The Ukrainians are clear that air defence systems and long-range drones are the things that matter most to their defence and to their ability to put Russia properly under pressure.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I warmly welcome today’s announcement of an additional £2.2 billion in financial support for Ukraine, generated by frozen Russian assets. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the concerning development of North Korean soldiers supporting Russia’s war of aggression on European soil, and how that underlines the importance of us using every tool in our box to support Ukraine’s efforts?
John Healey
I regret to say to my hon. Friend that I am not in a position to give the House any more details about that. Suffice it to say, we are watching and monitoring this extremely closely. We and the House have detected a growing co-operation between North Korea and Russia, and between Iran and Russia, at least over the past 12 months. It is a sign not of strength but weakness on Putin’s part, but it introduces a dangerous new development, both for Ukraine and for wider European security.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s recognition of President Zelensky’s victory plan and his support for that, but he will know that part of that plan is the use of long-range missiles. I get his point about long-range UK drones being used only for military targets in Russia, and within the norms of international rules of law, but I detect, perhaps, from his answers to two questions on long-range missiles that he is edging towards a position where he might publicly declare that Ukraine can have the freedom to hit military targets in Russia using long-range missiles. That will change the war and have an impact.
John Healey
We have stepped up the support we provide to Ukraine, but there has been no change in the basis on which we provide that support to Ukraine.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his clear personal commitment. It is very expensive for Putin to fight this war, but he is getting a lot of money from the sale of oil. There are real concerns that British firms, or firms with British connections, are facilitating and enabling the illegal oil trade. What more can be done, in co-operation with the Foreign Secretary, to ensure that sanctions are more effective against the Russian oil trade?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. It is not just that we can confirm today that we are making the additional loan money available to the Ukrainians; it is also important to remember that the sanctions themselves are responsible for freezing at least $400 billion that Russia would otherwise be able to use to feed its war machine. The UK Government and others have taken steps on the shadow fleet—the shipping in the grey zone, trying to avoid sanctions—but wherever we have the evidence required to act and sanction, we will do that and we will continue to do that.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
Not only is a full battalion of North Korean soldiers set to be deployed to assist Russia in Ukraine, but Putin is benefiting from components and weapons provided by the Iranians and the Chinese. This all represents an unprecedented conflation of threats to global security. I echo the question asked by hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary: the commitment to invest 2.5% of GDP is right, but when will that be backed up with action?
John Healey
The right hon. Lady is right. We totally condemn North Korea’s involvement and support for Russia, from arms transfer to any further developments. As I said in my statement, that is in breach of multiple UN resolutions and we continue to watch the situation.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the UK armed forces who are providing vital support to our Ukrainian allies, and to the Ukrainian armed forces who are fighting valiantly against Putin’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine?
John Healey
I will indeed. I have had the privilege of visiting Interflex training courses four times now, I think. I visited the second ever course at Salisbury plain. It is deeply moving to see the level of commitment of British forces to the task of training the Ukrainians, and to spend time with those Ukrainian recruits. They are lorry drivers, bank clerks, PR executives of all ages, who have volunteered to fight for their country and their freedom. They are trained by British forces, now with those from other countries alongside them, who are equipping them to be able to fight for their country. Knowing that they will soon return to the frontline in their own nation is deeply sobering.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this £2.26 billion, but has the Defence Secretary had the opportunity to study the National Audit Office report published last month into the impact of our operations in Ukraine, particularly Operation Interflex, on the availability of the defence estate for the training of units of the British Army? While that is acceptable in the short term, in the long term it probably is not. What impact assessment has he carried out, and what proposals does he have to make available the defence estate we need to train British soldiers?
John Healey
Nothing will shake our commitment to continuing the Interflex training programme. We are determined and we will continue that throughout 2025. Many of the partner countries that have been alongside us this year have already committed to doing that again next year. The right hon. Member asked me about Interflex, the defence estate and the training of Ukrainian soldiers. That will continue. On the National Audit Office report, I have indeed read that report. It is a welcome change from the normal run of National Audit Office reports into the Ministry of Defence that we have been used to in recent years. It praises a good deal of what has been done by the Ministry of Defence in support of Ukraine, and it is very welcome.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his very welcome statement. He mentioned the importance of the Ukrainian forces’ efforts in the Black sea against the Russian Black Sea Fleet and how important that is to the Ukrainian economy. Could he go a little further and describe how this funding for Ukraine will help to ensure that security and perhaps go even further in the Black Sea?
John Healey
The principle behind this funding is that we put it in the hands of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are in the best position—and must be in the position—to decide how best to use it. We have said that they can use it entirely on military support if they choose to do so; the support that they choose to procure with it will be a matter for them, in discussion with us.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Is the Defence Secretary able to share with us any conversations that the Foreign Secretary had while in China about China’s engagement in this situation, and particularly its willingness to bring to bear the influence that it undoubtedly has on both Russia and North Korea?
John Healey
Happily, I can indeed. The Foreign Secretary was in China on 18 and 19 October. He met his counterpart, the Foreign Minister, and talked about the areas on which our countries may disagree, including on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. He also raised the UK’s concerns over China’s supply of equipment to Russia and to Russia’s military industrial complex.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I, too, very much welcome today’s statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It provides evidence not just of warm words, but of real practical support for our ally in its desperate hour of need. But this country cannot do this on its own. Can he update the House on any discussions that he or his ministerial colleagues have had with our friends in the rest of the G7 on combating Putin through economic measures?
John Healey
I can indeed do so. I came away from the G7 meeting in Naples and from the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels reinforced in my view that there is a determination not just to stand with Ukraine now, but to do so for as long as it takes. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the communiqué from both meetings. I think he will be encouraged, as I was, by the degree of unanimity and determination not to allow Putin to believe that, if he holds out, the west will give up.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the announcement of the acceleration loan scheme. I also welcome the timing; the British Government are not simply waiting to see the outcome of the US presidential election, as some other Governments are doing. Will the Defence Secretary repeat the assurance he gave in the House last week that, regardless of US policy, military aid to Ukraine from European NATO nations will not decrease next year?
John Healey
We are determined, on the contrary, to maintain and step up the military aid required from the UK. I found a similar determination from Defence Ministers across the NATO nations. We recognise that the Ukrainians are not only mounting this fight for themselves, but waging it on behalf of us all and the values that we share with them.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for this additional £2.26 billion for Ukraine, which will find a strong echo from the hundreds and thousands of individuals across this country who have opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees, and in many charities and organisations such as Jeeps for Peace in Scotland, which sends direct aid by taking pick-ups across Europe to the frontline. Does this money and the individual support from Britain not show that we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes?
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks, but those thanks should really go to the Chancellor, because the Treasury has led the work on ensuring that we can put in place this new system of loans and make this additional money available to Ukraine. He is completely right to say that part of the strength of the support that we can offer as a country to Ukraine rests on the strength of the support of the British people—the warmth they have shown from the outset for Ukrainian refugees and the determination of many groups, such as the one he cites, which have been willing to collect and, in some cases, transport support for Ukraine and its people out to the country itself. I pay tribute to their efforts.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is concerning that we have received only the briefest of updates in this House on the direct involvement of North Korean troops, after one week of it being widely reported in the media. Last week, during Defence questions, the right hon. Gentleman gave his full-throated support for Ukraine but made no mention of the Government’s awareness of the potential deployment of North Korean reinforcements up to brigade strength. What is the Government’s current assessment of the scope of North Korean involvement, and how do overt North Korean boots on the ground in Ukraine necessitate a change in our posture?
John Healey
I have just given the House the assessment of the involvement and the extent, at present, of the involvement of North Korean troops.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Given the potential of North Korean boots on the ground joining Iranian drones in the air above Ukraine, it seems clear that the calculus that Russia is operating to is very different from that of the western alliance. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a risk that, when the fear of escalation is one-sided, that itself becomes escalatory? Therefore, while welcoming the additional support that he has announced today, I wonder whether he will join me in saying that it is time for other countries to follow the lead that the UK has shown today.
John Healey
Wherever there are signs of the breaching of UN resolutions and sanctions or of a dangerous escalation in support of Russia, we will act. We have acted before. My hon. Friend is right to point to the growing alliance between Russia and Iran and between Russia and North Korea.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and, indeed, for his very welcome news. Everybody in this House is incredibly pleased with the Government’s decision today.
As the US election draws closer and uncertainty grows over the level of support that will come from the US after that election, does the Secretary of State agree that Ministers or Members of this House must exercise caution when expressing an opinion on that presidential race? I ask that with great respect. Will he take the opportunity to reaffirm the strong and resilient view of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that we should stand against Russian aggression and support those who need our help through aid, weaponry and diplomacy?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right: the US elections are for the US people. As a UK Government and a UK Parliament, we will deal with whoever the American people choose to elect as their president. I am glad that he welcomes the support that the Government have stepped for up Ukraine. I say to him and to the House—I think the shadow Defence Secretary will recognise this—that it makes the job of the UK Government so much easier when there is such united support in this House for what we must do to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I would not expect him to comment on the US presidential election, but naturally there is a nervousness about the policy of a future US Government, which makes what European partners and allies do even more important. There is a huge disparity in the aid being provided by different partners across Europe. Denmark has been phenomenal in providing 1.86% of GDP—or more than €6 billion—and other countries such as Spain have not provided so much. Can he assure us that there were robust discussions in private among his Defence Minister colleagues in Brussels?
John Healey
Yes, I can. There were discussions, which were about the level of commitment we must make collectively to Ukraine and the level of commitment we must make collectively to NATO. I welcome the fact that this year 23 of the 32 NATO nations will meet that 2% of GDP threshold. It is a bare minimum—there is more that we need to do, particularly as European nations in NATO, in the years ahead.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I warmly thank the Secretary of State and the full ministerial team for their hard work mobilising the additional money from frozen Russian sovereign assets. I hope that other countries will follow UK leadership on this. In mobilising every tool across the Government, and with winter approaching, may I ask the Secretary of State to continue the push to realise the assets from the sale of Chelsea football club—the £2.5 billion from Roman Abramovich that could go towards humanitarian needs, which are also increasingly urgent in Ukraine?
John Healey
The Government understand the case that my hon. Friend makes. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), met him last night to discuss this further.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
On a visit to Kiev with parliamentary colleagues last month, I saw at first hand the incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people, who will welcome this statement. Unfortunately, Russia’s war machine continues to be powered by western-made semiconductors that are smuggled into the country. May I ask the Secretary of State what work the Government are doing to make sure that Russia does not get access to that technology?
John Healey
One of the Government’s great assets is my hon. Friend the Minister of State because of the work that he does with many other countries. Whenever discussions are required or evidence is gathered he speaks to many of the countries that may find that they have within them companies that might be involved in those supply chains. Wherever that happens, my hon. Friend is on it, and he is leading the charge to ensure that where we can identify those supply chains, we take the action that is necessary to close them down.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his very welcome statement.
As we approach 1,000 days since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, it is increasingly clear that Ukraine’s survival depends on the west increasing its manufacture of munitions. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about boosting our defence industrial supply chains, including in the west midlands, where defence manufacturers are keen to contribute?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. The importance of the British defence industry is not just in the greater security that it gives us as a nation but as part of the economic boost that will drive growth in future. One feature I was pleased to see at the recent Government investment summit was the confirmation that defence would be one of the eight economic growth sectors that would receive priority policy focus and support as we develop that for the future. That is in the interests of Ukraine immediately, and it is in our own interests in future. It is how we can combine both the strengthening of our national security and the boost to our national economy.
Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on how the Government will address the crisis in our prisons, not just today, but for years to come.
The House has heard me recount my inheritance as Lord Chancellor before. The crisis in our prisons was, I believe, the greatest disgrace of the last Conservative Government. They left our prisons on the point of collapse—a situation that would have forced us to close the prison doors, cancel all trials and force the police to halt arrests. Crime would have gone unpunished, victims would never have seen justice done, and we would have witnessed the total breakdown of law and order. The previous Prime Minister knew he had to act. His Lord Chancellor begged him to do so, but instead he called an election.
As I announced to the House on 18 July, we had no choice but to bring forward the release point for some prisoners. Some of those serving standard determinate sentences have seen the custodial element reduced from 50% to 40%, spending the rest of their sentence on licence. They can be recalled to prison should probation staff judge that necessary to protect the public. As we saw over the summer of disorder, these releases could not come soon enough. After the August bank holiday, we were left with fewer than 100 spaces in our men’s prisons. The system was only held together by the heroic work and considerable good will of our prison and probation staff. We were, on many occasions, just one bad day from disaster.
Today, the second tranche of emergency releases takes place, creating desperately needed space in our prisons, but that is not the long-term solution. I will now set out the long-term plan for our prisons, which will ensure that never again is a Lord Chancellor placed in the invidious position that I was on taking office.
This must begin by building more prisons. For all their rhetoric, the last Conservative Government’s record on prison building was abject. They like to mention that, between 2010 and 2024, they built 13,000 places. What they are less keen to admit is that, in the same time, they closed 12,500. In 14 years, they added just 500 places to our prison capacity. In our first 100 days, this Government are already close to matching that. The previous Government promised to build 20,000 new places by the mid-2020s, but by the time they left office, they had built only 6,000. They were simply too terrified of their own Back Benchers, who supported prison building vociferously, as long as those prisons were not built anywhere near them.
This Government will build the prisons that the last Conservative Government promised but failed to deliver. In seeking a lasting solution to our prisons crisis, we must be honest, in a way that my predecessors were not. We cannot build our way out of this problem. Every year, our prison population grows by around 4,500 prisoners. This is a question of simple mathematics. To build enough prisons to meet this demand we would have to build the equivalent of HMP Birmingham—which is in my constituency of Birmingham Ladywood—four and a half times over, every single year. To put that in context, in the past 10 years, the last Conservative Government built just three prisons. While we will speed up prison building and build as fast as we can, that pace is simply impossible. For that reason, if we are to address our prisons crisis, we must be smarter about who receives a prison sentence.
Let me be clear: there will always be a place for prison, and there will always be offenders who must be locked up, but we must expand the range of punishments we use outside prison and consider how we punish those offenders who have broken our rules but are not a danger to society. For that reason, today I am launching a review of sentencing. It will have one clear goal: to ensure that we are never again in a position where we have more prisoners than we have space in our prisons.
The review will follow three principles. First, sentences must punish offenders and protect the public. For dangerous offenders, prison will always remain the answer. Punishment and public protection will be the Government’s first priority. There are some offenders whom I will task the review with considering, such as prolific offenders, who account for just one in every 10 individuals, but nearly half of all sentences. Some of them are hyper-prolific offenders, committing hundreds of crimes. I will ask the reviewers to consider whether a longer sentence might punish them better and force them to engage with rehabilitation on the inside.
The second, related, principle of the review is that sentences must encourage offenders to turn their backs on crime—we need both sticks and carrots. I will be encouraging the reviewers to learn from others who have succeeded. In Texas, for instance, Republican legislators faced a problem similar to ours: a soaring prison population; sky-high reoffending rates; and prisons that had run out of space. Working across political divides, the Texans introduced a system of good behaviour credits, where well-behaved prisoners could earn time off their sentence by engaging in rehabilitation programmes. The results were remarkable. Crime fell by nearly a third, reaching the lowest levels in half a century. The prison population fell by over 20,000, and after two decades, the Texans had closed 16 prisons rather than building new ones.
The third principle of the review is that it must expand the punishment that offenders receive outside of prison. There are already ways that we severely constrain offenders, limiting their freedom outside of prison. Those under home detention curfews are, in practice, under a form of house arrest. With a tag on their ankle and a sensor in their home, they are placed under curfew, generally for 12 hours each day. Should they break that curfew, they can be picked up and, if needs be, locked up.
In some ways, punishment outside of prison can be even more restrictive than prison. It is a sad fact that in many of our prisons today, a drinker can all too easily procure a drink. On a sobriety tag, however, with their sweat measured every 30 minutes and a 97% compliance rate, their teetotalism is almost as strict as mine. All of that is just using the technology that is immediately available to us, and used already in this country. I will be inviting the reviewers to consider the technology they have available to them now, and the next frontier of technology, used in other countries but not yet in ours. I believe that the modern world presents us with the opportunity to build a prison outside of prison, where the eyes of the state follow a prisoner more closely than any prison officer can.
Moving punishment out of prison for those who can be safely managed there has huge benefits. Outside of prison, offenders can engage in work that pays back the communities and individuals whom they have harmed. The evidence is abundantly clear that those who serve their sentences outside prison are far less likely to reoffend. That cuts crime, with fewer victims and safer streets, and reduces the huge cost to society of reoffending, most recently valued at over £22 billion a year.
This Government believe that crime must have consequences and criminals must be punished. We also believe in rehabilitation—that those who earn the right must be encouraged to turn their backs on crime. This Government believe in prison, but we must increase the use of punishment outside of prison too. The sentencing review will be tasked with pursuing those goals.
I am pleased to say that the review will be led by a former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, a highly regarded Minister who served in multiple roles across Government. He has rightly gained the respect of both the judiciary and the legal sector, as well as many within this House. I will work with him to assemble a panel of reviewers who will draw together deep expertise and experience in the criminal justice system. The review will take a bipartisan and evidence-based look at an issue that has for far too long been a political football, booted around by both sides. David Gauke will report back with his recommendations in the spring, and I have placed a copy of the complete terms of reference of the review in the Library of the House.
It is right that the review is given time to do its work. As I have noted already, however, the capacity crisis in our prisons has not gone away. When we introduced emergency measures we believed that they had bought us about a year, but after the summer of disorder, the next crisis could be just nine months away. For that reason, I announced last week an extension of the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, which allows us to bear down on the remand population in our prisons. But we must go further.
While I will not countenance any further emergency releases of prisoners, there are operational measures that I will lay before the House in the months ahead. The first, which I have already referenced, is home detention curfew. This modern form of house arrest curtails freedom and helps offenders turn their lives around. Offenders are subject to electronically monitored curfews, which must be imposed for nine hours a day, are generally 12 hours long, and can extend to 16 hours.
As the shadow Lord Chancellor noted in the House in February, the reoffending rate for the average prisoner, which was measured a few years ago, is close to 50%, but for offenders released on a home detention curfew, it is 23%. This Government will soon extend the use of that measure, following in the footsteps of the previous Administration, who rightly expanded its use on a number of occasions. We will increase the maximum period that eligible offenders can spend under house arrest from six months to 12 months.
The second measure that we will introduce will address the soaring recall population, which has doubled from 6,000 to 12,000 in just six years. Risk assessed recall review is a power of the Secretary of State to re-release, on licence, those who pose a low risk to the public, avoiding the long waits they often face for a Parole Board hearing. In the past, the measure was used often: it was used between 1,000 and 1,500 times each year between 2017 and 2019; but its use has fallen in recent years, reaching as low as 92 times in 2022.
Later this month, I intend to review the risk assessed recall review process, so that lower-risk cases can be considered for re-release after they have been recalled to prison for two to three months, and where their further detention is no longer necessary to protect the public. I should note that this will only change the cases that can be considered for release, with the final decision still in the hands of experienced probation officers and managers.
The final area where I intend to make progress is in the case of foreign national offenders. I share the public’s view that, with 10,000 in our prisons, there are far too many foreign offenders in this country, costing £50,000 each a year to house at His Majesty’s pleasure. It happens to be my personal view that deportation is as good a punishment as imprisonment, if not better. We are currently on track to remove more foreign national offenders this year than at any time in recent years. But I will now be working with my colleagues across Government to explore the ways that we can accelerate that further, including working with the Home Office to make the early removal scheme for foreign offenders more effective.
When I walked into the Ministry of Justice for the first time as Lord Chancellor just over three months ago, I encountered a prison system on the brink of collapse. It was the result of the inaction of the last Government, who thought they could dither and delay, and led us to the precipice of disaster. But their failure was longer in the making: they failed to build the prison places this country needs, and they failed to address the challenge of an ever-rising prison population.
In July, this Government took action to avert immediate disaster, but the plan that I have set out today does more than that. It will ensure that this Government and our successors are never forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners again—a measure over which I had no choice, one that I took despite my personal beliefs, and one that must never happen again. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
As always, I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for early sight of her statement, and for her coming to the House to deliver it, giving us the opportunity to ask questions. She is always unfailingly courteous in her dealings with this House.
The Lord Chancellor made several announcements today. It is important that we see the detail of her sentencing review, and that, whatever the outcome, it ensures that victims’ voices are heard throughout, that the worst offenders—for example, violent or sexual offenders—stay behind bars for longer, and that, as she alluded to, prolific offenders who cause so much blight and harm can still be subject to a custodial sentence where appropriate.
We saw an overall fall in reoffending since 2010 under the last Government, from around 31% to just over 25%, but there is of course still more to do. It is right that we look at all sentences, including tough community sentences, through the prism of what reduces reoffending, boosts rehabilitation and best protects the public. With that in mind, I know David Gauke well; he was my first boss as a Minister. He is a decent, honourable, able and thoughtful man, and I regard him as a friend, so I will not prejudge what he will conclude in his review. But the Opposition will rightly, as the Lord Chancellor would expect, scrutinise the review when it is published, and hold the Government to account on the choices they make on how to proceed subsequently. I hope the review’s terms of reference might include not just male prisoners, but female prisoners and female offenders, building on the female offenders strategy that David Gauke and I put in place many years ago.
As the Lord Chancellor has set out, prison capacity has been under significant pressure for some time, and while the situation was incredibly acute in 2008, 2009 and 2010, it remains a significant challenge. That is due to an increased average sentence length for first offenders—for which we make no apology—matched by the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era, with thousands of additional places built while tackling the legacy of the crumbling prison estate we inherited in 2010 and the Labour party’s absolute failure to build the 7,500 Titan prison places it promised while in government. Of course, though, the impact on the remand population of the decisions to not mass release during the pandemic and to rightly retain jury trials, compounded by the Bar strike, undoubtedly significantly increased pressure despite our prison-building programme.
The Lord Chancellor has set out her chosen approach, with more convicted criminals released today at the 40% point of their sentence, rather than the 50% point in tranche 2 of SDS40. We are seeing significant levels of concern from victims of crime about that approach—Sky News ran a powerful package this morning highlighting that concern—so I have several important questions on that aspect of the Lord Chancellor’s announcement. She said that she will publish data on SDS40 in the coming weeks in the normal run of statistics. I understand that, but we would be grateful if she could provide the date on which those statistics will be published. In the media this morning, she alluded to the rate of recalls being “very high” but disputed—based on her internal data—that it was as high as 50%, as was suggested on Radio 4. Can she expand on what that rate looks like?
In response to a written question from me, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) acknowledged that hotels are now being used in some cases to accommodate released prisoners under SDS40. In the light of the Lord Chancellor’s commitment at oral questions last month to be transparent about this matter—although it took a written question from me to get that confirmation—how many hotel rooms or places are being used, and at what cost? We have heard little thus far about deporting FNOs, so I am pleased that she has focused on that issue in her remarks, but when will she set out more details of her plans to improve the deportation rate of FNOs, and what targets is she setting for that?
Does the Lord Chancellor now acknowledge that—as we pointed out at the time, and as victims also pointed out—although the Government claimed that domestic abuse and domestic violence offences would be excluded from SDS40, that is simply not the case? DA offenders committing actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm are not excluded. Will she revisit the exclusions list to review this matter? Will she also commit to building more prisons, over and above the six new prisons that we funded and have already been completed or are being built, and will she commit to funding that additional prison building?
Home detention curfew will further reduce the time that convicted criminals spend behind bars. Someone with a four-year sentence who is not excluded from SDS40 would now be out at around 19 months; with the possibility of 12-month HDC, that could mean that they were only inside for just over six months of a four-year sentence. I recognise that the interaction between different schemes and calculations is complex and may be different in individual cases, but can the Lord Chancellor reassure the House that a fixed minimum percentage will always be served by those sentenced to prison?
The Lord Chancellor will appreciate that with layer upon layer of reductions, some people will struggle to see that punishment or public protection are at the fore, so can she clarify a number of further points? While most DA offences would be presumed ineligible for HDC, that presumption is not absolute, and again, many common DA offences such as ABH or common assault are not presumed ineligible. What will the Lord Chancellor do to address that issue? Does she intend to examine the list of exclusions for both schemes—SDS40 and HDC—and come back to the House with a tougher list? Tagging is a vital part of HDC, but while there may be the tags, as she has mentioned, it appears that the ability to fit them swiftly is sadly lacking at present. What reassurances can the Lord Chancellor give that there is now no backlog at all in tagging? What steps is she taking to ensure that victims are contacted when perpetrators are released, and what additional resource is going into victim support services and probation, over and above what we had already committed to?
Turning to the rehabilitation activity requirement, it is right that experienced staff judge these cases. As the Lord Chancellor knows, the smaller numbers reflect both risk assessment and the complex interaction of RAR with other release schemes. I therefore fear that the bounty she might expect to get from the changes she intends to make will be limited. Will she confirm details of those proposed changes for the House in due course?
Finally, and most importantly, as I pressed the Lord Chancellor on last week, it is vital that the criminal justice system is not subject to a flat budget or, worse, cuts in next week’s Budget—cuts that would let down victims, those who work in the system, and the public. I fully appreciate that she will not be able to prejudge that Budget, either at the Dispatch Box or in the media, but a fair financial settlement, alongside her setting out her long-term plans for the system—a little of which I acknowledge we have seen today—will be absolutely essential if victims and the public are to have confidence in her Government on law and order.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Lord Chancellor for the courteous way in which he has approached this debate, and for his detailed questions.
Let me start with his point in relation to the sentencing review. The voice of victims will be heard: there will be a representative with experience of working with victims to make sure that is covered in the review, and I look forward to announcing further members of that review panel over the coming days. The review will be free to consider every aspect of the sentencing framework, including the use of whole-life orders and minimum sentences. We have not constrained the sentencing review in any way: the review panel should take a proper look at the sentencing framework that we have and go where the evidence takes them.
I acknowledge the progress that was made on reducing reoffending, but as the shadow Lord Chancellor accepts, there is much more to do. We know that 80% of offenders are reoffenders and that 90% of those sentenced to custody are reoffenders. We have a big problem with that revolving door in and out of our prisons—as a country, that is a significant challenge that we must overcome. As I said, I will be placing the terms of reference in the House of Commons Library. The shadow Lord Chancellor will be pleased to see that those terms of reference refer to cohorts of offenders, including female offenders. He will also know that in my conference speech in September, I laid out a different approach to how this Government deal with women in our prisons.
Shabana Mahmood
I know that the shadow Lord Chancellor followed it closely. I am setting up a women’s justice board, which will report with a strategy in the spring. We need to do more with female offenders, especially given the impact that the incarceration of women and the breaking up of family homes has on their children, particularly as two thirds of women in prison are there for non-violent offences. I hope there is cross-party consensus in this House on dealing with women offenders differently.
On prison capacity, I say gently to the shadow Lord Chancellor that we can trade numbers across this Dispatch Box about things that the last Labour Government did before 2010, or he might want to acknowledge the failure that took place over his Government’s 14 years in power. He knows that only 500 net prison places were added by his Government over those 14 years, and that the crisis that faced me when I walked into the Department was acute—he knows that, because he had walked out of that same Department only a few days before. The previous Government ran our prisons boiling hot for far too long, so my inheritance when I took over was dire, leaving me with no option other than the emergency release of prisoners.
I note the shadow Lord Chancellor’s point about domestic abuse and domestic violence cases, but I remind him that his own early release scheme that his Government implemented for many months before the last general election—the so-called end of custody supervised licence scheme—contained none of the SDS40 exclusions. He knows that; he also knows that we pulled every lever available to us within the law to exclude the offences that are most closely connected to domestic abuse and domestic violence. As a matter of law, it is only possible to exclude offence types, rather than offenders. I have had to pull that emergency lever; I have sought to do so in the safest way possible, to make as many exclusions as possible, and to give the Probation Service the time it needs to prepare for this measure and to make sure victims are notified under victim notification schemes in the usual way.
I will be publishing the data in relation to tranche 1 and 2 releases in two ad hoc statistical releases before Christmas, so that data will be in the public domain. As the shadow Lord Chancellor will know from his time in the Department, the recall rate usually hovers between 6% and 10%—it can vary quite a bit between those numbers. Our current information is that the SDS40 releases are not showing a higher recall rate than we would expect compared with normal releases, but those statistics will of course be published in the usual way in due course.
On hotels, I made provision to allow the emergency use of hotel accommodation for prisoners released under the SDS40 scheme to prevent any homelessness that might lead to higher rates of recall. Fewer than 20 prisoners have been housed in hotels, and at a very low cost. This is a temporary measure, and I do not anticipate that it will be used any more extensively than it has been already. On foreign national offenders, I will return to this House on that matter, but work is under way across Government and I am working closely with my colleagues in the Home Office.
I will be publishing for the House, and will return to the House with, the detail of the further measures on the home detention curfew. The shadow Lord Chancellor rightly says that not everybody is automatically eligible for a home detention curfew. There is still a risk assessment, and safeguarding concerns are the No. 1 way in which domestic abuse issues show up as a red flag for a particular prisoner. I would not imagine that those previous and current arrangements will change very much with the measures we will take.
I thank the shadow Lord Chancellor for the contract concluded with Serco to deliver the tagging. It may not have been him directly and personally, but it was his Government. The performance of Serco has been unacceptable. Let me be very clear with the House: there is no shortage of tags in this country. It has failed to make sure that it has enough staff in place to tag everybody who needs a tag. Its progress has been monitored daily by me, my Ministers and officials in the Department, and we will continue to hold its feet to the fire. We will levy financial penalties, and all options remain on the table. Performance has improved a little—it has made progress—but all options are on the table if that falls back in any way.
The shadow Lord Chancellor will know that I am not going to comment on anything relating to the Budget. The Chancellor will make her statement in due course. I gently remind him that the budgets of the Ministry of Justice under the Tory party left a lot to be desired.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the approach the Lord Chancellor is taking to the management of the prison system, and the appointment of David Gauke to head the sentencing review. Given that the initiatives she has announced today to relieve pressure on prisons will create additional work for already overstretched probation officers, will she make a further statement when she has decided what operational changes she is going to make to the Probation Service? The additional 14,000 prison places she has promised to build will take prison capacity to above 100,000. Is that desirable in the long term? Given her intention to expand punishment outside prison, will she make it her aim in time to close some of the worst of our existing prisons, built two or three centuries ago, which warehouse crime and, despite the best efforts of prison staff, do little or nothing to reform or rehabilitate their inmates?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his questions. On probation, I recognise the very high workloads that probation officers are working under. We committed in our manifesto to a strategic review of probation governance. I have made sure that we have brought forward the recruitment of an extra 1,000 probation officers by March next year. We are working closely with probation unions and probation staff on the frontline to manage the situation. I am very conscious that we do not want to take the pressure out of the prisons and just leave it with the Probation Service instead. This is a whole-system response, and the whole system needs to be stabilised and able to face the pressures we see in it.
On the prison population, make no mistake: the number of prison places will increase in this country. We will deliver the 14,000 the previous Government did not deliver, and the prison population will therefore rise. However, as I have said, we cannot build our way out of this crisis, and we do have to do things differently. We are a very long way away from any of the changes the Chair of the Select Committee may want to see, but fundamentally we must make sure, and the review must make sure, that we never ever run out of prison places in this country again.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
Having myself grown up in a home of domestic violence at the hands of my mum’s former partner, I share the concerns of the Victims’ Commissioner and survivors of domestic abuse that loopholes in the early release scheme’s criteria could mean that some of their abusers, who have been convicted of violent offences but not of domestic violence-specific offences, may have been released early today. I know the Secretary of State attempted to provide some reassurances, but I can say to her that I have received communications from affected people outside this Chamber who are not satisfied with those assurances yet. Domestic abuse survivors deserve to be safe. Can she address these concerns today?
We welcome the Government’s determination to fix the mess that the Conservatives made of our criminal justice system through the evidence-led, independent sentencing review. The former Lord Chancellor chairing it and I have a track record of fixing things together. In my past life, I used to run a social enterprise phone repair company staffed by ex-offenders, and we ran pop-up repair shops in the MOJ, at one of which the then Lord Chancellor David Gauke eagerly presented his phone for repair. I hope this Lord Chancellor shares that collaborative fixing spirit when it comes to engaging with the Liberal Democrats and me on this review—and I will happily sort the Secretary of State out with a phone repair if she needs one.
While empirical evidence will be critical to this review, some of the most valuable insights on this matter are held by victims and survivors themselves. I was therefore disappointed not to find the words “victim” or “survivor” mentioned once anywhere in the terms of reference, although I have heard the Secretary of State say them today. Will she put that right, and outline specifically how victims and survivors will be represented and formally consulted in the sentencing review?
Finally, even though the Secretary of State has said there will be no constraints and no constrictions, something else missing from the review is the injustice of indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences, under which almost 3,000 people remain imprisoned with no release date. What is more, people are serving IPP sentences who have committed lesser offences than those being released today under the Government’s early release scheme. Reforming these sentences could help address prison overcrowding and the safety crisis, so why have the Government explicitly excluded IPP sentences from this review, and will she reconsider that decision?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions. I am sorry to hear about his personal experiences, but they will of course inform the valuable contributions that he makes in this House from his own lived experience.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is not a specific offence of domestic abuse in our legislative framework. To bring in the emergency release scheme to prevent us from running out of prison spaces in July, I have pulled every lever at my disposal. We can make these changes in law only by excluding offences, not offender cohorts or offender types. That is why the list of offences covered includes those most closely connected to domestic abuse situations, but it is not of course fully comprehensive. It cannot be, because we can exclude only offences, not offender types. I hope he will recognise that I pulled these levers as early as possible in the Parliament—almost as soon as I walked into the Department—because I wanted to give the Probation Service time to prepare for this change. Specifically, it was so that it could notify victims, work on proper release plans for these offenders, make sure that the licence conditions are the right ones and make sure that the monitoring of these offenders in the community is as strong as it needs to be.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that those who are flagged as having a domestic violence background are prioritised for tags. Every choice I have made in bringing forward these emergency release changes has been made to try to minimise the impact on victims. I really empathise with and am very affected by the concerns of victims that those who have offended against them are being released some weeks or months early. That might sound small, but I know it has a huge impact, and I do not seek to minimise that in any way. As I say, I have pulled every lever at my disposal to try to minimise those concerns.
On the sentencing review, when we reveal the whole panel we will ensure that victims’ voices are represented, as that is important. In the terms of reference we have tried to capture the fact that all of society suffers collectively when we do not get reoffending rates down. This is a strategy for cutting crime and producing fewer victims in future, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will support.
IPP sentences are specifically excluded. That is a challenging cohort of prisoners in our system, and where it is safe to do so I am determined to make progress on releasing those who are currently serving an IPP sentence. I worked with the previous Government and supported changes to the licence terms and conditions brought in by the Conservative Administration. We are implementing changes that were made in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was enacted just before the general election. What we cannot do is release people who still pose a risk to the public, and with this cohort of offenders I cannot release those who are still a danger to themselves and to others. Getting that balance right is incredibly important, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is not appropriate to put that cohort of offenders within the sentencing review.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Under the Conservative Government, more than one in two people who served short-term custodial sentences went on to reoffend. In total, reoffending is costing our country £20 billion a year. That is not working at all, and not working for the taxpayer. In my constituency, and across Hertfordshire, fantastic charities such as the Hertfordshire Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders are running innovative and pioneering programmes, and working with ex-offenders to ensure that they do not offend again. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the Government will adopt a new approach and work with charities and broader civil society to cut reoffending for good?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right: reoffending has a huge cost for us all as a country because it creates more victims of crime. Indeed, it costs us more than £20 billion at about £22 billion a year. Charities and other groups have a huge role to play in helping to bring down the reoffending rate, but to allow that work to succeed we must bring down overcrowding and the capacity crisis in our prisons. I hope the sentencing review will help us to chart a new course when it comes to bringing down reoffending.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement. In the first wave of early releases, 37 prisoners were wrongly released. What steps is she taking to ensure that those mistakes are not repeated? Does she agree that the best way to reduce reoffending is to ensure that released prisoners are able to participate in the labour market, and what will she do to improve education and training within the prison system?
Shabana Mahmood
On the 37 who were wrongly released, I had never imagined that it would be possible for people to be charged and sentenced under an older Act of Parliament, and not the more recent Sentencing Act 2020, and as soon as that issue was brought to our attention we took immediate steps. All 37 were ultimately returned to custody, and I will ensure that that mistake cannot happen again. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about reducing reoffending. Access to literacy training and skills and the ability to get a job are important in helping an offender turn their back on a life of crime, and I hope the sentencing review will make further positive suggestions on that. We know we have to tackle reoffending, and we know that jobs, housing and so on are part of the picture if we are to persuade people to become the better citizens that we need them to be, rather than the better criminals that our system currently produces.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s review of sentencing, but as she may know, people who are neurodivergent are hugely over-represented in the prison population. What steps will she take to ensure that prisoners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism do not reoffend?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right to say that the support prisoners receive in prison must be tailored to take account of needs such as neurodivergence and autism, much of which has gone undiagnosed in the life of prisoners, and often does not even get diagnosed within the prison estate. We must obviously turn that around, and I am confident we can make progress in that area. First we have to deal with the capacity crisis, because when prisons are very overcrowded offenders are locked up for 23 hours a day, and in that one remaining hour little good work can be done. We must deal with the capacity problems so that we can then deal with the underlying issues that prisoners face before they can make the positive choices that we all want.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Secretary of State has identified a good set of principles for her review. On the Texan approach, does she think that it would be fairer to victims if, rather than us looking at extending early release further, we used the reward of the existing access to early release? She talked a lot about evidence, but she will understand that it is harder to evidence victims’ feelings about justice, and that risks greater weight being given to statistics on reoffending, and other information that the Ministry of Justice has to hand. How does she propose to close the gap in evidence relating to how victims and their families feel about sentencing?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman makes good point. The Texan model is of interest because it sought to incentivise the positive behaviour that reduces reoffending and ultimately cuts crime, and Texas saw some pretty spectacular results. There is no exact read-across from that model to our system, and it will be for the review to consider that model and others around the world to see what approaches might work here. It is imperative that any measures we take retain the confidence of victims and the wider public. Any punishment that takes place outside a prison needs to still look and feel like proper punishment to every community in our country. That is non-negotiable. Public confidence must be maintained, and that speaks to the hon. Gentleman’s second point. Evidence is important, and in my experience, when victims are engaged in the process, they appreciate the need to reduce reoffending, because they do not want other people to be victims. Their voice will be heard in the review; I hope that reassures him.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
In June 2019, David Gauke made a speech as Lord Chancellor on smarter sentencing. It was a helpful, coherent, cogent, evidence-based speech about sentencing reform. Four Conservative Prime Ministers later, no progress has been made, so I am pleased that the Labour Government will grasp the nettle. We were just discussing the Texan example of problem solving and sentencing, but can the Lord Chancellor reassure me that the review will also consider family, drug and alcohol courts, and the progress and positive results that we have seen in the family courts?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes the case well for why David Gauke is the right person to lead this review. As I said, he brings deep expertise to this debate. I am sure that the sentencing review panel will be interested, as many are, in some of the pilots that are being run on problem-solving courts, and also in the family courts.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
What measures is the Lord Chancellor taking to ensure that the review considers the impact of sentencing polices on different socioeconomic groups, and addresses concerns about disproportionate sentences for marginalised communities and minority groups?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member raises an important point. That issue is not within the review’s terms of reference. It will not consider disparities in sentencing because it is looking at the overall sentencing framework, and how we ensure that we never run out of prison places again. There is an important debate on disparities in the criminal justice system. The review on sentencing is not the proper place for that, but we will take forward that other work in due course.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I declare an interest: I am the honorary life president of the Prison Officers Association. I thank the Secretary of State on behalf of the POA for her open-door policy on engagement with the union. I congratulate her on bringing forward the sentencing review. The POA has long argued that there are too many people in prison, in particular with mental health problems. They include veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder who should not be there, but should be treated elsewhere. Will she ensure that the unions are fully involved in deciding on the composition of the panel and the engagement process for the review?
Shabana Mahmood
Working closely with our trade unions is important to us. We have already engaged with the Prison Officers Association. Let me place on record my thanks to all who work in our prisons and our probation system. In our prisons in particular, the rates of violence against prison officers have been too high for too long. I salute the hard work that prison officers do in a difficult job on behalf of us all. My right hon. Friend can be assured of our close engagement with everybody who works in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service going forward.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, but judges are yet to impose such a sentence, despite such cases as the one in my constituency in which three people were killed by a driver in a case with five aggravating factors. Will the Lord Chancellor ensure that when the review considers longer custodial sentences, it looks at how victims can get justice, and how the maximum sentences legislated for by this place are applied?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member will know that sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, who have to consider all the facts in front of them and sentence accordingly, based on the law, the sentencing guidelines and the framework. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case he mentions. The review will not be constrained in any way in its inquiry, or on maximum sentences, whole life orders and so on. The whole range of sentences that are available is open for the review panel to consider and make recommendations on.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her handling of the issue and the approach she is taking in response to the challenges she faces. This morning, I met local police leadership to discuss the challenges around drug-based criminality in Leyton and Wanstead. The situation they face could not be clearer. After 14 years of Tory failure, overstretched police services, over-capacity prisons and woefully underfunded probation services and councils have led to a vicious cycle of reoffending. Does she agree that the whole system needs reform and investment to restore public trust in our justice system, and to keep my constituents safe?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that in our safer streets mission, improving confidence in the criminal justice system is one of the key outcomes we are focused on. He is right to make the point that the whole criminal justice system requires stabilisation. It all needs to be put on a better trajectory than the one we inherited from the previous Government. We are talking in detail about prisons, but it is difficult to divorce what is happening in our prison system from what is going on in probation and the courts. I reassure him that I conceive of this as a whole-system approach. I am aware of the challenges in other bits of the system; they are things that this Government will ultimately sort out.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor speaks with great clarity and determination on this issue, and I am sure that she will remember last week promising me a ministerial meeting involving my constituent, Andrew Duncan, and a specialist team. They are working on a new concept of community detention that I believe is tailor-made for the vision that the Lord Chancellor has outlined to us today. Can she confirm that the meeting will go ahead, notwithstanding the extra opportunity to give evidence to the Gauke review in due course?
Shabana Mahmood
I knew immediately that the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask about the meeting he referenced last week, when I made my other statement. I assure him that I will follow that up. I am interested in the work of the group that he mentions, and I am sure that the sentencing review panel will also be interested in it.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement, and for the leadership she has shown in trying to turn around a Department that, by any metric, was failing. I thank her for the transparent and considered approach that she has taken in reaching some of the difficult decisions she has had to make since taking office. While I accept the inevitability of the early release scheme, what conversations has she had with ministerial colleagues on improving victim support for those who have seen perpetrators return to the community earlier than they were perhaps mentally prepared for, so as to reduce harm as far as possible?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial team and I have been working closely with our colleagues, primarily in the Home Office, but also across Government. Support for victims sits in different Departments, but we are making sure that we have a “one team” approach to this important matter. I have sought to pull the levers at my disposal in such a way that we gave the Probation Service the time it needed to prepare for the SDS40 changes. I did that because I wanted to ensure that our obligations under the victim notification scheme could be met. I am monitoring progress on that regularly, and I will ensure that any improvements required are made on a continual basis. We keep this under constant review.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Neil Foden is in prison for the sexual abuse of four vulnerable schoolchildren. He was the headteacher and strategic headteacher at two secondary schools in Gwynedd. Foden was convicted of 19 charges and sentenced to 17 years in July this year for his abhorrent crimes. The judge said he showed no remorse. Can the Lord Chancellor advise me how to seek assurance for his victims that Foden will not be released until he has served at least two thirds of his sentence?
Shabana Mahmood
I can confirm that all sex offences of all types are excluded from the SDS40 measures.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)
I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s sentencing review, but on immediate systemic issues, privately run Forest Bank prison in Salford is at 138% capacity, with continued reports over the years of high levels of violence and insufficient rehabilitative training for prisoners. The contract runs out in January. Can the Secretary of State confirm who will be running the prison after that date? Will she be bringing it back under state control? What measures is she taking to urgently ensure safety in the prison and adequate rehabilitative training?
Shabana Mahmood
I will not pre-empt any future decisions on any particular prison, but I am not ideological about whether a prison is run by the state or privately. There are good prisons of both types in the sector. There are some failing state-run prisons and some failing privately run prisons. The most important thing is that we get on top of the capacity crisis across the whole prison estate. We have to reduce overcrowding so that we can focus on the good-quality rehabilitation activity that I know governors in every type of prison want to ensure, so that prisoners can be helped to turn their life around.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on recognising that for some prisoners, the shortcomings of short sentences are properly remedied by providing for longer ones. On the review and David Gauke, it is difficult not to like him and even admire him, but I am not alone in regarding him as a notorious wet, am I?
Shabana Mahmood
I will leave those characterisations to the internal workings of the Conservative party. I consider David Gauke to be a person with deep expertise in this area. He is a former Lord Chancellor who knows this territory very well. He will be able to hit the ground running, and I know that he will go where the evidence takes him.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor referred to successful work in Texas. If we adopt such a model over here, how will victims be involved in shaping that tough rehabilitation approach?
Shabana Mahmood
We will make sure that the review panel, when it is fully put together, includes somebody with experience of working with victims of crime to make sure that that perspective is fully reflected in the investigations that the review undertakes and, ultimately, in its findings and recommendations.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
May I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the terms of reference of this review, and the appointment of the excellent David Gauke? I remain concerned, however, about the Government’s evident enthusiasm for increasing capacity. May I ask the Lord Chancellor directly whether she agrees with her colleague in the other place that we imprison too many people in this country? Is the Lord Chancellor’s ultimate aim to reduce the prison population?
Shabana Mahmood
We need to make sure that we have the prison places we need to lock up those who have to be locked up. That is fundamentally non-negotiable. We have to see an increase in prison capacity. I mentioned earlier that the previous Government failed to deliver 14,000 places. Without them, we will run out of prison places again. We have to build the supply, and we have to do better on reoffending. All these things are equally important, and they all have to be done at the same time. I will not set arbitrary figures for how many people can and should go to prison. I want to ensure that we never again run out of prison places, that we do better on rehabilitation and that we expand punishment outside prison.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of the bipartisan sentencing review panel and thank my right hon. Friend for her continuing work to fix the mess of the last 14 years in this Department. The evidence shows that 55% of adults on short sentences go on to reoffend, while community orders have a 34% reoffending rate. Can she assure me that the panel will consider that as part of its remit?
Shabana Mahmood
That is exactly the sort of area that the panel will review. Although the reoffending rates for community orders are lower, they are still far too high. I am sure that the sentencing panel will want to consider how to bring all the numbers down so that we can ensure we are rehabilitating more people and ultimately cutting crime.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
In 2021, the Justice Committee highlighted the fact that too many offenders were imprisoned because community orders with mental health requirements were unavailable in many areas across the country. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that we must now work across the health and justice systems to ensure that adequate provision is available in this essential area?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can assure her that I will work closely with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make sure that there is join-up across Government and that we do everything we can to reduce reoffending, rehabilitate more people and ultimately cut crime.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly her preference for the deportation of foreign criminals and her comments that for hyper-prolific offenders, a particular problem in my constituency, longer sentences may be best. Whatever the outcome of the review, can she commit that dangerous criminals who pose a threat to the public, in Hartlepool or anywhere else, will always be locked up under this Government?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, I absolutely can. The whole point of the review is to ensure that the country is never again in a position in which we might run out of prison places, and to ensure that those who must be locked up to keep the public safe will always be locked up.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Keeping a prisoner in prison costs the taxpayer over £50,000 a year, whereas punishing the prisoner out of prison costs less than £5,000 a year. What is more, the prisoner is then far less likely to reoffend. Does the Secretary of State agree that taxpayers’ money would be better spent on having a much cheaper and better alternative to prison?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the relative costs of imprisonment and of punishment out of prison. Delivering the 14,000 prison places that the previous Government failed to deliver is a big cost, but it will be met by this Government. We must also ensure that we expand punishment out of prison. All options must be pursued if we are to get to grips with this crisis.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am not given to hyperbole; I will simply say that my right hon. Friend has inherited a shocking and dangerous situation and is dealing with it in a calm and collected manner. I applaud and support the move to a more sensible and sustainable policy on sentencing, but will she assure my constituents in Rugby that we will always lock up violent and dangerous offenders where necessary to keep the public safe?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the answer to his question is yes and yes. Part of the reason for doing the review is to ensure that this country is never again on the brink of running out of prison places, and that dangerous offenders who need to be locked up to keep the public safe will always be locked up.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I welcome the sentencing review and thank the Secretary of State for her explanation of why IPP sentences are not included in the review. What steps will she take to accelerate routes out of custody for prisoners serving IPP sentences, including a re-sentencing review that can be done without prejudice to public protection, to end an injustice once and for all and to increase capacity on our prison estate?
Shabana Mahmood
I hear the point my hon. Friend makes, and she makes it very well. We are not considering a re-sentencing exercise for IPP prisoners, because that would automatically release a number of people who we do not believe it would be safe to release. I am not willing to compromise public protection. I know that there is a huge injustice at the heart of these issues and that IPP sentences have rightly been abolished, but we have a problem with the cohort, in particular those under an IPP sentence who have never been released at all. I am determined to make more progress, wherever it is possible to do so safely, on releasing more IPP prisoners, but never in a way that compromises public protection.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to cross-party working, transparency and rebuilding public trust. Does she agree that this is a significant departure from the previous Government, who released over 10,000 prisoners not in the open but in secret?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the last Conservative Government’s end of custody supervised licence scheme, for which we, in the end, had to release the numbers. Over 10,000 offenders were released under that scheme, without transparency and without the same exemptions that we have applied to the SDS40 changes.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
What a mess we have inherited! I thank the Lord Chancellor for the steps that she has taken today to sort it out. We know that offenders who are subject to home detention orders are 50% less likely to reoffend, but can we put them to work as well during unpaid work sessions? Can we ensure that offenders who commit further offences while on licence are dealt with more robustly in the courts as they are recalled to prison?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises really important points about how we break the cycle of recalls to prison and ensure that licence conditions are abided by, and about the scope for putting more offenders to work. I am sure that these will be matters of great interest to the sentencing review panel. I look forward to seeing its findings in due course.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The past 14 years have shown that Governments ignore the prison estate at their peril. My right hon. Friend rightly says that we must redesign punishment outside the secure estate. Will she elaborate on how offenders will have their liberty curtailed and how the public will be made aware of that liberty being taken away?
Shabana Mahmood
The modern world, with different technology, presents the best possible opportunity for us to expand the use of punishment out of prison, but in a way that gives the public confidence that offenders are being supervised, that the eyes of the state remain on them and that their behaviour and their liberty are effectively curtailed. I expect that new technology, as well as current available technology, will be of great interest to the review panel. I look forward to its findings when it reports in the spring.
Bill Presented
Trade Agreements (Exclusion of National Health Services) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Seamus Logan, supported by Stephen Flynn, Pete Wishart, Kirsty Blackman, Dave Doogan, Stephen Gethins, Chris Law, Graham Leadbitter, Brendan O’Hara, Claire Hanna and Ben Lake, presented a Bill to exclude requirements relating to National Health Services procurement, delivery or commissioning from international trade agreements; to require the consent of the House of Commons and the devolved legislatures to international trade agreements insofar as they relate to the National Health Services of England, Scotland and Wales and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 109).
Vehicle Registration Documents (Sale of Vehicle) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Richard Holden presented a Bill to require a seller of a vehicle to record their home address or specified information about a company that owns the vehicle in the vehicle’s registration document; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 107).
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Joe Morris presented a Bill to make provision changing the law about the offence of livestock worrying, including changes to what constitutes an offence and increased powers for investigation of suspected offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April 2025, and to be printed (Bill 52).
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I put on the record my previous engagements with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, on many excellent and informative trips that contributed to our relationships across the Commonwealth, and my past engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
I am delighted to see the Bill back in the House; I hope that there will be wholehearted unity today to ensure that it makes it to Royal Assent. I think this is its fourth iteration. The last time it was debated here was as a private Member’s Bill in the last Session, but sadly it ran out of time before the Dissolution of Parliament for the general election. I pay tribute to the former Member for Basingstoke for her tireless work in introducing that Bill and pushing it through, and to many hon. Members, some of whom I see here today, for their past work with the CPA and the ICRC.
It is critical that both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross be given their correct status in UK legislation to conduct their work and deliver their objectives while operating in the UK. This will help to guarantee that the CPA remains headquartered in the UK and will ensure that the UK can guarantee the ICRC that the confidential information that it shares as a matter of course with the UK Government is secure and protected.
The UK is deeply committed to the Commonwealth and believes that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which the Foreign Secretary is attending in Samoa, will be an important opportunity to mobilise action on shared interests, including upholding shared Commonwealth values. Those values are embodied by the CPA’s important work to strengthen inclusive and accountable democracy across the Commonwealth. I think back to my own many engagements with the CPA in which I have seen that work at first hand, both when delegations have visited and when I have been part of delegations. The UK values its partnership with the CPA and is proud to support the work of the CPA and its regional branch CPA UK. That includes developing benchmarks and indicators of parliamentary democracy and addressing modern slavery in supply chains and issues such as gender-based violence with Parliaments and parliamentarians across the Commonwealth.
The ICRC is an essential partner in achieving the UK’s global humanitarian objectives. It has a unique mandate from states to uphold the Geneva conventions and works globally to promote international humanitarian law. Its impartiality, neutrality and independence allow it to engage and negotiate with all parties to a conflict and to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations, often in contexts in which other agencies are unable to operate. I have witnessed its important work, in opposition and in my past career in the humanitarian sector.
Clauses 1 and 2 will therefore provide for both organisations to be treated in a manner comparable to an international organisation, with the associated privileges and immunities. Treatment as an international organisation will allow the CPA to continue to operate fully across the Commonwealth and international fora. It will allow the organisation to participate fully in areas in which it is currently restricted, including signing up to joint international statements and communiqués. That is vital to ensure that the CPA can continue its work to promote democracy and good governance across the Commonwealth. The CPA is currently registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales and is not an international intergovernmental organisation; it therefore has its own unique constitutional arrangements that reflect its specific international mandate.
Clause 2 is critical to enable the ICRC to operate in the UK in accordance with its international mandate, maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence and its working methods of confidentiality. The ICRC is not an inter-governmental organisation either; it has its own unique and historical international humanitarian mandate to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Nobody doubts the good work of the CPA or the ICRC—we have all seen it as parliamentarians—but does the Minister understand that many of us are a little wary about conferring privileges and immunities by Order in Council after the Bill is passed, since this House is not, in general, in the habit of granting privileges and immunities without scrutiny?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that these are the appropriate measures. We have determined this way in line with previous discussions on the previous iteration of the Bill. This is the best way to achieve the aims of the Bill in a timely fashion, so that the provisions are put in place for the CPA and the ICRC. I am very happy to write to him further on this matter. The Bill will face scrutiny in Committee, where we will be able to discuss these matters in greater detail.
The provisions in clauses 1 and 2 will ensure that the CPA and the ICRC can be accorded comparable treatment to an international organisation, even when the definition of international organisation in existing legislation is limited to intergovernmental organisations. For the CPA, this treatment will be limited to its core international organs, such as the secretariat. It is not intended that any privileges, immunities or other facilities be extended to any of the national or sub-national branches, so this is a limited provision.
The arrangements for both organisations will detail the day-to-day management of the privileges and immunities granted on a functional needs basis, and other facilities. They will make it clear that there will be no immunity for the CPA’s secretary-general or representatives of the ICRC in respect of damage caused by, for example, a motor vehicle operated or owned by either. The way that the limitations and requirements have been set out in this regard is important.
Clause 2(1)(e) lays out an important confidentiality provision, to protect certain information provided in confidence to His Majesty’s Government by the ICRC from being disclosed in UK civil court proceedings or under any statutory provision or rule of law. As my noble Friend Baroness Chapman stated on Second Reading in the other place, this provision reflects the ICRC’s standard working method of confidentiality, which is designed to protect its staff and operations in active conflict zones. I am sure that Members will understand that publicly disclosing information that the ICRC obtains from confidential dialogue with conflict parties is likely to put at risk its ability to have confidential dialogue with conflict parties, its humanitarian access and, indeed, the security of its staff, and might result in the ICRC restricting the information it shares with the UK.
However, in relation to the concerns that Members have raised in the past, the Bill does not provide an absolute blanket exemption for disclosure requirements for all ICRC communications. Important limitations have been incorporated, such as the exclusion of criminal cases. The Government continue to be committed to respecting the confidentiality of ICRC information as a matter of policy. Past practice has demonstrated the importance of doing so. The Bill is an opportunity to end any uncertainty about the Government’s position and to put this practice on a statutory footing.
I want to turn briefly to clause 3, which is equivalent to section 8 of the International Organisations Act 1968, which allows the Secretary of State to certify questions of fact relating to the status of, or the privileges and immunities conferred on, the organisations. In the context of court proceedings, if a question arises of whether a person is entitled to any privilege or immunity by virtue of an Order in Council made under clauses 1 or 2, such a certification is to be treated as conclusive evidence of those facts for the purposes of proceedings.
Clause 4 details the scope and extent of the Orders in Council that confer privileges and immunities on both organisations under clauses 1 and 2 respectively—this relates to the intervention from the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). An Order in Council may make different provisions for different cases or persons, and it may also contain consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions. Clause 4 also provides the enabling power for two important aspects: first, the Order in Council may specify circumstances in which privileges and immunities do not apply, either because of an exception or because they have been waived by the organisation; and secondly, the Order in Council may specify that fiscal reliefs and exemptions are subject to arrangements or conditions imposed by the Secretary of State.
Clause 4 provides that any Order in Council made for these purposes will be subject to the draft affirmative parliamentary procedure, which means that they will require the approval of both Houses before they may have effect. The list of privileges and immunities that may be conferred on both organisations is set out in the schedule to the Bill and has been informed by the International Organisations Act.
Briefly, clause 5 explains that the term “ICRC” means the International Committee of the Red Cross, as given under clause 2(1)(a), and it ensures that the definition of “statutory provision” allows for the treatment of the CPA and the ICRC as international organisations in respect of all relevant primary and secondary legislation, including devolved legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whenever made.
In conclusion, and to reiterate what was said in the other place, the Bill will give the CPA and the ICRC the correct status in UK legislation to allow both organisations to continue their international operations without unnecessary restriction. The Government have a strong commitment to the Commonwealth. It continues to support our global humanitarian objectives through our work with the ICRC, and the Bill is a true reflection of that. I hope that it will enjoy the wholehearted support of the House as it proceeds swiftly into law. I commend it to the House.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the former Member for Basingstoke, Maria Miller, who championed the Bill so vigorously and brought a Bill on this issue to the House no fewer than three times. I thank the Minister of State for his kind words about her.
Before Parliament was dissolved, the Bill had completed its passage through the House of Commons and its Second Reading in the House of Lords. Although the number of hon. Friends behind me may suggest otherwise, we on the Conservative Benches will support the Bill, an update of it having been brought before Parliament. I also thank my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns, who has long campaigned for the Bill’s provisions in the other place, and Lord Ahmad, the previous Minister for the Commonwealth, who fully understood the need for and importance of the Bill. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), who wrapped up this debate when we were last in government; I fear that I shall not do it the justice that he did. As his constituency neighbour, I shall do my best.
The Bill may be small and technical, but it is important. The legal changes it contains will ensure the continued success of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross—two organisations that do vital work—in the UK. As you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker is president of the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose work is indispensable in helping to realise the Commonwealth charter’s commitment to the development of free and democratic societies.
As the Minister said, it is timely that we should be debating the Bill today as the Commonwealth Heads of Government meet in Samoa. It is the first ever Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to be held in a pacific small state island. That demonstrates the importance of the Commonwealth in empowering the voices of smaller states and the equity of membership of all of those in the Commonwealth.
I have been privileged to both attend and speak at CPA summits under Mr Speaker’s presidency and I have learned a huge amount from Commonwealth colleagues—although, perhaps surprisingly for those in the House, I do not have any foreign visits with them to declare. The CPA creates pathways to friendships across the Commonwealth, building up the person-to-person relationships that matter so very much. We are all very aware of the acute threats to democracy internationally. The CPA is a genuinely positive institution, allowing best practice to be shared, linking parliamentarians in friendship, and strengthening resilience across our societies. Long may it continue.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I very much welcome the Bill, which supports two important organisations. The King is currently in Australia as the Head of the Commonwealth. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Commonwealth—that family of nations with shared values—and to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which, as she has said, provides such an opportunity to share best practice and spread the common good of democracy right across the Commonwealth?
Alicia Kearns
I thank my hon. Friend. It is so rare for us to celebrate the positive in this House, but the Bill does exactly that. We should be proud of how His Majesty has championed the Commonwealth, both before he became our monarch and since. I look forward to his arrival in Samoa in the coming days.
The Conservative Government proudly ran multiple projects with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to strengthen the democratic nature of legislatures and how decisions are approached and made. Ultimately, the Bill will amend the legal environment to ensure that the CPA remains headquartered in the UK; again, we can all agree that that is unambiguously positive. In an increasingly dark world, it is worth fighting for those small shoots of light that offer a glimpse of a path to a better future. This is one.
I will turn to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC has a unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and unparalleled access to vulnerable people in conflict zones. Frequently, it is the only agency operating at scale in conflicts. For example, it is currently operating in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria—I declare an interest, as I have previously worked with the organisation in some of those zones.
In 2023 alone the ICRC’s 18,000 staff supported over 730 hospitals, mainly in conflict zones, and provided food assistance to more than 2.7 million people. I am proud that the previous Conservative Government committed £1 million to the ICRC to provide life-saving care and essential supplies to people affected by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Bill will guarantee to the ICRC that the sensitive information that it must be able to share with the Government will be protected. We do not want the ICRC to have to restrict the information that it shares with the UK because of the risk of disclosure, so the Bill makes an important step, particularly when it comes to hostages. Given that there is so much suffering globally, we need to take every possible step to ensure that our humanitarian efforts are effective. I am pleased that there will be, I hope, cross-party agreement on that.
The Bill will mean that the UK extends the privileges and immunities to both organisations in a manner comparable to that of an international organisation of which we are a member. The measure may be a little novel, but it is a neat legal solution that addresses both central challenges around which the Bill is centred. Although the changes provide a firm footing for the future work of both the CPA and the ICRC, they also offer the opportunity for the fulfilment of foreign policy objectives. If they are to be a success, the Government must seize the opportunities presented by the Bill.
Once our relationship with the ICRC is secured, how do the Government plan on improving collaboration and, most importantly, results? What shared areas of interest will the Government focus on and how will those manifest in tangible outcomes? Has the Minister assessed which specific parts of the Bill will facilitate that work? If so, will he share that assessment with the House?
On the CPA, has the Minister scoped any additional support that the Government could provide to both the delegation and the institution as a whole to bolster its work? Will he commit to building on the good work of the Conservative Government to help strengthen institutions in Commonwealth countries, using a whole-ecosystem approach? Finally, when we were in government we committed that the Foreign Secretary would consult the chair of the UK branch and the secretary-general of the CPA and the president and director-general of the ICRC respectively, before finalising secondary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that that has taken place?
If democracy is to thrive, there needs to be equilibrium across a range of areas—from justice and the application of the rule of law, to the protection of human rights, freedom of speech, safeguards against corruption, effective efforts to counter extremism, integrity in the public sector, and the capability to face down external threats and protect our people. At a time when the world is more insecure and more dangerous, we are faced by authoritarian states bent on undermining the open international order on which so much of our security and prosperity rest.
The Commonwealth is more important than ever, and we must not allow any insinuation otherwise to undermine our efforts on its behalf. The organisation accounts for more than quarter of the membership of the United Nations, and more needs to be done with it. Crucially, through the Commonwealth charter, it is a champion of the sound values and principles that must prevail in the future if we are to build a better world. The Government must not forgo the opportunity to deepen that co-operation with Commonwealth partners and enhance the benefits of membership.
Membership of the Commonwealth can and must be seen as a route to a better future, fundamentally rooted in the noble values set out in the Commonwealth charter. We must strengthen intra-Commonwealth trade, build up the economies of countries struggling to attract inward investment, boost resilience, particularly when it comes to small island developing states, and do what is central to today’s debate: promote democracy and good governance through respectful understanding and collaboration.
For every tyrant sacrificing innocent lives in pursuit of unbridled power, there are thousands of hard-working, conscientious people working to make their contribution for a better future. The CPA and the ICRC embody that noble tradition, and the changes today will secure their continued success. We support the Bill, as we did in the last Parliament. We will encourage the Government to make the most of every opportunity that it confers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a real honour to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). I agree with her high praise of both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
I am going to focus on the Red Cross/Red Crescent but should also say that personally I have benefited so much from the CPA. Its members have shared their experiences, and it is always a joy when they come to Parliament here—as parliamentarians, we love learning from each other. To build on the points made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, I should say that we are in a very fragile world. This is an opportunity for us to invest time, money and commitment into our Commonwealth family. We need each other right now more than ever.
Let me now turn to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and, indeed, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement as a whole. Every day, they provide hope for hundreds of thousands of people across the globe who are facing disasters of many kinds. I want to thank the ICRC personally for its consistent and valuable engagement with my Committee. For those reasons, I fully support the Bill.
The network consists of 80 million people, most of whom are volunteers. They help others facing disasters, conflict, health issues and social challenges, and I pay tribute to them. The movement consists of the ICRC, 191 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The ICRC itself has more than 18,000 staff in over 90 countries, and its work has gained it three Nobel peace prizes. At a time when more than 65 million people are fleeing 120 armed conflicts globally, the work of this organisation is vital and cannot be underestimated.
The ICRC is also crucial to parliamentary engagement with these situations, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have benefited from its wisdom. Its ability to provide the International Development Committee with up-to-date, impartial, trustworthy and relevant briefings from the ground—and it does that in private when necessary—has allowed successive IDCs to raise the profile of disasters, and, importantly, to hold Governments to account for their responses. In February this year, its teams in Egypt met our Committee to discuss the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The Egyptian team were co-ordinating all the supplies into Gaza at that point, and their work was phenomenal. Here was a group of volunteers who uprooted themselves to go where others needed their support the most, and what I witnessed was nothing short of remarkable.
The brave workers in this movement continue to pay the ultimate price. In 2023-24, six ICRC staff members were killed globally. As of 21 October, 21 Palestinian Red Crescent Society workers had been killed in Gaza and the west bank. Six members of the Magen David Adom, the Red Cross in Israel, have also been killed while helping others since 7 October 2023. Yet their colleagues continue the lifesaving medical care, food distributions, water and sanitation projects, supporting those who have been detained and reminding parties of their obligations under international humanitarian law in diabolical war zones. I should like us all to remember and pay tribute to their sacrifice today.
Early in my first tenure as Chair of the International Development Committee, I met the former ICRC president, Peter Maurer—virtually, as this was during the covid-19 pandemic. We discussed the impact of covid on conflict-affected communities, the situation in Yemen, Syria and Myanmar, and the need for the IDC to continue to shine a light on conflict-affected contexts around the world. That is a commitment that we continue to honour. In November last year, the Committee met the ICRC’s director for the Africa region to discuss Sudan. In the last Parliament, the ICRC submitted evidence for the inquiries into climate change, aid effectiveness, racism in the aid sector, and preventing sexual exploitation and abuse. Its submissions were hugely helpful as the Committee made its recommendations to the Government, and, again and again, they have proved to be an invaluable resource for Parliament on the application of international humanitarian law.
This much-needed Bill will allow the ICRC to continue to operate in the UK with its international mandate, and will provide the securities needed for it to continue its vital, impartial work with immunity from jurisdiction. I hope that the House gives it a safe passage.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I am pleased to welcome the Bill and support the recognition of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross as international organisations. As liberals we are internationalists, and the Bill fits with Liberal Democrat policies of international co-operation and the upholding of international humanitarian law by supporting the strengthening of international bodies and organisations that seek to forward those aims. Anything that can be done in this fragile global environment to strengthen global collaboration is something that we must support. Treating these organisations as international bodies would be a testament to the House’s shared commitment to international humanitarian law—which we want to be practised even in the most fraught zones of conflict—and our commitment to good governance and its promotion in the world.
The International Committee of the Red Cross is an independent body that plays a crucial role in protecting civilian lives in the midst of conflict and war zones. Today, when there are more than 120 ongoing armed conflicts in the world, its work is needed more than ever. It has been active over the last year in Ukraine, helping to ensure that over 4 million people have had access to water, heat and electricity. It has worked in Sudan distributing food assistance to more than 42,000 people and helping with water purification, benefiting more than 2 million people. In Gaza, it has been supporting basic needs and medical equipment. It has engaged the parties of the conflict and reminded them of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law, and has worked to facilitate the release, transfer and return of hostages and detainees from both sides. It is important that we strengthen its ability to do this work without fear. The new designation merely means that we are catching up with many of our peer nations: more than 110 states have now granted the ICRC relevant privileges and immunities—including every other member of the UN Security Council—in recognition of its unique mandate, which demands above all that it be allowed to maintain its neutrality.
The ICRC’s history is singularly bound up with the history of the Geneva conventions. It persuaded Governments to adopt the first and original Geneva convention 160 years ago this year. That treaty obliged armies to care for wounded soldiers, whatever side they were on, and introduced the red cross on the white background—the unifying emblem for medical services for any and every side, across borders and enemy lines. The committee’s remit expanded alongside the successive Geneva conventions, and in 1949 expanded to include civilians. I am sure Members will acknowledge, given current conflicts, that the ICRC’s obligation to civilians is as essential now as it was 75 years ago; indeed, in 2022 the UN estimated that 87% of casualties resulting from hostilities were civilians. In such zones, the ICRC is often almost alone among agencies in co-ordinating and delivering aid at scale, and, crucially, in having lines of communication with belligerents. For these reasons, the FCDO refers to the ICRC as an “essential partner” for achieving the UK’s humanitarian goals, as well as our wish to see international humanitarian law upheld.
Liberal Democrats believe in the universal conceptions of civilian rights asserted by the fourth Geneva convention and the additional protocols. In working across conflict zones with non-combatants—with prisoners, hostages and the wounded—the ICRC acts as a guardian of international humanitarian law. That status is possible only because the committee is understood to be neutral, applying universal rather than partisan principles. The privileges and immunities laid out in the Bill include inviolability for its archives and premises, which will assure parties to conflict of the confidentiality of its information and its independence. They also include the testimonial and narrow criminal immunities that will permit the ICRC’s staff to maintain the necessary conversations with proscribed groups, without which their most challenging work would not be possible. Neglecting to take these steps risks threatening the fundamental mission of the ICRC at a time when it is needed more than ever. As part of its mandate, the committee is in the vanguard of clarifying and developing international humanitarian law. Sadly, there has been an increase in permissive interpretations of IHL, and without the ICRC’s perspective and experience, the analyses through which we protect those caught in conflict zones would be poorer.
The Bill also provides for international organisation status to be conferred on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is made up of 180 Commonwealth legislatures from 53 Commonwealth countries. As other Members have pointed out, this seems a particularly fitting moment for the Bill to reach the House, given that leaders are now gathering in Samoa for the 27th Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The Commonwealth is a rare organisation, being a voluntary association of states bound not by economic or security ties, but by shared values and, even more, by shared aspirations. As the instrument through which aspirations and values are pursued, the constitution of the CPA upholds shared principles of democracy, development, equality, human rights and environmental protections.
The CPA has promoted and strengthened parliamentary democracy since its establishment in 1911, and it allows for parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth to engage in dialogue and learn from each other. We support enhancing the status of the CPA by granting it protections and immunities that are comparable to those of the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning.
In 2006, the CPA published its benchmarks—87 indicators against which parliamentary democracies can be measured. These were updated in 2018 to include the UN’s sustainable development goals, which chimes with the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto commitment to put the SDGs at the heart of our international development policy. Although we were disappointed that the Labour party’s manifesto did not mention the SDGs, we have been encouraged by the fact that they were referenced in the Chatham House speech given by the Minister for Development last week. I hope that Members of all parties are united in our commitment to the SDGs.
The Commonwealth includes both the world’s most populous democracy and its least populous. Since 2018, 33 jurisdictions have undertaken assessments using the CPA criteria, and many have subsequently participated in technical assistance programmes—multi-year programmes that are focused on strengthening institutions and building parliamentary capacity. With its new status as an international inter-parliamentary organisation, the CPA will be enabled to sign the international agreements that it has been prevented from signing, hold Commonwealth Governments to account for actions against parliamentarians, provide member Parliaments with better governance, and participate fully in Commonwealth work, including at CHOGM.
I am glad that the House is considering this Bill, which is designed to support the work of the CPA and the ICRC by designating them as international organisations. This step will simplify the challenges that they both face in working so widely across the globe as essential vehicles for the delivery of international humanitarian aid and democracy, which is never more needed than now. It will underscore our commitment to the Commonwealth, keep the CPA headquartered in the UK and ensure that the ICRC remains secure in the UK. Anything that this House can do to ease the execution of their work, which has such noble aims, should be jumped at, and the Liberal Democrats support this Bill.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which is long overdue and, as we have heard, has cross-party support. It has received unwavering support in both this parliamentary Session and the previous Parliament, which is a testament to the importance that Members on both sides of this House place on its intentions. As we have heard, the debate is timely, given that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is taking place this week to address global security and the environmental and social challenges affecting us all.
The Commonwealth nations are united in their belief in the rule of law and the importance of democracy. Since its birth in 1911, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has promoted those enduring values as the Commonwealth’s parliamentary arm. With the threat of global conflict more present than ever, the work of the CPA to protect, develop and advance parliamentary democracy is more important than ever before. It is therefore crucial that the CPA, which is currently limited by its status as a UK charity, can participate fully in the international community. I am pleased that this Bill will address that issue, for the following reasons.
First, the Bill provides some 18,500 Commonwealth parliamentarians with the credibility and authority that they need to operate on the international stage. By granting similar privileges and immunities to those bestowed on comparable international organisations, the Bill places the CPA on an equal standing at international fora, so that members have the required platform to address global challenges. This also means that the organisation will enjoy a similar legal status to its parliamentary-strengthening counterparts such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Switzerland, reinforcing its reliability as a preferred partner for legislatures in capacity building.
My second point relates to the organisation’s scope. I welcome the Bill, because it extends the potential breadth of the CPA’s work by treating it like the other international organisations of which the UK is a member. This will allow the CPA to expand its programmes, projects and activities on parliamentary practice and procedure. As a UK charity, the CPA is currently subject to restrictions under UK legislation on the charity sector. For example, it is limited in its ability to sign international conventions and pursue political purposes. The CPA is therefore restricted in its ability to fully promote the values set out in the Commonwealth charter, and to address the priorities of its membership.
An example of the CPA’s priorities is found in its recommended benchmarks for democratic legislatures. These are 132 good governance indicators that Commonwealth legislators should measure themselves against, covering minimum standards on financial oversight, engagement with the media, and political petitioning, to name but a few. This Bill gives the CPA greater freedom to promote good governance programmes throughout the Commonwealth nations.
Furthermore, this Bill is important for maintaining the UK’s involvement in the CPA and the Commonwealth. The CPA’s past two annual conferences saw its governing body decide to relocate its headquarters to a member state that would provide the recognition that it needs, if this could not be given in the UK. The Bill does not just empower the organisation; it protects the UK’s global influence by keeping the CPA based here, so that our parliamentarians can have an active role in promoting parliamentary democracy and good governance globally.
The second organisation on which the Bill focuses, the International Committee of the Red Cross, does vital work to protect victims of violence around the world. With growing conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere, the ICRC’s work as an independent humanitarian organisation is crucial. This Bill seeks to protect that independence. Clause 2 will provide for protected ICRC information to be
“exempt from any legal disclosure requirement imposed by a court or tribunal order in civil proceedings, or by a statutory provision or rule of law”,
with exemptions for a court order in criminal proceedings. The Bill allows us to give the ICRC the guarantee that any information shared with the UK Government is protected, so that it can continue to do crucial work in assessing victims of armed conflict.
The ICRC operates under a long-standing method of confidentiality, which means that it engages mainly in confidential bilateral dialogues with states and other parties, and it expects states to respect the confidentiality of any information shared with them. Were such information to be made public, it would hamper the ICRC’s ability to have confidential dialogue with, and to gain the trust of, conflict groups.
The ICRC needs to be perceived as a trustworthy organisation when seeking dialogue with all actors, so that it can have full access to frontlines and contested zones. Indeed, this allows the ICRC to continue to provide humanitarian assistance in conflict areas such as Gaza and Sudan. For example, it has delivered 962 metric tonnes of medical equipment amid the crisis in Gaza, and provided food assistance to over 42,000 people during the conflict in Sudan.
In addition, the Bill will recognise the ICRC as an international organisation. Its mandate to act in times of global conflict is based on international humanitarian law under the Geneva conventions of 1949. Over 110 states, including all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, have accorded the ICRC relevant privileges and immunities that are comparable to those of an international organisation. The absence of privileges and immunities provided by the UK has resulted in significant operational challenges for the ICRC, so it is important that the UK follows its international partners. That would allow the ICRC to operate in the UK and to manage its resources in a manner that is most beneficial to affected persons, preserving its principle of neutrality.
This Bill is a vital step towards ensuring that the CPA and the ICRC have the full confidence of the UK Government to promote our shared values of democracy and the rule of law, and to provide humanitarian assistance to those who need it. Having recently been elected to the UK executive committee of the CPA, I look forward to working with other Commonwealth parliamentarians to further those values and promote the standards of good governance that are necessary to make democracy work in today’s world.
With the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting taking place in Samoa this week, it is important that the UK places itself at the heart of global diplomacy, and the Bill signifies our intention to do so. This Bill is long overdue, and in granting privileges and immunities to the CPA and the ICRC, it further secures their future and shows that the UK is back to play an active and important role on the international stage.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who I have attended many inter-parliamentary events with, and who is an active participant of the CPA, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and everything else he can be involved in. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My comments will be short, because we have seen this Bill before and this is probably the third time that I have spoken in one of these debates—definitely the second time on Second Reading. I am delighted that it has been brought back and that we will have the chance to get it to Royal Assent. It is vital for the reputation of this place, for our view and for the work we do with the CPA UK. I will restrict my comments to the CPA, which is the body with which I am most familiar.
On that note, I pay tribute to Maria Miller, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) did. She tried many times to pass this Bill—she was an enormous advocate and a true champion for the CPA. I also pay tribute to Ian Liddell-Grainger, late of this parish, who stepped into the role of chairing the CPA with great aplomb, as hon. Members will be able to imagine, when the previous chair passed away suddenly. He made certain commitments at the last Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Ghana, and it is great that they will be fulfilled before the conference in New South Wales next month.
I first became aware of the CPA’s work when I was a Minister, because the CPA UK has a specific role with regards to modern slavery. It has ringfenced funding from the FCDO to promote across the Commonwealth the work that we can do together to tackle that heinous crime. In fact, I am grateful to have been called now, because I will shortly disappear to speak on a panel in a seminar that the CPA UK is holding on strengthening legislation to address modern slavery in supply chains and gender-based violence. I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate before I take part in the reality of the CPA’s work, which is an incredibly powerful tool for all of us.
If hon. Members have not yet been involved in an inter-parliamentary group, please join one. They will make friends for life, learn about what is going on in the rest of the world, and meet people from other legislatures —not just national legislatures. The great advantage of the CPA is that it involves Parliaments at all levels of Commonwealth countries, which means that there is a chance to meet people from devolved Parliaments, regional Parliaments and provincial Parliaments. When we are in this place, we are very focused on what is happening here. I do not think that many people outside Westminster are aware of what we are doing, but we are really focused on CPA and ICRC status, and we will be for some time to come this afternoon and beyond. Beyond that, however, people are looking at other things in other Parliaments.
Last week, at the IPU assembly in Geneva, it was wonderful to meet parliamentarians from around the world and hear what they are doing, what their focus is and what challenges they face. When we do, we learn that many of those are common—we all face the same challenges—but there are some unique things that other countries face that we need to be aware of, working on and debating in this place. That is where the CPA, the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union, BIPA and the British-American Parliamentary Group can bring parliamentarians together and give us that insight.
I am delighted that the Bill is before us today and I support it wholeheartedly. I hope that, by the time we reach the next CPC next month, it has received Royal Assent, and the promises that Ian Liddell-Grainger gave to the conference last year can be delivered on. I wish the Minister all the best in his endeavours.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Jas Athwal to make his maiden speech.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) on speaking with such passion and purpose. She spoke with clarity and detail, so I thank her for that.
I want to thank my neighbours, the great people of Ilford South, for entrusting me with the honour of serving them in this House. Each one of us here serves by the grace of God and the will of the people, and I will spend my life repaying the trust bestowed upon me by the great people of Ilford South.
At just seven years old, I travelled to Ilford from the Punjab, not speaking a word of English or knowing anyone outside my family, yet Ilford gave me a home, an outstanding education and opportunities to build a better life. Ilford gave me a community without whom I would not be standing here today.
It was in Ilford that I first met my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), and we began our journey together in local government a decade ago. I will be forever grateful for his help, guidance and friendship, and I feel immensely proud of his tireless work to reform our NHS and create a service fit for the future. Together with my predecessor, Mike Gapes, my right hon. Friend and I successfully fought to save the A&E at our local King George hospital from closure, cementing an enduring friendship and a formidable reputation for Redbridge Labour as a campaigning tour de force to be reckoned with.
Mike Gapes spent his parliamentary career speaking up for the marginalised communities, securing the future of our local NHS provision and steadfastly serving our local communities, all while staying true to his values. I endeavour to honour his legacy and continue his great work.
Ilford South is a unique and inspiring place—a town that people travel to from all across the world to call home. Since its formation in 1945, those eager to dedicate themselves to public service have fought for the honour to represent the people of Ilford South, including my predecessor, Sam Tarry. I would like to thank Sam for his service to the people of Ilford and for his work advocating for local access to essential public transport as shadow Minister for Buses and Local Transport.
My story is a story of Ilford South. Like so many of my neighbours, I was born overseas, raised speaking a different language and arrived in Ilford seeking a better life. Ilford South’s fantastic schools educated me, our high street’s businesses employed me and our local communities inspired me to be ambitious for my family, for the future of our home town and for our great country.
People travel from across the world to call Ilford home, because Ilford is a place of promise, a place of opportunity and a place where communities lift one another up, celebrating our diversity as well as our shared experience. It is a place where a Sikh can be invited to share iftar with his Muslim brothers and sisters, a place where I can join in the annual chariot festival at the Sri Selva Vinayagar temple, light a candle on the menorah during Hannukah, mark the festival of Janmashtami at the Albert Road mandir and every year turn on the Christmas lights in Ilford town centre.
As a Member of this House I am determined to deliver on the promise of Ilford South, to ensure that families can find a welcoming home, safe streets, exceptional schools and the opportunity to succeed. In Ilford South our communities came together to save King George Hospital’s A&E department, and now this Labour Government will save our NHS so that hard-working healthcare professionals can deliver the lifesaving care that patients deserve. I will continue to lift up communities, just as they once supported me to grow from a frightened seven-year-old immigrant to a Member of this House.
It is thanks to the democratic process of this country that I stand here today ready to serve my neighbours across Ilford South. In recent years we have all been reminded that the security of democracy is not guaranteed. Across the world, battles for free and democratic elections are hard fought, and the freedom we enjoy must always be resolutely defended. The great work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, promoting good governance and sharing best practice across the Commonwealth, is to be admired and I am pleased that this debate recognises the need for a change to the status of association, and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to enable them to better fulfil their vital endeavours.
My parents came from Pakistan with nothing. We came here from India with nothing. It is my mission to repay my debt to my parents, to the people of Ilford South and to the place that adopted me, raised me and gave me opportunities my parents could only dream of. Each day that I arrive in this place, I will never forget who sent me here, and I will not rest in my fight for my neighbours and for the bright future Ilford South deserves.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to follow such a splendid maiden speech by the new hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). As a third-generation immigrant myself, whose family lived in the city of Swansea for more or less exactly 100 years, I know precisely how he feels in his gratitude to the place in a new country that gave him every opportunity to develop his talents and abilities to the point at which he deservedly finds himself in this place. I am sure he will make maximum use of that opportunity. I particularly welcome his warm reference to his predecessor, Mike Gapes, who served in this House for no fewer than 27 years and was the epitome of moderate, patriotic Labour. He won respect on the Conservative side of the House as well as on his own side, and it was sad that a point came when he felt he could no longer remain a member of the Labour party, although I am glad to see from his Wikipedia entry that he is back in the fold today.
This uncontroversial Bill seeks to change the status of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to convert each of them into what is known as a body corporate. These are sensible proposals, which I broadly support. However, as stated during the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate on the rising of the House on 12 September, there is one other organisation, with which I am rather familiar, that requires the same change in status as the CPA and the ICRC, to make it into a body corporate too. That organisation is the office that supports the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, and this Bill presents us with the timeliest opportunity to achieve that necessary change. Indeed, it is a perfect fit, so I trust that the House will bear with me while I explain the serious conflict of interest that has arisen, why that conflict matters to Parliament and how it can easily be rectified with a simple addition to the Bill before the House today.
For the benefit of newer Members in the Chamber, I should explain that the ISC is a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament created by statute in 1994. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC was given the legal responsibility for overseeing the UK’s intelligence community on behalf of Parliament, yet Parliament’s intent, as expressed in that Act, is currently being undermined. Right hon. and hon. Members might be surprised to learn that the ISC’s office, with a very small number of staff, belongs to the Cabinet Office, despite the ISC overseeing certain sensitive organisations within the Cabinet Office. They would be right to be surprised, because that is indeed a fundamental conflict of interest, which is why, when the Justice and Security Act was passed, the Cabinet Office was supposed to be only the temporary home of the ISC’s office. Yet here we are, more than 10 years later, with the Committee staff still beholden to, vulnerable within, and unfairly pressured and even victimised by the very part of the Executive that the Committee is charged with scrutinising and holding to account on behalf of Parliament.
The Executive should not be able to constrain and control the Committee’s democratic oversight on Parliament’s behalf by exerting control over the ISC’s small staff team to prevent them from doing their job independently. Such control means that part of the Cabinet Office can—and does—starve the team of resources so that the ISC’s staff are unable to fulfil the Committee’s legal responsibilities. That completely contravenes and disregards a clear ministerial undertaking given by the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), before the recent general election about vital extra resources for the ISC staff.
Control by the Cabinet Office also means that it can stigmatise and penalise the ISC’s staff, blaming them for the Committee’s robust scrutiny, with damaging consequences for their future careers in the civil service. Such deplorable behaviour has included repeatedly downgrading highly positive assessments, submitted by me as ISC Chairman at the time, of staff performance in recent years. In reality, the members of the ISC in the last Parliament valued the Committee’s staff very highly indeed, as I believe all members have since the Committee was first established 30 years ago. We certainly found the arrangements that I have described totally unacceptable.
The ISC therefore formally resolved, by a unanimous vote across all three political parties on the Committee, that it is essential for parliamentary democracy and its scrutiny system for the Committee’s office to move out from under the control of the Executive—that is, from the Cabinet Office—and instead to be established as an independent body corporate with a link to Parliament rather than to the Executive. That unanimous decision was confirmed by the members of the Committee at its meeting on 19 March, following expert and authoritative external advice that it is within the ISC’s power to take such a step and to determine the suitable mechanisms for implementing it.
That constitutional change, which the Cabinet Office has predictably attempted to ignore, is essential to protect the separation of powers. It is also extremely easy to achieve. It requires a very short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s office. The amendment would establish the office as a body corporate to support the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and safeguard the independence of the Committee itself.
I had hoped that the amendment would be included in the new legislative programme. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly in the Committee’s absence since Parliament was dissolved for the general election, the Cabinet Office has hitherto managed to block it. However, that is to underestimate the previous members of the Committee, from both sides of the House and in both Chambers, who are convinced that the Committee’s office cannot and must not continue to be controlled by the Cabinet Office.
The Bill, in seeking to change the constitutional status of the CPA and the ICRC and allow better provision for their staffing arrangements, is the ideal vehicle through which to achieve the same for the ISC’s beleaguered office. It is the obvious place to include a short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s staff organisation too. We must not pass up this opportunity: parliamentary time is precious, and there may not be another suitable vehicle during this Parliament.
As a measure to secure democratic oversight, I am confident that the amendment should and would secure cross-party support in both Houses. Prior to the election, both the then Government and the then Opposition seemed to accept that this reform was needed, which does rather beg the question why it has not yet happened. I intend to return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill with an amendment, and I trust, for the reasons I have set out, that the House will support it.
Having chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee for the past four years, and having also served on it throughout the 2010-15 Parliament, I reiterate what I said in 2019 after more than four years as Chairman of the Defence Committee: it is better to stop while people wish you to carry on, than to carry on until people wish you to stop—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to have that endorsement. Hopefully, I can still be a friend of both Committees on the Floor of this Chamber, while giving support to my successors in office.
It was as extraordinary as it was shameful that no Prime Minister saw fit to meet with the Intelligence and Security Committee during the entirety of the last Parliament, although to her credit, during her short time at No. 10, Liz Truss did offer to do so. Perhaps the latest occupant of Downing Street will show greater respect towards a body that has consistently undertaken sensitive inquiries, and produced reports of the highest quality and the soundest judgment over the past 30 years, largely because of the calibre and integrity of its professional director and her dedicated staff. Let us now do the right thing by them all.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I enjoyed his detailed and comprehensive remarks.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important Bill, but I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for his maiden speech, which shared his story and the promise of our country. I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth, a role I was elected to before the summer recess, and my newly minted role as a member of the executive of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The Commonwealth is all about creating opportunities, and never more so than today, because I have the opportunity to give my first speech without a time limit, which I will enjoy. I welcome the Minister to his place. It is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak with him on the Front Bench. I am looking forward to working with him and the Foreign Office team in the years ahead. I have known my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for most of my life. I had the benefit of being his constituency twin during the election campaign, so he had the great pleasure of being able to visit Newcastle-under-Lyme and enjoy our warm hospitality, not least at the Victoria pub on Brampton Road.
The Bill has been through the wars and was rudely interrupted, as we have heard, by the general election. I am very pleased that the Government have brought it forward so speedily. Where we can work together and make cross-party progress, we should do so as often as we can. I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), in acknowledging the work of the former Member for Basingstoke, Dame Maria Miller. I also acknowledge all the CPA staff, led by the excellent Sarah Dickson, who I believe may be watching the deliberations this afternoon.
The Bill is about our standing on the world stage, and our role as a leader in the fight for human rights, respect, decency and togetherness. As the Minister pointed out, it grants international status to both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross, enabling both those reputable and long-standing bodies to benefit from the immunities and privileges of all other international bodies, as set out in clauses 1 and 2. Those immunities and privileges include the power to confer the legal capacities of a body corporate on the CPA and the ICRC; to grant the organisations, their information and staff certain privileges and immunities commensurate with their functional needs; to provide that references to international organisations in general legislation include from now on references to the CPA and the ICRC; and to allow for certain confidential information.
As ever, the United Kingdom must lead by example, so although the Bill may feel technical in nature, as the shadow Minister said, there is a wider point here about our leadership at home and abroad. That is why it is so important that we keep the CPA headquartered here in the United Kingdom. The Bill has my full support and, I hope, judging by the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the shadow Minister, it will have support right across the House later this afternoon.
This may not be the most oversubscribed Second Reading debate since the general election, but that should not be misinterpreted as a lack of support for, a lack of faith in, or a lack of commitment to the Commonwealth, its legacy and its potential. With that in mind, and given that the Bill will help improve our reputation with our Commonwealth partners and friends enormously, I wish to take a moment to talk about the Commonwealth, and what it means for today’s world and for people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and right across the global community. As we look to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting taking place in the Pacific, we can see that this Bill is an important and long overdue step being taken by the United Kingdom.
In Samoa, Heads of Government, women, men and young people from across the Commonwealth will come together to share ideas, best practice, values and thoughts for moving our global family forward, and for making their deliberations mean something in each of our communities and nations. That is important, because our world is in a state of real flux. We at once seem ever more interconnected and as though we are being driven further and further apart. Political leaders across the world seem more interested in putting up barriers and walls than tearing them down, more interested in what divides us than what unites us, and some have no interest in bringing people together. That is a matter of deep concern to me, but it also shows the power and the importance of the Commonwealth family of nations.
The Commonwealth is a voluntary organisation of 56 independent and equal countries—perhaps not equal in size of economy or population, but equal as their leaders sit round the table, engage and listen. Our Commonwealth family is made up of about 2.5 billion people, and includes both advanced economies and developing countries, sun and snow, global north and global south, palm trees and oaks, kangaroos and cattle, and women, men and children who all deserve a chance to get on in life, to succeed and to feel safe and secure.
Adam Jogee
I will happily give way to the Member of Parliament who represents my in-laws in South Antrim.
Robin Swann
The hon. Member makes the case on international relationships. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) referenced the devolved Assemblies; may I ask him to acknowledge the contribution of the CPA branches across the devolved Assemblies, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? I served as chair of the Northern Ireland branch of the CPA, and look forward to joining the hon. Member as an executive member of the CPA branch here.
Adam Jogee
It is a pleasure to have my genuine friend intervene. He served honourably and nobly in the Northern Ireland Assembly. His point about the importance of the CPA branch in Northern Ireland, and of branches across our United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, is well made.
As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) noted, 33 of the Commonwealth’s members are small states, and they include many island nations, such as Jamaica, the land of my grandfather’s birth. There is something very important about the leaders of small islands and small nations being at the table with the leaders of countries such as Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and, yes, the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.
We all know that the Commonwealth’s roots go back to the British empire, and that is a complicated history for all of us. We should not forget, or airbrush out, in taking the steps forward that this Bill will help us to take. We must embrace our history and our collective experiences. My grandfather came here to serve King and country on a British passport in the 1940s. We would not have beaten the Germans on the beaches of Normandy, or at Gallipoli, without the bravery and valour of young men—black, white and Asian—from across the Commonwealth, or the colonies as they were then.
Today, any country can join the modern Commonwealth. The last two countries to join were Gabon and Togo in 2022. Their admittance was interesting because neither had age-old colonial ties to the United Kingdom—indeed, there was very little that bound them with Britain—and that in many ways proved a step in the right direction. There is more to do on this. I am very proud of my Zimbabwean roots, but it is a matter of deep personal sadness that a nation that once hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the presence of Her late Majesty now sits on the outside looking in. With membership comes responsibilities, expectations and standards, as is the case for any club or team one joins. That is why the Bill is so important. I hope that the discussion on Zimbabwe is given a thorough and detailed hearing when the leaders gather in Samoa.
I am one of few Members who can claim to represent the birthplace of a leader of a Commonwealth country. The sixth Prime Minister of Australia, Joseph Cook, started off in the Labor party but ended up a Tory—[Interruption.] I thought Opposition Members would enjoy that. He was born and raised in Silverdale in my constituency, and after leaving our shores for Australia, he went on to hold the highest role in the land. It is a legacy we are very proud of in Newcastle-under-Lyme. A couple of weeks ago, I was at St Luke’s primary school in Silverdale, where there is a fantastic plaque that honours the memory of Cook and cherishes the ties between our community and Australia.
The Bill is important, because it heralds, I hope, a change in British Government policy. We cannot just engage when it suits us, or when we feel like it; we cannot and must not allow the bonds to fray, the contact to cease, or let the phone calls go unanswered. We have seen many examples across Africa and the Caribbean and, increasingly, in the Pacific of the Chinese Government having people on speed dial. The perception—certainly mine and in many other parts of the world—is that the United Kingdom, for at least the past 30 years or so, has failed effectively and properly to seize the opportunities that the Commonwealth provides.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are both going to the Pacific—there are competing demands on senior colleagues from all of us every day—but Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth always said that she had to be seen to be believed, and she was right. That is why is important for the Prime Minister to make the admittedly long journey to the meeting. Our departure from the European Union was meant to lead to a global Britain agenda, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make sure that that agenda becomes a reality. The Bill and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will help us to do that. They show our allies and friends across the Commonwealth that we take our relationships and our responsibilities seriously, that we understand the example we must set, and that we are determined to build, as Gordon Brown would put it, a renewed Commonwealth with a renewed purpose for new times.
As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) noted, if the Bill is passed, colleagues will engage with parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth through the CPA, as I will in the period ahead, and will have something positive to say, which is important. The viability and future of the Commonwealth is on the line if we do not get this new relationship right. The new Government have a lot to do to get our country back on track, and this is part of it. Being good stewards at home and good neighbours abroad are not mutually exclusive. We must do both, and we can do that by supporting the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Jack Rankin to make his maiden speech.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to make my maiden speech, and it is appropriate to do so in a debate on the Commonwealth of nations. First, I pay tribute to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). He spoke passionately about the opportunity and the community that Ilford has afforded him, and his commitment to his people there. I am sure that he will make a great contribution to Parliament.
We share a set of values with our Commonwealth kin: a belief in the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech, property rights, and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers, all built on a shared constitutional heritage. I want to fight for those principles during my time in Parliament.
My Windsor constituency is at the beating heart of Parliament, because it is not just a series of beautiful towns and villages, although that is undoubtedly true; it also encapsulates the glorious history of our constitution, the evolution of our parliamentary democracy and the very best of our shared Commonwealth of nations. My predecessor was a son of the Commonwealth, with a Ghanaian father and an English mother. Adam Afriyie came from a tough background, growing up on a council estate in Peckham, but he became a successful tech entrepreneur and the first black Conservative Member of Parliament. Adam spent his years in Parliament campaigning against Heathrow’s third runway—I will continue that campaign—as well as supporting many local good causes, including the children’s charity, Sebastian’s Action Trust. I also appreciated Adam’s work on fintech and his role as the longest serving chair of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. As someone with an academic background in mathematics and physics, it is clear to me that this place needs more of a quantitative and scientific approach. Above all, Adam is a good man and a person I am proud to call a friend. I wish him and his family all the best for the future.
Windsor’s link to the royal family is self-evident: the Conqueror first built the castle, and the royal house proudly carries our name. But fewer know that the Windsor constituency was the home of monarchs long before the arrival of the Norman yoke. Old Windsor was an important palace of Saxon kings, documented as a defended royal manor in Edward the Confessor’s time, but evidence suggests that there were royal connections since at least the ninth century.
William the Conqueror chose the site for Windsor castle, a strategically important position high above the key medieval route to London on the River Thames. It was part of a ring of motte and bailey castles around London, each a day’s march from the city and the next castle, allowing for easy reinforcements. The first king to use Windsor castle as a royal residence was William’s son, Henry I. Perhaps he was attracted by the proximity of the royal hunting forest—then Windsor forest, now Windsor Great Park in the centre of my constituency. I represent most of the communities around it, including Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale, where my wife Sarah and I have made our family home with our sons, Edward and Christopher.
Henry’s great-grandson John was besieged by the barons in 1214 and signed Magna Carta the following year. Whether it was signed north of the river in Wraysbury or south on Runnymede meadows is lost to time. Whichever the true site, both are in the Windsor constituency, thanks to the most recent boundary changes, and we welcome Runnymede meadow into the patch, together with the Surrey villages of Englefield Green and Virginia Water, as well as the east of Langley in Slough.
Whether Wraysbury or Runnymede, it remains undeniable that there is a propensity for there to be too much water in those places. One of the things I will advocate for in this place is proper flood defences for Datchet, Wraysbury, Horton and Old Windsor. Disgracefully, if the River Thames scheme is built as currently envisaged, those villages will be the only parts of the Thames, from Taplow to the North sea, that remain materially undefended. What was proposed as channel 1 of the River Thames scheme must be funded centrally as national strategic infrastructure. This House will hear from me again on that topic, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the handful of weeks I have been here, I have already lost count of the times this place has been incorrectly referred to as the “mother of Parliaments”—a misquoting of John Bright. It is England that Bright referred to as the mother of Parliaments. In that speech, Bright was arguing for what became the Reform Act of 1867, which, for the first time, enfranchised part of the urban male working class, from which I hail. England is the mother of Parliaments because of the principle, established in Anglo-Saxon England, that yes, we owe our allegiance to His Majesty the King—then in Old Windsor; now in new Windsor—but within a framework that protects our ancient individual liberties, as articulated in Magna Carta. That heritage is proudly ours. The Saxon Great Councils started to be called Parliaments by the 13th century; the principles underpinning them—among other things, that the King could only make law and raise taxation with the consent of the community of the realm—now belong to the whole Commonwealth and the wider free world.
That concept—that taxation should be raised only with the consent of the community of the realm—should give the new Government pause for thought. I recommend it as a good conservative instinct. In this House, those on the Treasury Bench—the Crown—should be cautious about levying taxation, especially if punitive or excessive, without gaining wide common counsel. As this new Government raise taxes in breach of their manifesto commitments, my counsel would be that taxation will gain wide consent if, and only if, it leads to a material improvement in the quality of public services. That will not happen without quite radical public sector reforms to drive productivity improvements, which I seriously urge the Government to consider.
Tax without proper consent is something that Governments over the years have come a cropper over—most famously the British in North America in the 18th century. I hope our American cousins may rejoin the Commonwealth one day. It is often they who remember our shared constitutional heritage most keenly. The Magna Carta memorial in my constituency was erected in 1957 by the American Bar Association, which alongside us and our Commonwealth kin is the beneficiary of that great legacy.
I assure the House that I will be bringing its attention on many occasions to the extraordinary wealth of cultural and historical riches, tied to the history of our great country, that originate in my constituency—from the foundation of Eton college in 1440 and of Royal Holloway University by Victorian social pioneers over 170 years ago, as one of the first places in Britain where women could access higher education, to the establishment of Ascot racecourse in 1711, when Queen Anne found a flat expanse of heathland that she thought would be perfect for racing horses. That tradition continues over 330 years later; I say to Labour Members and particularly to the new Ministers that it is a fantastic place for a freebie. Please see my updated entry in the register of interests next month.
The foundation of Combermere barracks in 1796 and of Victoria barracks in 1853 made Windsor a proud double-garrison town. We owe our armed services so much for protecting the legacy of which I am talking. We will remember them. Of course, none of this compares to the events of 1996, with the foundation of the great institution of Legoland.
I cannot give my maiden speech without turning to the house of Windsor, our British royal house and the reigning house of our brothers and sisters in the other 14 Commonwealth realms. It gives us enormous pride that King George V proclaimed:
“Our House and Family shall be styled and known as…Windsor”.
It was felt inappropriate during the first world war that the royal family be called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as London was being bombed by aircraft of the same name. It was thought that Windsor sounded necessarily regal and English; I wholeheartedly agree.
We have now seen our fifth monarch of the house of Windsor, albeit that it is sometimes better that we forget about the second. They have all made Windsor their home, but few monarchs will be more associated with Windsor than Her late Majesty of blessed memory, Elizabeth. Our late Queen made Windsor her principal weekend retreat—indeed, she made it her home—but retreating was something that she very rarely did. Her great passion was the Commonwealth. On her 21st birthday in South Africa in 1947, she dedicated her life to the service of the Commonwealth, famously saying:
“I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong”.
Didn’t she just? She was the living embodiment every day of the model of Christian service and of the history and continuity of this country and its constitutional monarchy—the very essence of our great nation. Throughout her reign, as the then Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said on her passing, she was
“the keystone in the vast arch of the British state”—[Official Report, 9 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 499.]
But she was more than that. She was head of state, yes, but she was also head of the nation and, more widely, the head of our family of nations. She deeply understood the role to which she had been called in the context of a millennium of constitutional development, lots of which is local to my constituency but relevant to free people the world over.
I come from a much more modest background, but all of us in this House, like Windsor’s Elizabeth the Confessor, would do well to appreciate that we are but the momentary trustees of our country. As Burke said:
“Society is…a contract…between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Yes, we have a responsibility to our constituents today, but we also have the shared inheritance of our history and our great parliamentary democracy, and we all have a duty to uphold the great traditions of our past in order to safeguard its future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Lillian Jones to make her maiden speech.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) to this debate on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross. It does not need saying how important the work of both those organisations is.
I have listened to many hon. Members delivering maiden speeches in this House and have been struck by all their excellent contributions, but I stand before the House today with immense gratitude and a profound sense of responsibility. It is the greatest honour for me to have been elected to this House to represent the people of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, a place that I have called home for nearly 20 years. I have been a local councillor serving the ward of Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse for 12 of those years. I moved to Kilmarnock after meeting my partner Nettie, and we have been together ever since. She is my best friend and my anchor—I just don’t know what I would do without her.
I want to extend my love and my thanks to my family for their everlasting support and encouragement. I am thinking today of my aunty June, who was only 10 years older than I am. We said goodbye to her just six days before the election, but I know she will be watching over me with my gran and Arthur. Arthur was my granda, but I fondly remember that as a child I would call him by his name, which just stuck. As Members can imagine, that raised curiosity among the teachers at my school, who would always inquire if Arthur was my gran’s boyfriend, much to my gran’s amusement. As they look down on me, I hope I make them proud.
I thank my friends and colleagues who gave up every spare moment to help me. My friend Maureen, the Labour group leader on East Ayrshire council, is a woman like no other. She invested time and energy in me and has mentored me since my first election to East Ayrshire council in 2012. Despite her own personal challenges, she was determined to do all she could to get me here to this place and to play a huge part in my campaign. Barry, who is known affectionately as our local stato genius, kept us well drilled and well informed—and, boy, did that pay off, with a 5,000 majority. I would not be standing here today if it were not for the contributions of those who believed in me and supported me throughout this journey. I thank every one of them.
I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Alan Brown, who was first elected to this House in 2015 and was committed to working hard for his constituents throughout his time in Parliament. I wish Alan and his family well for the future.
In 1945, Clarice Shaw was the first woman elected to this place to represent the people of Kilmarnock on a platform of jobs for all, industry in the service of the nation, public ownership, a welfare state from cradle to grave and a new national health service. Some 57 years later, I took up a post in our national health service. I was later privileged to join a team of dedicated colleagues who helped to shape me into the person I am today. It was and still is an honour to have been part of the hospital at night team, which was first launched in Glasgow in 2007, and to have forged many friendships that will last a lifetime. I am thinking today of my former NHS colleagues; I pay tribute to all members of the team who selflessly did their duty throughout the coronavirus pandemic and who continue to do so in sometimes very challenging circumstances.
Clarice was a tireless campaigner for equality, an unwavering agitator for peace and a dedicated socialist Member of Parliament. Her legacy serves as a beacon of hope and inspiration for all of us who believe in the power of collective action and social justice. Sadly, just days after Clarice was sworn in, she became seriously ill and was unable to return to Parliament to deliver her maiden speech. In October 1946, Clarice stood down. Sadly, she died a few days later.
As a working-class woman elected to this House, I reflect on Clarice Shaw’s contributions and am inspired to carry forward her vision into today’s world, where it is just as relevant now as in 1945. It is a vision in which peace prevails over conflict, co-operation triumphs over division and equality is not just an aspiration but a reality for every citizen—one that ensures that our national health service will be there when people need it most and for future generations.
The second woman elected to represent Kilmarnock and Loudoun was Cathy Jamieson in 2010, although by that time she had already been a parliamentarian for 11 years in the Scottish Parliament. Her wealth of knowledge and experience saw her appointed to the official Opposition Front Bench in 2011 as shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Cathy will be a hard act to follow, but I will do my absolute best. Cathy is also arguably Kilmarnock football club’s biggest fan. I was delighted to learn that the club won the 2024 best-kept war memorial competition for its satellite garden and memorial, thanks to Kilmarnock’s branch of Royal British Legion Scotland and to the club ambassador, Raymond Montgomerie.
My constituency is not only famous for having the oldest professional football club in Scotland, or for its famous sons such as Nobel peace prize winner John Boyd Orr, who was born in Kilmaurs in 1880, Andrew Fisher, the fifth Prime Minister of Australia, who was born in Crosshouse in 1862, and Sir Alexander Fleming from Darvel, who discovered penicillin. This month, it may interest the House to know that in Killie we are unique: we celebrate Halloween before anyone else in the country. This year is even more unusual, because we are celebrating Halloween before the clocks go back—something that cannot happen in the rest of the country.
On the last Friday of October, Killieween comes to life, supporting our local economy, with weans young and old in fancy dress out in the streets trick-or-treating. Over recent years, it has become a favourite date in the calendar for communities across the constituency. It is fantastic to see so many schools, volunteers, businesses and organisations such as Kilmarnock community fire station putting effort, energy and pride into making Halloween such an exciting time for so many children across the towns and villages of my constituency.
I am shaped by the people who have loved, mentored, taken a chance on and believed in me. I stand before the House today as a proud public servant with a combined 34 years of public service. Being in the service of people is when I am at my best. This is who I am. I know that my life and work experiences will serve me well in the role of Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour to serve under your stewardship for the first time, and to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones). I lived in her constituency in Scotland’s Moscow for a number of years. It was not quite a socialist republic at the time, but my children attended Fenwick primary school and I have many happy memories of the constituency.
I was inspired by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), whose story of the opportunities that are available to grasp should be inspiring to everyone who comes to this country. I very much enjoyed the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin): it was a tour de force on parts of English history with which I was not fully familiar, although I do not know whether that will help him in his service on the Scottish Affairs Committee. One thing we have in common is that as a new Member of the House I was required to serve on that Committee: I was on it for five years and it was indeed a learning experience.
In speaking in favour of the Bill, I will concentrate my remarks on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am particularly pleased that the Minster is taking the Bill forward, because I know he has played a positive part in the workings of the association and has been part of many previous delegations. I have also had that opportunity: like the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), I am pleased to have been elected to the executive of the CPA, which hopes to meet for the first time in its new guise this afternoon after the debate has concluded.
It is extremely important that we understand the significance that Commonwealth countries placed on this change. It is all very well to have a discussion about the procedural niceties, but this issue was impacting on the United Kingdom’s reputation within the Commonwealth. I have twice led delegations to South Africa, and this issue was top of the list of issues to be discussed by the Speaker of the South African Parliament. When the Speaker of the Ghanaian Parliament visited this country, it was the top issue on their agenda. It impeded the discussion of other issues that we might want to raise, so it was vital for that impediment to discussion to be removed.
As one or two other speakers have touched on, particularly the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, malign forces are at work. When we were in South Africa, we were attacked by the Economic Freedom Fighters party as neo-colonialists. The structure of the international Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was given as one reason we were neo-colonialists, because the organisation was not a full standing international organisation, but an English charity. People used that to further their arguments.
This Bill is not just a nice thing to do, but vital to ensuring that we can be fully participative and respected in discussions. If we want to raise difficult issues—there are difficult issues to raise in the Commonwealth, in particular the assault on the LGBT community in many Commonwealth countries—we cannot then be confronted with, “What are you doing about this issue that is important to us?” It is important that we are taking the Bill forward, and undertakings were given at the last Commonwealth Parliamentary Association international conference.
I join others in paying tribute to colleagues. Ian Liddell-Grainger had stepped in to be the head of the international Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, having been the chair of the CPA UK when the incumbent passed away suddenly. Ian, as those who know him will appreciate, could have been a diplomat in another life. He was able to assure those present at the summit that something would be done in the UK and that the changes would be made. Dame Maria Miller, in her usual tenacious way, sought to do everything possible to bring those measures forward. I was personally disappointed that the Bill was not in the last Government’s King’s Speech, because it was considered too niche, whereas various things that I or my constituents would have considered niche did appear. However, Dame Maria pursued the Bill through other channels and got so very close to it being enacted. I am delighted that the new Government have taken it forward and that it got through the House of Lords without undue difficulty.
Although there are other issues to be raised around the Bill, I hope that it can complete a straightforward parliamentary passage, because not only do we have the Commonwealth leaders event in Samoa, but in two weeks’ time we have the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in New South Wales. It will be very important—in particular to me, as I have been tasked with reporting to the conference what is happening with the Bill—that I can report positively that the Bill has passed Second Reading today, that we have heard across the Chamber that it has widespread and cross-party support, and that it has the Government’s impetus behind it to deliver Royal Assent as soon as possible. That is the message that I hope and believe I can take to the conference.
The final point I would like to make to the Minister is that the CPA UK branch is an asset to the Government. The Government, and in particular the FCDO, need to work more closely with the branch, because MPs on delegations can be a soft power source that the Government cannot be. Many Members who have been on delegations find that posts, consulates, embassies and high commissions welcome their visits, because MPs are able to raise issues or ask questions, or they themselves are able to ask questions or raise issues, that they would not otherwise be able to do if it were a formal ministerial event. Going forward, I ask them to work with our CPA UK branch, so that we can work as effectively as we can on behalf of the United Kingdom and deliver some of those soft power benefits.
Alicia Kearns
With the leave of the House, and with thanks to all Members who have contributed today, I want to reiterate the Opposition’s support for the Bill. I also want to repeat my tribute to my right hon. Friend the former Member for Basingstoke, Dame Maria Miller, for her unending work to promote the Bill, and to my noble Friends Baroness Anelay and Lord Ahmad for their respective roles. It shines a positive light on this place that a private Member’s Bill can be introduced, supported by a Conservative Government and then reintroduced by a new Labour Government. I hope we will see it complete its passage into law in the same spirit of co-operation.
Turning to today’s debate, it is a delight to serve opposite the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He has a genuine passion for the Commonwealth and a commitment to building friendships across the world. I am sure he will continue to do all that he can to build those friendships and ensure that the Commonwealth goes from success to success.
The Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), set out not only the value but the joy that the CPA brings. She is absolutely right that the ICRC is an organisation of hope, and that its losses—those it has lost in the course of its work—demonstrate just how important it is and how important it is that we support its work. I also thank her for reminding me that I, too, should thank it for all the submissions it made to the Foreign Affairs Committee when I was the Chair of that Committee over the last few years.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the ICRC. I have to say that I learnt many things I was not aware of before the debate, so I thank her for that.
The speech by my friend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) demonstrates the importance of the CPA’s work. He is a representation of the importance of what the CPA does for this Chamber, which is bring people together from across the Chamber to build friendships that matter. The Chamber can often appear combative and to some extent rude, frankly, in the way that we speak to each other, but behind the scenes it is vital that we have the relationships that enable us to get things done. I am grateful to count him as a very good friend.
Turning to my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who I am sure is rushing back in a frenzy to the Chamber from her meeting with the CPA, it is quite impressive for her to make the same arguments so cogently for a third time and to find a way to structure them so very differently. I pay tribute to her work on modern-day slavery, which is exceptional and demonstrates the importance of the CPA’s work. She has made a demonstrable difference to the way Commonwealth countries around the world have tackled modern-day slavery within their own countries.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) on making his maiden speech. It is quite clear that he has a passion for the home that his communities gave him. He has clear aspirations for the communities he serves, and I wish him every success in delivering on those aspirations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, set out his concerns for the freedoms and protections of the Committee staff. Scrutiny is always at the forefront of his mind. I am sure that he was heard by the Minister, although I am sure that his staff from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in the Box were even more excited to hear the news that there will be an amendment in Committee. The Opposition will review his amendment very closely—he knows how closely I hold the importance of scrutiny in my own heart. It was very interesting to hear the challenges that he faced as the Committee Chair in the last few years.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) spoke of the Commonwealth family, although I suspect that perhaps in preparing for today’s debate he accepted a challenge to try to get “kangaroo” into Hansard. I congratulate him on doing just that. The maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin was typical in the tribute that it paid to his predecessor. It is clear that he will be a passionate campaigner for civil liberties and low taxes during his time in this House, but I gently suggest that he may find his declared campaign to prevent a third runway at Heathrow at odds with the CPA’s own demands on the airport, which are rather significant. He may have to come to terms with that before he applies for any future delegations.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones)—I apologise if that was not accurately pronounced—showed heartfelt gratitude to those who have supported her to come to this place. She brought the history of her constituency to life in her maiden speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) demonstrated so well the courtesies of this House. It is so important that, as we move forward as a new Parliament, we do not forget those small courtesies, whether it be paying tribute to a predecessor or recognising the contributions of other Members. I thank him for doing that. He also raised the importance of the CPA when it comes to the challenges and disagreements that we have within that family, because like all families within the Commonwealth, there are disagreements.
My right hon. Friend has been vocal in his efforts, particularly on global LGBT rights. I have been able to use the CPA family as an opportunity to flag my concerns when there have been attacks on LGBT rights globally, and about women’s rights and the way in which national security legislation sometimes can be perverted or misused for the interests of individuals. Although we talk about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in such a positive light, is an important vehicle for challenge within our own communities. He also set out the importance of the Bill to the Commonwealth. I congratulate him on his re-election, and when he goes to the Commonwealth meeting hopefully he will be able to confirm that the Bill has passed Second Reading—that seems to be the will of the House in today’s discussion, although I would never prejudge any vote—and that it is making progress through the Houses.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross do vital work. The CPA furthers the aims of the Commonwealth charter to the development of free and democratic societies. It allows us to share best practice across borders, learn from one another, connect with likeminded colleagues in the Commonwealth—and sometimes not so likeminded—and together strengthen our democratic resilience in an increasingly volatile world. As the Chair of the International Development Committee said, the ICRC is often the last line of humanity reaching the most vulnerable when others cannot, and administrates lifesaving aid. Each is staffed and supported by hard-working and upright people, trying their best to make a positive impact and etch out a brighter future from our stormy present.
The Bill may seem to address minor issues in comparison to some that pass through this House. None the less, it is vital not just for us but for our Commonwealth partners around the world, many of whom I am sure will be watching today’s debate. The legal challenges in it strengthen the foundation on which the work of both the CPA and the ICRC relies. The Bill solves two problems—though my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East will attempt to make it solve three—but its real value is in the many opportunities it will create. It will be up to the Government to grip those challenges with both hands. They will have our support because the Opposition will always stand steadfast behind the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth family.
Stephen Doughty
With the leave of the House, let me first say that it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think for the first time since I have been in the Chamber. We have been opponents at some times and allies at others, but it is a pleasure to see you, and I welcome you to your place. I thank Members from both sides of the House for their insightful and valuable contributions. It is clear that the work and values of both organisations are highly regarded by all Members and that the legislation has support—I hope; I do not want to prejudge a possible vote.
As I noted earlier, this is not the first time that the House has considered forms of this legislation, and we are all pleased to see it back again. On Second Reading in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman said that she thought the Bill was the first to receive a Second Reading in this Parliament under the new Government; I think it is now the first Bill to receive a Second Reading in both Houses. Could it be the first to gain His Majesty’s signature? I wonder. I certainly hope that before the conference I can provide the answers the shadow Minister was looking for.
I thank the shadow Minister for her kind words. I welcome her and the Opposition’s warm support as well as her tribute to the past proponents of the Bill. I agreed with her comments about the Commonwealth, particularly when she spoke about the friendships and the best practice that we can share, and with her tribute to His Majesty the King. A number of Members referenced Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her decades of service; her particular engagement with the Commonwealth is recognised by all sides. The shadow Minister also paid tribute to the work of the ICRC and its staff, particularly on Nagorno-Karabakh.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions, which I will try to answer. If I do not get them all, I will be happy to write to her. She asked specifically about the funding to the ICRC. His Majesty’s Government provide £48 million each year as core unrestricted funding and are on track to provide at least an additional £80 million this year in direct contributions to the ICRC’s work around the world. She and other right hon. and hon. Members raised the importance of the FCDO’s working with the CPA. I certainly hope that all our high commissions and embassies will provide a warm welcome to delegations and support the work; the points about the benefits in soft power and about representing this place in its broadest sense, with all our expertise and traditions, are well made.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, the hon. Lady made much wider points about the Commonwealth. We attach great importance to our membership of the Commonwealth, which is a vibrant network of 2.5 billion people united in the pursuit of freedom, peace and prosperity. We fundamentally believe that a modern, cohesive and effective Commonwealth can play an important role in delivering progress on UK priorities across the globe—whether in the sphere of democracy, common values, defending the rights of women, girls and minority communities, dealing with climate change and the energy transition, or the particular challenges faced by small island states. We will work on all those key issues together. There is also the issue of growth and economic development; the Commonwealth’s 56 members include some of the world’s fastest growing economies and it is vital that we partner with them for their and our global benefit. Importantly, those issues, among many others, will be discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa.
I also pay tribute to my good friend the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She paid particular tribute to the International Committee of the Red Cross; I particularly recognise what she said about the loss of its workers in current conflicts as well as many others in the past. All of us across the House salute the resilience and bravery of those who work in such trying circumstances.
I welcome the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) to her place and thank her for her party’s support for the Bill. She rightly pointed to the example of other countries and why we need to follow suit. I assure her of the new Government’s commitments to international law, the multilateral system, humanitarian principles and the sustainable development goals; my noble Friend Lord Collins and others will be speaking about those matters in due course. The hon. Lady also rightly referenced the recent speech made by the Minister for Development.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on his election and all those elected to the CPA executive. I thank him for his work and support for the Bill. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) has had to attend the important CPA event; she rightly paid tribute to Maria Miller and Ian Liddell-Grainger and highlighted the important work on modern slavery. I wish her well on her panel today. Like me, she is passionate about the personal relationships that we can develop.
The right hon. Lady and others mentioned the importance of the CPA in relation to devolved Administrations. Ironically, the first CPA conference that I attended was in the Senedd, in my own constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, and brought together representatives of devolved Administrations along with UK and other Members of Parliament—as well as representatives of the overseas territories, for which I now have responsibility. That learning, sharing, friendship and understanding of our different ways of working as well as our common challenges was hugely important.
We have heard some fantastic maiden speeches today. First, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) a passionate account of his journey from Punjab to Ilford, which he described as a place of promise. He spoke of the community and the home that he had found and contributed to, and the passion that he clearly felt for his diverse and dynamic community, which has many similarities to my own, was very inspiring. I also noted his pledges on health and the Government’s commitments on NHS reforms, and his campaign for King George hospital. I thank him for that excellent maiden speech.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) always makes important points. I heard very clearly what he had to say, but, as I take a key interest in these matters as well, I would gently stress the point that, as he knows, the Clerks have particularly strong rules relating to the scope of Bills, and the amendment that he suggested may not be in the scope of this Bill. Obviously, it is for the Clerks to opine on the matter. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and will certainly take them away, but there is clearly a stark difference between the Intelligence and Security Committee situation that he described and the position of the CPA and the ICRC.
Sir Julian Lewis
May I urge the Minister, when the Government are considering the political dimension of what is being proposed, to engage in consultations with Lord West of Spithead, his own party’s representative on the previous ISC, and also with the new Lord Beamish, formerly Kevan Jones of this parish, who likewise was firmly committed to the sort of measure that I am proposing?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned some well-respected people—my noble Friends —and I will ensure that colleagues across Government hear what he has said, and also his request for the ISC to meet the Prime Minister, although, as he will know, the Prime Minister’s diary is incredibly stretched.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) took the opportunity to make a lengthy speech. The Whips will probably teach him not to do that too often, but he made a fantastic contribution including some thoughtful insights on the importance of the Commonwealth and its future, particularly in a world where we are contesting with autocratic and repressive states that seek a very different future for the world. I believe that the Commonwealth provides a set of values and principles on which we can all unite. He spoke of his own family history, and also noted the Commonwealth contribution in the two world wars, which we need to remember regularly, especially as we approach the season of remembrance.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) made another excellent maiden speech. Like many other Members, I know his constituency well—I have sung at Royal Holloway’s Windsor building, I have visited the fields at Runnymede, and I recently attended a conference on Ukraine in Windsor Castle itself—and I know that it is home to many and varied activities from the cultural to the historic. He spoke of his passion for physics. I wanted to be a physicist myself until my English teacher told me to go into politics, and the contribution that science and mathematics can make to the House is key. The royal history of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is, of course, well known. I welcome him to the House, and thank him for an excellent speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) paid a heartfelt tribute to the family, friends and campaigners who brought her to this place, along with her own clear commitments to public service. She also paid warm tributes to her predecessors, including Clarice Shaw and Cathy Jamieson. I got to know Cathy Jamieson well when I first came to this place 12 years ago. She ensured that I was given a tour around “Killie” football club at one point when I was in her constituency. My hon. Friend may not know this, but there is a direct connection between her constituency and mine: Loudoun Square is at the heart of Butetown. The name denotes the strong links between the coal and shipping industries of Cardiff and the west coast of Scotland. That connection is deep and abiding. My hon. Friend spoke with passion about the huge community assets in her constituency and the strength of that community, and I wish her well in this place.
Last but not least, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made some very important remarks and some kind remarks about me, and I congratulate him on his election to the CPA’s executive committee. The significance of this change is understood by the Government, which is why we want to get the Bill through. I am glad that he highlighted some of the challenges we see around the Commonwealth, particularly those facing the LGBT+ community. He knows that I take those issues very seriously, and I have taken advantage of my time with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to raise such concerns in the past. These are issues that I and other Ministers take very seriously.
I will conclude by saying that I am well aware not only of the excellent work that the ICRC does, but of its importance to the Commonwealth. My own constituency has people from Cyprus, Malta, south Asia and Africa. It is vital that we continue those links at the parliamentary level and work together, and we Ministers are committed to doing so. I thank everybody for their contributions today. I look forward to seeing this Bill progress—rapidly, I hope—and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [LORDS] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 13 November 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [LORDS] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any amount refunded in respect of any tax or duty in accordance with arrangements made under the Act.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Postal Voting at General Elections
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
What a delectable, delicious prospect we have before us: a two-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debate on postal voting. If the Whips thought that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made a long speech, I am tempted to say, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
First, may I welcome the Minister to her place? I assure her from the start that this is not an attack Adjournment debate; it really is designed to be helpful to her and colleagues. I sought to secure this debate having reflected on the operation of postal voting during the general election, which I did through the prism of being the then Minister in charge of elections policy. Just for the record, I note that Mr Speaker has kindly invited me to join the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and I have accepted.
If the House will indulge me for just a moment, I want to put on record one of those things that often do not get noted when Ministers are ushered out of office by the electorate. This place, all of us who have been returned to it, all who stood in the election and represented their party interests across the United Kingdom, and all our electorates owe a debt of thanks to the elections team at the former Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—I see one or two of them in the Officials Box. The team worked flat out to deliver the policies that came from the Elections Act 2022, and they had the local elections in May and then the general election shortly thereafter. They worked tirelessly to support the delivery of those elections, and I put on record my thanks to them.
I also thank David Gold and his team at the Royal Mail, and all the people at the Royal Mail who strove so hard to deliver the postal votes and all the other literature and documentation that supports the delivery of a general election. David and his team were more than generous with their time and, during the election campaign, as issues were coming to the fore that they were trying to manage and we were trying to raise as the Government, they made themselves available on a daily basis, if necessary, and certainly on a weekly basis to make sure that the ship of state was still afloat.
It would be remiss of me not to thank the Association of Electoral Administrators and all those in local government who keep the electoral register and deal with the paperwork and the logistics, which certainly became more complex and demanding, as the Minister will doubtless have been briefed by her officials, as a result of the changes to the rules and regulations in the Elections Act. I had the great honour of speaking at the annual conference earlier this year—I am sure that the Minister will be invited to do it; if she can, I urge her to—and they are a great bunch of women and men who work tirelessly in our town halls and county halls to make sure that elections are delivered. Of course, we should also thank the Electoral Commission, which is the guardian watchdog that keeps an eye over all of us to make sure that the rules are adhered to.
Our democracy works only when and because the defeated and their supporters—not the victors—accept the result. We saw the dangers of that in the previous American presidential election, and just how close we can get to anarchy and a complete collapse of confidence, the ramifications of which are still being felt in the States, when the people who lose say, “We was robbed. The system was against us.”
We have been hugely lucky in this country that all our election results have been beyond challenge and have been accepted by the victor and the defeated, and that the legitimacy of those who have been chosen to govern has been accepted and agreed, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We cannot presume that just because that is how it has always been, that is how it will always be, and that is the spur that prompted me to apply for this Adjournment debate.
My message to the Minister is that although 2029 seems a long way away, in governance and organisational terms it is effectively tomorrow. The Government and the House need to think about whether and how any changes are to be delivered to the way that postal voting operates, such as through amendments to the Elections Act or statutory instruments, to ensure that the electorate accept the legitimacy of the result.
The next general election will not be fought on the same franchise that we had this year. We have an ageing population, so it is a legitimate presumption that there will be a higher demand for postal votes as people get older. There is also the potential to increase the franchise by giving the vote to 16 year olds, which could increase future demand for postal votes, and I understand that proposals may be in train about franchise rights for EU citizens, which would create another demand. If all the newly enfranchised overseas voters had registered to vote who were hitherto exempt because of the 15-year cut-off point, who would by definition be seeking a postal vote or a proxy vote, the totality of additional voters coming on to the roll—I am giving this figure from memory—would have been about 3 million.
I do not know what percentage of that 3 million got on to the register and had a vote; the Electoral Commission’s report about the operation of the election will be published in November. As sure as eggs are eggs, though, as time goes by—their legitimacy to vote was accepted by my then shadow, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), so there will be no change in policy there—one can only presume that a greater percentage of those 3 million will apply for a vote as their knowledge and understanding of their ability to secure one grows.
Simon Hoare
I am tempted to say that this Adjournment debate would not be an Adjournment debate—it would fail the Trade Descriptions Act—unless I gave way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is absolutely right to bring this issue to the Floor of the House for consideration by the Minister. I would like to make a helpful contribution. He is very knowledgeable in relation to Northern Ireland. We have had a postal vote system for some time, but there was a problem at the last election. When people were taken ill suddenly, the doctors in the hospitals could right away send a letter, and those people were accepted for a postal vote. However, those in their late 70s and 80s who were infirm and perhaps not so mobile were not able to get postal votes even though they needed them, because for some unknown reason, their GPs took a decision not to sign their forms for postal votes. To me, that is absolutely ludicrous. If you are elderly and infirm and not able to get out, you should get a postal vote. There should be no two-tier status for those with postal votes.
Simon Hoare
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that all those who are entrusted with the discharge and delivery of our elections—our police, our medical certifiers and others clearly play a part—should play an active and engaged part. It should not be an option to opt out; this should just be an accepted part of the job. I will mention Northern Ireland specifically in a moment or so.
I want to give the House some facts provided by the Royal Mail, which I think are of interest to put this issue into scope and scale. At the general election just gone, on 4 July, the Royal Mail delivered more postal votes and candidate mail than in any previous general election. Postal votes were up by 50% and candidate literature was up by 30% in comparison with 2019—and that was just your election literature, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Royal Mail delivered 50.8 million poll cards, 7.26 million postal votes and 184 million candidate leaflets. It did sweeps of all its 37 mail centres and 1,200 delivery offices to ensure that all the postal votes that had gone into the system were delivered to the counts, to make sure that those votes were counted. On election day itself, 70,000 postal votes were handled by the Royal Mail across the United Kingdom to be delivered. That is a huge number.
This is the challenge that I set for the Minister. I am not looking for the de facto answer today, but I would like an assurance that it is on the radar and people are thinking about it. We know full well that the Royal Mail is going through a period of change. I think we feel this particularly acutely in rural areas. It is by definition, because of email and everything else, handling fewer and fewer letters, and staff numbers reflect that. One of the joys of the 2015 general election, as far as Royal Mail was concerned, was the fact that we still had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and it could structure additional recruitment to deliver the demand—and that demand was far less than that which prevails at the moment—because it knew with certainty when the general election was going to be held. The snap elections of 2017 and 2019, and the perhaps earlier than expected 2024 election, caught the Royal Mail napping, because it had to put on a sudden spurt to recruit people to deliver all the pieces of paper that needed to be delivered. In the absence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, that issue will remain with us.
I made the point to the Royal Mail that in fact only one election was controlled by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Every other election had always been at the whim or the prerogative of the Prime Minister when the House was dissolved. However, in comparing previous with future general elections, we must consider the changes in volume that the Royal Mail is handling.
I mentioned rural areas. I am still awaiting the delivery of election address 2; I am sure that I had exciting words to say, but it never came through my letterbox. Last week, a wonderful bundle of 12 pieces of mail was delivered in the one-delivery-a-week service that my part of North Dorset is currently experiencing.
There will not be a Member of Parliament, urban or rural—though this applies particularly to rural areas—who has not had constituents contacting them after the general election to say that they did not receive their postal vote in time or could not get it back in time. That takes me to a point that requires possibly secondary legislation and certainly some thought: the cut-off point between the close of nominations and everything going to the printer, and everything getting bundled up in the postal vote packs at the same time as people are trying to update the register, check that polling stations are available, recruit polling clerks and so on. It is all incredibly tight. It was incredibly tight this year, but the system just about coped. I am anxious to future-proof, given the increased demand that I mentioned at the start of my remarks.
The Government could go back to the old system, thus putting the postal vote genie back in the bottle, with the tight criteria that used to prevail. I do not believe that that will happen, and I do not think it would be desirable. We could introduce digital voting for overseas voters, but that has the potential for fraud and hacking. It also opens up the Pandora’s box of digital voting for everyone in the United Kingdom.
There is no easy solution. There is the tightness of the timetables and the capacity of the Royal Mail—not its good will; the Royal Mail is honoured and delighted to have the contract that the Government give it. David Gold and his team were conscious of the pivotal role that their organisation played in delivering the general election, and always prepared to say so up front.
The Electoral Commission noted, in a briefing that I received today in advance of the debate, for which I am grateful, that several people experienced problems in voting by post, such as delays in receiving their postal ballot. Its research shows that the vast majority of postal votes were delivered promptly, and that there were no widespread or systemic issues. However, there were voters in the UK and abroad who could not vote because of the late arrival of postal votes. Problems were prevalent in Scotland, which gave us a lot of concern because the election coincided with the school holidays there and in Northern Ireland, which created additional pressure for the postal voting system. I look forward, as I am sure that the Minister does, to the Electoral Commission’s report on postal voting, which will be published next month.
Something needs to be done to give us all confidence that the result of the general election in 2029—probably—will have the same legitimacy as those held in 2024, 2019 and previously. There will be some challenges. Although our constituents are not forced to vote, they have a legitimate expectation, as part of their contract with the state, that their vote will be counted if it has been cast.
I do not have the answers for the Minister. That is her job, not mine. She knows that the system needs to be reliable, robust, easy, seamless and trusted, because all of us, irrespective of party or geography, are united in being motivated by one guiding principle: the result, whatever it may be, has to command authority through the electorate’s trust in it. If it does not—if people can cry foul, say that the system is loaded against them, or that it is too creaky and analogue for a digital age—then faith in our democratic system erodes. When faith erodes, participation is likely to decline; that is when extremes always flourish, and I know that His Majesty’s Government and the Minister will not want that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. For what it is worth, having been the Minister over the election period, I would be happy to do anything I can with her—through conversations, et cetera—to ensure that we get this right.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an interesting and powerful speech. He referred to the number of items delivered by Royal Mail, and said that it is going through a period of change. Do we need to look for alternatives to Royal Mail because of the major changes that are taking place?
Simon Hoare
If my hon. Friend means alternatives to feet on the pavements, then very possibly. The benefit of using the Royal Mail is that culturally it is aware of the seriousness of the task it is asked to discharge, and it has a very good heritage of doing so. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I sympathise with the Royal Mail because, in essence, it is given five weeks to recruit hundreds of people across the country to learn the rounds and deliver stuff. Those people also have to be vetted to ensure that they are not politically partial, so that my leaflets do not end up in a hedge while everybody else’s end up delivered through people’s letterboxes. Those are important issues.
There is a tendency to rush off into the commercial sector, but I would not do that. Of course, there are ways to ensure vetting, but the authority and imprimatur of Royal Mail puts it at a distinct advantage. I know that it wants to continue to undertake the task, not just because the contract it has with the Minister and the Department is commercially attractive, but because it sees itself as being part of the democratic fabric and network that sustains the elections.
I could have waited until 2027 to raise these issues, but then the Minister could have said, “The hon. Member for North Dorset makes some very valid points, but he will know that there is no time in the legislative timetable to address them. We will just have to try and muddle through.” The Minister has at least a few years to talk to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee, her Whip and the Leader of the House, and assess whether tweaks and changes need to be made to election cut-off dates and timetables. I will not labour the point any further, but the electoral process needs to be robust and the outcomes must be trusted by all our citizens, irrespective of whether they voted or how they voted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I thank the former Minister, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for securing the debate and bringing the very important topic of elections to the attention of the House. I particularly welcome the expertise and experience he brings to the discussion, which is helpfully taking place at the beginning of the Parliament. As he pointed out, in the previous Government he was Minister for elections.
The effective running of our electoral processes is the foundation of our democracy, and it is right that we carefully monitor and review all aspects of delivery to identify emerging issues and areas for improvement. Like the hon. Gentleman, I express my gratitude to all those who worked tirelessly to deliver the recent general election, including returning officers, electoral registration officers and their teams across the country. This is an important debate in the context of an election that was delivered effectively, and in which voters could exercise their rights freely. The country has collective confidence in the result. Although there will always be lessons to be identified and improvements to be made, the success of the polls should not be taken for granted or go unacknowledged. I also thank the wider sector that supported the system—the printers, the suppliers, the Royal Mail, the police, the Electoral Commission and, of course, the hon. Gentleman for his tireless work. He deserves great credit for effectively marshalling Government resources to aid the delivery of this complex operation.
The Government are aware of the reports that arose in the media of postal voting delays at the recent general election and the points that the hon. Member has made. Although the vast majority of postal votes were delivered successfully, it is perhaps not surprising in an operation of this scale and complexity that a proportion of postal votes should encounter delay. Those delays happened despite the work done by the Minister and others ahead of the general election. That was the case in previous elections, too. Officials worked closely with the Royal Mail and returning officers to support the resolution of the issues as quickly and effectively as possible.
None the less, any instance of an elector being unable to vote due to delays or errors in the system is deeply regrettable, and we need to take steps to address the root causes. Postal voting, as the hon. Member pointed out, has become increasingly popular; there is a general trend towards more of the electorate choosing this voting option. At the 2019 general election, more than 8 million postal votes were issued, and reports suggest that the figure for 2024 was significantly higher. That puts printing and delivery systems under strain, especially when national polls and elections are called at short notice. The issues arising in 2024 also have to be seen against the backdrop of boundary changes.
We recognise that no system will be perfect at all times, but it is clear from the volume of incidents, and from feedback from the election sector and electors themselves, that there are major strains on the system, and improvements will need to be made. We will carefully assess the postal voting process in our wider review of electoral conduct and registration processes, which the Government have already begun. We will work closely with stakeholders across the sector to gather their feedback, analysis and ideas. I am very grateful to the former Minister for his offer of assistance. This is an incredibly important matter, and I am very keen to make sure that we draw on his expertise and work. The Electoral Commission will publish its final report on the general election later this year, and we will carefully consider its findings and recommendations.
Simon Hoare
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, not just for what she is saying about the issues, but for her very kind words. She has made a former Minister blush. In her conversations with the sector—she knows that those are vital conversations—will she overlay the projected figure for electors in the next election, or will she use the 2024 figures? Clearly, if the changes that the Government are suggesting are delivered, the franchise will be larger. That is an important point on which I would like clarity. I guess I probably know the answer.
Rushanara Ali
We will look at these issues in the round. The hon. Member has made important points about the growth in the sector, and I shall come on to that. As I have said, we will look at the findings of the Electoral Commission report when they arrive. Once we have completed our review, we will bring forward firm proposals for improvements to our electoral system, and I look forward to discussing them with Members in due course.
The hon. Gentleman expressed other concerns. We recognise the important work that Royal Mail has carried out. We will need to look at that in the context of Royal Mail’s parent company and a potential takeover, and consider any wider implications, to make sure that the system is robust and that there is appropriate support, not only so that Royal Mail can learn for future elections, and improve on what was done in recent elections, but so that resources are in place and we continue to maintain confidence in the system. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about rural areas as well. Those factors need to be considered, along with other points he made.
The hon. Gentleman made important points about an ageing population and demographic changes, as well as younger voters and the increasing popularity of some ways of voting. Work needs to take into account changes in behaviour and voting patterns. As I said, I look forward to working with him on those important issues.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about Northern Ireland and making checks. The Northern Ireland Office has heard of GPs not signing off postal votes, but that has never been backed by specific evidence. We will, however, take that issue into account and look into it, along with any other barriers facing those who need or wish to vote with a postal ballot.
Let me say, in the spirit of consensus in which the hon. Member for North Dorset introduced the debate and made his speech, that I look forward to working closely with him. I thank him for securing this important debate, and other Members for their interventions, and for contributing their insights and expertise. The Government consider the effective running of elections to be of paramount importance. It is fundamental to trust and confidence in our democracy. As we announced earlier this month, we are reviewing carefully electoral conduct and registration processes. Once the review is complete, we will bring forward firm proposals for changes where they are necessary. I very much look forward to sharing those proposals with Members, and to working with the hon. Member for North Dorset.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. This is important secondary legislation, and before I begin to unpack its content, I would like to pay tribute to the campaigners that have pushed for these reforms, including the National AIDS Trust, Stonewall and the Elton John AIDS Foundation, to name just a few.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 provides the legislative framework for regulating fertility treatments and the use of gametes and embryos in the UK. The draft regulations seek to amend two aspects of schedule 3A to that Act.
Thank God, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was. What is more, advances in retroviral treatment mean that people living with HIV can achieve a viral load that is undetectable and therefore untransmissible. In our constituency work, many of us have come across male same-sex couples who wish to start a family through surrogacy, where one or both have HIV. There are hundreds of such cases across the United Kingdom.
The first aspect of the regulations we propose to change would help people seeking donation from a friend or relative with HIV, and it would allow people living with HIV to donate their gametes to known recipients, where certain conditions are met. Those conditions are the following: first, that they have an undetectable HIV viral load of less than 200 copies per millilitre, shown by two tests prior to donation; secondly, that they have been receiving antiretroviral treatment for at least six months prior to donation; and thirdly, that the recipient knows of the donor’s HIV diagnosis and provides informed consent.
To be clear, opposite-sex couples where one or both partners have HIV can have fertility treatment using their own gametes under the current legislation, but they cannot donate to others, and no other people with HIV can donate. The policy change is based on crystal-clear scientific evidence that shows that advances in the treatment of HIV have meant the risk of transmission is now regarded as “negligible”, whether that is through unprotected sexual intercourse or gamete donation.
The Government have adopted this new approach following advice from the independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs. In short, the world has moved on, and our legislation must move with it.
The statutory instrument would also enable female same-sex couples to donate eggs to one another in reciprocal IVF—in vitro fertilisation—or shared motherhood arrangements. Donations within same-sex female couples would undergo the same testing requirements as opposite-sex couples, by modifying the definition of “partner donation”, currently defined as exclusively being between a man and a woman who are in an intimate physical relationship.
Following advancements in assisted reproduction technologies, it is now possible for women in same-sex couples to undergo reciprocal IVF where one partner donates an egg to the other partner, who then carries and gives birth to the child. That allows couples to both play a part in that child’s conception.
Under the current definition, female same-sex couples who have reciprocal IVF must go through additional screening for either infectious or genetic diseases. That can cost more than £1,000 compared with heterosexual couples undergoing IVF using their own gametes. SaBTO, the independent committee that I referred to earlier, has advised that there is no longer any clinical reason for these tests, and this Government agree.
The subject matter of the 1990 Act is reserved, so the regulations will apply across the UK. The instrument is made in exercise of different powers in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For Great Britain, it is made under the 1990 Act, which provides that regulations may specify technical requirements in relation to the election of donors and laboratory tests for donors of gametes and embryos. For Northern Ireland, the instrument is made under the powers in section 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
This Government are committed to resetting our relationship with the LGBT community. I am proud to say that we have engaged extensively with LGBT and HIV organisations to get their thoughts on the proposed regulations, which have been received very positively. We have not prepared a full impact assessment for the instrument because the costs for business fall below the threshold. However, a de minimis assessment has been completed, and the changes should cost the fertility sector within the range of £46,000 to just over £92,000. The costs are expected to be passed on to patients accessing private IVF provision.
In summary, the regulations will unlock the ability for people living with HIV to have a family using their own gametes. The measures would benefit men in same-sex relationships where one or both have HIV and people seeking a donation from a friend or relative with HIV, and they will bring much needed parity between women in same-sex relationships undergoing reciprocal IVF and opposite-sex couples. The draft amendments may seem technical, but they mark another few steps on the long road towards equality. We should not hesitate to take them, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The Opposition will not object to the draft regulations, particularly because they were drafted by the Conservative Government and introduced by my former colleague, Maria Caulfield, who was then the Minister. They were announced last year and were laid earlier this year.
However, I have a couple of questions. The draft regulations mention donations from family members. Given that we know that infants conceived where both biological parents have close family relations are at higher risk of genetic and other medical conditions, will the Minister update us on any specific guidance on the use of the word “family” in relation to who can donate? Will he confirm that the NHS will still screen all donations for HIV?
The Minister said that there are no implications for the NHS. Does that mean that shared motherhood will not be provided for by the NHS or that the NHS will not provide services to those who are HIV positive, or does he expect the numbers to be so small that it will not make any difference? Finally, he said that the provisions are being brought forward in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework and the EU withdrawal Act. Does that mean that he considers the ability to bring in these regulations to be a benefit of Brexit?
Andrew Gwynne
I thank hon. Members from across the House for their clear indication of support for these landmark measures. I jest with my hon. Friend the Opposition spokesperson—I call her my hon. Friend, because we have known each other for a number of years—and often remind her that she was once in this ministerial position for a very short period. I hope that she gets to shadow me longer than I shadowed her—I think she has already broken the record. I always enjoy the fact that she comes to these proceedings with a really open mind. As I hope I was supportive to the previous Government on these measures, she has proven the cross-party worth of being supportive to the new Government on measures that we both want to see put in place. I thank her sincerely for the official Opposition’s support.
We want to ensure that people who want to start a family do not face barriers without good reason. I thank the LGBT and HIV charities that have pushed for and supported these reforms, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for its constructive work. I am also pleased to welcome Adam Freedman from the National AIDS Trust to the House today to see the SI debated. He has patiently encouraged Governments of both stripes to move in the right direction.
I note that safety about receiving donations from those with HIV will be a concern to some. Let me offer further reassurance that the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs has given these issues intense scrutiny, reviewing the most up-to-date clinical evidence, to ensure that such donation by people with an undetectable viral load is safe. The evidence is published on its webpage on gov.uk.
The changes will help to benefit hundreds of couples. That includes same-sex male couples where one or both have HIV in a surrogacy arrangement, female same-sex couples planning shared motherhood, and those seeking known donation from a friend or relative with HIV. The SI also clearly demonstrates this Government’s intentions to address equalities and opportunities for all, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or how they wish to form a family.
I will take the points made by the Opposition spokesperson in reverse order. On the Windsor framework, it is not for me to decide whether that is a bonus of Brexit. We operate under that different legal framework in this brave new world—having left the European Union and respecting the Good Friday agreement—when we legislate on certain areas relating to Northern Ireland, as opposed to the conventional legislative processes that cover the rest of Great Britain. I will leave it to others to judge whether that is a bonus or otherwise, but that is the system that we are in.
On NHS screening, the implications for the NHS, and the family issues that she raises, I will write to the Opposition spokesperson and the Committee to give assurances about those areas, as the powers that be from God have not reached mortal man in time. But I will ensure that all Committee members get that divine guidance when it comes—[Interruption.] If you will forgive me, Mr Mundell, I have just been passed a tablet of stone from Mount Sinai. It tells me that the HFEA code of practice prevents incestuous donations and provides guidance on donations to achieve that end—somebody could obviously write a prescription with the note I am reading as well. On anything else that is left outstanding, the offer of writing to Committee members still stands.
The Chair
I know that many new Members are finding their way in relation to these Committees, but it is important that people attend on time. These sittings, as you have seen, tend to be rather short, and therefore being here for the full proceedings, if you are going to attend, is important.
Question put and agreed to.
The Darwin Oak
Renters' Rights Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2024 - (22 Oct 2024)
The Chair
I welcome everyone to the first sitting of the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. We will discuss some procedural matters first. We are now sitting in public and being broadcast. I have a few reminders for Members. Hansard asks you to email your speaking notes please, particularly if you speak according to them—that is even more helpful. Please make sure that electronic devices are on silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in proceedings; please ensure that all evidence of them is removed from the tables. Date Time Witness Tuesday 22 October Until no later than 10.00 am The National Residential Landlords Association; The Lettings Industry Council Until no later than 10.30 am Shelter; Citizens Advice Until no later than 11.00 am The Renters’ Reform Coalition; Generation Rent Until no later than 11.25 am The Housing Ombudsman Service Until no later than 2.40 pm Justin Bates KC; Giles Peaker; Liz Davies KC Until no later than 3.00 pm The Country Land and Business Association Until no later than 3.20 pm Indigo House Group Until no later than 3.40 pm Unipol Until no later than 4.20 pm The British Property Federation; The National Housing Federation; Propertymark Until no later than 4.50 pm The Local government Association; The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Until no later than 5.10 pm ACORN Until no later than 5.30 pm The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 22 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 October;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 October;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 31 October;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 November;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 November;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 November;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 November;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 November;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 November;
(j) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 November.
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 28; Schedule 2; Clauses 29 to 71; Schedule 3; Clauses 72 to 98; Schedule 4; Clause 99; Schedule 5; Clauses 100 to 143; Schedule 6; Clauses 144 to 146; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 28 November. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
The Chair
We now have to sit in private simply to discuss the arrangements for this morning—nothing more—and we will then shortly be back in public with our witnesses.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and will move on to declarations of interest. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I declare an interest as a private landlord.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am a landlord but only of registered social housing.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am a member of the Acorn community union, which is giving evidence today.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and my husband works for an organisation that has funded the Renters’ Reform Coalition.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I used to work at Shelter, which is giving evidence today.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My husband works for Shelter, which is giving evidence today.
The Chair
I welcome both our witnesses to our session to answer questions following their evidence to the Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill. Please introduce yourself briefly. Members will then ask questions about your evidence.
Ben Beadle: I am Ben Beadle, the chief executive of the National Residential Landlords Association. We have 110,000 members, who provide for nearly a million homes in the private rented sector.
Theresa Wallace: My name is Theresa Wallace and I am chair of the Lettings Industry Council. I think it is the only group that is made up of stakeholders across the property redress scheme, including tenant groups, landlord groups, professional bodies, government bodies and agents large and small.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Theresa Wallace: I think the Bill has the best intentions, and we support a lot of its changes. However, I believe that as it is currently written there will be unintended consequences, one of which would be more homelessness. It needs some changes. We know that section 21 is going, but we have to accept that it will not solve the issues in the PRS. We have—the English housing survey has quoted this—more than one million tenants in the PRS in receipt of benefit for housing. The majority of those should really be in social housing. If we had those social homes, we would not have the current supply/demand pressures and rent pressures, and we would not have properties lower down in the market that are unfit for purpose and damp and that should not be there in the first place.
One of our problems is that a lot of the Bill will help tenants—renters—once they are in a property, but we have to stop those properties that are not fit for purpose being rented in the first place. I heard a story last week about a lady who is renting further up the country. She is paying £500 a month for a two-bedroom cottage. On the market, it would be worth £750 a month, so she is saving £250. Her property has damp and mould, which she will not be reporting to anybody because that is all she can afford to pay and she has nowhere else to go.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Theresa Wallace: There are various reasons. We need the private landlord at the moment, no matter what his property is like—a lot of them are in very good condition. Private landlords are very scared about this Bill and a lot of them are exiting. I know some of you might think that there are other places those properties can go, but we need them in the PRS—the tenants need them. We want to keep those landlords. We have institutional investment, but that is a very small percentage—I think it is 2% or 3%—for build-to-rent. Unfortunately, the build-to-rent model does not work financially in the places we need those properties, because of the way their financial model works and margins.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Theresa Wallace: There is evidence out there. With my agent’s hat on, I can say that we have evidence in the amount of landlords we have lost and the number of people looking at properties compared with before. I gather we have a 12% increase in properties on the market now, which is the highest since 2014, per agent.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Theresa Wallace: Demand is up and supply is down, so that obviously does have an effect. It is not just an effect on rent: it is also an effect on the tenants who can secure the properties in the first place. The Bill is there help the people who are struggling, and in some places those are the people who will be penalised.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Ben Beadle: With pleasure. We are largely supportive of many features in the Bill. There is a lot to be welcomed, and the Minister should take great credit for bringing in these reforms so quickly. One thing the industry has suffered with is the hokey-cokey politics of when we will see the abolition of section 21. Our position has been very clear: we do not oppose the abolition of section 21, providing the alternative is workable and fair, but there are two elements that do not quite strike the balance.
The first element is court reform and the need for landlords to have confidence in it. I appreciate that others might have viewed this as a delaying tactic in the past, but the reality is that we are waiting seven months on average to get possession of our homes, and that is for a fast-track situation with almost no proof needed. When we move to a section 8 ground, that will require more resource and more scrutiny, quite rightly, but without investment in the court system we will not deliver what either renters or landlords need.
In a survey of over 1,400 of our members, 60% of landlords said they were less confident or not at all confident that they will remain a landlord without suitable court reform. That declines to 37% if suitable court reforms are enacted. Our argument has always been that this is about confidence, striking the balance and giving support to responsible landlords, as well as delivering for renters.
The other area we have seen is that landlords will be provided with robust grounds for repossession; I may have missed them, but I do not see the doubling of notice for serious rent arrears or increasing the rent arrears threshold from two to three months as sending the right message or as fair and proportionate. Those tenancies will largely fail, whether it is two months, three months or six months, quite frankly.
What we want to do is avoid rent arrears building in the first place, so we are supportive of something like a pre-action protocol where responsible landlords can help to signpost tenants to manage their arrears. We did that during the pandemic. I worry that not addressing that point will send the wrong message. We have an average of 21 people chasing every home, so whatever nip and tuck we make around here, whether landlords are leaving or not, that is only going to worsen as confidence decreases.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Ben Beadle: If you consider yourself an accidental amateur landlord, that is arguably part of the problem —I do not think we can have amateur landlords. Having a lettings business is a business. Whether you have one or 10 properties, you need to do it properly, and we try to support all our members with that.
We have been tracking sentiment in the sector for the last 12 years, across our membership, and it is at a record low. Only about 10% of our members are looking at actively investing in the sector, and about a third are looking at disposing of one of their properties or exiting the sector completely. I appreciate that that is sentiment rather than actuals, but we also have to point to the fact that we are seeing such a significant number of section 21s being used where a landlord is selling, and that still has not percolated through to some of the statistics. An average of 21 people applying for a rental property is not going to get better.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
You mentioned investment, and I wanted to press you on precisely the type of improvements you want to see. You know that, together with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, we are already taking forward improvements towards digitising the court possession process. What are the metrics you want to see in that process as improvements? On the understanding that —I think you will accept this—not every section 21 notice will read across to a section 8, so there will potentially be a bit of an increase, what do we need to see on the section 8 side and the tribunal side to ensure that the system is fit for purpose at the point that we switch it on?
Ben Beadle: I have a couple of things to say on this, Minister. I agree that court reform has been almost like the Colonel’s secret recipe—nobody quite knows what is in it or what it looks like. It is incumbent on us to define what “the courts are ready” means in practice. For us, there are two or three areas that could be improved. First, we are getting many reports of applications that are made to the court actually running out of time because they have not been processed in time. You have the admin part of the sausage factory at the beginning, because it is not so much about the number of judges. I sit as a magistrate and I often sit around waiting for cases to come to me and to be input into the new common platform. There are delays built into the administrative process that cause frustration.
The other issue we have seen is the wait for a bailiff. Once you have patiently waited for your court hearing date and you have possession, that will be what it will be, but waiting for a bailiff can take months in some areas. Sometimes there are really poor excuses—earlier this year, we saw the stab-proof vests not being available. If it is a high-risk area, you need somebody waiting out in the car and somebody on the door. London is predominantly a high-risk area, which is why we see such slow eviction timescales.
Personally, we want to prevent evictions. Landlords do not go around evicting tenants willy-nilly, but when they have a legitimate case, we do expect it to be dealt with expediently. To me, court reform looks like sifting the cases more appropriately and more speedily; digitising that process so you see the ping and the pong of the evidence going backwards and forwards; and, when you get possession, an automatic link to the bailiff, rather than having to reapply. Those are three tangible things. Ultimately, though, it is seven months at the moment, and it needs to be lower.
Matthew Pennycook
Your point about sifting is well made. We want to see only cases that require a judgment coming to court.
Ben Beadle: Indeed.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Ben Beadle: One of the things with section 21 is that you have an accelerated process because it is a matter of fact—if you have served all your relevant documents, it is “Tick, tick, tick. Away you go.” I think there is some merit in using that system for undisputed or very hard cases of mandatory grounds, such as where you have significant rent arrears and, although the landlord has tried, there is no chance of recovering that tenancy—hopefully the landlord has followed our pre-action protocol to signpost tenants where they need to go. There are some elements of the system that could be reused.
The other part is away from the court system and into the first-tier tribunal. We have had extensive discussions with the first-tier tribunal. Not many people challenge their rents at the moment; I think we all accept that. We want tenants to be able to challenge their rent, particularly if it is unfair or subject to a significant increase. But the way the Bill is constructed means there is no barrier, or no disincentive, to challenging your rent, and I do not think it quite strikes the balance. First, the tribunal can only award or downgrade the rent so, as a tenant, I have nothing to lose. Secondly, with the way the implementation is being put across, you run the risk of a real deluge on a system that is, frankly, antiquated—you have to fill out a Word document and email it to all parties.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Ben Beadle: But that rent will not be applied until the date of the hearing, as I understand it, so although I understand the counter-argument, Minister, the point is that you could actually challenge a rent increase. You serve your two months’ notice; you challenge it; you wait for the tribunal to deal with it; you have your hearing cleared; and the landlord either gets it or the amount gets lowered, but that money is then not backdated.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Ben Beadle: No, no—well, I take issue with it, in that it is not fair and it is not proportionate in the circumstances, and it will do nothing to help on court reform. That is why we have set out a managed implementation for these things. I totally get your point that it was held hostage previously, but there are some really fundamental points around the court system being on its knees, and I think there is a way of implementing regulations so that that is mitigated. The first-tier tribunal is a classic example of where you could make some nips and tucks to what is set out, to protect the first-tier tribunal from a steep rise in cases because it will not be able to cope.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
I have one last general question, which maybe you could come in on, Theresa. There are broad framework powers in the Bill for both the database and the ombudsman. The database will be critical for landlords in understanding their obligations and demonstrating compliance, and the ombudsman will potentially provide routes to landlord-initiated mediation. As we come to flesh out the detail in secondary legislation, what do you want the database and the ombudsman to do? What is the most critical thing, from a landlord point of view?
Theresa Wallace: I am very supportive of both, and I think we definitely need both. My fear is that the database could end up just being a landlord database, with the landlord’s name, the property details and the address, so that the local authorities know where those landlords are. That is part of it—I completely accept that—but I think that we have a huge opportunity with this landlord database, and so much could be done with it. We really could reach a situation where we could stop properties that are not fit for purpose being let, if the database is built with that end in mind and we can digitally upload certificates. I think that we absolutely need central registers for gas and electric, and we need one standard certificate for each so that they can easily be read digitally to see whether they are in date, whether there are any code 1s and all sorts of things. I think that that would be amazing, but I actually think that we should go a step further.
A long time ago, the Lettings Industry Council came up with a model of a property MOT. Think about how you MOT your car, and it is checked in the background that you have got your tax and your insurance. We could do that with properties. We could have very easy and simple pre-let checks, so that a property is viewed visually. You have energy performance certificate providers that go and do their EPC checks, and you could easily have online or face-to-face training for providers to do a visual check so that you can see if you have damp and mould, slips and trips or other things. I think that it could be done very cost-effectively, and I think that the portal would pay for itself as well as providing local authorities with some income for enforcement. Enforcement is something that we absolutely need, and I know there is not the resource for it.
The Chair
Three other Members are indicating that they want to come in. If we bear that in mind, with the time, we can get everybody in.
Carla Denyer
Q
Theresa Wallace: It is a good question. I think that the demand is what has the effect on rents. I really believe that if we had those million social homes—I know we cannot get them overnight, but we should have a long-term strategy working towards that—you would have no pressures on rents because you would not have this imbalance in the demand and the supply, so rents would not be where they are.
Ben Beadle: Yes is the straightforward answer, for me. The rents that we have seen increased by 8.4% in the year to September. That is high by any measure, and I think, as Theresa says, it is entirely down to a lack of social housing and a lack of new stock coming to the market. It cannot be normal that you get 21 people applying to rent a property. I know the Bill deals with advance rent. As a landlord, I never ask for advance rent, but I get people saying, “I will give you 12 months’ rent up front,” before they have even seen the property. I think this mad market is not normal, and obviously it will not be resolved by this Bill. I say that because—though there are a lot of really good things in it, such as the database and the ombudsman, which we are very supportive of—it tinkers around the edges of the fundamental issue here, which is supply.
I know the Government will address social housing and right to buy, and all those things, and they are absolutely right to do so. At the same time, we do need a vibrant private rented sector. We need that vibrant private rented sector now while we work out what to do with social homes, because there is a massive lead time. What I see at the moment is everybody harking back to the wonders of the ’70s, of social housing and council housing, and looking at that as a really great thing, but we see horrible stories of local authority properties in serious disrepair. We have lower satisfaction in the social sector than we do in the private rented sector. At the same time, we are focusing on making life really difficult for responsible landlords who have good quality accommodation to bring to market. We do not want to dissuade those people from bringing it to the market; we want to encourage them. I think the sequence of this needs to be that the Bill must deliver for responsible landlords and renters, and give them security, but it must also address some fundamental issues about supply.
Rachel Blake
Q
Theresa Wallace: At the moment, a very small percentage of landlords actually terminate tenancies and serve section 21 notices. The majority of those landlords are selling, want to move back in or have rent arrears. It all comes down to our lack of supply, and losing more landlords from the sector. I think we will lose more landlords, and we are losing them at the moment—not just because of this Bill, I have to stress; they are leaving for all sorts of reasons. It might be retirement, or it might be the high interest rates that are affecting them. I do not think it is just the Bill, but our biggest issue is landlords leaving the sector when we do not have enough properties for renters.
Rachel Blake
Q
Theresa Wallace: I think there is that, and there is also the matter of introducing this Bill on one date. I think that will cause more homelessness because landlords are panicking, so they will serve their section 21s while they can, to get possession of their properties, and they will come out of the market.
If, rather like with the Tenant Fees Act 2019, all new tenancies had to comply and existing tenancies had 12 months to do so, or until the end of their fixed term—that might be sooner—when the Bill came in and landlords saw it working in practice, they might see that things were not as bad as they had feared. Although I understand the reasons behind not wanting two levels, I think that doing it all on one day will have a knock-on effect for tenants. There are tenants who have long-term rents for two or three years, but once this Bill comes in, if they have already had their 12 months, they could suddenly find they have four months’ notice coming their way because their landlord has decided they want to sell or move back in. I do not think we are giving tenants the protection that they thought they had when they secured their tenancy.
Mr Amos
Q
Theresa Wallace: Often a tenant has put their children into school, and they do not want to have to move within two, three or four years. It might be a fixed-term job contract for two years, or it might be caring for elderly parents—whatever the reason, it is often the tenants that are asking us for fixed terms. It is not us saying, “You have got to take a fixed term.” If they want a fixed term, we understand the need for flexibility, because circumstances can change, so let them still have their two months’ notice. We would prefer to see minimum terms of four months, but that is not for landlords; that is to stop properties going over to the short-let sector.
I spoke to an agent last year who does short lets as part of their business model, and the average short let was 91 days. I can see we are going to lose properties to short lets; they are going to be paying for long-term rentals at short-let prices. I see that as being an issue.
If a landlord is happy to commit to two years and say, “Look, I don’t want to sell and I don’t want to move back in; I can guarantee you two years,” but the tenant still has their notice period for their flexibility, I do not understand why that is not allowed, because that is in the tenant’s best interest. Now, the landlord can say, “I am not going to sell my property. I don’t need to move back into it. You can have two years on a rolling contract,” and he then might change his mind nine months down the line, and there is nothing to stop that.
Ben Beadle: I wonder whether I can comment from a student perspective, which has not been picked up by the Committee yet. One of the areas that we are very worried about is the cyclical nature of the student housing market. I operate in Uxbridge near Brunel University. As Mr Simmonds well knows, tenants coming in want to have the security that the property is going to be available.
Where I do not think the Bill quite strikes the right balance is that I think it needs to maintain the moratorium period that was brought in under the previous Bill, because that did three things. First, it protected set-up costs for landlords. It costs a lot of money to set up a tenancy. I do not think we are going to see a huge change in behaviour in terms of churn, but I am sure we will see some behaviour change where tenants can give two months’ notice. Having a minimum six-month period—four months plus two—is sensible for that. Secondly, it is sensible from the point of view of not turning the private rented sector into Airbnb via the back door. Nobody wants that. Thirdly, it goes some way to protect the student cycle, which is in the interests of both landlords and tenants.
The Chair
For the very last question—a short question and short answer—I call David Simmonds.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Ben Beadle: Yes. Straightforwardly, yes it is. Landlords will have to act differently under section 13. I would encourage landlords to speak with their tenants. No one wants to get a section 13 notice through their door as a surprise, so landlords do need to have some soft skills about them and have a sensible chat with their tenants, but yes is the straightforward answer.
The Chair
We have to bring things to a close now as the next witnesses are due in. I thank both our witnesses very much for coming and giving evidence this morning.
Examination of Witnesses
Tarun Bhakta and Tom MacInnes gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning to both our new witnesses. Could you begin by introducing yourselves? Then I will go to Members to ask questions.
Tom MacInnes: Good morning. My name is Tom MacInnes. I am the director of policy at Citizens Advice.
Tarun Bhakta: My name is Tarun Bhakta. I am policy manager at Shelter.
David Simmonds
Q
Tarun Bhakta: First, I would like to thank the Committee for inviting us to give evidence today. To answer your question on how the Bill is different, there are significant changes from the previous version of the Bill. In our view, the previous version was of good intention, but full of aspects that would undermine its core purpose, particularly as the Bill moved forward and changes were introduced, for example to essentially remove periodic tenancies or reintroduce fixed-term tenancies—that minimum period for tenants.
Similarly, there were policies with a lot of shortcomings —ideas such as the no re-letting period after landlords evict a tenant. We have seen in Scotland that one in five landlord sale evictions have not ended up in sale, so there is evidence of abuse in the system. It is really important that there are measures to deter landlords from abusing the new section 8 system, and to catch landlords who are dishonestly evicting tenants. The previous Bill included only a three-month no re-letting period, which would have been much too small a deterrent for landlords seeking to abuse the eviction grounds and evict tenants dishonestly. We are really pleased to see changes in this Bill that go significantly further, such as the 12-month no re-letting period.
There were measures in the previous Bill that we would call half-baked, particularly when it came to notice periods. We know that the most common type of eviction in the new system will be for landlord sale or for landlords moving in. The previous version of the Bill included just two months’ notice, which would have retained and recreated many of the problems that we see in our current private rented sector, where tenants are faced with short notice and unreasoned evictions. We think many of those are avoidable, but we also know that that short notice is not long enough for renters to find a new place to live. There are really positive changes in this Bill in comparison with the previous version. We think it will go a very long way to addressing the needs, but given that we are so early in the Parliament —we welcome the speed at which the Bill is being implemented—it is still important to view this Bill as a work in progress.
In our evidence today, we will pick out two key areas. First, we think the Bill can go further in chapter 3—the discrimination clauses—on improving access to rented homes. Secondly, we think the Government need to take another look at rent increases. Looking at the evidence from tribunal cases, we do not think the current approach in the Bill—to tweak the work of the tribunal, as discussed in the previous panel—will achieve its aim of preventing evictions by the back door, or economic evictions, as they have been called. We think that the evidence that we have heard today on the tribunal today shows that we need to go further there.
Tom MacInnes: We would agree with quite a lot of that. The Bill does improve the position for renters. We agree with the changes around re-letting, but we would say that that is probably only as strong as the enforcement, so we would be interested in looking at that further. We also welcome the longer notice period and the stronger rules on discrimination against families and those receiving benefits. Those are definitely things that we think are improvements.
We may come on to this, but there are other areas in which we might be looking for a couple of improvements. In particular, there was some discussion earlier around the portal and the use of the portal. We think that it could be used for better establishing what the market rent was in an area. If you are talking about in-tenancy rent rises, is that possibly a place where you could agree what actual rents were, rather than past rents? There could be something useful there, but broadly speaking it is a step in the right direction.
David Simmonds
Q
Tarun Bhakta: Yes, I think so. I think you might be referring to talking about the evidence requirements on eviction grounds.
David Simmonds
indicated assent.
Tarun Bhakta: It has long been our call that the Bill should specify and set a higher threshold and make that clear, particularly for the landlord sale and the landlord moving in eviction grounds. We also think that the Bill should introduce a post-eviction proceeding.
There are two really important parts to establishing that clarity in the Bill. First, tenants and landlords need absolute clarity about what constitutes a legitimate eviction. We see through our legal services that the decision on whether to challenge an eviction notice in court is an incredibly complex and difficult one for tenants to make. The process of going through the courts to challenge an eviction is time-consuming, costly and very stressful for tenants, so it is about setting out that clarity, particularly in those landlord sale and landlord moving in eviction grounds. Making that threshold clear would provide clarity for tenants to help to make that decision. We believe that that would also have the effect of supporting tenants to understand where an eviction is legitimate and prevent some of those cases from making it to court.
Secondly, the current wording in the Bill is very open. It goes further in Scotland, in our view, and although it is all very well being confident in setting guidance for the courts and hoping that the judges make the right decision in court, tenants need that clarity before we reach the court stage. Also, judges do need some steer; we see some inconsistency in cases between judges, and it is not the case that they will all interpret the law in exactly the same way, so setting that clarity in the legislation is important. We cannot have a situation in which the landlord states that they intend to sell the property and that is case closed: we need more clarity than that.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: It is difficult to set that to one side, so you will forgive me if I do not.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: First, we believe that the Government need to look at the proportions by which rents are increased. Currently, the tribunal is able to access only the eventual rent, whether or not that is a market rent, so in effect it works with a ceiling, rather than looking at the proportions of rent increases. This is really important, because through the tribunal and our services outside the tribunal we see very large proportional rent increases. This is what matters to tenants: they cannot afford large proportional increases in their rent because of that shock, particularly where they are on fixed incomes and receive housing benefit or pensions.
The data at the tribunal is really telling. The average size of a rent increase permitted by the tribunal in the last hundred cases was 23%. The majority of renters tell us that they could not afford a rent increase of more than 10%, yet two thirds of cases in the last 100 cases in the tribunal ended with a rent increase for a tenant of 10% or more.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: That is exactly right, and 16 of the 100 cases we looked at saw an eventual rent increase of more than 40%. We know, both through our services and through our research, that that is not manageable for tenants. That is the kind of rent increase that pushes tenants out of their homes or into debt. The problem is using a ceiling of market rent to judge the eventual rent increase.
Setting limits on proportional rent increases is commonplace across Europe. I know the Government have said they will not introduce any measure of rent controls, but it is quite unhelpful to lump all rent controls together when there is such a range. Rent controls is not a policy, but a category of policies. It is common across Europe to limit the proportion by which rent can increase during tenancies. The purpose of that is not to bring down rent or tackle affordability in any major way, but to protect people from those disproportionate rent increases that force them out of their homes.
In the tribunal there is evidence of landlords, where they are not able to secure section 21 eviction for whatever reason, turning to rent increases. There are at least four cases in that 100—this is only where the tribunal have provided background notes, which is not very common—where a landlord has clearly sought to evict the tenant and has not been able to, so has turned to a very large rent increase, and all the tribunal has been able to do is permit a large rent increase. In many of those cases we assume the tenants will have had to leave the property.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
You heard the concerns from the previous witnesses about how that would operate and the unfairness of that. With your experience, how would you say the new system would operate? We have been very clear that we want more tenants to take challenges to tribunal, though we do not want the tribunal overwhelmed. What would you say to the charge that the decision the Government have made, to put the point of payment when the tribunal makes its determination, will see a flood of cases come in and all advice groups will tell tenants to take every single rent increase to tribunal?
Tarun Bhakta: We are often accused of plotting to tell everyone to take things to court. We do not think that would be the case. As you say, we want more tenants to be able to challenge their rent increase at tribunal because, particularly in the last couple of years, we have seen extremely large rent increases for tenants during tenancies. The reason we do not think there will be a flood of cases to the tribunal and the reason we would not advise tenants to do that is that, if you look at this evidence, there is very little that the tribunal is able to do at present to address those large rent increases. We would not advise tenants to simply delay the inevitable, because, looking at the data, a large rent increase is somewhat inevitable—it might not be the exact rent increase the landlord asked for in the section 13 notice, but there is strong evidence that the tribunal will permit a very large rent increase.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tarun Bhakta: Yes, absolutely. Before I talk about what the process looks like for tenants, which Tom can maybe add to, we need to understand that, for tenants who do not interact with courts or tribunals or anything like that in their daily lives, going through one of these processes, whether we know it to be arduous or not, sounds and feels scary to tenants. That is really important to understand. The vast majority of tenants do not want to go through these processes. It is not fun—it never has been fun—but there is also the fear of what might happen and of how it might damage the relationship with the landlord. All those things weigh heavy on tenants’ minds. That is a really important factor to consider. The proposals that we have for limiting rent increases would, in effect, do away with the need for tribunal decisions, but for a very rare and small amount of cases.
When it comes to the actual process of tribunal, there is such poor data out there about rents in the wider sector that it is very difficult for tenants to gather that evidence. It is somewhat on them; it is also on the landlord, but it is somewhat on them to gather and provide that evidence. The tribunal will do some of that work, but tenants are expected to, or generally do, provide evidence at the start.
Tom MacInnes: From our perspective, it is basically exactly that: people do not have the time or, really, the capacity to take these things to tribunal, and they often decide that it is not worth it.
To the point about the data available out there about what a reasonable or market rent is, there are so many different sources. Even at an Office for National Statistics level, there is not complete agreement. We really welcome the end to bidding wars, for instance, for new tenancies, but our concern is that an unintended consequence might be that a landlord would put in a very high price to start with and then bring it down, and it is that high price that gets logged and sets the market rate.
For us, the role of the portal is to establish what the actual rents are—a basis that everyone can proceed on together, rather than it being some debated fact. There is a real role there for making that stuff public and known. Then you get two well-informed sides of an argument.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom MacInnes: I do not know whether it is about expertise, but it is simply an observation of what always happens—it tends to end up on the high side. What the rates are is just so contested.
The Chair
Quite a number of Members want to come in, so it would be helpful to have quick questions and answers.
Carla Denyer
Q
We all know that rents have been increasing out of proportion to incomes over the last few years, creating this growing gap where one or, at this rate, two generations of people risk never being able to afford to get out of the private rented sector. I am really worried about that, especially as that group ages. Do you think the Bill does enough to address the issue of affordability of rents and the long-term and growing problem of those generations of people, moving into old age, permanently trapped in the private rented sector?
Tom MacInnes: We will not go back to the bit about rent rises, but we will talk about some other aspects. The thing that concerns us is asking for enormous amounts of rent up front, so what we want is to have that limited to a month’s rent up front. There are also other issues around guarantors and asking for guarantors, in the next stage along the process. We think that has discriminatory consequences against people who actually can afford it, but cannot point to the evidence of it—people who could afford the rent but do not have anyone in their social circle, if you like, who could back them up for a year or whatever. We would like the instances of relying on guarantors to be reduced. If the issue of perceived affordability changes, the choice for those groups grows; we are looking for that kind of support.
We welcome the end of “No DSS, no benefits”, but we are worried about that coming in in other ways, such as someone not having rich enough friends to back them up. We would like to see that being addressed.
Carla Denyer
Q
Tarun Bhakta: We really agree with those points about rent in advance and guarantors, which are particular priorities for Shelter. Particularly through our legal services, we have been one of the foremost organisations supporting tenants to challenge DSS or housing benefit discrimination. We see how slippery that discrimination is. It is very difficult for tenants to understand whether they have experienced it.
To add to what Tom said, we have some evidence that rent-in-advance requests are disproportionately made to housing benefit claimants, but that also applies to older renters, as do guarantor requests. Rent-in-advance and guarantor requests often come together or are linked. A lot of older renters do not have someone in their support network who is willing or able to offer to be a guarantor. The effect of these requests that landlords introduce is to lock people out of the rented sector. Tom said that they are perceived affordability issues. It is that first step into housing, and affordability is strongly relevant to that, but we find that people who can afford the rent are prevented from renting properties because of arbitrary barriers such as rent-in-advance and guarantor requests.
To answer your question more directly, it is fair to say that the Bill does not introduce measures to address affordability in the sector. We think the Government should take a longer look at that and, to go back to my previous answer, take a more reasoned approach to rent controls. Essentially, they should explore the options, particularly where rent increases for sitting tenants are forcing them out of their homes. That undermines the core purpose of this Bill, which is to provide greater security for tenants and help them to avoid homelessness. Beyond that, it is clear that we need much greater provision of social housing and much more adequate housing benefit in order to tackle some of the affordability issues in the private rented sector.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Q
Tom MacInnes: I do not think we would agree with that, no. By way of background, the number of people that Citizens Advice is helping with homelessness has never been higher—we hit a record this summer—so the number of people who are homeless is already incredibly high. The Bill gives more power back to the tenant, so we think it redresses a power balance.
One of the things that we would like to think about to reduce homelessness is the bit that happens at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has to give a four-month notice period, but within that the tenant has to give two—two months within that four. So the tenant is given a deadline, which is shortened, to find another place, and it is often difficult to find another home. We have talked about the affordability issues. There is an issue about potential homelessness at the end of a tenancy that everyone knows is going to end in any case. We would like to see that period reduced, ideally to zero but certainly to one month.
There is also a really good case for a rental waiver—a rent-free period—within the last two months of the four so that people can afford to move out. They must be able to afford the fairly substantial initial costs of moving, and not pay two months’ rent, because there is a homelessness risk right there. No, I do not think the Bill will increase homelessness.
Tarun Bhakta: I have a simple answer followed by a less simple one. No, the Bill will not increase homelessness. We have already heard that the end of assured shorthold tenancies is the leading cause of homelessness. The Bill will eradicate short-notice and no-reason evictions, which many believe are not legitimate and would not meet the bar for eviction under the new system. We are supportive of the way that section 21 and fixed-term tenancies are being abolished and of the implementation approach set out by the Government. We think the Bill will reduce homelessness. I very much agree with Tom that, if and when tenants are served with an eviction notice, the Bill could go further in supporting tenants in access to finding a new rental home. I will come back to the point about rent in advance and guarantors.
Housing benefit claimants are disproportionately at risk of homelessness if they are served with an eviction and they face these additional barriers disproportionately. According to Acorn research, one in five renters claiming housing benefit had been asked for 12 months’ rent in advance in the last three years compared with just 6% of renters not in receipt of housing benefit, which shows how disproportionately the barrier is applied to housing benefit claimants, who are in turn themselves, being on lower income, more at risk of facing homelessness once they are served with an eviction notice. That is one area where we would say the Bill is a work in progress. We could improve that access to new rented homes where tenants are served with an eviction, and that would help people to avoid homelessness if and when they are served an eviction.
The Chair
Gideon Amos and then Jacob Collier—if you both ask quick questions, we can get you both in.
Mr Amos
Q
Tarun Bhakta: First, the evidence is that section 21 evictions are increasing. We do not have evidence that that is because the Bill is coming. We heard in the evidence that many landlords will wait and see, and find that being a landlord in the new system is not so bad. That is what the evidence of tenancy reform in Scotland in 2017 showed. The evidence we have does not point to that.
Can you remind me what your second question was?
Mr Amos
It was about retaining the option of fixed-term tenancies to two or three years if it were agreed between landlord and tenant.
Tarun Bhakta: No, we would not support that at all. It is an illusion that a fixed-term tenancy is a mutual agreement between tenant and landlord. Tenants expect that that is what they have to do. Tenants most commonly sign—the majority sign—12-month contracts, yet we know that tenants want longer than that. It is just that tenants do not feel that they have the power in the sector to ask for a different length of fixed-term tenancy.
In our services, we see fixed-term tenancies locking tenants into unsuitable properties; maybe repairs were promised and not done, or the property has deteriorated, their circumstances have changed, or the rent has increased and tenants are locked in and liable for the rent during that period—
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Q
Tom MacInnes: We welcome it as an organisation. We think it improves renters’ stability. It gives a bit more power to the renters. There is more that could be done—for example, there is stuff around the two months’ notice only being required after a four-month period. To repeat some previous points, there is a bit about landlords selling their properties and the evidence required. If the evidence landlords needed to provide was increased, we think that there would be a reduction in the misuse of that ground and an increase in stability for renters. We do think the Bill makes a difference and increases stability, and if a change could be made in enforcement, it could do even more.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of that session. Thank you very much indeed. We will move on to our next witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Tom Darling and Ben Twomey gave evidence.
The Chair
Could the panel begin by introducing themselves?
Tom Darling: I am Tom Darling, director of the Renters’ Reform Coalition, which is a group of 21 leading housing organisations that have been campaigning for progressive reform of the private rented sector.
Ben Twomey: Good morning. I am Ben Twomey. I am a private renter myself. I am also chief executive of Generation Rent, the voice of private renters across the UK.
David Simmonds
Q
Tom Darling: I think you are asking about affordability assessments and the role they play in tenants being able to access rented housing. Is that right?
David Simmonds
Q
Tom Darling: As regards the Bill, we think that those sorts of affordability checks are acceptable, but we think that measures—as you have heard from previous witnesses—that go beyond that can be discriminatory, and often look to punish tenants and discriminate against tenants on the basis of their income. You heard about rent in advance and guarantors. We would like to see a limit to guarantors that says that, if you pass an affordability check, you should not be asked for a guarantor in addition.
Ben Twomey: We are in an interesting situation where someone could be working in a key worker or essential worker role but there are parts of the country in which it is unaffordable from them to live. They probably would not be able to pass some of these affordability checks to rent privately. That would be fine if there were other options available, but most private renters cannot afford to become a homeowner if we want to and cannot wait the 10-plus years to access social housing if we need to, so the only option is to find a way into private renting—otherwise we find ourselves in temporary accommodation. There are 150,000 children living in temporary accommodation right now. The Bill needs to go further to try to address that, because it speaks to some of the wider Government ambitions around making work pay. It does not really help us if our income increases but it is taken off us by our landlords before it reaches our pocket. Wider affordability questions, which I am sure we will come to, are relevant to the credit checks and the ability to rent privately.
David Simmonds
Q
Tom Darling: We think that local authorities should be funded on a per privately rented property basis. We have heard that the Government will set out new burdens funding, but we think that the funding should be allocated according to the size of the private rented sector in that area. I want to be really clear that we support selective licensing and would like to see it enhanced and deepened alongside the new database, and we think that a number of changes made by previous Administrations to the way selective licensing worked made it harder for local authorities to apply for selective licensing schemes. There are some straightforward changes that this Government could make: removing the Secretary of State’s veto over the schemes; allowing local authorities to refer to housing conditions when they are applying for selective licensing; and extending the schemes from five years to 10 years. We think that would work well alongside the database and not in lieu of the database.
Ben Twomey: If I could take the resourcing point and slightly widen it, there was a cost of £1.7 billion in the last year to local authorities for temporary accommodation —for housing people who are no longer in their homes. This Bill will end section 21, which is really welcome, because that is the leading cause of homelessness and ending it will hopefully make some savings for local authorities, as well as bring enormous benefits for tenants, who will be better protected.
There is also a Government cost of local housing allowance, which has been in the billions in the last few years. That is to give benefits to people so that they can afford to privately rent. This Bill could go further with affordability not only to protect people in their own homes but to make the Government change the way they resource the support they provide for people in their homes—moving some of that burden of cost away from the need to pay so much for private renting and towards a better-regulated market, which would put limits on the ability of landlords to raise rents.
David Simmonds
Q
Ben Twomey: I do not have any with me, but I can take a look at that and write to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
It would not be a Bill Committee evidence session if every interest group was not telling us that it had a way to improve the Bill in some way and from different perspectives. We have heard a lot this morning about the various concerns and how they are being addressed. In general terms, however, particularly given your concerns about the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, do you think this Bill strikes the right balance and levels the playing field between landlord and tenant?
Tom Darling: I will start by introducing the situation in the private rented sector as it is today. The Resolution Foundation said this year that
“the UK’s expensive, cramped and ageing housing stock offers the worst value for money of any advanced economy.”
The private rented sector is the worst of our ageing housing stock; in fact, it is the worst of the worst. It is the least secure, the worst quality and the most expensive of the housing tenures in this country, and we have the worst of any major country in the world. That is embarrassing and that is what we are talking about here. We need root and branch reform. We are happy that the Government have acknowledged that more significant reforms are required than those that the previous Government put forward, but we still need to see some changes to the Bill to go even further and deal with the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.
Ben Twomey: We are delighted that the Government are pressing on with this work very quickly, and there is a promise in the manifesto to end section 21 immediately—as quickly as we can get this law passed. That is really welcome, as it will protect people from homelessness.
There are also lots of things in the Bill that I have no notes on. For example, the bidding wars legislation seems well-written; it seems like it will make a genuine difference to people like me, who have experienced being invited to bid on homes just because we reached the front of a queue and the landlord realised that they could up the rent. Some of the provisions—including the introduction of Awaab’s law into private renting—are beginning to create more of an even playing field, as you say, for renters compared with other tenures.
I want to take a moment to talk about someone I will call Ayesha from Hertfordshire. She is a schoolteacher and a single parent, and she has been struggling to keep up with the relentless rises in rent that she has faced in recent years. She says, “There are moments when I feel so overwhelmed and exhausted, like I’m carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders. I try to stay strong for my children, but the stress and anxiety are always there, lingering in the background. I just want to provide them with the life they deserve, but with the way things are going I fear that I might not be able to. It’s a lonely, terrifying feeling, and it’s hard not to feel defeated by this constant struggle.”
It is important for people like Ayesha—given what is being said in this Committee, this Government and this Parliament as a whole; every MP in this room promised to end section 21 and, in more words or less, promised a fairer deal for renters—that this Bill takes the opportunity to resolve these issues. Maybe we will come to this, but we believe that that will involve limiting the ability for landlords to raise rents—not raising them to the market rate, but instead limiting them to the level of inflation or wage growth, so that rents begins to match the real, lived experience of people who are renting.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
On rent increases, Ben, I understood that you were effectively talking about a cap—to the level of inflation or wage growth. A previous witness rightly drew our attention to the nuances around different forms of rent control. Given the evidence out there across the world, which I have looked at in great detail, do you not have any concerns about the potential negative impact on supply discouraging investment into the sector? We have heard about the supply challenges, impact on property standards and the very practical concern that if we implement an inflation-linked or wage growth cap, every single landlord in the country will raise rents every year to that cap, whether they would have done so under the current system or the system we propose or not. You must engage with the challenges on the other side from the measures you propose.
Ben Twomey: I am very happy to. The idea of raising to the cap just does not happen in many countries; landlords do not do that. When you have a sitting tenant, I guess there are elements of the risk being reduced once you know that person, and that is not really accounted for when you take on the market rate. There is also an element of knowing the human being in the home, which changes the behaviour of landlords to some extent.
The use of the market rate is flawed, to say the least. It is not real; it is a made-up number. It is not the actual rent, it is not a transaction, and it is not even an agreed rental price, but the advertised price that a landlord has put out there. More than one in five homes advertised on Rightmove in the last year had to be re-advertised at a lower rent before they were actually let. That really skews the figures, because landlords will seek higher rents to begin with, and what is actually agreed by the tenant is very different. Looking at actual rents would be useful, and that should be recorded on the property database.
There is the matter of linkage as well, which relates to the first-tier tribunal if that is going to be used as the mechanism to challenge rent increases. At the moment, if you were looking at the market rate, you would have a lot of confusion. As a tenant or a landlord, you would not necessarily know where you were going to place the rent rise or whether you would come out the other end of the tribunal happy with the result, whereas if you link to inflation or wage growth—whichever is lower—you can place a number on that every year or every month, if you want to. With that number, all renters would be empowered to know their rights. Landlords would not risk going to court, because they would know that they were within the safe amount that they could raise the rent by, and it would become a much clearer process for everybody, rather than an obscure, complex and financially burdensome process for tenants and landlords, and for the Government to implement.
Tom Darling: Can I briefly answer the point around supply? You heard my analysis of the situation in the private rented sector earlier. It is worth saying that since the year 2000, the private rented sector has doubled in size. Those are the outcomes that we are dealing with now. It is the worst tenure in the worst advanced economy, and that is after 20-plus years of investment ploughing into the sector and it growing massively. Right now, we are living the experiment of what happens if you try to cannibalise the existing housing stock and turn it into an ever-increasing private rented sector.
Matthew Pennycook
That was under the old system, and we want to transform the system, but I take your point.
Tom Darling: Of course.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom Darling: I am happy to answer that. We were very supportive of the expanded use of rent repayment orders when we worked on the previous Government’s Bill. They are a great opportunity for tenants to avail themselves of the possibility for compensation. Some of the awards that have been increased by the Government would potentially be life-changing amounts of money for most renters. Half of renters have no savings; as a renter and someone who is very much not on the frontlines of this crisis, I try to keep that in mind the whole time. If you are getting a big award in terms of compensation of one or two years of rent repayment, because your landlord has done wrong, that is a potentially life-changing sum of money, so we are very supportive of that.
I think you are right to identify that enforcement works best when the tenant is incentivised to work with the landlord. That works best when the problem is ongoing and the tenant is in situ in the tenancy. One of the problems we have with the new eviction grounds—we have seen this with the poor enforcement of the new tenancy regime in Scotland—is that when the tenant moves on from the tenancy it is hard to motivate them to follow up and check that the eviction was legitimate.
Our concern is that to properly enforce the system, tenants almost need to be motivated by a sort of righteous anger to get back at their landlord. That is one of the reasons why we think post-eviction evidence should be required from the landlord, and potentially no-fault eviction compensation too, where the tenant does not have to pay the last two months of rent before they leave. That way, there will be a broader-based disincentive for landlords to use those grounds. For the vast majority of tenants, after they have been evicted, they just want to move on with their lives, and they are not thinking about their previous landlord or previous home, or checking Rightmove to see whether the landlord has re-let the property and fraudulently used that eviction ground.
Ben Twomey: I completely support the call from Tom for no-fault eviction compensation. That would recognise the harm of no-fault evictions to tenants, which I think every MP here has recognised, and try to disincentive the use of any new grounds of no-fault eviction.
On the rent repayment orders, I will quote the late, great Simon Mullings, a housing expert who gave evidence to the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee, and who would have been here had he not sadly passed away very recently. He talked about an “army” of tenants who could be ready to enforce the legislation. That only works if it is really clear what their rights are and the route to achieving the compensation or repayment of rent is straightforward.
There is another area that could be strengthened. At the moment, if a landlord is not registered with the database or the ombudsman—the redress scheme—they need to have repeat offences before a rent repayment order is available. If I, as a tenant, found that my landlord was not registered, I would have to challenge that, wait for the local authority to make warnings based on what I had said, and then continue to live in the home, feeling probably much less secure than I previously did, without receiving a rent repayment order.
If we want to make sure that landlords are not punished because they were not aware of their obligations, perhaps a smaller rent repayment order would at least give some incentive to a tenant to raise the issue on that first offence. More thought needs to be given to how to stop rent-hike evictions that could happen later, because a rent hike, being an eviction by the back door, could be another way in which I as a tenant or someone else pursuing that would feel insecure, were we to come into conflict with the landlord.
Lola McEvoy
Q
Ben Twomey: Relating the database to rent repayment orders would be useful. If there is a way in which tenants or tenant groups can access the database to make sure that landlords are compliant with the database, it would be helpful. Adding the actual rents to that database would be useful, because we would finally get an honest and clear picture of what people are paying in rent. That would start to change the inflated idea that a landlord can stick their finger in the air and charge whatever they like just because it is a new tenancy. We would start to see the patterns appear for when people are in tenancies.
We should also have certain restrictions for evictions. We think eviction notices should be logged on the database. That would give a clearer picture of why people are being evicted, so that measures later down the line can be taken to reduce the number of evictions. It is helpful that in the Bill they will now have to have a reason for eviction, because currently we do not know why landlords are evicting. We know that it coincides far too often with complaints made by a tenant, but we could continue to track that through the database. We think that landlords should be restricted from making evictions or even rent hikes if they have not registered with the database and the redress scheme.
Tom Darling: I would agree with all that. I know that the Government intend to set out what will be on the database in secondary legislation, but I think it would be helpful to have a steer from Ministers throughout this process on what they intend to be on the database.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Q
On your point about the idea of limiting rent increases to wage growth or inflation, how would you respond to the counter-argument that it might lead to landlords setting a much higher baseline rent between tenancies, knowing that they would not necessarily be able to increase the rent as much within a tenancy?
Tom Darling: To take the first point about the lessening of security, similar reforms in Scotland led to an increase in average tenancy length. The idea that abolishing fixed-term tenancies will lead to Airbnb-lite, as we heard earlier, is ridiculous. Clearly, the people proposing that have not been through joining a tenancy recently, because it is an incredibly stressful experience. That is the last thing people would think of to do to go on holiday or to stay for only two months. There has been no evidence of that in Scotland, despite similar reforms in place there, so I would dismiss the idea.
The ability to leave the tenancy to be used in very rare circumstances—for example, where you realise there is some black mould that you did not see, which was being hidden from you when you viewed the property, or you have a serious change in personal circumstances—is an essential protection. It is to be used by tenants in very rare circumstances. Actually, the arguments about that are more about landlords: they would prefer to have the certainty of six months’ rent up front—I am sure they would. We think the Government have the balance right on that particular point at the moment.
Ben Twomey: To add to that quickly, the point made by the letting agents about someone on a two-year fixed-term contract who might find themselves at risk of a form of no-fault eviction by the end of one year is a valid concern. We would welcome support in calling for a longer protective period from no-fault evictions in that case. At the moment, one year is in the Bill, which we welcome as security for renters, but doubling that to two years would be very welcome to make sure that people on such contracts do not find themselves disadvantaged.
To address the point about rent-stabilisation measures, it is important that the vast benefit to potentially millions of private renters is weighed against any potential disadvantages. Millions of renters finding themselves better protected from arbitrary evictions through a rent hike, and from being driven into debt, poverty or homelessness, is an enormous success.
In Scotland, which introduced such measures recently, there has not been an enormous increase in market rents disproportionate to what has happened in England, Wales or indeed Northern Ireland. It was similar tracking of rent inflation with new tenancies. While doing that, we have protected all those people, yet what is happening in the market is similar. One of the ways to solve part of that market problem and to begin to drive down rents is, as has already been said, to build lots of homes at the same time. Some of the most successful rent-cap regimes across Europe are in places with lots of social housing, which takes some of the pressure off the private rented sector.
Claire Hazelgrove
Q
Tom Darling: Simply put, yes. We will be pushing in a number of places where we think the Bill should go further and where we do not think the Government have quite got the balance right, but the groups in our coalition have been campaigning for this change since the promise was first made nearly six years ago. We think it will be an important change to our housing system.
Ben Twomey: Yes. Our homes are the foundations of our lives. The Bill will give us some much-needed security and should drive up standards and quality. As I say, we are worried about affordability within that, but the main reason why you as politicians have probably not heard from renters so much as is in the past year or two is that things have got so desperate. We are worried that if there are some improvements to renting, suddenly we will lose our ability to have spaces like this where we can begin to make change. If this is to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make that change, we think you should cover all bases and make sure that no one finds themselves homeless, in poverty or in debt because of the fact that they have been forced into private renting.
Carla Denyer
Q
Tom Darling: I think Ben touched on it. The literature shows that different types of rent control have worked best in combination with a bunch of other policy levers, and particularly the supply of social housing. If the Government are continuing to set out that affordability is not the thing they are going to deal with in this Bill, we think it would be sensible to have a national rental affordability commission that could look at all these issues in the round—including all the different policy levers such as local housing allowance, housing benefit, the supply of social housing and different forms of rent controls—to bring down rents relative to wages and make renting more affordable. That feels like a pipe dream at the moment, but it should not be. That should be our aim. If the Government are not going to take forward affordability in this Bill, that sort of commission might be a place where they could look at all the different policy levers which, it should be said, cut across different Departments, and it might be a way to take that forward.
Ben Twomey: On that point, the idea of rent regulation being a scary thing is not new, and it is something that is hammed up by the landlord groups. They obviously want to make as much as profit as they can, but they do not have a right to make profit; they have a right to seek it. In this market, it is so broken because, unlike lots of other types of markets, the landlords can just click their fingers and say, “I’m short £100 this month. I’ll get it off my tenant.” A tenant will usually be forced to pay or have no other options unless they want to leave the home or even become homeless.
It is a very broken market. We used to have regulation in many ways in the country more than 30 years ago. Things have not got better since then, so the trial we have had of not using these measures has not really worked for people. These are all things that a commission could look at, or on which the Bill could take some quite straightforward measures. Similar to the energy price cap, with which we recognise that energy is essential for our homes, our homes are also essential for our homes. We should probably think about some common-sense solutions to that.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Tom Darling: I am happy to answer that. Obviously, we have been talking a lot about Scotland, and you will hear later about the “Rent Better” report, which has essentially written the book on it.
Matthew Pennycook
That issue is highlighted in the report.
Tom Darling: Yes. Our view would be that where these systems have worked, they have been part of a broader strategy that sets a clear direction for both tenants and landlords. I am sure you will have other landlord organisations here today that will talk about the need for certainty. There definitely has not been that in Scotland. There has been political instability and the chopping and changing of policy every couple of years, essentially—from the 2017 reforms to the pandemic freeze, the rent cap and now moving to a system of between-tenancy rent controls, and the latest political instability. I am sure landlord organisations will tell you that that makes it very difficult to have any certainty about what you are doing with rent levels in the future.
We would argue that if a Government with a big majority early on in their term set a clear direction on what the policy would be, landlords would be able to deal with that. You see that in European countries where there are big landlords who do just fine under systems where there are rent caps.
Matthew Pennycook
But you do not dispute that rents have risen faster in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK since those rent controls were introduced—
The Chair
Order. Sorry, but we have hit the deadline for this session. I thank the witnesses very much for coming. We now move on to our final witness.
Examination of Witness
Richard Blakeway gave evidence.
The Chair
This is our final witness; please introduce yourself for the benefit of Members.
Richard Blakeway: Thank you very much. I am Richard Blakeway, the housing ombudsman for England.
David Simmonds
Q
Richard Blakeway: That was not the first question I was expecting, but thank you very much. One of the requirements the Bill introduces is for landlords to be on the landlord database, with the checks required on that database, and then for them to join the ombudsman service. Whether or not there is a requirement around that as part of the criteria to be eligible to let properties is a consideration, and then that depends on whether or not they would join the ombudsman service.
In terms of the decisions that any ombudsman in the future might make, if there were issues around insurance—typically those are matters that tend to sit with the courts—or a landlord not facilitating claims around insurance, there might be an issue around whether or not insurance is in place, and that might be something that we then highlight in our decisions, which might be information we should share with the lead enforcement agency under the duty set out in clause 109. You may feel I have not fully answered your question.
David Simmonds
Q
Richard Blakeway: The Bill is obviously quite comprehensive and will make a significant difference as a piece of legislation, but a considerable amount of information will be set out in statutory instruments after the Bill. There are, then, some answers in the Bill and some that will come in future regulations.
Your point about the clarity of jurisdiction between an ombudsman and other actors is fundamental. One of the most important elements to clarify the role of the ombudsman service will be the ombudsman’s scheme. Clause 63 sets out requirements around what should be in the scheme—what must be in the scheme and what could be in the scheme. I would probably encourage there to be more in the choices for Ministers as to what could be in the scheme than in the list of what must be in the scheme, because there will need to be agility, as the ombudsman—whoever is appointed as the ombudsman service—and the other actors start to come together.
The importance of clarity is obviously for individuals to know what route to take if they are seeking redress, and it is also important to make sure that there is real coherence in terms of raising standards and promoting good practice in the rental sector.
I can give a specific example where I think there would be nuance between the ombudsman service and the tribunal, which is around changes to rent. If a section 13 notice were issued, the decision on the rent would be a matter for the courts, and the Bill seeks to change the role of the courts, or the tribunal, in relation to that. But we or whoever was appointed as the ombudsman service could potentially play a role to decide whether a fair process had been gone through rather than the actual level of the rent. That is very similar to what we have today on the social rented sector and service charges, and our role as an ombudsman in the social rented sector and the role of the tribunal.
David Simmonds
Q
Richard Blakeway: If you look at our current powers, role and approach around charges, we are very clear that we will consider transparency around why those charges are being made and their purpose, we will consider whether the service has been provided and the quality of that service, and we will consider whether an appropriate process was gone through. For example, at the moment we would consider section 20, where significant charges have to go through a process, and ask whether that process was followed. Those are decisions that we make and we can therefore very clearly consider what the requirements are, either set out in statute or under the provider’s own policy. That is the basis on which we would make a judgment.
I think that is a parallel that is relevant in your example in this space. Clearly, if we were seeing evidence that another mechanism was being used to increase the charges on a tenant and that was unclear and potentially unjustified, that could be a point of maladministration where we would uphold a complaint.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
I have a follow-up question; I will ask them in one go, Mr Betts, and leave more time for others. We have been very clear already that the new ombudsman will need to work collaboratively with others to resolve complaints and that will be set out in statutory guidance. What do you think needs to be included in that guidance to ensure, in particular, that the ombudsman is working effectively with local authorities?
Richard Blakeway: Those are really important questions. The Bill introduces a new framework of rights and responsibilities for both landlords and tenants and, as you set out, the ombudsman service—whoever is appointed as the ombudsman—plays a part in that. I would say as an aside very early on that I welcome the Government’s recognition of the strategic benefits of bringing together the social rented sector and the private rented sector, particularly given the common body of existing and new legislation that is tenure blind and speaks to both the private and rented sector, whether that is the existing Landlord and Tenant Act or the potential to extend Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard. I think there is a real benefit to system coherence and the right relationships, as you highlight, and also to making sure that benefits do not unintentionally fall in the wrong place, by appointing the housing ombudsman as the provider of redress.
I think there are three key relationships. There is the lead enforcement body, and working out the role of that body. In particular, looking at clause 109, information sharing between the ombudsman service and the lead enforcement body will be vital, so codifying that role will be important.
There is the tribunal, which we have alluded to. One of the really important pieces of work is to develop, very early on—I would have thought in advance of any statutory instruments—a draft scheme for the ombudsman service, and to collaborate with a number of bodies, including the courts, on what is in the scheme and therefore the decisions that the ombudsman might take, and what is outside it and clearly rests with the courts. I have given the example of section 13. The ombudsman could potentially play a role in looking at aspects of section 13, which might relieve pressure on the courts.
There is then the relationship with local authorities and enforcement. On the database itself, I think there has to be a decision about who owns the database and is going to provide it—whether it sits with the Department or the lead enforcement agency, for example—and the pace at which it could be developed to support the introduction of the redress service.
One of the other areas to consider, where there may be a pressure that emerges in the system—a pressure that I think the legislation recognises but could go further to address and relieve—is enforcement. The Government have rightly indicated that there is concern around compliance with ombudsman remedies. There was a survey in, I think, 2018 that showed 46% of private landlords not complying. At the moment, the Bill includes a kind of last resort to try to enforce compliance, which would be introduced later through statutory instruments. I wonder whether consideration should be given to bringing that forward, so that compliance issues are not having to be directed towards local authorities, and creating pressures there.
I also wonder whether the legislation could go further by, for example, amending clauses 66 and 96 to include rent repayment orders as part of non-compliance with ombudsman decisions. The Bill is rightly clear that if a landlord does not sign up to the ombudsman service then it could be subject to a rent repayment order, but it is silent on whether a landlord that is non-compliant with the ombudsman’s decisions should also be subject to a rent repayment order. I think that if you were to introduce that, that would strengthen compliance and reduce the need to direct things around the system to try to address them.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Q
Richard Blakeway: That is a really important question. It is one thing having an ombudsman service; it is another people being aware of it and being able to access it. We have certainly been on a journey within our current jurisdiction to think about how we interface with the public and become more accessible to them, and we have obviously seen the benefits of that.
A number of initiatives have been required to bring about a change, but the Department has done a number of surveys of social tenants to understand awareness levels. Awareness is now at around 70% among social tenants, according to two surveys that were done in the last three years, compared with probably sub-50% previously. There is a playbook there, if you like, for how you create awareness of access to an ombudsman. We have sought to use our existing service and be very open and visible. For example, in the 2023-24 financial year, about 6,000 residents engaged in open forums that we hosted around the country where they could come along and ask any questions. That is really important.
I have two brief thoughts. First, the complaints process does not start with the ombudsman service; it starts with the landlord. A very important thing to do very early on is make sure that there is a robust framework to support landlords to handle and resolve complaints, but that includes signposting to an ombudsman service so that there is clear awareness at a local level. That work is really important to do in advance of any ombudsman service going live.
The second thing that I think is important is how you stitch the ombudsman service into other bodies and advice agencies—Shelter, Citizens Advice and so on—which, again, is something that we have at the moment. One of the benefits of having a single front door through the housing ombudsman for both social and private tenants is that you can effectively introduce no wrong door for people. Once a tenant reaches someone, to be told “Actually we can’t help you” and be sent somewhere else is probably the last thing they want, but that is what they hear currently. About one in five inquiries that we get from the public at the moment are from people who we cannot help because they are outside our jurisdiction. We could effectively provide a single front door and prevent that, building on the awareness activities that we have at the moment. Again, it is really important to introduce that early on. Were the housing ombudsman to be designated as the redress provider, that is something that I would want to be able to introduce through our existing inquiries service immediately, even in advance of us being able to handle cases, so that we could provide effective advice to residents so that they understand their rights and where to go.
Claire Hazelgrove
Q
Richard Blakeway: First, thank you for recognising that previous work. There are specific things in the Bill that increase the protections for renters and the security of tenure for renters. Those are welcome and important and would prevent the risk of homelessness for some individuals. It also changes the relationship between the resident and the landlord, and addresses an imbalance of power that exists at the moment. In changing the relationship, the importance of redress is fundamental, to ensure that there is not a breakdown in that relationship and that a tenant does not end up living in conditions that are not acceptable. We must also recognise that the role of a redress provider is also to share the experience and the learning that we have through our casework to ensure that landlords can effectively fulfil their obligations and raise standards.
This Bill is not only about increasing security for individuals; it is about a wider shift and change in the role of the private rented sector in this country—a sector that is completely different from the one that was envisaged and started to emerge decades ago. It is different in scale, different in the types of properties, and different in the range of providers. So the real impact of this Bill over time will be a real shift in the landscape of the private rented sector and a raising of standards. It is important that landlords are part of that journey and can affect that in their own actions, and that an ombudsman service is there to help individuals exercise their rights, but also to provide the insight and intelligence to landlords to ensure that they prevent problems that need to go to an ombudsman from occurring.
Carla Denyer
Q
Richard Blakeway: On licensing, yes.
On the deterrent, yes and no. You have to recognise that the penalties have increased in this Bill, and that is important, but I emphasise my point about the scope and whether, for example, non-compliance with ombudsman decisions should be brought into the scope of that.
On energy efficiency, obviously there are significant measures in here, but it will be important to see what the decent homes standard—I think it is in clause 98—contains in order to judge what the standard of accommodation will look like in the future.
The Chair
I have no Members indicating to me that they have further questions, so that brings us to the end of the morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon in this room.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Renters' Rights Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Renters' Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2024 - (22 Oct 2024)
The Chair
Good afternoon and thank you for coming along. As this session has to end at 2.40 pm, with no Chair’s discretion in relation to that, I suggest that we get started straight away. May I ask you to introduce yourselves briefly?
Justin Bates KC: I am Justin Bates, a barrister and King’s counsel at Landmark Chambers here in London, and I am the editor of the “Encyclopedia of Housing Law and Practice”.
Giles Peaker: I am Giles Peaker, a solicitor at Anthony Gold Solicitors and a partner in the housing law team.
Liz Davies KC: I am Liz Davies, a barrister and King’s counsel at Garden Court Chambers, and I write about homelessness and for Legal Action magazine on housing.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
Justin Bates KC: Obviously, the best people to ask about the FTT’s resources and whether it is ready will be the FTT staff, the president and so on. I simply note that Parliament has given the first-tier tribunal a lot of new powers over the last few years, and I am sure it would welcome additional funding to enforce all these things. My impression, as a practising barrister, is that the FTT works better than the county court system; my experience is that it is generally faster and more responsive. But you are giving it a lot of new work to do, and I am sure it would be grateful for any money you can send its way.
Giles Peaker: The ombudsman would have to answer the question on the ombudsman. My impression is that the ombudsman—the social housing ombudsman as it is—is currently receiving a lot of complaints and there is some impact on the timescale in which they deal with matters. Clearly, if there were an extension or a new ombudsman, the resourcing of that would have to be looked at. I do not think any of us could say that the county courts are not under strain at present—they are, across the board. How much of an increased workload there would actually be as a result of the Bill, though, is more of an open question.
Liz Davies KC: I just add, in respect of the county court, that part of the problem with litigation at the moment is litigants in person. There are new rights in the Bill that tenants will want to rely on. Housing legal aid is in crisis, there are what are called housing deserts across the country, and frankly, it is more efficient for tenants to be able to receive early legal advice so that they know whether there is or is not a point to take to the county court. I suppose one message to you, although it is beyond your remit, would be to try to increase legal aid as well. It would make litigation more efficient.
David Simmonds
Q
Liz Davies KC: I am concerned about mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. Clearly, they bring an end to no-reason evictions, with the end of section 21, but they are still no-fault evictions as far as the tenant is concerned. It is helpful that the period will be one year and that there is four months’ notice, rather than the two months’ notice in the previous version of this Bill, the Renters (Reform) Bill. But I am concerned that the balance is not right.
Mainly, I am concerned about the idea of a court being faced with mandatory grounds when the tenant has done nothing wrong, and there may be incredibly compelling circumstances about the tenant but the court cannot look at them; it has absolutely no remit and no jurisdiction. So the tenant might say—I am sorry to have to say this—“Myself or a member of the household has a very serious terminal illness. To ask me to move within four weeks or two weeks, or what have you, is going to have an appalling effect on that.” They might say, “We have a very severe disability and so it will take us longer than other people to find somewhere to live.”
My preference would be to make all grounds discretionary, because I think that does provide the balance. But even if Parliament were to reject that view, it seems to me that courts ought to have the opportunity, in exceptional circumstances, to look at the tenant circumstances and to either reject a possession order, or have the flexibility to make a possession order that is suspended for a certain period of time—postponed for a certain period of time. It seems to me wrong in principle that a court cannot consider any circumstances of the tenant, whatever they are. That is my concern on 1 and 1A, and I think Justin will speak about 6A.
Justin Bates KC: Can I ask you to also look very carefully at ground 6A when it comes to scrutiny? Ground 6A is the new ground for possession, where the landlord needs possession, because they are on the banned landlord database or because they are operating an overcrowded house in multiple occupation—the landlord is effectively a criminal landlord and needs possession to deal with the consequences of their criminality. Presently, that is a mandatory ground for possession. I understand why, because I can see that there is a difficulty with one arm of the state saying, “You are breaking the law and you will keep breaking the law if we don’t act, and we won’t allow you to get people out.”
Can I flag two concerns? First, there is a concern among those in frontline tenant services that it will act as a disincentive to people reporting their rogue landlords, because if you report your rogue landlord to the local authority and it then puts them on the banning order list, you face a mandatory ground for possession.
Secondly, it strikes me as odd that a tenant who has done nothing wrong—save had the misfortune to have a criminal landlord—is required to move with no compensation and no provision of suitable alternative accommodation and so on. I can understand why we need 6A. I understand that we do not want to leave people committing crimes because a judge will not give a possession order, but it strikes me that you could look at some sort of compensation scheme. If you were minded to do so, the model is section 34 of the Housing Act 2004, which already gives the tribunal the power to order compensation when people have to leave because of prohibition orders. You could steal lots of the language from section 34, put it into ground 6A, and you would have much less scope for the unfairness that seems to me to be evident.
Giles Peaker: On the broader question of whether a balance is struck, I think it is a political decision as to where the balance falls, but broadly there is one. I do have specific concerns about 1 and 1A, as well as those raised by Liz, which are in terms of the evidencing of a mandatory ground. If the ground is the landlord wants to sell, or the landlord wants to move in or move in a family member, what standard of evidence is required for them to demonstrate that? In terms of the current wording, it would probably be enough to simply express an intention to do so. My sense is that there needs to be at least a level of formality—a signed declaration of truth on a statement or a particulars claim signed by the landlord—in terms of bringing possession proceedings on the back of that.
But there is also what follows on from that, and I think this issue has come up in Scotland, where there is a similar sort of provision. If a landlord re-lets a property within the 12 months proposed, the potential enforcement is great: it is a criminal breach, with a prospective civil penalty, and a prospective rent repayment order application by the former tenants. That is all great. The question is how you get from the possession order being made to action on the breach. As it stands, it appears that the only way in which that could possibly happen is if the ex-tenants realise that the property has been re-let—heaven knows how, and heaven knows where they will be in the country by that point—and then notify the local authority, which can take enforcement action. It strikes me that there should be some kind of recording that that ground has been used—a landlord database might be a place for that. The local authority can be aware that that ground has been used, and if it becomes aware of a re-letting, the full enforcement apparatus can kick in.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Q
Could I ask you to draw out a bit further how you expect this to work? In a sense, when we talk about discretionary grounds, we are always told, “Let’s trust judges”—that was certainly the case with the previous Bill. In a sense, what we intend to do here is trust judges’ judgment on whether those grounds have been used appropriately, and we would expect the type of evidence that they look at to include things like a letter instructing solicitors or an affidavit. But do you not expect the courts to operate in that way on the basis of the Bill? Do you expect them to act in a more light-touch way, as you have suggested? It is not usual practice for Governments to force the courts to consider certain types of evidence, and if that is the case—if you accept that—where do we go to try to influence the courts to look at certain categories of evidence, to ensure that these grounds are being used appropriately?
Giles Peaker: In terms of how you can specify things, to some degree, it is a question of wording. Grounds 1 and 1A are expressed as an intention, and if the intention is there, the ground is made out. If a landlord has written to the court to say, “I intend to sell”, it seems quite difficult for the court to go behind that, unless the tenant has evidence to the contrary. So partly it is around language. Intention—settled intention—needs looking at. But with different wording, a different evidential requirement may well follow—so potentially, as you say, the landlord would have to evidence engagement with an estate agent or a solicitor on a sale, or would need evidence from the relative who was intending to move in, to the same effect.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Giles Peaker: Yes, hence my talking earlier about the reason to fill in the gap between the notice seeking possession or the court order, and potential enforcement, which is a bit of a lacuna at the moment.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Justin Bates KC: I will go first, because this is what we spend our time talking about. Clause 30 is wholly defective and should not be allowed to stay in this form after the Bill Committee. It is a loophole. Clause 30 presently says that something will not be an assured tenancy under your new regime if it is for a tenancy of more than seven years. So I will grant you a tenancy of seven years and one day, and I will reserve to myself, as landlord, a landlord-only right to break, exercisable after six months on two months’ rolling notice. There you go: I have just recreated section 21 and there is nothing you can do about it.
You need to look at clause 30 very carefully. The reason it is in there is to fix a different problem. It is there because certain shared ownership leases and certain long leases have accidentally ended up being treated as assured shorthold tenancies, so that is what you are trying to close. The better way to solve that problem is to amend schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988, which is the main Act you are grappling with, to say that shared ownership leases cannot be assured tenancies, and that long leases for terms of more than 21 years—which is the normal definition of a long lease—cannot be assured tenancies. And then take clause 30 out, because what will happen—as sure as night follows day, and as the entire history of housing law since 1915 shows you—is that landlords will offer seven years plus a day with a landlord-only break, because this is not an area where there is equal bargaining power. It will be, “Take it or leave it, and I’ve just brought section 21 back in through the back door.” So please look very carefully at clause 30.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
The other point is smaller and more technical, and is on the subject of homelessness. Because you are taking out assured shorthold tenancies from the homelessness regime, which allows local authorities to find people private rented sector tenancies, and you have done a lot of drafting amendments to take out the words “assured shorthold”, you have also taken out a mechanism in the Housing Act 1996 that currently allows a homeless family—where they are given an assured shorthold tenancy and that ends within two years—to reapply as homeless and where they do not have to show a priority need. It helps to deal with the revolving door of homelessness, potentially in the private rented sector. You have abolished that—I imagine inadvertently, because you are taking out the words relating to assured shortholds. However, I would suggest that you try to get that back in, so that in the more unusual cases—once this Bill has gone through—if a homeless person is given an assured tenancy in the private rented sector and it comes to an end within two years, they will be able to come back to the homelessness authority. It is section 195A of the Housing Act 1996.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Q
Justin Bates KC: I want to be careful not to speak for the first-tier tribunal judges. Parliament has provided additional funding for the FTT in anticipation, not of this Bill, but of other areas. Those of you who worked on the Building Safety Act 2022 will know that you gave new powers to the FTT over unsafe buildings. Funding came along with that, because new building safety judges have been appointed. For obvious reasons, I am not privy to all the spending decisions, but as a regular attendee of the tribunal, I can see that money must have been provided. Whether you provide more money for this Bill is, frankly, miles above my pay grade.
On the increased workload, it is very difficult to say. It is plausible that there may not be that much of an increase in workload, because people can still agree what the new rent will be. If they agree it, there is no need to go anywhere near the tribunal. If I were pushed, my informed guess would be that there will be an increase in the first few years, because there always is whenever the law changes, and that it will settle down after a while, but I cannot properly comment on the minutiae of how you fund the FTT.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Q
Justin Bates KC: But what I am saying is that I do not know whether it will be that long. There is an assumption in the questions, which may or may not be correct, that all these cases will need a hearing. Most of the section 13 cases that the tribunal already deals with are done on the papers. It rattles through 10 of them a day because, unless there is something specific about the property—unless you need to see it to understand the condition of disrepair, or whatever—there is no reason why you cannot do rent-based determinations on the basis of written materials: the Rightmove print-offs, the price and so on.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Justin Bates KC: The tribunal’s KPI internal target is all decisions within six weeks.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Justin Bates KC: It broadly keeps to that. The FTT is pretty good at keeping to its standards. You can safely assume that we are looking at three months. Those are the figures you are throwing at me, and I can see that being realistic.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Justin Bates KC: I do not know, is the answer. That is not a cop-out; it is recognising the limits of what lawyers should safely talk about.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Justin Bates KC: Broadly, yes.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Justin Bates KC: Yes.
Liz Davies KC: Of those where the landlord increases the rent. You are assuming an annual increase.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Justin Bates KC: There is a famous housing benefit case, which the Commission on Social Security likes to remind us of, that says that Rachman is not the only model of landlord. It is entirely possible not to do that, or to agree sub-ones. Remember that the private rented sector is so difficult to pin down as a single, homogeneous beast. A landlord who lets to someone who is predominantly reliant on welfare benefits to pay their rent will not hike it beyond the inflation rate of the benefit, because all they would be doing is creating a situation in which the tenant cannot pay.
I do not think you are wrong to raise that spectre; I just struggle with how we identify how likely that is to play out, and what the numbers will be in any given period. I do not think, for my part, that we can safely assume that every landlord will go as high as humanly possible, or that everyone will be defended, but on your broad point that there will be a delay, yes, that must be right.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Giles Peaker: What is envisaged is it being enforced by local authorities, and the powers of the local authorities appear to be great. The question, as with existing powers for local authority housing enforcement, is the very variable performance—or the extremely variable performance—between local authorities. Whether one wants to impose a duty on local authorities, rather than a power, would be an interesting question; I strongly suspect that funding demands would follow on from that. But the powers are there and could be very effective; it is a question of the will to utilise them.
We do not yet know what the contents of the proposed decent homes standard will be. It would be good to see a unified standard across social and private tenancies—there is no reason why there should be any distinction between the two kinds of accommodation. The social housing side, as I understand it, will be enforced by the social housing regulator, which is a slightly different situation, but the same standard would apply. Tenants, as it stands, will not be able to enforce the specific standard except by complaint to the local authority.
Rachel Blake
Q
Giles Peaker: Tenants will have their existing rights under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2019 amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Quite how far that will overlap with the decent homes standard—well, we will have to see what is in the decent homes standard. There will certainly be some degree of overlap, I imagine, through the presence of housing, health and safety rating system hazards, so there would still be a route for tenants to take action on specific hazards, but it will not necessarily enforce decent homes, full stop.
Justin Bates KC: For my part, I think that by far the better tenant-empowerment repairing provisions of this legislation are the extension of Awaab’s law to the private sector. If you get the details of secondary legislation right, that could be a real game changer, because that will be enforceable by tenants through private law proceedings in the county court. If you set sufficiently robust—fair, but robust—timescales, you will do a lot of lawyers out of work, which would be an excellent thing. Look at that.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
This is my first time on a Public Bill Committee, Sir Christopher, so I might make a mistake with process. May I briefly point Jerome at the answers provided in written evidence and in earlier verbal evidence, which I felt answered the question already? In terms of, “Surely, won’t all tenants do it?”, I think we heard a clear answer that, for the vast majority of the population, anything to do with courts is a terrifying and bureaucratically faffy process that they will not want to engage with. On “Won’t landlords just max it out”—
The Chair
Order. I am going to stop you there, because this is an opportunity for Committee members to ask questions of the people who have come along as witnesses. We have limited time and once we start opening up a debate with other Committee members, it will be at the expense of being able to hear what we hope is, and is likely to be, very valuable evidence. If you have a question for any of the members of the panel, I shall be happy to take it, but if not, I suggest that you have your arguments with other Members when we get into full line-by-line consideration, when there will be plenty of opportunity for you to intervene on another Member with whom you disagree.
David Simmonds
Q
I know there is some pressure around issues such as tenants with pets and making sure that they have a right to occupy. A landlord may discover that the cost of insurance is significantly higher because of the pet or because of some other circumstance relating to the tenant —for example, they might have a poor credit history and are therefore not insurable for failing to pay the rent via the landlord’s normal insurance company. I am interested in how you see the Bill dealing with that issue and ensuring that tenants are not effectively barred from applying to rent particular properties because of those insurance issues and also that landlords do not find that the insurance they must have is so expensive as to effectively make their business as a landlord impossible.
Giles Peaker: My understanding was that the tenant could be required to have pet insurance. It is a permitted payment.
Liz Davies KC: Or the landlord has the insurance and the tenant refunds them. You have made a broader point, but just looking at clause 11 on pet insurance, the tenant will refund the landlord, so it becomes an exempted permitted payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. On the cost of insurance, I am sorry, but that is certainly beyond my legal expertise.
Giles Peaker: In terms of that situation, it is hard to see an impact on building or contents insurance. For insurance for unpaid rent, you would have to ask the insurers, but my immediate sense would be to ask why it would be different from now, when the tenant will face possession proceedings for rent arrears if the rent is not paid. But that would have to be one for the insurers.
David Simmonds
Q
Giles Peaker: Deposits are already capped.
Justin Bates KC: You cannot do it through deposits, because paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 will stop you doing that. You can presently do it through rent in advance, because the Bill does not prevent that, although I query whether it should. You could not do it by increasing the rent above market value, but you cannot do that anyway because section 13 as it stands would kick in.
Liz Davies KC: Is Giles’s point not right that this is a current problem in any event? Sorry to be asking you questions, but he is suggesting that it is alleviated because of the mechanism of section 21.
David Simmonds
Q
Liz Davies KC: So it is the rent-in-advance point. We would have to look at what the Bill says about guarantors. I am sure the Minister knows, but that would be the answer—something around advance rent or guarantors. It negates the point earlier, I accept that. This needs some thought.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
Q
Liz Davies KC: The fact that landlords are required to be registered will raise the bar for good landlords. We do not yet know what information should be on the database. I cannot remember whether it is in the Bill or the explanatory notes, but it is assumed that any enforcement action or rent repayment orders they have had to make—anything that affects their quality as a landlord—will be there. That must raise the bar and set a minimum standard for landlords, which we currently do not have. Tenants, frequently those at the bottom of the market, are then subject to the consequences and disadvantages of that, so having that bar is really important.
The other thing is that making the information, when we know what it is, publicly available is extremely important because it holds landlords to account. Finally, it also affects the local authority’s ability to bring the various enforcement measures they have under both the Housing Act 2004 and the Bill.
Justin Bates KC: I did not hear Ben Beadle’s evidence this morning, but if you get the right details on the database—so that it is a publicly searchable database that shows you whether your landlord has done anything in a list of prohibited things and so that it has details about the safety of the building, for example whether the gas safety certificate has been uploaded or not—I would have thought that he and the NRLA would have been crying out for something like the landlord database. It gives them what they have always wanted: a way of differentiating the good landlord from the bad landlord and a simple way for a tenant to identify the good landlord and the bad landlord. If I put your name in and it comes up on the database that you are subject to a banning order, I probably should not rent from you. If I put the property address in and discover a prohibition order—those are registered on the database—I probably should not live there. That is what you should be able to do if you can get the database to work properly.
The way you have done it, for obvious reasons, it is all at the level of principle. The critical information is what you will do in secondary legislation about what is accessible. But if you get the database right, you go a really long way towards helping tenants to make informed decisions and helping good landlords to drive bad landlords out.
Mr Amos
Q
Liz Davies KC: Currently, Home Office accommodation for asylum seekers is not in the Bill. I am pretty sure, off the top of my head, that temporary accommodation under homelessness is, but if I am wrong about that—Justin and Giles are nodding, so it is. Temporary accommodation for asylum seekers should be there; we know that has problems with conditions.
I am sorry—I am embarrassed about this—but I should have said right at the beginning that I have acted as a consultant for the Renters’ Reform Coalition. I am not here today in that capacity, but I need to put that on the record.
Justin Bates KC: I would need to really check the detail, but housing provided by local social services authorities—Children Act 1989 accommodation rather than Housing Act accommodation—may not be covered. That might be another area of exemption. But the big one will be Crown properties: MOD, Home Office and so on. If you want to bring them in, you will need to expressly say so because, as I am sure you all know, the rule is that it does not bind the Crown unless you expressly say so.
The Chair
That brings to an end this evidence session. I thank the witnesses for their contributions.
Examination of Witness
Judicaelle Hammond gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome; please introduce yourself.
Judicaelle Hammond: I am Judicaelle Hammond, director of policy and advice at the Country Land and Business Association. We represent 26,000 members in England and Wales who own and run land-based properties. We estimate that our members account for about a third of properties in the rural private rented sector.
David Simmonds
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Unfortunately I do not think the Bill is going to make it much better in the sense that the main issue is the availability of housing full stop, and particularly the availability of affordable housing. Our members are doing a great deal already to provide that. We reckon that 23% of our members’ properties are let out at less than 80% of market rates, but at the end of the day there probably is not enough to go round and therefore we see the changes to the planning sector as the key. What the Bill might do, particularly with the demise of section 21, is to make it more difficult for people to enter or want to stay in the private rented sector, which is an issue. Again, as I said, it is by no means the only issue. I think the real key is supply.
David Simmonds
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Yes. The main issue is the ability of the courts to deal with the extra cases that might be coming their way. One of the solutions, perhaps, is to look at some of the mandatory grounds and make them paper-based. That might improve things.
In terms of section 21, I should make it clear that among our membership the average time that the tenancy lasts is 7.5 years, which is nearly twice as long as the national average. Our members are responsible landlords; many of them will have had tenants who have been there for decades. We are not in the business of evictions or fast turnaround. We are not using section 21 very much, but when it has been used—it has included, for example, issues about antisocial behaviours—we have had some horror stories of members waiting for 12 to 18 months to get their properties back.
Without section 21, in the courts I think it takes at the moment 24 weeks from application for possession to actual possession, and some members are taking far longer than that with county courts that have closed. Digitisation might be a good thing, but how long will that take? There is an issue for us about reducing, unwittingly perhaps, the supply of private rented sector properties in rural areas as a result of the Bill.
David Simmonds
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: We are grateful to the Government for the new ground 5A, which deals with incoming agricultural workers. That will help—no question about that. And we are grateful for the new ground 5C, which is a ground to get property back because a job has ended, where the property was limited to the employment.
There are a couple of other grounds that are not covered at the moment and would be needed for rural businesses. The vast majority of rural businesses are not linked to farming or agriculture, but there might still be times when—we hear this from our members all the time—the provision of accommodation is necessary to attract or retain people, particularly when there is nothing else around. They could be in a really remote rural area or it could be because, for example, the person in that job needs to be on call, which would apply to security, caretakers or vets. Or it could be for people working antisocial hours in hospitality, for example, or at a wedding venue, where there is no longer public transport available at the time they are meant to finish or they need to start really early to set up before the wave of tourists come—and so on.
Increasing and expanding ground 5A to include service occupancies in very defined circumstances would be really helpful. To avoid abuse, there are definitions of what that could cover in other legislation that could be referred to. That is the main ground.
The second ground that is needed for agricultural workers is a new ground for what is known as suitable alternative accommodation. Some categories of agricultural workers have protected tenancies under existing legislation—the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976—and assured agricultural occupants are also protected under the Housing Act 1988. For example, you might have a retired dairyman or indeed their widow who is still in the main dairy. You need to recruit somebody to replace that dairyman. If you have more than one property, it would be useful to have a ground to get it back, in order to then move the retired dairyman or the widow in that property. Obviously, if you have only one property, it is game over, but in the case that you have a small portfolio, it would be really useful to have that, because you have a legal obligation to rehome that person but you need the property in which they currently are.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, sure. I think it needs updating because it was designed for problems in the social sector. It might or might not be applicable to the private rented sector. It also does not deal very well with older properties, which is the vast bulk of what our members have. To judge the private rented sector against the decent homes standard as it currently is would be, I think, misleading, and it would have all sorts of unintended consequences. For example, in small cottages in rural areas, there are typically very small kitchens and so on. They would not necessarily fit, and it would destroy the character if you were to change that—
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: No, it is not the principle. The issue at the moment is that what we have got, which is the decent homes standard that applies to the social sector, would not work in the private rented sector in the rural context. The other thing that we do have, however, is the housing health and safety rating system and, indeed, the minimum energy efficiency standards. We reckon that that probably covers the ground, but it absolutely needs to be enforced. I think you have already got levers there. That is what we would say.
Mr Amos
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: We recognise that is an issue in some areas of the country that are honeypots. If the proposals that were consulted on are implemented effectively, we see a need for them.
On your question about whether some properties would become holiday lets, I think if you had asked me a year ago, I might have said yes. There are other pressures on the holiday let market that make this increasingly unlikely. We hear from members that they are planning on selling full stop, which would probably be selling to people who want to be on the housing ladder rather than to people who want to take over their business of being private rented sector housing providers. That is a real issue and concern for us.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
On one side of the argument you could say, “Rents will go up as supply decreases.” Do you think that will be an unintended consequence of the proposed legislation? On the other side, which I invite you also to consider, is the question of whether, if you increase foregone earnings—that is, increase the losses associated with being a tenant—because the time required by court processes will be extended because of increased demand, that increased loss will filter into increased rents in the long run.
Judicaelle Hammond: I think the answer to both of your questions is that there is a risk. If demand and supply work in the way they are intended to, unless you increase the supply there is a risk that the rent would go up—to do exactly the two things you suggested.
What we see is broader than just renters’ rights reform, though: we are seeing, for example, the move towards minimum energy efficiency standards, and I totally understand why that is needed. At the same time, it is quite difficult for landlords to deal with some of the costs. Again, we are mostly talking about older properties in rural areas. The cost of maintenance and improvement, particularly since the Ukraine war and the surge in the cost of building materials, has not come down. It has stopped growing at the same rate, but the prices have not come down to where they were pre-pandemic, pre-Ukraine.
As a result of that, you will first have to wait for a void in your properties, in all likelihood, in order to do the kinds of work that will be needed. Those voids do not happen very often. Secondly, you need to get your hands on tradespeople, who might actually prefer to stick to their local areas, because they are within 30 minutes’ driving time and not an hour and a half’s driving time. That is something else that we hear quite a bit about. All that is bringing pressure on to the private tenanted sector.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: It was proposed to be £10,000 in the last consultation. It is every five years.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: I am afraid that the answer, which is probably for another day, is that it depends. For example, it depends where you are in the country and what kind of rents you are going to be able to charge. I was talking to a member this morning who said, “There is no way I can put the rents up. The people who are paying for it will not be able to cope with an increase in order to recoup that.” We need to look at that carefully and have either a ramp-up system or a different system for exemption, or indeed better or more suitable technology, which might well be coming. My plea on that would be: let us use the time we have before the standards are tightened to improve things like the energy performance certificate methodology and look at alternative technologies as well.
Rachel Blake
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: It is a question of finding ways quickly to improve things, and using the current regulations. Again, I am not here to ask you questions, but I am really curious about the barriers that you see. If this was enforced properly, you would find ways of doing it. For us, it is a question of asking, “Well, there is legislation already. Why don’t we use it?”
On the decent homes standard, it is less an objection in principle. It is more about taking what we have at the moment and applying it without thought or adaptation to the private rented sector, where some of the conditions might be different. For example—going back to my argument about the availability of trades, maintenance staff, and so on—if you have a large portfolio, that might be doable, but if you do not, you really are in a different position.
The Chair
Order. I am going to bring in Jacob Collier because we are running out of time.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: It might help. We see that database as a way of increasing transparency for both tenants and landlords. Our plea would be: let us do it effectively, and let us ensure that we have an IT system that works and is not basically a massive white elephant. An awful lot of that data is already available in other places. Can that system be built using the available data, rather than having a completely different program that requires quite a lot of time and money?
Rachel Blake
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Sorry, I really cannot give you a proper answer because it would depend on the circumstances.
The Chair
Thank you, everybody. Thank you for coming along and giving us a bit of your experience and knowledge. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Anna Evans gave evidence.
The Chair
Straighten your ties, because we are now going to be on Zoom. We have until 3.20 pm. Please can you introduce yourself?
Anna Evans: I am Anna Evans, director of Indigo House. We are a housing consultancy based in Scotland, but we cover the UK in terms of affordable housing research and consultancy.
David Simmonds
Q
Anna Evans: I am here as an expert on the Scottish private rented tenancy and the reforms that have happened in Scotland, so I do not think I could necessarily answer the question about what the Bill could do. So far, the legislation in Scotland, through the private residential tenancy, has failed to address anything on affordability. It brought in rent adjudication and what were called rent pressure zones, which local authorities had the power to determine. Those failed due to a lack of data, and the rent adjudication system has been effective for only about 230 tenants out of the 300,000-odd households in the private rented sector. The Scottish Government are looking to address that through the current Housing (Scotland) Bill, rent regulation and rent control, but to date, the legislation has done nothing for affordability.
David Simmonds
Q
Anna Evans: We have not examined that particular question, but in terms of supply, new build in the private rented sector in Scotland has probably stabilised rather than grown. Most of the growth in the private rented sector has been through the existing stock, and of course, there is growth in purpose-built student accommodation. There has not been a huge amount of new build and regeneration in the private rented sector, certainly over the last five years, but I do not think you could necessarily attribute that lack of growth solely to new tenancy. A huge number of other things have been happening in regulation in Scotland, and there is obviously the wider tax regime, too.
David Simmonds
Q
Anna Evans: For tenants, the positives are a new foundation of rights and there should be more legal security. Tenants in Scotland enjoy open-ended tenancy and specific grounds for eviction, and there are longer notice periods. It is gradually moving to more of a contractual, rather than a subjective, relationship.
I should say, though, that there are very considerable differences in satisfaction between the general population of private rented tenants and the lower end, where lower income tenants or those who are more vulnerable are still disadvantaged. That is because of the overriding demand-supply imbalance. There is a fear among tenants about challenging, if they know that there are very few affordable alternatives on the market.
For landlords, I would say that they are generally settled with the private residential tenancy now—it has been in place for over five years, and they can see the consistency in practice and greater clarity in rights and responsibilities. Clearly, it is less flexible, but the difficulties that landlords have in Scotland are to do with subsequent legislation, and in particular, rent control.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Anna Evans: Yes.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Anna Evans: I will take the rent control issue first. This was nothing to do with private residential tenancy; it was the result of emergency legislation on the cost of living, which was brought in in 2021-22. That brought in a rent increase freeze and then rent increase caps. If we look at the data following that on rent increases, there are arguments around this, but basically average rent increases have not frozen or been curtailed. Some would certainly argue that rent increases in Scotland have been greater than what you could see across the UK.
We should remember—I was looking at evidence on this earlier—that landlords, certainly in Scotland, usually increase rents at a change of tenancy, not on an annual basis. What happened when rent control came in, with a range of other pieces of legislation and regulation, was that it became more of a hostile environment—that is what landlords are saying—and so as a result, they tended to hike rents up more at a change of tenancy. But we have found that most landlords want good, stable tenants for a long time. Most actually do not increase rents during a tenancy, but only take the opportunity to increase rents at a change of tenancy, and because of the environment and the hostility that they were feeling, they thought they had better increase rents at change of tenancy. Does that answer your question on rent control?
Matthew Pennycook
Yes, that is very useful. Thank you.
Anna Evans: In terms of the differences between your Bill and the private residential tenancy, I have to confess that I am not an expert on your Bill, so I cannot answer that in detail, but I can say that the PRT is an open-ended tenancy. It has no fixed-term period. There is the eradication of eviction with no grounds. Eviction proceedings are simplified to 18 statutory grounds and there has to be a reason—what are the grounds for eviction? There are extended notice periods and also a phased implementation. I think that is a key point. A lesson that the current Housing (Scotland) Bill is looking at is whether short assured and assured tenancies should actually just be terminated now because there has been long enough. There is still a good proportion of assured tenancies in existence—we estimate probably about 20%. Short assured tenancies are certainly less secure, so one lesson would be that if you are changing, do not do it over seven years; do not delay.
Carla Denyer
Q
Anna Evans: I think what we have concluded from all of the evidence is that the rent control has to be very carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences. It is above my pay grade to say what that design might be, but there could be a range of ways in which landlords try to get around rent control. We have seen examples of offers from tenants—I understand that your Bill will avoid wars between tenants, in terms of rent levels, but because of demand-supply imbalance, tenants do offer landlords higher rents to get properties. Evidence across different states shows that rent control efficacy is variable, so it has to be very carefully designed.
Jerome Mayhew
Q
Anna Evans: We show in the report that the rents increased at a similar rate to the rest of the UK until ’22. If you were trying to isolate why there was a more considerable increase since that time, you could probably fairly conclude that it was because of the 2022 legislation, but it is very difficult to isolate out. The range of legislation that has been implemented in Scotland is significant, but there was a tipping point in ’22 when rents in Scotland appear to have increased at a greater rate than in the UK. The key point was the 2022 legislation.
I should also caveat all of that—as we have in our report—by saying that the Scottish rent data is not as good. It is based on advertised rents rather than any survey of in-tenancy rents. The published data on rent levels and the hike in Scotland will be for new tenancies, and therefore, that will naturally be inflated compared with most tenancies, because we know that landlords do not tend to increase rents in tenancy. They prefer to keep them at a level that keeps tenants content and therefore they have a longer rental period. That evidence has to be considered with caution, because it is based on advertised rents.
Lola McEvoy
Q
Anna Evans: As I said, I do not think it is possible to absolutely isolate this out, but on advertised rents—new advertised rents—there was an increase post 2022 when that legislation came in. But you must remember that that does not include evidence of in-tenancy rents, which would be lower. So we cannot say that all average rents have increased as a result of that—we cannot say that at all.
Lola McEvoy
Q
Anna Evans: Yes.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
Anna Evans: Not through this research, sorry; no.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for your evidence, and I hope the weather is good in Scotland.
Anna Evans: It is a beautiful day today.
Examination of Witness
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming along. Would you like to introduce yourself, please?
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: My name is Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed. I am deputy chief executive at the student housing charity Unipol Student Homes.
The Chair
The acoustics in this room are notoriously bad, so it would help us all if you were able to keep your voice up, please.
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I will do.
David Simmonds
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I agree with that exemption. Purpose-built student accommodation exists for a very specific purpose. Therefore, operators of that kind of accommodation need to ensure that they are renting only to tenants—they need to have the means to regain possession. Often, they have planning obligations linked to the fact that they should only house students in that type of housing, so if they had a situation where students were able to stay for an indefinite period, they might start to have non-students living in the accommodation, which would be problematic for the ongoing management of the property.
David Simmonds
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: Yes, that is problematic. Every year, about 700,000 students live in the kind of housing that you describe, which I will call off-street housing. I hope everybody knows what I mean by that: a shared student house or flat that is not in purpose-built accommodation. About 700,000 students rely on that type of housing every year. It is more affordable, and it is available when students need it, which is at the start of their academic cycle. We are concerned about the potential loss of that housing, and we are concerned that because of elements of the Bill, it could become more expensive over time. It is an affordable part of the student housing sector at the moment. Rents are generally much lower than for other types of student housing—about £130 a week, on average—so it supports students with lower budgets to live at university in a more affordable way. We are concerned about the loss of that type of housing.
David Simmonds
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: In principle, I support the idea that landlords who are part of some sort of accreditation or recognised scheme should have an exemption for their accommodation in the same way as PBSA does. There are other ways of doing that. We at Unipol submitted some evidence with a suggestion that there should be a student tenancy for use in the off-street housing sector, which offers a fixed term with some other elements to it that would be very advantageous to students. Student housing is niche—it is very specific and has a very specific function—and certain practices and elements in there we think need special attention.
A fixed-term tenancy for students would allow landlords to regain possession but provide the security of a fixed term to students, as well as benefits to them that speak to their specific needs. For example, people should not be able to use guarantors for students—that is restrictive and difficult for students from low-income backgrounds —and students should be able to give notice in certain circumstances, such as if they have left their course. If they are no longer at university, it would be very handy if they could give two months’ notice and that is that. We think that would be right.
We also think that there is a real problem of early renting in the world of student housing—students who might need a tenancy from July end up renting places in September and October, because of pressure in the market. There is a shortage of student housing, and that is a real issue, so students rent earlier and earlier to get ahead of the market. We think that a cooling-off period should be attached to a student tenancy.
Those are real pressures and difficulties that students experience, so we think that they need special treatment in the Bill. As I said, there are 700,000 students, which is not an inconsiderable number. They should have special treatment.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
If we were looking to take action on sign-ups in advance, what is a reasonable period when landlords should be able to ask students to sign up in advance that does not, as you say, force them all to sign up far too early and in ways they may regret or have to re-examine? What is an appropriate period in which a sign-up would be reasonable? Lastly, do you understand why the sign-up arms race, as I might put it, has developed? It is hard to find an explanation for why all landlords are locked into a cycle of earlier and earlier sign-ups; it seems to have developed organically. Could you outline why you think that problem has arisen in the first place?
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: To take the first point, in the Bill you have proposed ground 4A for possession of student tenancies. That is definitely a helpful addition and we were glad to see it brought forward. However, at the moment it is just for HMOs, which we assume is deliberate wording, so it is for properties with larger groups of three or more people living in them, and you have excluded one and two-bedroom properties. We think that will result in a loss of smaller properties from the student housing sector.
The sector is quite particular. These properties have been set up close to universities, and the businesses are run in a particular way. I can understand why you might think that one and two-bedroom properties would perhaps have more mature students or students with families living in them. Often they do, but the reason why all students rent all properties in the student market is to do with them being at university. Generally, they are in that city and living in that housing only because they are at a university nearby.
We think that excluding one and two-bedroom properties is problematic, because they are quite a big part of the market—more than you would think; it is not just mature students or students with families. A national advertising platform called Accommodation for Students has given us some data on this, and 31% of the properties listed on its website nationally are one and two-bedroom off-street houses. If you were to lose that amount of property from the student market, that would be problematic. I think that is likely, because if you are in a one or two-bedroom property and you can have an indeterminate tenancy and give notice at any point, you may give notice in January when there is no demand for students, and that property will end up leaving the cycle of the student market and going into the professional market.
The average is 31% across the Accommodation for Students website, but in some locations it is even higher. In Newcastle and Preston, over 50% of the properties advertised are one and two beds, so it is not just mature students; it is younger undergraduates who are living in those types of houses because they suit their needs and they are available. Losing them would be very problematic over time and would reduce the supply of housing available to students.
The second part of your question was about cooling-off periods and early renting. Why does it happen? I think it is a mixture of things. Students want to secure a nice house, so they go out early and try to beat the rest of the market. In some cities, there are shortages of accommodation because student numbers have increased considerably over recent years, and there is a cap on the amount of off-street housing that there can be because of planning—article 4 direction—so we are not making any more shared student housing.
Students are aware that there is a shortage, and if they want to get the house that they want, they will try to get out there earlier and earlier to beat the market. That is why it happens, but it is really problematic, so we would like it to not happen. We have suggested that if you could say to students that they could cancel that agreement up to four months before the tenancy was due to begin, it would stop early renting. There would be nothing in it for landlords to try to get properties signed earlier and earlier, because students would be able to drop out. We do not think that would be problematic. It will not be an issue for landlords as the properties will still be let, but hopefully it would stop the silliness.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: No, they do not at all. It is not a problem. No-fault evictions are very rarely, if ever, used in the student housing market, because the need is cyclical, and generally most students will very happily move out when their tenancy is finished. I think it would be used very rarely, but it sends a useful signal that it is time to think about leaving.
The real issue for me, and the more problematic thing that will stop the cyclical nature of student housing, is the ability of students to give two months’ notice. I understand not wanting to treat students differently from the rest of the market, but the need for housing is so tied to the particular reason of being at university. Most landlords deal with their tenancies on the basis of 12 months, and they set their rents on an annual basis. If you say, “Your tenant is able to give notice, and they might choose to leave in April or May,” those landlords will respond to that and think, “I will have to increase my rent, because I have an annual rental figure that I need.”
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I do not have a tiny violin for landlords, but I am just saying what we think is likely to happen. It is a commercial operation and landlords need to cover their costs, and we think that if landlords perceive more risk they will seek to put up rents.
Your previous witness talked about the situation in Scotland. One of the things we would really like the Government to do before going much further is an impact assessment on the student market, particularly looking at Scotland, because the evidence there about student homelessness as a result of the tenure changes is compelling. The Government in Scotland have a committee looking at how they can tackle the issue of student homelessness, and I think that is a bit of a warning for us all that we could very well be in that place in a couple of years’ time if we do not think about the student market, its particular characteristics and what it needs.
Mr Amos
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: I think there are alternative options. There was discussion on the previous Bill about creating an accreditation scheme or some sort of certification for landlords in the off-street sector. That is worth considering if a landlord is part of a quality mark and might be able to offer fixed-term tenancies similar to PBSA. There would certainly be some benefits to that, and you would offer students a quality product with landlords who are accountable to somebody but can have certainty in their business planning, which would be beneficial. I also think that ground 4A should be amended and extended to all student properties.
Mr Amos
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: We think that the definition of a student property in the Bill is fine; it is just the restriction to HMOs, which are three-bedroom properties. We think the definition of the type of property, or the size of the property, should be changed.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: The joint tenancy issue is problematic, and there is no way to get around it. If you are in a joint tenancy, all the tenants are essentially treated as one. If one tenant gives notice, all the other tenants, in theory, could be asked to leave at the same time. I think landlords will be pragmatic about it and seek to manage that process actively. Unless it is in their interests to regain possession of the whole property, I think most landlords will try to smooth things out and find a resolution.
Typically, the remaining tenants are liable for the rent on the room that has been vacated, and I think it would be very difficult for landlords to backfill, so the remaining tenants may find that the rent increases. That is going to cause quite a lot of rupture and disruption in the student market. We think about half of tenancies are on a joint basis at the moment, and that is going to be really disruptive. I cannot think of a way around it. Unless there was some sort of ability to have a fixed term, I think it is going to be really difficult. Sorry; I have forgotten the second bit of the question.
Sam Carling
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: Yes. I think a lot of landlords release tenants, certainly in the PBSA sector. If somebody leaves university or their circumstances change, I think a lot of landlords release tenants. I think it is right that if somebody leaves university, a landlord should seriously consider releasing them, perhaps with two months’ notice, and letting them leave. I think that would be a very good element of a student tenancy. Unipol is a landlord, and we release tenants if their circumstances have changed. It is a relatively small number of students who require that, but it is difficult. That would undoubtedly be an advantage to the students who need it.
Carla Denyer
Q
Victoria Tolmie-Loverseed: There are significant numbers of students—I do not know the exact numbers, but more and more are starting with January start dates. Some universities have five points in the year when you can start a degree or a Masters. It is problematic for Masters students whose course goes on until September or October, when they are having to write up, or PhD students. That can be difficult. I think there should be more flexibility in the current timetable of June to September, and perhaps in the ability to give notice at different points in the year for student properties.
The Chair
I am afraid we do not have the flexibility to allow this question session to go on any further. Thank you very much for your attendance.
Examination of Witnesses
Melanie Leech, Suzannah Young and Timothy Douglas gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Timothy Douglas: Good afternoon, and thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence today. I am Timothy Douglas, the head of policy and campaigns at Propertymark, which is the UK’s leading professional membership body for property agents. We have 18,000 members working across the UK in lettings, sales, commercial property, as valuers, auctioneers and inventory service providers in commercial property.
Melanie Leech: Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence this afternoon. My name is Melanie Leech. I am the chief executive of the British Property Federation, which represents institutional investment into the private rented market, which is everything from student accommodation to the build-to-rent sector to co-living and senior living.
The Chair
And Suzannah Young, who is joining us on Zoom.
Suzannah Young: Thank you, Chair. I am Suzannah Young, a policy officer at the National Housing Federation. We represent housing associations in England—social landlords providing 2.7 million homes to 6 million people. I will say a word about housing associations, if I may, because the Bill will have implications for them, as they offer assured tenancies. As they are not for profit, housing associations invest any income back into the development and maintenance of homes and into supporting residents and communities. They seek to provide tenants with long-term stability and security of tenure in good-quality, safe and affordable homes. We are a sector that has always offered assured tenancies and lower rents, and that delivers housing types unlikely to be found in the private rented sector, including three quarters of supported housing for people on low incomes with care and support needs. We therefore support the Bill’s aims to give greater rights and protections to renters.
David Simmonds
Q
Melanie Leech: Shall I kick off? Thank you for the question. The first thing to say is that we support the aims of the Bill and the drive to raise standards in the private rented sector. In particular, I would highlight measures such as the compulsory ombudsman—of course, many institutional landlords are already voluntarily members of the housing ombudsman service—along with the landlord database, which we have been calling for since 2008, the application of the decent homes standards and Awaab’s law to the sector, and recognition of the particular nature of the purpose-built student accommodation sector, which of course you have just been talking about.
Our major concern with the Bill is that the courts will not be ready for the abolition of section 21. A cross-party consensus that a better functioning court system is an essential part of the reforms has been a significant factor in maintaining landlord support for rental reform. Its importance has consistently been recognised in the political debate—by the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government in the last Parliament, which looked at the previous Government’s reforms, and by the Mayor of London in his work on a London model. However, despite serious discussions starting on rental reform in 2017, we have made almost no progress on court reform, which leaves landlords with little confidence that sufficient improvements will be made to make these reforms work well. That, of course, should be the objective: not just to pass these reforms, but to ensure they work well for both landlords and tenants.
One way of improving the court process is to digitalise both the process and the interface with claimants and defendants. We are really pleased that the Housing Minister is committed to continuing with the digitalisation project, but that is not going to deliver improvements any time soon. We are therefore heartened to hear the Housing Minister also talking about additional resource. This is essential because with section 21 gone, the courts will need to consider and process possession cases under section 8. Government data suggests that it currently takes just over seven months to process section 8 possession cases, including cases related to antisocial behaviour and rent arrears. It is worth stressing that that is an average. It is not uncommon to hear of cases taking more than a year.
There is also a huge shortage of court bailiffs in parts of the country. For example, in some London boroughs it can take five months to secure the services of a court bailiff, even when your claim has been vindicated. That also, of course, has consequences for people who cannot access those homes that would be freed up, for example in cases of poor behaviour and rent arrears.
While we recognise that improving the courts will not be a precondition of section 21 ending, at the very least we can call on the Government to outline what the justice system being ready means, both for tenants and responsible landlords; to commit to bringing waiting times down when it comes to the courts considering and processing legitimate possession cases; to ensure that the courts have clear and commonly agreed key performance indicators, which the Select Committee in the last Parliament recommended; and to improve staffing of the courts and tribunals, including recruiting more bailiffs.
We would also urge this Committee to scrutinise that aspect of the Bill in detail, and to consider calling for evidence from the Ministry of Justice—so far as we are aware, we have never actually heard directly from the Ministry of Justice, which is best placed to explain what procedures will be in place to make sure the courts are strengthened to deal with these cases—and to ask what progress is being made on digitalisation. We urge the Committee to scrutinise the justice impact test shared between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice—which will contain the projections on which the impact for this part of the Bill is based—so that we can all see that those have been properly scrutinised and that the court reforms that we need can be delivered.
Timothy Douglas: At Propertymark, we recognise that there is an ongoing cost of living crisis and there is huge demand for private rented property. We also recognise the manifesto commitments from this Government and the other parties to the changes contained in the legislation. We certainly acknowledge a drive towards improved standards, but we all have to recognise the unintended consequences and the impact of the changes on landlords, agents and the supply of property.
Certainly, our members are left wondering how this Bill will help to meet the huge demand for private rented property. Our data shows that on average there are almost 10 new applicants registered for each available property. One member in the west midlands, who has 13 offices across the region, has seen their lets—the number of properties—reduced from 5,348 to 5,006 since the start of the year, so we cannot underestimate the incentives for landlords or the investor appetite. These are significant changes. As has been said, we must get a commitment to reform the courts, the grounds have to be robust, and we must see enforcement of the existing rules by local authorities, never mind the raft of additional heavy-handed measures included in this legislation. We must retain fixed-term tenancies as an option where mutually beneficial for all parties, to retain flexibility and choice in the market.
The Chair
Suzannah Young, do you wish to add to your initial remarks?
Suzannah Young: In response to the specific question on the private rented sector, it is not an area where I have the most evidence to give, as my main area is the impact on housing associations. However, one thing I can say specifically is that we think that the proposed private rented sector housing ombudsman is absolutely right. Residents in the private rented sector should have access to an ombudsman. It is important that access is clear and easy to navigate for tenants, and that they have routes to redress where things have gone wrong.
From that perspective, and from the perspective of housing associations, we would like to ensure clarity about the remit of the new ombudsman. There is already an ombudsman service for social housing. However, some housing associations also provide market rent homes. It will therefore need to be clear what the expectations on housing associations are, in terms of reporting on their market rent homes, and it should also be clear to tenants which ombudsman they should go to. For example, sometimes there will be social and market rent tenants in the same building with the same landlord. We need clarity on remits so that there is no confusion.
I would like to comment on the points that Melanie Leech made about the readiness of the courts. Housing associations have experience of the impact of delays in the courts and the fast-tracking of possession cases during lockdown. Our members have experience that could be of use in the future. Our members report to us that there are already delays in the court system, which we heard earlier. It can take many months to get a possession hearing. That is a particular problem where possession is being sought, for example, for serious antisocial behaviour or domestic abuse, where delays to possession can increase the risk to tenants from perpetrators.
If the Government wish to implement, for example, a system of fast-tracking of serious cases, there will need to be a robust mechanism. If all cases are fast-tracked, we will be in the same position as if no cases are fast-tracked. We had some feedback from our members about how the courts could have helped with improving their capacity, such as increasing bailiff availability, increasing clerk availability to help to deal with the paperwork and logging of cases on the new online portal, ensuring training for district judges, and addressing the health and safety concerns of bailiffs. If the Committee wishes, I can also give some evidence, either now or later, on the impact on housing associations.
David Simmonds
Q
Timothy Douglas: I think more clarity is needed in the letting agent space. Letting agents are already required to sign up to one of the two Government-approved redress schemes, but those two schemes do not adjudicate in the same way. The property ombudsman will work to a code of practice, and the property redress scheme would work to that code of practice or common law in order to make the adjudication. We are adding an additional layer to that through a landlord ombudsman. Our recommendation would be that those landlords who are fully managing property should sign up to a redress scheme, but we realise that that argument is not necessarily in the legislation and has not been won.
We must look at the myriad management practices—let and rent collection, or fully managed. As a tenant, working with both a landlord and an agent, we have to get adjudication of this new scheme and the existing schemes, and get a code of practice in place for the sector, so that we are all working to the same standards and the same adjudication. Are we also expecting landlords, like agents, to have a complaints procedure that tenants have to work through? We need that parity before we even talk about tribunals and the other things.
We must use the existing schemes and that expertise in the sector. There are 19,000 letting agents in England, and roughly 50% of landlords use an agent, so 50% of landlords are already plugged into those schemes. They have knowledge and experience. Let us get a code of practice built in, so that we are all adjudicating on the same level. Let us get some sort of housing complaints portal across tenures, so that the tenant can make a complaint that is filtered to the relevant ombudsman. We must help the consumer. We are adding a layer of complexity and we need to iron out some of those issues first.
Melanie Leech: I will build on that, but by standing back slightly from the question, because I think this is a subset of a much broader set of issues around transition. This will be hugely complex. We have 4.6 million tenants who will need new leases. Some of them are sub-letting and so on. We have all those new agreements to draft. We are going to need lots of training for the professionals who are managing this. We will need new processes and guidance for agents and local authorities. We will need adjustments to insurance and mortgage policies. The lesson from Wales and Scotland is that a big bang approach does not necessarily work because you cannot get all of that right in one go. We are keen to work with the Government to start thinking now about the implementation strategy. Clarity for tenants and landlords about how the new system will work, where to go and so on is critical to that, but we need to start thinking about that now and to create an implementation framework, because if we do not, these new reforms will not work well.
Timothy Douglas: Scotland has been talked about as an example, but of course, it has phased in private residential tenancies—there still are assured tenancies working in Scotland. But Scotland has a long-standing landlord register, and it has letting agent registration and regulation. There is a tribunal that is free to use for both landlords and tenants. Scotland definitely had a 12 to 15-month phase-in approach for the PRT to kick in. From what we are hearing, we will have Royal Assent, three months and a commencement, and then all these tenancies will switch over. That is an issue for all agents, but certainly for our larger agents, who are managing thousands of tenancies up and down the country. A consideration of the impacts of the transition and extending that would be welcome before the implementation of this legislation.
David Simmonds
Q
Timothy Douglas: From Propertymark’s point of view, we want to see warm, decent homes. The agent can actually be a layer of enforcement, whether they instruct the landlord to take on that property or not, as well as mortgage providers. Unlike social housing, which is designed to specific specifications, the property redress scheme comprises a range of property without specification. The decent homes standard was argued about in the previous Session. It was consulted on by the last Government. There were numerous working groups with the last Government and, yes, it is going to be consulted on again.
From Propertymark’s point of view for the private rented sector, we have to link up with local authority assessments. We have to focus on fit-for-purpose. I know that local authorities—certainly a local authority in the midlands—will, without fail, change all the boilers every five years in their housing stock. I am sorry, but private rented landlords do not have the money to do that, and the social rented sector has received billions of pounds in eco funding as well. If we are to get that parity between the private and social rented sector, the private rented sector needs to see that funding come forward, certainly in the thermal comfort space—cool in the summer, warm in the winter. Why, for the 18 different archetypes of property across the country, are we going for a one-size-fits-all energy efficiency target? That is going to nullify older properties in England and Wales where the regulations extend and rural properties. Let us simplify the HHSRS as well. There are existing levers that we need.
Finally, on this point about extending decent homes and Awaab’s law, we welcome these steps as long as we get them right for the uniqueness of the private rented sector. In the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which was passed in the last Parliament, there is a requirement for all property managers in the social rented sector to be qualified. We think that should be extended to the private rented sector to all letting agents as well. If we can get that code of practice in place through adjudication and redress, we can qualify our letting agents. We get parity, drive up standards and help enforcement. That would certainly go a long way towards the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law being implemented in this sector.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Melanie Leech: The first thing to say, as you know, is that institutional investment into the build-to-rent sector specifically is a growing part of the housing supply mix. It is bringing in genuinely additional investment, because it is the type of investment that does not typically invest in build to sell—you have people wanting to use large amounts of capital to generate secure income streams so that they can match against pension liabilities, insurance liabilities and so on. Probably the key word in that is “secure”. Anything that damages investors’ confidence that the income they will get from their investment is at risk will undermine our potential to unlock investment into homes and the rental sector. Currently, the peak year for build-to-rent delivery was 15,000 homes. We think that you can double that to 30,000 homes, with the right conditions, and some of my members would go further and say that you can double that again. We are looking at an investment stream that could be a very significant part of helping to deliver the Government’s aspirations to build more homes.
What I have already talked about, in terms of the ability of the courts to cope with the reforms, is an important indicator of confidence. Investors will look at that and think, “This changes the basis on which I have invested. It makes it more difficult for me to manage the property efficiently.” I think the issues around rent determination also have that potential, so there is nervousness around needing to use section 13 and rent increases. There is a suspicion that tenants have nothing to lose by challenging any rent increase, so it is about getting the framework right around how we define what an unreasonable rent increase might be and how we manage those cases that might come before tribunals. There are some issues around that that we would like to see more clarity around and redressed.
In general, we are really supportive, because in the part of the market that I represent the decent homes standard already would not cause us an issue in terms of implementation and so on. We are trying to raise standards in the private rented sector, and we are raising standards in the private rented sector, but the key thing is to implement the reforms in a way that does not undermine investor confidence, so that we do not inhibit the supply of homes.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Melanie Leech: This is pure speculation, because I have not asked members this question. History suggests that once legislation is passed, those affected by it figure out the best way to protect their interests in the light of the new framework, so I would broadly expect that to happen. But if we are asking ourselves how we get back to a position where investors can have confidence, we should probably ask ourselves why we are asking that question in the first place. We should be creating a framework within which investors can have that confidence.
For example, some of the nervousness will be around the fact that, if you have a litigious tenant who takes you to the tribunal and ultimately to the courts over a rent increase, and the decision goes in the landlord’s favour, you have still lost several months. You cannot backdate the reasonable rent increase for which you have just won the court’s authority, so you have lost a lot of money in terms of both the rent accruing and the amount of time you have to spend going through that process. Let us just remind ourselves that when I talk about landlords here, I am primarily talking about pension funds and insurance funds, so it is our money.
Timothy Douglas: I think that is the point. While we need supply—and we need supply from all sources—landlords in the private sector are a broad community. The bulk of private rented sector landlords have one, two or three properties. What is disincentivising investor confidence is not necessarily the competence of this Bill, but the sector would welcome a review of all taxes and costs that have impacted private landlords in the past five years. We have seen the reduction in mortgage interest relief, the 3% additional surcharge when you buy a rented property, tinkering with capital gains tax—some are taxed as businesses while some are not—and changes to the wear and tear allowance. If we really focus and want to be sensible about incentivising landlords and the investment community, we have to shine a spotlight on taxes and costs.
Alongside this legislation, we need to enact the registration requirements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 on short-term lets as well. Otherwise, we are going to see a further exodus of landlords to the short-term lets market, which is less regulated and has fewer controls in place.
We need to build more social homes. Ultimately, as you will know, Minister, our argument remains that we need to retain fixed-term tenancies as an option. They give the landlord and the tenant a guarantee of the length of time they will be there and the rent that they will pay. Families renting with children near schools, as well as nurses who have placements, are coming to our agents saying that they want to know how long they are going to be in situ. As I say, we need to provide long-term tenancy options for those who want them and ensure that people do not go to the unregulated short-term lets market.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Timothy Douglas: We have just been talking about the other side of the coin, which is investors.
Matthew Pennycook
No, not investors. You made a point about tenants.
Timothy Douglas: Yes, but that is the crux of it. Unfortunately, if you push too far on the fixed-term tenancy option, the grounds are not robust enough for landlords. Unfortunately, they do not know how long the tenant is going to be in situ. They cannot plan their investment, and they do not know the return on their rent. It is a mutual agreement. We are not saying that it is one or the other. We are saying retain it as an option. Why are we legislating to reduce choice and flexibility?
Agents are telling me up and down the country that that is what tenants want. The leading letting agent in London, which manages 65,000 tenancies, says that fixed-term contracts are popular within the private-rented sector. Many tenants opted for tenancies between one and three years, with the average first term lasting 23 months. At the end of the initial term, 65% of tenants choose to renew. Only 1% of tenancies are ended early by landlords; 5% are ended by tenants. People know where they stand and where they are going to be. It is an option that should be included in the legislation. We have talked today about students as well. It would solve all the problems in the student market.
We are tinkering there with issues that just do not exist. Retain fixed-term tenancies for all, or at least within the student market, or extend ground 4A to one or more sharers. You are tying yourselves in knots in so many ways.
Mr Amos
Q
Timothy Douglas: I was actually saying that fixed terms should be retained regardless of landlords.
Mr Amos
Q
Melanie Leech: A minimum tenancy would certainly help with investor confidence.
Mr Amos
Q
Melanie Leech: Ideally, we would want a year—perhaps six months.
On the impact, to answer the Minister’s point, it is not that families cannot stay for as long as they want to. This is a high-quality product—I am talking particularly about the build-to-rent sector. The risk for build-to-rent providers is that people will treat build to rent more like an Airbnb-type product. That could transform what should be rental products for families to move into for the long term. That is what we want—we want people to stay somewhere to make it their home. But this proposal will inhibit the supply of those products to long-term tenants, because we are vulnerable to short-term tenancies flipping all the time. That is the concern. It is not that people cannot stay for long if they want to; it is that those products will be easier for people to treat more like a short let—an Airbnb-style product.
Timothy Douglas: We need build to rent, but let us not forget that in build to rent, on average, the rents are a lot higher, because people are paying for a concierge and the other services, so it is not the ultimate answer for all parts of the sector. We are not going to support everyone. I do not think that there should be a timeframe on the fixed term, but we can make use of grounds that landlords cannot use as levers, and you could put break clauses in as well.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Q
Suzannah Young: We believe that everyone has the right to a warm, dry, safe, secure and affordable home, and social housing has a greater proportion of decent homes than housing of any other tenure. That could suggest that having a decent homes standard helps to bring up standards in housing. We also recognise that housing associations exist to fulfil a social purpose, and we are rightly held to a higher standard. We welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing the decent homes standard. We are pleased to continue to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as this develops.
In terms of some feedback for the private rented sector, we agree that it is important to have a clear, modern and meaningful standard that reflects what residents would expect a decent home to be. It is also important that all landlords should have a clear understanding of the condition of all their homes. In the social sector, we are doing work to develop a more consistent approach in that area, as part of our response to “The Better Social Housing Review”. It would need to be something that private landlords were able to do as well to bring up standards.
Specifically—this has been mentioned in terms of the private sector—it is important to recognise that the housing association sector faces multiple and competing pressures, with budgets that are already stretched. We would like to see investment in existing homes at the same time as development of the desperately needed new and affordable homes in the Government’s long-term housing strategy. I suggest that similar attention would be needed for the private sector.
Timothy Douglas: May I pick up on that point? That argument was used in Scotland on the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. I gave evidence on that legislation two or three times to the Committee up there. In the end, the argument was that the cap was lifted for the social rented sector because it needs to plan for its investment. That is the crux, and it goes back to my previous points—there is no parity here with the incentives, the business planning and the costs that private landlords are facing. We have to have that parity. If the legislation is extending across, the funding needs to be the same. We have to have parity in the investment, the caps and everything else—that needs to be the same. We need that review into all the taxes and costs impacting private landlords, because, quite frankly, we are not getting legislation from either Government Department—the Treasury or MHCLG—that understands the investor appetite for the private rented sector. This legislation is not helping.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Timothy Douglas: It is difficult to say. We know anecdotally that if you are in an agent branch and a landlord wants to sell, the branch would try to push that property towards a bigger landlord who could perhaps take it on before it goes on to the open market. We know that that happens in order to retain property. Anecdotally, we know that, because of legislative uncertainty and costs of legislation, as well as the cost of living, which has also hit landlords with their costs, landlords have left the sector—I gave the example of the agent in the west midlands previously. However, it is difficult to ascertain hard data across the board. That could be another recommendation to the Government: to come back with an annual review to Parliament on the state of the private rented sector.
Suzannah Young: May I come in on that?
The Chair
We are going to have to go on to the next question, because we are running short of time. I call Michael Wheeler, who has been waiting.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Q
Suzannah Young: Thank you for your question. As I said, we welcome the Bill, and we support the Government’s ambition to give greater rights and protections to people renting their homes, and to value the contributions made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes. We do think it is crucial that the details of the legislation do not have unintended consequences for housing associations and for people living in social housing. We would like to ensure that the changes do not impact housing associations’ ability to provide decent, safe, secure and affordable homes for people who need them most. It is clear that care has been taken in drafting the Bill to minimise the impacts on social housing and tenants of social housing, and we are grateful for the engagement on these issues from MHCLG so far.
However, there remain a few areas that we feel need ironing out to avoid impacting the ability of our housing association members to deliver housing in what is a challenging environment, while still keeping rents affordable. Those specifically relate to the changes to rent increases, with ground 1 being the rent to buy ground and ground 6 being the redevelopment ground. First, we would like to see the proposals around rent increases made clearer or changed to make absolutely certain that they retain social landlords’ ability to increase rent in a harmonised way, which is to avoid impacts on the supply of social housing and to ensure fair rent levels for neighbours and the ability to deliver repairs, maintenance and services to tenants. That is because, as I mentioned earlier, all rental income is reinvested into providing those services. So any loss of rent would have an impact on tenants who receive those services, and repairs and maintenance.
We would also like to see ground 1B extended to apply when the home is converted to another rental product, which is not currently in the ground. That would be in order to help housing associations to meet local housing need where there is no demand for rent to buy or purchase. We would like housing associations to have access to ground 6 in all cases, so that they can carry out essential works that are of benefit to tenants.
We will follow up with more detail in our written evidence, and we would be happy to meet any members of the Committee if they would like to discuss any of these points in more detail.
The Chair
Thank you very much, and I thank all the panel for the evidence that they have provided to us. I am sorry that we do not have any discretion, but we now have to move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Adam Hug and Dr Henry Dawson gave evidence.
The Chair
We have Dr Dawson here physically and Councillor Hug on Zoom. Could you please introduce yourselves briefly?
Dr Henry Dawson: Good afternoon. My name is Dr Henry Dawson. I work as a lecturer at Cardiff Metropolitan University and I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health’s housing advisory panel. I am here today to represent the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.
Cllr Adam Hug: I am Councillor Adam Hug. I am the Local Government Association’s chair for local infrastructure and net zero, which basically means its housing spokesman, among other things, and I am the leader of Westminster City Council. I am here at the LGA conference in Harrogate; apologies for that.
David Simmonds
Q
Dr Henry Dawson: Councillor Hug, shall I start and then pass on to you?
Cllr Adam Hug: Okay.
Dr Henry Dawson: At the moment, we have quite considerable extra burdens being placed on local authorities. The two major areas for that would be in the enforcement around the database and in managing the landlords who have either been rejected from or refused to join the ombudsman’s scheme.
In both cases, the fees that are available to be charged for the schemes will generate some revenue. However, national schemes, by their very nature, will have to be relatively low cost. Rent Smart Wales is a good example. It has an application fee that is little more than £100, so that allows for some intervention. However, the majority of the burden for the enforcement side of things under this new Bill will be placed on local authorities. If just 5% of a sector was to refuse to engage with one scheme or the other, a typical local authority would have around 700 properties that it had to carry out formal enforcement work on, and an awful lot of those would require civil penalty notices or prosecutions.
The CIEH is very keen to see that the funding for local authorities is linked directly to the fees for these schemes and represents the cost proportionately, with the additional burden being placed on the enforcement bodies for the private rented sector—environmental health and private housing enforcement teams.
The notable exception in the Bill is that the ombudsman fees are permitted to cover the cost for the ombudsman to enforce its statutory functions, but there is nothing specific in there, as there is for the database, for those funds to be passed on directly to a local authority.
The other thing we have found with previous legislation is that there is usually short-term additional funding from the Secretary of State’s general budget to support local authorities in introducing these new burdens, but then that sort of tails off. It is replaced with a whole miscellany of short periods of funding, which makes it impossible for local authorities to manage staffing and attract and train up new staff. We are therefore ending up with a situation where approximately half the posts we have for local authority enforcement teams in environmental health are going unfilled for more than six months. It has been a real hand-to-mouth existence for local government enforcement teams. If we could have funding proportionate to the size of the sector in a particular area coming directly from the fees for these national schemes, it would be very gratefully received by local authorities.
David Simmonds
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: To echo that, I think it is important to understand where we are starting from. We have seen environmental health teams in councils cut over the last 14 years, because of the financial situations councils find themselves in. Environmental health officer posts are one of the top three most challenging roles for councils to fill at the moment. It is really important that the new burdens doctrine is applied properly, with up-front funding to make sure that councils can build teams to deliver this as quickly as possible.
We welcome the proposed fine retention, but we think there may be a case for raising the upper limit for the most egregious cases from the current £7,000 up to about £30,000 to fully capture the impacts of some of the worst properties, but also to ensure that revenue can fund council services that are enforcing this. We welcome this, but we must make sure that local councils are properly resourced to deliver it.
Dr Henry Dawson: May I make one additional comment, please? At the moment, the Bill makes substantial use of civil penalty notices. We welcome the use of them. It is very welcome to see funding coming directly into local authority enforcement coffers, as it is something we do not get through prosecutions that are carried out through the courts. It is, however, worth pointing out that they represent the very thinnest end of the wedge for the enforcement activity of local authorities. We only use them where all the informal approaches—service of legal notices and so on—have been unsuccessful, and we are forced to resort to taking more punitive action.
In the majority of cases, we can resolve things informally with landlords, and the majority of landlords are good providers. It is just worth noting that while the penalties are a source of income, they are not predictable or particularly sustainable. Only around 50% of what we charge in penalties at the moment is collected, because of the difficulties in trying to capture the money at the other end of the process. I would just caution against assuming that they are a very reliable source that will keep us going. There are an awful lot of other things we have to pay for.
David Simmonds
Q
Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, local authorities are significant users of the private rented sector for people who would otherwise be at risk of homelessness. It is common for local authorities to pay rent-in-advance deposits and use various other guarantee schemes to secure private rented sector homes for people who would otherwise not be able to access a home. Councillor Hug, I am interested in how you think the Bill would impact on the performance of that duty.
Cllr Adam Hug: In terms of the ability for councils to procure accommodation, having stability in the rental market will help us in managing demand pressures. We are conscious that there is an interaction with the Housing Act 2004 requirements around the prevention duty. That is one of the major challenges created by this Bill, so we want to ensure that local authorities are properly resourced to cover the potential additional time beyond the current 56 days, where we are having to provide prevention support to people while enforcement happens—[Interruption.]
David Simmonds
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: Apologies; I was just saying that the biggest area of concern about our homelessness duties is ensuring that the increased costs to councils of providing the additional prevention duty over the length of time for which the section 8 notices are going through the court are properly captured. That, on the interaction with housing, is the area we are most concerned about, but it is all perfectly solvable.
David Simmonds
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: We are not aware that this Bill creates a particular problem in that regard. We can come back to you in writing if there is anything further, but it is not an area of particular concern to us at the moment.
David Simmonds
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: No, we do not think it does. The key thing for us is that you have the current selective licensing mechanisms, but councils face bureaucratic hurdles in terms of getting the Secretary of State’s sign-off for large schemes that wish to go down that route. In terms of ensuring decisions are made at the right level, in line with the Government’s commitment to devolution, we think that for selective licensing to really fulfil its potential we must ensure there is no longer a need for the Secretary of State’s sign-off.
Obviously, that sort of licensing can improve standards in the sector, help councils to recruit environmental health officers, beef up the function and make sure we are playing a proactive role in helping manage the private rented sector in a local area. Different councils have used it, but at the moment it is hamstrung by the bureaucratic hurdle of getting it up to the Secretary of State. Obviously, we have a Secretary of State who is probably more minded to support the use of such schemes than was the case in the past, but it still creates an unnecessary hurdle and a delay when councils could just get on and use these licensing schemes that are desperately needed.
Dr Henry Dawson: May I add some responses? At the moment, we have a maximum five-year duration for discretionary licensing schemes. Once the schemes have been brought into force, it takes a certain amount of time to create the partnerships with other organisations, such as waste and street scene departments, police and antisocial behaviour teams, and antisocial behaviour schemes within the council, other charities and NHS-related bodies. They usually take between one and three years to mature.
Local authorities are also required to entice enough staff to be able to immediately provide a strong inspectorate to run these schemes. That can be anything from five to 50 staff, depending on the size of the scheme. We find that the five-year duration of schemes is a significant impediment, so it would be much more welcome to see something like a 10-year timeframe. That would permit us to train up new staff through the existing one or three-year qualifications. It would also allow these partnerships to mature so we see some of the true benefits of the schemes.
The other thing is that a large private rented sector is required; that is a point that a local authority has to prove when it is setting up one of these selective licensing schemes. We see that as an unnecessary hurdle to their introduction. They are part of a package of measures to address a range of problems associated with housing conditions, crime and antisocial behaviour across an area, and we see that as being an unnecessary impediment to their execution. It is one more thing that the local authority has to prove.
Finally, discretionary schemes, and particularly selective licensing, are one of the few things that provide access to properties. Even though the legislation has been changed, with some regulations to expand the use of selective licensing to include dealing with poor housing conditions, under the Housing Act 2004 we are unable to enforce conditions relating to the condition and contents of a property. We can only change those in HMO licensing conditions; we cannot change them in selective licensing conditions. Therefore, this is the first opportunity that we have really had, with a piece of primary legislation, to amend the Housing Act 2004 to provide parity in what local authority environmental health officers can require in the conditions and contents of properties through selective licensing, in addition to HMO licensing.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
You mentioned the fines—£7,000 for first or minor compliance issues, and £40,000 for more serious ones— and they can be levied repeatedly. I just want to get a sense of how much of the cost of enforcement you think those fines can account for. We recognise that it will not be enough, and that the new burdens principle will have to operate, but have you got a sense of it in terms of, as you say, how many cases are resolved before it reaches that point? What will be the willingness under the new system to levy these kinds of fines, and what proportion of the enforcement costs do you think, on average, local authorities might see those fines account for?
Dr Henry Dawson: Thank you for your question, Minister. At the moment, we have the use of civil penalty notices, and I would defer to a report by the National Residential Landlords Association to provide a summary of their use over the period between 2001 and 2003. We see that approximately £12 million was given in penalties over that period, and around £6 million of that was recorded as collected through penalties over that period.
It is also worth noting that these civil penalty notices are intended to be an alternative to a prosecution through the courts; they are not intended to be a revenue generator. The licensing fees, the ombudsman fee and the database fees are where we can generate the revenue at the front end. These civil penalty notices are being used as a final, ultimate punishment for some of the worst offenders. Yes, we can administer £7,000 for the initial offence and £40,000 for ongoing offenders, but they really are intended to be a deterrent, as opposed to a source of revenue.
The majority—maybe 90%—of a local authority’s work is carried out through informal advice giving, with people ringing up and asking for guidance in what is a very complex legislative environment. That is certainly something that landlords and letting agents would like to have more of. We serve formal legal notices, but it is only when we have gone through a whole series of informal approaches that we move to a formal approach through a legal notice and, ultimately, a prosecution or penalty notice. Therefore, really, we are looking at maybe 5%—to pluck a figure out of the air—which is a tiny proportion of what we have got across the country, and probably the only national figures we have on this are those that have been pulled together by the NRLA.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: indicated assent.
Matthew Pennycook
You are nodding vigorously, which is a good indicator, but have you got views more widely about the changes that we have made on antisocial behaviour—about being able to take action immediately, for example, or considering the implications on other people in a household, as well as that switch back to “likely”, rather than “capable of”, which we felt was too broad under the previous legislation?
Cllr Adam Hug: Absolutely. We agree that the previous legislation was too broad to be meaningful. I think the key thing for us is supporting where we are now, in terms of reverting to “likely”, but, also, there needs to be clear guidance given by the Department—obviously, building on existing case law—with clear definitions from your team about what constitutes antisocial behaviour, both so that landlords know and so that councils can know regarding enforcement. I am sure that there are teams at the LGA, and others, that are happy to work with you on the development of that, but giving clear guidance to the sector is going to be essential to ensuring that the powers are used effectively.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Dr Henry Dawson: The CIEH would be keen to be part of discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the operation of that database. I note that quite a lot of the content in the Bill is to be delivered through secondary legislation, and if we could be part of the shaping of that legislation, it would be very welcome. Things that would make it more effective include ensuring local authorities’ ease of access to the records on the database; providing local authorities with broad enforcement powers that would allow things such as the provision of information from any person; and the ability readily to access records of other local authorities’ enforcement activities. These sorts of records make it much easier for us to co-ordinate our activity across different areas of the country.
Having a single database operator, providing, as one of its functions, a source of advice in the industry would also provide us with a single point of information to refer people to when they come to us asking for support. That would alleviate a lot of the burden and the time our officers spend managing these requests for information. Therefore, we would not be relying on what are often chat forums and other informal information sources for our landlord operators to address problems on what is usually a responsive and as-and-when-they-occur basis.
Eighty-five per cent of landlords in the sector own one to three properties. That is roughly half the sector’s total housing stock, so those are the landlords we need to focus on trying to support. Providing advice and guidance will be an invaluable function of the database operator.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Dr Henry Dawson: Councillor Hug, would you like to start?
Cllr Adam Hug: As much support as possible in training up the next generation of environmental health officers is essential. There is a whole raft of skills shortages across the housing sector that you touched upon. Obviously, we want to make sure that people are considering this line of work as a career they want to go into rather than leave. There is a pipeline problem in terms of people coming into environmental health as a workstream, but I do not think that should necessarily delay what we are doing with the Bill. Ultimately, it has been talked around for some time; we need to crack on and get it done. It is absolutely the case that getting that local funding piece is right. Then we can join up with skills and training by making sure that local authorities have a pathway to recruit people into their teams. It is about getting the funding piece right alongside the direction of travel.
Dr Henry Dawson: We face some barriers to bringing people into the profession. For example, we have some more sustainable sources of income with things like licensing legislation, where we can charge a fee; at the moment, my own research finds that only about half those schemes charge enough in fees to cover the full costs of management and enforcement. The Lawrence and Wilson review of selective licensing has shown that if we do not charge enough, it ends up reducing the exercise into a sort of glorified paperwork, so we have to charge enough to make it meaningful.
I would argue that staffing is probably one of the most fundamental issues when it comes to the effectiveness of the interventions proposed in the Bill. At the moment, the predominantly hand-to-mouth existence with local authorities, which we have had for quite a long time now, has been predicated on the fact that we are relying on the council tax payer to fund the enforcement of the private rented sector. That is quite peculiar compared with other industries such as building control or planning, which are able to levy up-front fees that do not have to go through a test of political will—which a lot of local authority managers have to navigate to try to predict what the market within their local political support will accept. It takes a lot out on the guesswork and acceptability side.
The ability to charge a fee also provides us with a sustainable and predictable source of income, and that has been lacking for a long time in local government. If you are never sure of whether you will have funding beyond one or possibly three years, with short-term pots of money that are provided often based on a competitive approach—it is about winning them—then you get a member of staff, but you have to train them once you have got them in. Being optimistic, we can train them through an apprenticeship scheme lasting a year to do just housing work, or if we are training them as an environmental health officer, it is three years for the traditional degree route or five years for an apprenticeship.
Having some form of ringfencing of the funding, which allows local authorities to dedicate resources to attract people into the profession, would be very helpful, as the report that I have pretty much every time I speak to a local authority about recruitment for my programme at the university is, “We don’t have the resources to send people to these events to raise awareness about the profession.” A lot of people are just not aware of what we do; once they find out, it is something that sells itself.
Fire and police are comparable bodies, and they tend to have much more success because they have the resources to devote to this. It comes down to sustainable and predictable funding. That allows us to train and retain, and attract new staff.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
Q
Cllr Adam Hug: I think the provision will help; the whole point is that we are desperate for this. It has been talked about for a long time and as soon as it can be brought in to provide security in the market, it will be extremely helpful to help stabilise a lot of tenancies where there is still uncertainty. The quicker it can come in, the more helpful it will be.
The Bill will not be a magic bullet that will solve the homelessness problems that councils are facing. I pointed out earlier one of the small technical challenges: the duties that local government will be dealing with will be extended in time and go up, we think, from 56 days to 21 weeks on average under the prevention duty. That is a small price to pay, but ultimately, we would like some help paying for that price.
In terms of stability in the private rented sector, this measure is long overdue and will hopefully take some heat out of the sector, but there are all sorts of things going on that mean that it is going to take a long time to turn around the wider issues of local government finance for temporary accommodation, because that is one of the biggest pressures; there are so many councils at the moment that are working hard to procure as much temporary accommodation as possible.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Q
You both have a wealth of experience and expertise; thank you for what you have shared already. I want to follow on from the last question and open the floor a bit more to see whether you had any additional thoughts about the Bill’s strengths or any areas where you feel it could be further strengthened—points that our questions so far have not let you speak to.
Dr Henry Dawson: Councillor Hug, would you like to go first?
Cllr Adam Hug: I think we have identified the key thing for us. Dr Dawson explained some of the challenges around funding stability, and we think that on many different levels it would be extremely helpful if the Bill made it easier to apply selective licensing schemes. Making it easier to use that existing tool would help to provide stability, but ultimately we are just very keen for this legislation to be passed through Parliament so that tenants get the extra protection and councils have certainty about what will be expected of them. We want to ensure that we are properly funded to help us to deliver this important task, but we are keen to get it right.
The Chair
That brings us perfectly to our finishing time. May I thank both witnesses for their evidence? We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Anny Cullum gave evidence.
The Chair
Anny Cullum, would you like to introduce yourself?
Anny Cullum: I am Anny Cullum, and I am the policy officer at and a founding member of Acorn, an organisation that has been running for the last 10 years. It has been operating like a trade union but on community issues, so we have lots of members who campaign on housing issues and operate effectively as a tenants’ union in around 27 places across England and Wales.
David Simmonds
Q
Anny Cullum: We are pleased to see stricter measures and penalties for landlords laid out in the Bill, and we are particularly happy that new burdens funding will be available to councils to enact them. However, our experience as a tenants’ union is that often councils are so overstretched trying to do the things that they already have to do that tenants are waiting months before getting the support they need. Often their landlords have been given very informal notices and long timescales to get things done, which is no good for a tenant living in a dangerous home.
A great thing about this Bill is that section 21s will be banned. Something that we have seen a lot—we had a member in Sheffield go through this recently—is a local authority coming in and investigating poor conditions in a home, giving an informal notice to the landlord, and the landlord then issuing a section 21; the tenant basically has to pay for the fact that they dared to complain. We are really pleased that that will end, but we think there should be more funding for local authorities, not just extra burden funding for the new things, but for the stuff that they already have to do.
Our union really supports landlord licensing. We have done campaigns in this area in 11 different places around the country. It is incredibly popular with our members; it came out as one of our top motions at our recent conference. If done well, landlord licensing can be self-funding, and—this is a great thing to think about—it gives councils the ability to inspect homes without the tenant having to raise the issue themselves, so you can find out about bad practice and malpractice without the tenant feeling at risk of complaining. Obviously, they will have fewer risks once this legislation comes through, but it will take a long time for tenants to feel comfortable raising their voices, which our organisation tries to help them to do.
We really support the points made by colleagues in the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. We have campaigned in a lot of places for city-wide landlord licensing, as it is something that our members really care about, but a lot of councils have told us that they are not willing to take the risk of trying to implement wider licensing schemes, because they can be turned down by the Secretary of State. They have said that the work you need to do to put that application in is quite labour-intensive, and they do not want to risk doing all that work for it not to come to fruition. In the spirit of devolution and supporting local authorities to do the job they should be doing, give them back powers to license as much of the city as they want, increase the term to up to 10 years, and do away with the bureaucratic hurdles and the evidence gathering they need to do to get the wider licensing schemes.
Matthew Pennycook
Q
Anny Cullum: One area our Members feel particularly strongly about that could be strengthened in the Bill to ensure that it delivers the change we all want to see is measures against illegal evictions. It will be wonderful when section 21 is banned, but we know that there are lots of landlords who issue section 21 eviction notices in response to tenants complaining, because they do not want to maintain their properties. For that unscrupulous group, we are worried that illegal evictions might take the place of section 21 evictions once section 21s are banned. We feel that the Bill could go further to make sure that this is not an easy option for them to take.
Hardly any cases of illegal eviction ever make it to court. Safer Renting data showed that there were 26 prosecutions in 2022—the year we have the most recent data for—but it knew about 9,000 cases of illegal eviction. Even when illegal evictions get to court, the fines are £1,000. That is less than my monthly rent. It is not a deterrent for the average landlord. We would like to suggest some changes to make sure that this is not used as a back door to get around the legislation.
We would like to see local councils given a statutory duty and the funding to investigate all cases of illegal eviction. Recently we had a member in Leeds whose landlord kept issuing false eviction notices—ones that he could not go to his local council to ask for support with, so he stayed there. The landlord used many different underhand ways to try to force him out, including sending men with knives to cut the wires in his house so that he did not have any electricity. He has been on the phone for hours to his council and the police, and they have not been very helpful. We want to see those bodies empowered with both the duties and the money to act for tenants.
Police forces need more training. I have supported tenants who landlords have tried to intimidate out of their house. The police do not seem to know that this is a criminal offence or that they have the ability to act on it, so it would be good if there was training on that. We would also like it to be made easier for people and councils to take these criminal cases forward. It can be quite hard to meet the evidence threshold needed to get a rent repayment order, so we would like to see changes there, which I have laid out in our written evidence. We would also like the civil penalty notices that councils can use to be raised to up to £60,000. I know that sounds high, but being forced out of your home with your family is a horrendous thing to happen to anyone. We want to ensure that this is treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
Illegals eviction is one area that my members asked me to speak about. I have also spoken about landlord licensing. A further issue is rent in advance. We are overjoyed that this Bill will end bidding wars, which is something we have campaigned for in different places across the country. We have tried to get agents themselves to pledge not to do it and then mystery shopped them to make sure that they are not. But if you allow agents and landlords at the start of a tenancy to ask, “How many months up front can you give me? Someone else said they could give me a year”, that is another form of bidding war, just at a different point of the process.
We conducted some research at the start of this month and found that benefit claimants were three times more likely to be asked for a year’s rent up front than people not claiming benefits. We are pleased that the Government are keen to crack down on discrimination in the private rented sector against people on low incomes, but this is one way that it is happening and we feel that the Bill could do more on that issue. I have two more areas that my members want me to speak to, if that is okay.
The Chair
Let some other people ask questions and perhaps you will have the opportunity to include those points in your answers.
Mr Amos
Q
Anny Cullum: We would like to see letting agents regulated. Especially with the issues around bidding wars and discrimination when you enter a new home or the private sector for the first time, in the majority of cases that will be about your experience with your letting agency. We as Acorn suggest mystery shopping, like when Trading Standards sends kids into shops to mystery shop and sees whether they will sell them alcohol. Maybe we should be sending people into letting agencies and seeing whether they are being discriminated against on the basis of any protected characteristic, but particularly on the basis of being benefit claimants. That part could be strengthened in the Bill.
Sam Carling
Q
Anny Cullum: I think the landlord database will be excellent. It is important from our point of view that the landlord database includes information for tenants on previous enforcement action that has been taken against landlords, because you can then make an informed choice as a tenant about where you would like to rent. That will be another way to deter landlords from behaving illegally because they know they will have a mark against their name on the register. We hope the register will mean that, rather than tenants trying to compete for homes at the moment, landlords are competing for tenants by behaving in a good way and providing a good service. Having that sort of information on the database would be incredibly helpful.
Carla Denyer
Q
Anny Cullum: On withholding rent for serious disrepair, there are much-improved schemes and action within the Bill around the decent homes standard and improving standards for tenants, but a lot of the action set out to be taken if tenants are experiencing disrepair is retroactive or down the line. We know that councils can take a long time to act and that lots of tenants will not pursue things like rent repayment orders because they just do not have the time and energy. But if someone is living with serious disrepair—things like the damp and mould laid out in Awaab’s law, which we are pleased to see moving over to the private rented sector—we think there could be a mechanism whereby, if it is not fixed within the timescale set out by Awaab’s law, they could withhold their rent and pay it to a third party, which could then give the landlord another timescale within which to solve it. If they did not solve it, the tenant would get the rent paid back. If they did, the landlord would get the rent.
That would be an immediate incentive to do the work and stop leaving people in the dangerous conditions we see all the time. Landlords are not necessarily going to worry in the moment about a rent repayment order that a tenant may or may not put in for, which would take ages to go through a court—landlords sometimes do not even pay them anyway—whereas, if you can withhold the rent, that will speed along the process of sorting out mouldy and unsafe homes. So that is the mechanism we would think of. There are lots of considerations as to how it could work. If you consult on bringing Awaab’s law into the private rented sector, that will be a good place to think about the best mechanism to do it.
I think your second question was about rent hikes—rent rises.
Carla Denyer
Q
Anny Cullum: Unfortunately, no. We as an organisation at the moment would never recommend that anyone go to the rent tribunal, because we have seen tenants go there and have more rent—a higher percentage—awarded than the landlord was asking for in the first place. We are pleased to see that you are going to get rid of that, but we would like to see rent rises capped at the lower of median wage growth over the last three years or inflation. From my experience, I know most tenants are not going to go to the tribunal. It is brilliant if they do, but a lot of people will accept the rise, or have to move out because they cannot afford it, or get into debt. This means that the people who do go to the tribunal will still be judged against market rents that are way more unaffordable than the one at which they went into their contract. Does that make sense? We are not going to bring rents down just by tinkering with the tribunal.
This is mainly about making sure that people can stay in their homes and it does not undermine the Government’s efforts to prevent no-fault evictions. This could easily be used as a no-fault eviction by the back door. You could just put the rent up to a level that you know your tenant cannot afford. We do not think comparing what is affordable with new prices is the best way, so we would advocate for that cap on how much rent could be increased by.
Connor Naismith
Q
Anny Cullum: As I said, the five areas that I wanted to cover were illegal evictions, landlord licensing, capping rent up front to one month, withholding rent for disrepair and making renting more affordable. We see even the cap on in-tenancy rent rises as not really about affordability, but mainly about preventing back-door economic evictions or section 21s. We feel that, while this Bill goes far on improving security for renters, it is not going to do enough to address one of the No. 1 problems our tenants and members are coming to us with every day, which is affordability. Rents are outstripping wages all the time. We would like to see the Government set up a commission to look into ways we can bring rents down and keep them affordable once and for all. That is something that we would like to see.
Lola McEvoy
Q
Anny Cullum: It might have a small impact, but I think that the reality is that most landlords will expect most tenants not to make use of that scheme.
Lola McEvoy
Q
Anny Cullum: The problem with this is that it is going to be judged by the market rates—what the going amount for other-sized homes in your local area is for new tenancies—and those are going up all the time. Unless we do something to stop those rates going up all the time, you as my landlord could say, “I want to put your rent up by 50%”, and if I challenge it at the tribunal, if I have been there for three years, for example, I suspect that could be what the going market rent now is in my local area, because the system, as Ben Beadle said earlier today, is absolutely mad and out of control.
We need more drastic action to bring down rents, because it is unreasonable to ask someone to pay 50% more than they are paying at the moment, but in some places—
The Chair
Order. Thank you very much. I am afraid I have to interrupt, because otherwise we will not have time to listen to the Minister. Thank you for your evidence.
Examination of Witness
The Chair
Minister, would you introduce yourself very briefly, please?
Matthew Pennycook: Yes. I am Matthew Pennycook and I am the Minister of State for Housing and Planning.
David Simmonds
Q
The first question is simply this: what advice have you received so far and what are the plans in respect of the interaction with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017? That is the point I was asking Councillor Hug about—the Homelessness Reduction Act creating that opportunity for local authorities to act as a guarantor to pay deposits, including rent in advance, to secure a property that would not otherwise be available to that tenant. I ask that question in the light of some of the evidence that we have heard about the impact of guarantors and deposits within the Bill, which I appreciate is not yet a settled matter.
Secondly, I invite you to share your thoughts on enforcement authorities, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon highlighted, which are referred to in chapter two. I have an idea why this might be the case, but the Bill creates a specific measure, in clause 104(4), that says:
“A county council in England which is not a local housing authority may—
(a) enforce the landlord legislation;”—
The joy of local government: the Minister will know that county councils are not housing authorities, so it would perhaps be helpful if you could set out the Government’s thinking around that, and say how any advice or engagement may have taken place already with local Government to determine the way forward on that.
Matthew Pennycook: Did you say three or two questions?
David Simmonds
There are three questions, but I have forgotten the third one, so I will ask you those two questions and then find the third question and come back with it, if I may.
Matthew Pennycook: Let me take those two questions forward.
The point that I took from Councillor Hug was a very specific one about the trigger for homelessness prevention duties under the Bill. Currently the trigger is a section 21 notice; once the new system is in place, it will be a section 8 notice. In theory, that broadens the scope of the duty, if you like, and therefore we will consider new burdens funding for local authorities as a result, because it could increase the costs to them.
On the specific point about county courts, I want to make sure that I have understood the hon. Gentleman properly. I think it might be better if I write to him with the specifics, but I would assume that his question is linked to the fact that in many cases we need to look to assign a lead enforcement authority in particular parts of the country, because of the specific arrangements of governance in particular areas. However, I am more than happy to write to him with further detail on the point about counties.
David Simmonds
Q
I have a final point. A number of the witnesses today have made a point that clarity about what is permissive versus what is required is a significant issue for their organisations. In particular, we heard about that in respect of the ombudsman, the tribunal and the courts.
I am interested in hearing your thoughts about how this process evolves, and your degree of openness about bringing a higher degree of clarity, either through a greater degree of transparency about what may well find its way into the guidance given to those different organisations, or through those areas that you feel are more appropriate to becoming part of the Bill and then the Act itself.
Matthew Pennycook: On the database and the ombudsman, through this Bill we broadly mirror the provisions in the previous Government’s Bill, in the sense that the powers in the Bill are broad framework powers. A lot of the detail will come forward in secondary legislation.
There was a debate when we considered the previous Bill, which I think we will return to because it is a worthwhile one, about what prescriptive requirements, if any, you put in the Bill for either the database or the ombudsman. In general, my sense is there is a lot of value in putting most, if not all, of that detail into secondary legislation in a way that allows us to ensure over time that the database and the ombudsman evolve properly with changes to the sector, so you would not want to get too prescriptive. But we can tease out in the debates—I hope we do; we have today—the type of thing we expect the ombudsman to do, and the full range. The Housing Ombudsman made clear that there is a “must” and a “could” on the ombudsman side. Similarly, there is a skimmed and a full-fat version of what you might include on the database.
As I have said, some of my contributions indicate that I think the database in particular could be an incredibly powerful tool. We should therefore be thinking through what we might include on it that would help tenants to assess who is a good landlord and who they should be comfortable signing a tenancy agreement with, and give local authorities the relevant information they need to bear down properly on disreputable and particularly criminal landlords. I am happy to be relatively open about that. We can be, and I hope are, fairly open in some of the debates about the type of things we and our constituents might like to see in secondary legislation.
Jacob Collier
Q
Matthew Pennycook: That is a good question. Like a lot of the debates we have had today, it is slightly out of the scope of the Bill, but you are right to ask it in the sense that the Bill is one part of the Government’s agenda for changing the housing system. There are lots of things we have to do on the home ownership side. You will know from our manifesto that we are committed to a permanent and more comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme and a first dibs for first-time buyers scheme. In general, the Bill will hopefully empower renters by giving them greater protections, rights and security so that they can stay in their homes longer, build lives in their communities, avoid the risk of homelessness and, in many cases, by bearing down on unreasonable within-tenancy rent hikes, have the opportunity to save, which many do not have at the moment.
In answer to your question very specifically, the Bill is part of a wider agenda and touches on the supply issues we have debated. The Bill is not our answer to affordability in the private rented sector, and it cannot be. There are things that go beyond the scope of the Bill. However, in terms of the security, stability and certainty it provides for private renters, who are mainly at the top end of the market but would have, under better circumstances, the chance to save and buy a first home, the Bill will help in a number of ways.
Mr Amos
Q
On service personnel housing, I think the Minister’s position from the debate on Second Reading was that the Ministry of Defence is looking at it and different circumstances may apply, which would mean that a different form of decent homes standard would be needed. If the decent homes standard is yet to be published, and could potentially be less onerous than the one for the social housing sector, could it not also be applied to MOD housing so that our serving personnel get decent housing?
Matthew Pennycook: I do not think there is a huge amount I could add to what I said on Second Reading. We think there are particular characteristics of MOD accommodation that make it difficult to translate the approach we have in mind for driving up standards in the private rented sector and to align that with a wider push on the social housing sector. The MOD are taking forward that work. Yes, there are conversations between officials and Ministers about the crossover, how we might align standards and what the difference is, but I think it is for MOD to take that forward. We think there are good reasons to treat it slightly separately. I can address the short-term lets point, if you would like.
Mr Amos
Q
Matthew Pennycook: If I have understood you correctly, you are putting to me: why is MOD accommodation not coming within the consultation on a new decent homes standard for both sectors?
Mr Amos
I am putting to you that the MOD could have its own decent homes standards.
Matthew Pennycook: The MOD is taking forward standards for its accommodation, and it will do that as the Department responsible for that accommodation. It sits outside this legislation, and we had the same debate on the previous Bill. It is an important issue, but it sits outside the scope of this legislation.
Claire Hazelgrove
Q
Matthew Pennycook: It is a very good question, and we have touched on this issue, as well as guarantors. I am happy to give the Committee a sense of my thinking, because I have reflected further on the matter in the light of concerns that have been put to us by not only external stakeholders but several hon. Members in the Second Reading debate on 9 October.
As I made clear in that debate, the Government have long recognised that demands for extortionate rent in advance place a considerable financial strain on tenants and can exclude certain groups from renting altogether. We are very clear that the practice of landlords demanding large amounts of rent in advance must be prohibited. Although it might be argued that the interaction of the new rent periods in clause 1, which are a month or 28 days, and the existing provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019, relating to prohibited payments, provide a measure of protection against requests for large amounts of advance rent, I am increasingly of the view, speaking candidly, that there is a strong case for putting this matter beyond doubt. I am giving careful consideration as to how best that might be achieved in the course of the Bill’s passage.
Carla Denyer
Q
Matthew Pennycook: That is not correct.
Carla Denyer
Okay, then this is an invitation for you to talk us through your rationale, because that was my understanding. While I am at it, if there is anything where your mind has changed since the previous Bill, could you briefly talk us through why?
Matthew Pennycook: It is important to give context for the debates on the previous Bill and why, in certain circumstances, we were probing the Minister on making grounds discretionary rather than mandatory, and whether we were pressing the then Minister on additional protections for tenants relating to some of those grounds. The rationale for that was ensuring that the grounds, if they were mandatory, would not be abused. I suppose where my thinking has changed on many of them—I will continue to think on whether we have done enough on specific grounds for possession to protect tenants against abuse—is that the other actions we have taken in the Bill provide the protection we need.
I will give an example. On grounds 1 and 1A, where the previous protected period was smaller and the previous re-let period was much smaller—three months, not the 12 that we are proposing—in our view there was clear scope for abuse there. In many parts of the country, particularly hot rental markets—including London, and I am sure it is the same in Bristol—landlords are quite willing to suffer three-month void periods because the rents are so high. In a sense, if that is your re-let period on those mandatory grounds, you can get rid of what you consider a problem tenant, such as one who has complained perhaps entirely appropriately about damp, mould and other hazards. If you wait the three-month void period, then re-let, you have effectively recreated section 21 by the back door.
I think we have dealt with the abuse, which is from memory where we were probing the Minister about the discretionary or mandatory distinction. We have provided protections in other ways in the majority of cases. I am giving consideration, as I say, to some of the grounds and whether we have quite got sufficient protections in place. I think Justin Bates KC, for example, raised ground 6A, where action is rightly taken against the landlord whose practices need bearing down on, but the tenant should not suffer in that regard.
Michael Wheeler
Q
Matthew Pennycook: I welcome that question; it is an open one, and I will have to think on my feet in my response. I think a number of the debates will run through the Bill. Supply is one of those. I am clear that we do not want an exodus of landlords from the sector, but I have seen absolutely no evidence of that. It is a threat that has been bandied about for many years now, ever since the previous Government announced their intention to abolish section 21 no-fault notices.
The size of the private rented sector has doubled since the early 2000s. There has been an outflux of smaller landlords, particularly overgeared buy-to-let landlords, which is mainly a result of the section 24 tax changes that George Osborne introduced in 2015, explicitly to slow the growth of the private rented sector. So there has been an exit of certain types of landlord from the sector, but we have certainly not seen an exodus.
The feedback I have had from landlords over recent months and in the previous Parliament is that the most damaging thing for many was the uncertainty about whether reform was coming through in any form. That is why we felt we needed to act quickly. In general, good landlords have absolutely nothing to fear from the new system. We think it provides a framework in which they can continue to invest and operate.
Another point that has been prevalent in the debate is protections for renters against unreasonable within-tenancy rent hikes. In designing the Bill, I have been clear where we have overhauled and strengthened its provisions to strike that balance. We do not want to do anything that could potentially make things much more difficult for tenants, which is why the Government are not advocating rent controls in the Bill. The Scottish experience is instructive of what can happen as an unintended consequence, and we think there would be an impact on supply, quality and standards, as evidence around the world shows.
In many cases there is a judgment call on students and other possession grounds, and it is is a fine balance as to whether we have got it right in the Bill. But there are competing pressures and disincentives in a system—I am being incredibly candid with the Committee here—that has not been overhauled for 30 years. Lots of the speculation about how the tribunal will operate, and how many section 8 cases will go there, is in some ways all completely speculative. We have a sense of what we want to see and how to address the risks, but until the system is properly bedded in, I do not think anyone will know what we have to do in the design to ensure that we have the balance right and will not therefore see the tribunal overwhelmed.
We want to see more people to go to the tribunal. We want section 8 cases to go through the courts more efficiently. We absolutely concede the need for court improvements, and we are working closely with the MOJ on those—I have given some examples in response to the question about what we are taking forward. There is a balance that needs to be struck, and I think we struck the right balance in overhauling the Bill in the specific ways we have, while keeping—I gave the Conservative party the credit for this at the time—the sensible provisions that were in the previous Bill, which we think need to remain at the core of the legislation.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Matthew Pennycook: Specifically on rural housing, we have to think through how the decent homes standard will deal with particular challenges in certain types of stock in certain parts of the country. As a point of principle, what we will try to do in the decent homes standard consultation is to take a view on how that should apply across both sectors. Broadly, that is my instinct across the board.
It is the same with regards to the ombudsman. There is a strong case—our preferred option as things stand, although no final decision has been made—for the Housing Ombudsman Service to take on the role of the PRS ombudsman. There is a good case for a streamlined cross-tenure service. Broadly, we want the same standards to apply across the board.
Funding is another example of where there are things that the Bill touches on, but that are not within the scope of the Bill—the minimum energy efficiency standard, for example, has been mentioned a couple of times. That, however, is a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero consultation, which we launched this year. There is also a wider package around the warm homes plan, further details of which will come forward in due course, but that does not sit within my Department either. It is not necessarily part of the Bill, although decent homes will have to account for those changes, such as those on the MEES front.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I thank all Members for participating in what has been a very constructive exchange of views.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pub and Hospitality Sector
(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for pubs and the hospitality sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I apologise for my hoarse voice; I can assure hon. Members that it is not as a result of the overuse of pubs and similar venues in my constituency over the weekend.
Over recent months, I have had the privilege of visiting several hospitality venues in my constituency. I think particularly of the Curzon Arms in Woodhouse Eaves, which I reopened over the summer recess; the Forge Inn in Glenfield; the Stamford Arms in Groby; and the Coach and Horses in Markfield, which I have got to know over many years as the local councillor. I thank the many hon. Members who have turned up this morning; the debate is clearly of great interest.
The pub and hospitality sector has long been at the heart of the British economy. From the small countryside pub to big inner-city restaurants, the sector provides countless social and economic benefits for the United Kingdom. It is essential that we understand the challenges faced by the industry and do our utmost to support it to flourish.
The sector provides countless economic benefits to the UK as a whole. It contributes £140 billion in economic activity and provides £54 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer. In fact, pubs and breweries contribute a whopping £18 billion in taxes to the UK economy.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bedford
If the hon. Gentleman could give me a few moments, I will carry on. The success of UK plc is intrinsically linked to the success of the leisure and hospitality sector. The hospitality sector is a key employer throughout the UK, employing 3.5 million people, many with flexible working arrangements. It is vital for our younger people. As of this year, 51% of 16 to 24-year-olds are employed in the sector, and that plays a crucial role in developing their careers.
In my maiden speech, I stated that social mobility, particularly through apprenticeships, is key to creating a fairer and more just society. Many businesses in this sector offer apprenticeship schemes. Is it not great that someone can start as a trainee, a pot washer, and end up running an entire business? I think that should be applauded.
The sector also provides many social benefits. Hospitality businesses play a crucial role in encouraging socialising. In a country where many, particularly the elderly, often feel isolated and alone, community pubs often provide a place for people to come and feel part of broader society.
I have spoken with local independent brewers in Leicestershire, in particular Everards, and we should also recognise the significant charitable contributions of community pubs. In Leicestershire, 153 independently-run pubs raise more than £1.5 million locally for local charities, which is reinvested in local communities to make them even greater places to live and work. That is invariably why 72% of British adults believe that pubs have a positive impact on the communities that they serve. I take the opportunity to celebrate the positive impact that the hospitality sector has in my constituency. In Mid Leicestershire, our 41 pubs cumulatively support more than 2,000 jobs and contribute £19 million to the Treasury.
However, as we are all aware, the industry has faced many challenges over recent years. What makes the sector so successful is its incredible resilience. There have been many challenges: the covid-19 pandemic, the conflict in Ukraine and various geopolitical challenges have sent input costs spiralling high. The pandemic saw the hospitality industry suffer the biggest economic decline of all sectors. Economic output in the sector between 2019 and 2020 decreased by 42%, and we lost 10% of hospitality businesses during the pandemic. However, industry experts recognise the support that the last Conservative Government offered the industry through the eat out to help out scheme, a temporary cut to VAT and furloughing more than 2.1 million jobs, which limited the impact of the pandemic.
There have also been significant global challenges. The sector’s resilience has been displayed throughout the ongoing cost of living crisis brought on by world events.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman talked about the war in Ukraine and the cost of living. Dean Banks, who runs the Haar restaurant in St Andrews, told me that energy costs are a challenge. One of the problems is that energy companies use direct debits to keep hold of companies’ money, so they cannot manage their cash flow. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a real issue?
Mr Bedford
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That applies to domestic consumers and to businesses that have to manage their cash flow, so I absolutely support her comments on energy providers.
The war on Ukraine, which brought about the increase in energy prices, has caused hospitality profit margins to continue to decline. Office for National Statistics data shows that hospitality businesses are more likely to shut their doors for at least two days a week than any other industry. However, once again the industry has expressed its gratitude to the previous Government for their support, particularly through the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief scheme, which saved the average hospitality business £12,000 and prevented many small and medium-sized businesses from going bust. The sector is not immune from the effects of over-regulation, which of course stifles creativity and businesses’ ability to grow.
So where are we heading? I will move on to what may happen under the new Government’s plans. With the Budget just around the corner, I implore the Chancellor to do all she can to support, not hinder, the hospitality sector. The sector is clear that it desperately needs a continued reduction in business rates. Many in the sector have stated that they face a cliff edge on 1 April next year if the Government do not extend business rate relief to them. Two pubs shut every day in the UK, and that number will only increase if the relief is not extended.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The point about closures is significant. In Scotland, the Government have imposed minimum unit pricing, which was introduced at 50p per unit of alcohol and has recently risen to 65p. It was intended to reduce alcohol-related deaths—a laudable aim—but unfortunately they rose to 1,277 in 2023, which is an absolute tragedy. The rate of hospitality business closures in Scotland is twice that of England, so does my hon. Friend agree that minimum unit pricing appears to be a blunt instrument that is not helping at all?
Mr Bedford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: minimum unit pricing in Scotland has had adverse consequences and has not benefited his constituents.
The Budget could not only include an increase in business rates for the sector; it is looking more and more likely that the Government are reviewing employers’ national insurance contributions. UKHospitality is clear that an increase in national insurance would be particularly damaging for the sector—that tax on jobs could finish off many businesses that are already on the edge.
The previous Government supported hospitality businesses by freezing alcohol duty for three years and introducing the Brexit pub guarantee. But with the “nightmare before Halloween” Budget on its way, it looks as though the new Government are looking to increase alcohol duty, and that would not be good news.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about taxes on alcohol. Many pubs are shifting away from being wet pubs and are becoming dry pubs. David Lee, who runs the Holly Bush in Frensham, told me that he wants to be able to serve good quality fresh food, but the VAT on it is really hitting his margins. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor should look at reducing VAT on fresh food for the hospitality industry?
Mr Bedford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should do all we can to support the industry as it recovers from the pandemic, and I hope the Chancellor takes on board his sensible suggestion.
For the hospitality sector, the most concerning part of the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday, relates to so-called equality laws, which are being updated to make employers liable for staff being “offended” by third parties. That would in effect turn hospitality managers into banter cops, who will feel duty-bound to step in every time someone makes an off-colour remark or joke. How on earth can we be entering a world in which someone can be deplatformed in their local pub? It is absolute madness.
I move on to another piece of Orwellian legislation. The ban on smoking in beer gardens and outdoor spaces is frankly ludicrous. The nanny state is causing outright economic harm to the industry, and I implore the Government to rethink their proposals.
Finally, I shall mention gambling regulation. There have been reports that taxes on the gambling sector will rise in line with the recommendations of the Institute for Public Policy Research commission on health and prosperity. The increase, worth £46 million, will wipe out the profit of the bingo industry and is likely to cost 8,000 jobs across our local communities. The bingo industry has made it clear that if speculation around the Budget comes to fruition, it will be even more damaging than covid and the energy crisis.
What could we do instead? We could look at cutting beer duty or bringing in 20% draught relief. The UK has one of the highest alcohol duties in Europe. Duty on a pint of 5% beer is 54p, compared with 5p in Germany. A pint of beer is four or five times more expensive in a pub than purchased in a supermarket. The brewery industry is the most taxed sector in the UK, at 40% of its turnover. That is a regressive tax and hits people on the lowest incomes the hardest.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, covering all aspects of the hospitality sector. An extra benefit of draught beer relief is that 97% of the input into draught beer is made in the UK. That has a big knock-on effect across our agricultural sector. It is a win-win for UK farmers, the UK Exchequer and the hospitality sector. I urge him to continue to press the Government to push for greater relief in that space.
Mr Bedford
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. More specifically to help the hospitality business, the draught relief of 20% that has been mentioned—a campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith)— could see an extra 20 million pints sold a year and create 2,500 jobs, with a boost to the economy of more than £70 million.
We could protect hospitality businesses from the business rate relief changes. Pubs are taxed in a different way from most businesses—not on rateable value based on their rent, but as a calculation of their expected turnover. The ending of the retail hospitality relief would be deeply damaging for the sector, with businesses seeing a quadrupling of their business rates. I agree with the representations made by the British Beer and Pub Association that the relief should be kept until a new business rates framework is introduced.
We could also allow reform in the planning and licensing space. UKHospitality has advocated a more mainstream approach to the application of the planning and licensing framework. That would put pubs at the heart of the village and town centre. Kate Nicholls, CEO of UKHospitality, says:
“Too many hospitality businesses with ambitions to expand and grow are held back and frustrated by the current system.”
I also support the idea that there should be more flexibility for businesses to open later for special occasions, such as the women’s football World cup, to allow punters more time to enjoy the festivities. We could cut national insurance contributions for lower-paid earners and promote apprenticeships more.
The potential increase in employer national insurance contributions will have a massive impact on the UK hospitality sector. Industry experts have strongly criticised any move to make such an increase. They believe there should not be an increase—indeed, that there should be a lower level for lower-paid earners. Furthermore, the apprenticeship system is failing around the country. There needs to be a rethink in reforming the apprenticeship levy to incentivise businesses, particularly in this sector, to invest more and be more agile in how they offer apprenticeships.
In conclusion, I hope the Government take note of today’s debate and introduce measures that will enable our pub and hospitality sector to thrive and grow for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Right hon. and hon. Members will notice that a lot of Members want to speak and it looks like it is standing room only. I am going to impose an informal two-minute time limit. That does not stop hon. Members from intervening. I call Kim Johnson.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing the debate. Pubs and hospitality are vital to the economy of my constituency. Every year, the hospitality sector in Liverpool Riverside alone has a turnover of £1.7 billion, employing more than 31,000 people.
I could be biased, but I believe that Liverpool is the best city in the world. Our city centre is home to so many world-famous music venues, bars, pubs and other hospitality venues—from The Cavern on Mathew Street to The Casa on Hope Street and The Jacaranda on Slater Street—and to groups from The Beatles to The Real Thing, recently honoured as the first black group to achieve a No. 1. We are a UNESCO city of music; we have dominated the music charts for years, with 56 No. 1 singles, and we were nominated European capital of culture in 2008. We are a city of clubs and bars and of parties. Most recently, the unforgettable Taylor Swift concerts and Eurovision brought hundreds of thousands of people together and generated millions for our region’s economy. The great events and the people who worked so hard to put them on brought over £80 million to the city.
However, years of unprecedented challenges— including the pandemic, the cost of living crisis and soaring food and energy bills—risk suffocating these cultural institutions and this vibrant sector, placing thousands of businesses and jobs at risk across the country. There are unprecedented levels of closures, with an estimated net loss of 300,000 hospitality venues in 2023, leading to thousands of job losses. More than half of Liverpool’s business rates come from the hospitality sector, with small businesses contributing significantly compared with far larger companies in far more profiteering sectors. High taxes on alcohol make it impossible for pubs to compete with cheap supermarket alcohol, driving consumers out of the safe settings of community pubs that help to promote responsible and sociable drinking.
I know I am short of time, so lastly, we must recognise the immense value of our heritage. Liverpool’s pubs are more than just places to drink—they are historical venues, cultural landmarks and community spaces. They must be protected and we must take action to ensure they are not swept away by planning loopholes and profiteering.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for raising this important debate. We can see from the number of people here how much this touches every single one of us. In my constituency, local venues, pubs and restaurants are seeing a triple whammy of pressure with increased wage costs, increased energy costs and the significant rise in business rates as rates relief comes to an end. That is having a massive impact. Nationally, these venues are closing at a rate of 50 a month.
I am reminded of work by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee earlier this year looking at grassroots music venues, because of course many pubs and restaurants are live music venues as well. They are also the R&D department of our globally successful music industry—they are vital to it—and they are closing at the rate of two a week. Two things the Committee advocated in our report were, first, a levy to go between the big arenas to the small, independent venues and, secondly, a time-limited and very targeted VAT cut. I would like to make the argument for such a cut for small independent hospitality venues.
I do not want to take the argument purely into numbers, because these venues are so important in the way they make us feel—they can regenerate communities and can address social isolation and loneliness—but they are vital for our local economy and for jobs. In the Gosport constituency alone, these venues employ 2,000 people across 146 venues. They are vital. The knock-on effect of venue closure can be devastating. A time-limited and very targeted VAT cut could be a lifeline for some of the venues that are struggling and still have not got back up to speed and back to pre-pandemic opening hours.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. Back in early 2019, I was contacted by the beautiful Glen Mhor hotel on the shores of the Loch Ness, which wanted me to raise at Prime Minister’s questions that its Polish workers, who are vital to the business, were all going back. We all know why that was. Unfortunately, at Prime Minister’s questions, I stood up and invited the then Prime Minister Theresa May to accompany me to the Glen Mhor hotel. I did not get much further than that question because it sounded like an improper suggestion and the House collapsed in laughter. I should add that some weeks later I asked Theresa May another question about space launch in the highlands and she responded that she was very disappointed that I had not once again asked her to accompany me to a hotel.
The point is a serious one. The eastern European workers have been the lifeline and the mainstay of the hospitality business in the highlands, an area where we have depopulation and an ageing population. Very often the hotels, restaurants and pubs struggle to find the people they desperately need to change sheets, wash up, work as kitchen porters and scrub the pans and pots, as we have just heard—I myself was a KP at one point. My point is very simple: I urge the Government to make it as easy as possible for businesses to offer the work that people desperately want and make it as easy as possible for them to come to the United Kingdom and contribute to our hospitality economy.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate.
Pubs and the hospitality sector play an important part in Stockport and across Britain. In Stockport we have 65 pubs and five breweries supporting 1,590 jobs, creating £29 million in tax and contributing £57 million to the economy. We have several iconic businesses related to the sector, including Robinsons Brewery, which is still family-owned, the award-winning Stockport Gin—it continues to be stocked in the Strangers bar, and I invite Members to check it out—and also iconic pubs including the Magnet and the Sir Robert Peel. The sector has been struggling. The hon. Gentleman made the point that several pubs have closed. I believe in the first half of 2024, 50 pubs closed each month. So far in 2024 there has been a net loss of 94 small independent breweries.
I want to highlight the record of the previous Government—the last 14 years of Conservative Government, including the coalition years—and its impact on our hospitality sector. I am hopeful that the new Government and our capable Minister will deliver for the sector. Maintaining the 75% business rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector is very important. On business rates, pubs are taxed in a different way from most businesses. Large breweries, often run by multinational firms, are classified as specialist brewery sites for business rates. Small breweries have normal commercial premises for business rates purposes. That means that small breweries can pay 40 times as much per pint in business rates as a global brewer does, so that needs to be looked at to support the sector.
I thank the Campaign for Real Ale, the Society of Independent Brewers and the British Beer and Pub Association for all that they do for the sector, and of course Robinsons, particularly William Robinson, who continue to lobby me.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this debate. As time is tight, I will focus my comments on my constituency.
In Tatton there are 89 pubs and three breweries that support 2,350 jobs, generating £29 million in tax and contributing £60 million to the economy. Recently I wrote to every one of those pubs in Tatton, following the Government’s announcement that an outdoor smoking ban was being considered, to seek their views on that as well as the wider issues facing the hospitality sector. The answers revealed common concerns: business rates, beer duty, employer’s national insurance rises and Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which is on the front pages of most of the papers today because that will cost businesses £4.5 billion a year. On top of that is Labour’s outdoor smoking ban, which would particularly affect pubs that rely partly or fully on wet-side sales, suggesting the ban would cause a drop in footfall of about 10% to 30%—enough to close more of them down.
It was clear from the responses that the Government should think again and drop the outdoor smoking ban. If they are determined to push ahead, they should at the very least consult the industry and do an impact assessment. I know that is something that this Government do not like and tend to shy away from, but that is what they need to do. Can the Minister inform me if he intends to drop this policy? At the very least, will he consult with the sector and do an impact assessment? I was going to touch on business rates, but I will not have time to do so. I will just say that the relief that the Conservative party brought in needs to be continued until a permanent solution is found.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for bringing forward this fantastic and important debate. I will keep my comments to one issue: the importance of community pubs to villages in my area of Stoke-on-Trent South and surrounding north Staffordshire.
The village of Yarnfield has been fighting for—the Opposition will love this—the Labour in Vain pub. I have taken a photo outside it, which I know will be an internet meme. It is the village’s one and only pub, and the village has been fighting to save it. I will not name and shame, but the owner of the pub is a large chain that has overvalued it, so when the village tried to exercise its right to buy it was delayed and its offer, which was a fair one from an independent valuer, was rejected. We believe, although we are not sure, that the owner is holding out because the land on which the pub sits has valuable planning possibilities. The village of Yarnfield is trying to save its pub for the community.
Hon. Members have talked about young people. The young people of the village are really keen to have the pub not just for their own sake and entertainment, but for the job opportunities that it offers. The village’s right to buy ran out because of the delay by the company. The Government have committed to really supporting communities to have their right to buy, so I would like to know more about what we will do. Maybe we could extend the time and revisit those pubs and communities who have run out of time to get their pub and see how we can help the Labour in Vain.
In my last 10 seconds, I will say that community pubs are valuable. My local pub, the Plume of Feathers in Barlaston, is fantastic. We were delighted that it was allowed, despite restrictions, to have a guest beer named Einstein, which is the best beer in the country—I challenge hon. Members to pick another one.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on setting the scene so well.
I will speak very quickly in my one minute and 50 seconds. Ahead of this debate, the UK Spirits Alliance has stated that one in five pubs says it is at risk of closing. That is the issue before us all and before every constituency across this great United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland hospitality sector is Northern Ireland’s fourth largest private sector employer, with a turnover of some £2 billion. With that in mind, the chief executive officer of Hospitality Ulster, Colin Neill, has done some incredible work to support and help to grow the industry, so we want to keep it growing and keep the initiative and opportunity for jobs and the economy.
The key issue in my council area is tourism, as along with tourism comes the hospitality sector, so it is really important to get this right. The Society of Independent Brewers and Associates says that there are some 1,721 small independent breweries in the UK, with some 10,000 full-time equivalents, which directly contribute some £270 million to GDP each year.
Small independent breweries face restrictions on growing their business. There is a difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. I suggest to the Minister that the creation of the new immigration pathway to facilitate the introduction of new people to the skills of Northern Ireland and the UK has been a success. There is also the issue of business rates. Pubs are taxed in a different way from most businesses, not on a rateable value based on their rent, but on a calculation of their expected turnover. I once again ask the Minister to create a more level playing field. The Government’s reforms of business rates should include a full review of the differential between a global and a small brewery.
In conclusion—keeping to your two-minute limit, Ms Vaz—there is so much that we can do or discuss to help to support the sustainability and future of our pubs and hospitality sector. I look to the Minister today for commitment and answers on what steps he will take to protect the industry, and I have hope that he will continue to communicate with representatives in Northern Ireland on these issues. I am exhausted from talking.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The south-west as a region has the highest number of pubs per capita in the UK, with 75 pubs per 100,000 people. As has already been rehearsed, they are community lifelines, social hubs and local landmarks where we form friendships, celebrate life’s highs and find comfort in life’s lows. Most contribute more than £100,000 annually to our local economy and support dozens of jobs, keeping many family businesses afloat. However, publicans in my area have been telling me about the razor-thin margins they are operating on and the difficulty they are having, as they burn through their remaining savings just to keep the refrigerators running.
I want to draw on the example of one pub in particular, the former George Inn in Chardstock, which was very much the hub of the community—the sort of place that was the living room of the village, where the local skittles team played and villagers met regularly. Owned by the Wellington Pub Company, it closed and the company was happy to just sit on the property as an asset—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) spoke about that—and see its value inflate. While the company did that, it did not want to do any work on the place and certainly did not want it to operate as a pub. The George Inn Continuity Group in Chardstock has done a fantastic job of bringing the villagers out to campaign to reopen the pub. However, we really need to see reform of the Localism Act 2011. It was a good starting point, but we now need enhanced powers over community assets to help local authorities to protect pubs.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I am thrilled that the Labour Government value the role of pubs, cafés, restaurants and more in serving Bournemouth and Britain. When I speak with publicans and people involved in the hospitality sector, they tell me that they want Bournemouth to be seen not as a sleepy seaside town, but as a thriving and bustling place to invest, work and live.
Let us take as an example the stretch of Charminster Road between the Broadway pub and Creams. There are 17 different types of cuisine on offer, which are as diverse as the communities that call Charmy home. We have four pubs—the Richmond Arms, the Fiveways, the Broadway and The Dancing Jug—and more than 80% of vendors are independent.
If we move to Boscombe—I know that hon. Members would want to—we have Boscanova. Started by the team behind Bad Hand Coffee, it is a fantastic place that I visited recently and remains a bustling spot for great food made from ingredients sourced in Dorset and Hampshire, and some of the best coffee in Bournemouth. I cannot dwell on Boscombe without talking about Flamingo and Joy Cafe, and Cafe Riva and the Hush Club. The Hush Club almost stopped visiting Cafe Riva because of issues with the council and licensing complaints. I am pleased to have brought people together in recent weeks to keep that going.
If we move over to Southbourne, as again I know hon. Members would want to, there are fantastic places to visit, such as Wild & Ginger, Little Perth, Ludo Lounge, Brewhouse & Kitchen, The Wight Bear, Syd’s Slaps, The Larder House, Dicky’s, Harry’s—I could go on. Moving quickly over to Moordown, if hon. Members fancy a good fish and chips on a Friday night, they might have to queue up, but I recommend they go to Malvern Road Fisheries. Lastly, in Muscliff and Strouden Park, perhaps the best kebab in the whole of Bournemouth East, if not the whole country, is found at Noor. I encourage any and all people to come, any day of the week.
I thank the business improvement districts for all they do to fuel economic growth and the people of Bournemouth East, who invest, set up businesses and help to fuel the hospitality economy, because they are making Bournemouth the amazing place that it is.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that I expect to begin the wind-ups at 10.28 am.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, pubs are a huge part of our local community. They are our meeting place, a place to socialise, and a place to wind down after a busy week or even a busy day, and can also provide a vital place to help to address loneliness, improve mental health and wellbeing, and address socialisation. I aim to recognise the great work of pubs through my own best pub award, drawing positive attention to some of the fantastic pubs from across my constituency.
Previous winners include the Craven Heifer in Addingham, which does a mighty meat pie; The Brown Cow in Keighley, where hon. Members will find one of the best-poured pints of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord; the Goats Head in Steeton, one of the friendliest pubs embedded in the heart of the community; and of course the Haworth Steam Brewery, which always has a fantastic atmosphere and a great vibe, and which is home not only to its own beers but to Howarth gin.
One of the common themes in what all those pubs have told me is that small businesses across our hospitality sector constantly face that battle against Government red tape. That is why the last Government raised the VAT threshold to £90,000, which meant that over 28,000 businesses benefited from not needing to be VAT-registered. I would like a reassurance from the Minister that this Government will not look to reduce that threshold or implement a VAT cut.
I am also concerned by other measures that the Government are rumoured to be looking at, such as employer national insurance or business rates relief— I urge the Government to keep that business rates relief in place—as well as the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday. I cannot stress enough how concerned small businesses are about the challenges that will be created by that Bill. Also, given that the economic analysis was released so late, what are the real unintended consequences to small businesses right across the country?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate about the vital support needed for our pubs and our broader hospitality sector, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing it.
In South Devon, the hospitality industry is more than just a business; it is the lifeblood of our communities. Our area boasts over 700 pubs and restaurants, so there are far too many to name. I will not single any of them out, but they are all brilliant and they employ more than 12,000 people. This sector does not merely create jobs; it fuels our local economy, contributing over £500 million every year. However, we know that many of those venues are at breaking point.
I also want to raise the issue of business rates relief. One family-run hotel in my constituency has been in operation for over 127 years and faces an uncertain future. If the business rates relief cap is lifted, it will be forced to find an additional £110,000 a year just to keep its doors open. For a business that has served our community for generations, that is a real threat to its very survival, and that situation is not unique to South Devon. Across the country, pubs are closing at an alarming rate. Covid presented a huge challenge to the industry, but the fallout from Brexit is still keenly felt. Disrupted supply chains and the increased costs of importing goods, as well as severe staff shortages due to the end of free movement, have all compounded the difficulties for our pubs and restaurants, many of which are now having to shut their doors a couple of days a week, which has a knock-on effect on local communities.
In response to all those mounting challenges, I have written to the Chancellor to urge the Government to extend rate relief for the hospitality sector. Temporary reliefs on business rates and alcohol duties are welcome but insufficient to address the long-term sustainability of the sector. We need bolder reforms that will give our hospitality venues the breathing room they need to invest in their people, their properties and their future. The Liberal Democrats are committed to real and lasting reform, including business rates relief and increasing the employment allowance for small businesses. Policies such as those are not just a lifeline for businesses but an investment in the future of our people, our economy and our communities.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate. This is a matter close to me because my background is in the hospitality sector. I spent 23 years running and owning bars, pubs, restaurants and festivals, and I provided consultancy services to the industry. In my role as the MP for Southend East and Rochford, I have spoken to a lot of businesses because they are particularly important to the regeneration of the town centre and the high street, and that is something that I have been keenly engaged with.
With all those industries, as some hon. Members have mentioned, it is quite important how they run, plan and make their business. The example that they have given me is the increasing costs from business rates, food, beverages and even wages, which make their businesses quite hard to run. They shoulder that burden, sometimes against the backdrop of increasing antisocial behaviour and decreasing footfall. Those are the challenges that, as I have mentioned before, I faced myself in running my business. I am sure many Members here, once upon a time, worked in pubs and bars as an entry-level job to get into the workplace. We should not underestimate the importance of the soft skills that this sector develops, such as responsibility, punctuality, problem solving and dealing with people from many cultures in different types of situations. Other businesses benefit from those as those individuals move further into the workplace.
It is also worth noting that many operators in this sector, including myself, in some circumstances put their life savings into their business as well. It is important that we support this industry. Pubs and bars provide a vibrant hospitality sector, and it is an industry that helps the next generation prepare for work. Service providers and operators in this sector should be championed for what they provide for our communities.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Peter Bedford) on securing this important debate.
This topic has already been touched on, but I want to highlight the fact that 81% of British adults agree that pubs are important in bringing people together, while 73% feel that pubs help to combat loneliness in their area and 73% feel that the impact of pubs on their community life is positive. For those reasons alone, pubs should be supported in the current challenging environment. Some more statistics jump out: pubs in the UK contribute more than £34 billion in gross value to our economy and the sector supports more than a million jobs, an increase of more than 100,000 since before the pandemic. In my constituency of Bromsgrove, there are 73 pubs and two breweries, which together support 2,800 jobs, generate £30 million in tax revenue and contribute £95 million to the local economy. In short, those pubs are vital for keeping money within the Bromsgrove economy.
I would like to raise some points about Labour’s proposals, including the lack of clarity about future support, the employment law reform, and the outdoor smoking ban. The Bell and Cross pub in Clent wrote to me to highlight the difficulties that it continues to face in the current operating environment, under the most extreme trading conditions that it has ever seen. Like so many pubs, it wants the Government to commit to extending the business rates relief until the outdated business rates system is fully reformed and VAT on all sales in pubs is reduced. That would allow pubs to thrive as essential and unique venues in towns, high streets and villages across the UK. The Bell and Cross is also concerned about the obligations that the Employment Rights Bill will place upon it, and how the Bill could deter employment into the sector.
I want to put on record my concern about the effects of a potential ban on smoking in outdoor spaces, including pub gardens. That will be contrary to the spirit of liberty and will displace smoking to other locations.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for bringing this debate about a very valid and appreciated topic.
It is fortunate that the specifics have already been set out today, because that allows me to keep things at a high level. I would like to ask the Minister to hear the kind of rallying cries that I am hearing from my constituents, which are: “Save the local pub” and “Save the family breweries”.
There are two things I would like to ask the Minister to focus on. One is to avoid the pitfalls that come with the counter-intuitiveness of the situation he is in and to recognise that, by increasing tax burdens even further, he would actually end up generating less revenue for the Treasury.
In my constituency of South Basildon and East Thurrock, we only have 23 pubs remaining. We have already touched on the alarming rates at which pubs are closing. One example in my constituency, very close to where I grew up, was The Barge, a 200-year-old pub. It is now gone and it will not come back. Those 23 pubs are raising more than £33 million in revenue for the economy, £10 million of which is going in tax. If the Government keeps burdening them, those pubs will close and the Treasury will receive less money.
Furthermore, people who do want to drink and do want to smoke will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) touched on minimum pricing, but what we are seeing is actually a decrease in people’s health. I would like the Minister to be conscious of the dangers of accidentally worsening the situation in terms of both tax and people’s health. People will drink if they want to and they will smoke if they want to, but in places where they are not regulated, where it is less safe and where no tax will be generated. We must be mindful of that. I will finish by thanking everyone and saying: save our local pubs.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. May I also add my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for bringing this debate?
As the Member for Carlisle, I can make a unique claim in this debate: the pubs and breweries of Carlisle were, for a period of 50 years, nationalised. What people drank, where they drank it, and when they drank it were determined just up the road from here, in Whitehall. Understanding that rather unusual state of affairs means returning to 1916: war is raging in Europe and just across the border, in Gretna, lies Europe’s largest munitions factory. Meanwhile, down the road in Carlisle lies one of the finest collections of pubs and breweries. Sadly, the bounteous supply of both beer and ordnance was not a match made in heaven, and the Government nationalised the pubs in 1916, and so that remained until 1973.
The reason that is relevant today is that when those pubs were privatised, they were sold off in large job lots, which means that, even to this day, the majority of our pubs in Carlisle remain in the ownership of the large breweries. What that means for the independent breweries, such as Great Corby, the Carlisle Brewing Company, West Walls Brewing Co. and the Old Vicarage in Walton, is that getting their product into our pubs is difficult. I therefore urge the Minister to raise with his colleagues the application of the pubs code, so that we can ensure that more of our independent breweries have access to the customers in pubs in all our constituencies.
The final point I would like to make, again, to support our wonderful independent breweries, is that we should consider increasing draft beer relief to 20%, which the Society of Independent Brewers and others estimate would be a huge boost not just to our local businesses but to the whole economy.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on obtaining this important debate. We could talk about the economic contribution of our pubs—the £54 billion of tax revenue, the 3.5 million people employed—but ultimately, as many Members have outlined, their main contribution is the community benefits that our pubs bring to all our communities and constituencies. I have 79 pubs in my constituency, not just in our two towns of Grantham and Bourne, but across our postcard-picture villages, such as the Green Man in Ropsley, the Wishing Well in Dyke and very many others that I could go on to mention—possibly to my benefit when I write to them after this speech.
Those pubs are concerned about the environment that will ensue after the Halloween Budget. They are concerned about the potential national insurance increase, which will break not just Labour’s manifesto commitment but many of our pubs. They are concerned about last night’s Employment Rights Bill and the increased burdens it will place on them, and they are very concerned about the implications of the outdoor smoking ban. In government, we sought to support pubs as best we could with 75% rates relief. We increased the VAT threshold and did many things, such as the Brexit pubs guarantee, that changed the dynamic of alcohol duty to ensure that the pint in the pub always pays less duty than the can of beer in the supermarket.
The Minister will not be able to speculate on what is in the Halloween Budget, but he should know that we are united in this room today on the need to support our pub sector, not just for the economy but for the communities in our constituencies.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I represent the city centre of Edinburgh, so it is impossible to overstate the critical contribution of the hospitality sector, not just to the economy of my constituency but to Scotland and the UK as a whole. For example, the Scottish whisky industry produces £7.2 billion for the UK economy every year and, collectively, visits to distilleries in Scotland are the biggest single-ticketed venue in the UK, and those include Holyrood distillery in the centre of my constituency.
The pub sector in Scotland is absolutely critical, generating £2.3 billion in gross value added contributions in Scotland alone and employing 45,000 workers. Tragically, pubs in Scotland are closing at twice the rate of pubs in England. I want to reassure the House that my Scottish Labour colleagues and I are ensuring that the needs and opportunities presented by the whisky and pub sectors in Scotland are being heard right at the heart of this new Government.
I want to touch on a couple of the contributions made by the pub and hospitality sector beyond the economic. The first is tackling loneliness. Loneliness is as big a killer in this country as cancer, and pubs are critical to tackling it in the community. The second is providing career paths, particularly for the young. The contribution that these jobs make to developing the soft skills that we desperately need in the economy is vastly underestimated. I began my career by working for two years in the restaurant of the Hilton hotel in Glasgow, and that taught me a lot of critical life lessons that I use in this place, so it is important that we get the policy dynamics of this right. That includes tax and incentives, but it also includes the obligations we put on the sector.
We must learn from the Scottish experience of the disastrous deposit return scheme, which has been a real challenge for the sector, and the business rates uncertainty created by the SNP Government in Holyrood.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate on pubs and the hospitality industry. In my rural constituency of South Northamptonshire, we have 95 pubs and four breweries; they support 1,950 jobs, generate £26 million in tax and contribute £48 million to the local economy. But pubs contribute so much more than that—and I do not just mean the Towcester Mill Brewery in my constituency providing the Strangers Bar with the famous Bell Ringer beer, well known for its zesty orange marmalade notes and earthy, spicy aftertaste.
I was invited to visit The White Hart in Hackleton in my constituency at the end of September to hear at first hand what it is like to run a pub in 2024. Aside from alcohol duty, VAT and business rates, one of the most striking points from the conversation was what it would actually mean for local people, should the pubs be forced to close. We cannot underestimate the power of the community that is created and fostered in rural areas around the local pub. With the lack of bus services and the wider transport issues, pubs are a crucial source of truly local employment for some villages. I was told of one pub that had taken on a local girl with Down’s syndrome, who would otherwise have struggled to access employment outside the village due to the lack of transport. For her it was a real lifeline, and she developed not only her resumé but her professional and social skills.
My ask for the sector is that we cut VAT, continue the freeze on alcohol duty and extend the current 75% business rate relief for hospitality businesses. Like me, many hon. Members may enjoy settling down of an evening to watch one of our great British soaps, be it “EastEnders”, “Coronation Street” or even “Emmerdale”. And what is at the heart of those? The pub. We must make sure that the scriptwriters do not have to change their scenes because we have destroyed this industry.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I commend you for your chairing of this debate, Ms Vaz, and I commend the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this debate. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who spoke about the role of the community pub, and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who spoke about the importance of the industry, the challenges it faces and the fact that, when hospitality businesses close, the heart of a community is ripped out. The more rural a community is, the bigger the hole that is left.
When the local pub in my constituency was threatened with closure after its lease was up, the PUB stepped in—People United for Banton, not the bar. The village had already lost its post office and its shop and, with the pub about to be turned into residential accommodation, the community stepped in. It formed a management committee, secured community funding and shareholding, and reopened The Swan, fully renovated, in the middle of the pandemic. It is not just a pub; it is the centre and social hub of the community. It is warm and friendly, and last month I was proud to attend the Macmillan coffee morning in the village, along with local councillors. Nearly £2,000 was raised, which isn’t bad for a village of just over 350 people.
We can surely agree that we need a good-quality steak pie —that is really important in my part of the world—good coffee, a nice wee gin, and somewhere to watch the football or dry off after a dog walk. Our pubs are vital.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate.
Pubs and hospitality are at the heart of communities such as mine in Mid Bedfordshire, which is home to 157 hospitality businesses that support 2,229 local jobs and contribute £66 million to our local economy. That includes everything from big chains such as Center Parcs to the Woburn Safari Park and the local pubs, of which there are many to choose from, such as The White Hart in Ampthill; The Chequers in Westoning; The Musgrave Arms in Shillington, affectionately known as the Muzzy; or the award-winning Woolpack inn— the Wooly—in Wilstead.
One of the best ways we can encourage people to visit Mid Bedfordshire and boost our local pubs and hospitality is for the Government to do everything they possibly can to support the inward investment by Universal Studios in my constituency. Universal would be a £50 billion gamechanger to our local economy, and the biggest single boost to turbocharge hospitality in Mid Bedfordshire. But beyond Universal, in the short term, our hospitality businesses need support. They need the Government to protect them by maintaining their manifesto commitment not to raise national insurance, recognising that job-creating small business owners in places like Mid Bedfordshire are working people too, and that employers’ national insurance is a tax on them. Our pubs and hospitality businesses also need the Government to extend the small business rates relief, ensuring that it is viable for them to continue to serve our communities, and our village pubs need the Chancellor to extend the freeze on alcohol duty.
I will conclude by urging the Government to consider the role of pubs and hospitality in making a place in our communities. Wherever houses are built, hospitality must follow; otherwise we risk building expensive dormitories, rather than places people can be proud to call home.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Last but not least, we have two speakers, so if you could each take a minute and a half, we can get the wind-ups in.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Chair; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing a very important debate. My constituency of Hexham is home to 116 pubs and nine breweries, spanning 2,200 local jobs, with about 580 of those being worked by people aged between 18 and 24.
I want to start by paying tribute to a lot of those pubs, including The Tannery in Hexham, where I bought my first pint; The Angel of Corbridge, where I went for lunch on Saturday after I went door-knocking; my local, The Crown in Humshaugh; as well as The Falcon in Prudhoe and—particularly—The Samson in Gilsland, which is due to reopen this weekend, having been bought by the community after a longstanding campaign by local people to get their pub back. There are a lot of other pubs I could name, such as The Dipton Mill, Travellers Rest, and The Engine in Walbottle.
Ultimately, these pubs are essential to my local economy. They are essential to so many people and communities in the small towns and villages that dot across the Tyne valley. They are also incredibly important in supporting our tourism sector. Northumberland—as I am sure many hon. Members will be incredibly aware—is probably the most beautiful county in England. We have Hadrian’s wall, one of the most iconic sites of these islands, and somewhere that brings people from all around the world to walk. The advantage of having pubs along the length of Hadrian’s wall is of course that you can find somewhere to stop after a long and often rain-sodden walk along it.
Ultimately, however, they are the route into employment for so many people in my constituency. They are where people learn to cut their teeth and pick up those soft skills that end up serving us so well in later life and in future professions. It is where people learn their responsibilities, and even how to turn up on time.
I would also like to pay tribute to a lot of the pubs that are sadly no longer open in my constituency. They have left a void in their communities. Ahead of the Minister’s remarks, I look forward to hearing what we can do to help communities in future reopen pubs that they have lost.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Ms Vaz. It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate—important because, like many people who have come before me, I have a constituency with a rich tradition in the world of food and drink. I will save everybody the verbal tour of my constituency and all the pubs, bars and clubs we have all frequented there, but I will say that in the east of England the hospitality and pub scene supports about 250,000 jobs, creates about £2.5 billion of economic value and pays £1.2 billion to the Exchequer every year. It is not just important in terms of economic value and taxes—it supports our critical tourism industry, and within that 11,000 full-time jobs and £700 million in economic value. But there is social value as well—let us not forget the many old people who do not have people to go to at home, who use the pub to speak and have a natter with people in their local community. It also provides an opportunity for young people to get jobs—their first chance to get on the job ladder.
So, why oh why would we take the opportunity to hammer an industry that has been so badly impacted by covid-19, the smoking ban, rates relief, VAT, national insurance contributions, and inhibitive employment rules and regulations, all of which are mad and bad?
In preparing for this speech I came across a quote from Sally, the manager of The Duke in Ipswich, who said:
“All the landlords and ladies I know are in the business to make a living, not a killing!”
So, please let’s not push more of them over the edge.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Sarah Gibson, to speak.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate and I share his concerns about the issues that the hospitality sector faces. Having a background in architecture and construction, I find myself agreeing with him about the need to reform planning and licensing.
I also share the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) expressed about local village pubs. The land they are located on is so valuable for development that there needs to be stronger legislation to secure community assets.
I thank the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for noting the importance of this sector in creating entry-level jobs. It is clear from the range of constituencies represented here that pubs and hospitality are important from the top of Scotland down to the south coast of England, and of course to Strangford.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, we all seem to recognise the challenges that this industry faces, from rising energy costs to supply chain issues to a shortage of staff. Despite the support for the industry across the House, we seem to continue to uphold a broken business rates system that is crippling our local pubs. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, our pubs are overpaying on their rate bills by approximately £500 million a year. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats urge this new Government to boost small businesses in the hospitality industry, such as our locally owned pubs, by abolishing business rates and replacing them with a commercial landowner levy.
The previous Conservative Government promised in their 2019 manifesto to review the business rates system and to ease that tax burden. However, on 17 October 2022, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), told the House that that commitment was:
“Another of the promises I now vainly wish I had not made”. —[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 430.]
Businesses are tired of being treated with such cynicism, and I truly hope that this new Labour Government will not treat businesses like that. After all, reforming the rates system is not just about boosting businesses; it is also about saving our local pubs from disappearing completely. In the last three years, 45 pubs in Wiltshire have stopped trading, which is devastating for the economies of small rural communities, such as those in my constituency.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Vaz, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing it at such a crucial time for the industry.
Pubs and hospitality are a force for good. They are good for the economy, contributing more than £120 billion nationally and delivering £54 billion in tax receipts to the Treasury, which I am sure the Chancellor will be grateful for next week. They are good for jobs, employing 3.5 million people across every age band, from teenagers to pensioners, and with an even gender balance. They are also good for our communities; our pubs, cafés and restaurants are the heart of local life, bringing people together. Indeed, for many villages the pub or café is the last service surviving in the village, offering a community hub that covers everything from jobs clubs and parents and toddler groups through to serving as the village shop, and even—as I saw at one Pub is The Hub initiative in Cornwall—the hairdressers.
Pubs are a force for good socially, helping to tackle the scourge of loneliness and isolation. Few people could have failed to be moved by the advert for Charlie’s Bar last Christmas. It shows an elderly man walking from his house to his wife’s grave, raising his cap to passers-by, only to be blanked, but he finds comfort and companionship in his local in Fermanagh.
Less well celebrated are the hundreds of initiatives up and down the country, such as the Go To Place at Love & Liquor in Codsall in my constituency, which brings 60 or more people together each Wednesday morning for a coffee, a chat and a bit of breakfast. Although we are all too familiar with the dangers of excess drinking, well-regulated and well-run pubs and bars are forces for good for our mental health. The work done by Professor Dunbar at Oxford university shows that people who have a local where they drink regularly in moderation are likely to be happier and more content than those who do not. Their physical and mental health is likely to be better than that of people who do not. They are likely to have more friends on whom they can depend and feel more engaged in their community than people who do not.
Pubs and hospitality venues have, of course, faced a range of pressures over the past few decades, some of which have been referred to. Some are the results of changing consumer demands, preferences and social habits, but others have been exacerbated by policy decisions made here in Westminster and Whitehall, such as the smoking ban, high business rate bills, and alcohol duty rates that are significantly higher than most western European countries.
The previous Government took a range of actions to help to alleviate some of those pressures. They abandoned Labour’s hated duty escalator, which had meant above-inflation rises in duty every single year. They cut beer duty for the first time in half a century, and introduced multiple freezes in duty, which means that beer duty on a pint in a pub is now significantly lower in real terms than it was in 2010. They introduced a reduced rate of duty for draught beer and cider, taking advantage of the freedoms after Brexit. They helped to reduce the huge disparity in the costs that pubs and bars face, compared with supermarkets and off-licences.
The link between duty rates and alcohol consumption is tenuous, but we know that higher taxes on alcohol lead people to switch their drinking from well-regulated licensed premises to drinking at home, and from drinking lower strength beers and ciders to higher alcohol by volume wines and spirits.
Crucially, hospitality and retail business rate relief has meant that small and independent hospitality venues have received 75% off their business rates. That has made the difference for many between being able to continue and being forced to shut their doors for good.
The new Government made a lot of promises before the election, some of which they now seem to be trying to row back from, but pubs and hospitality need them to deliver now, starting with next week’s Budget. The Chancellor needs to start with a cut to alcohol duty. A return to the previous Labour Government’s approach of continuous duty rises would be devastating for many pubs and breweries. That could be done by widening the draught beer duty differential, cutting the cost of draught beers and ciders in pubs, bars and restaurants, and targeting support where it is desperately needed. Above all, the Chancellor needs to finally publish her replacement for business rates with a new system that is fair for the hospitality sector, which pays a disproportionate share of business rate receipts—
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman mentions business rates. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said, pubs are closing twice as fast in parts of Scotland than they are on this side of the border. Sir Tim Martin, the boss of Wetherspoons, has in recent days strongly criticised the Scottish Government for their deeply unhelpful attitude to rating. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the finger should be pointed north of the border too, and that something should be done before more pubs close?
Mike Wood
I certainly agree that, although in England the hospitality sector has long had a number of challenges, the picture north of the border is even worse because of decisions made by the Scottish Government.
It is essential that the Chancellor publishes the replacement for business rates. She announced three years ago that she would scrap them, but the sector is still no clearer about what she will bring in instead. It needs clarity next week. If for some reason, even after three years, the Chancellor still cannot say with what she is replacing business rates, she must commit to extending the 75% relief, and not just until next March or the March after but right up until a new system is in place.
Hospitality businesses are particularly impacted by high energy costs. The Government need to make good on the promises to help that they made before the election. The Prime Minister promised to take £53 billion off business energy bills by 2030. I ask the Minister a simple question: how much can hospitality businesses expect their energy bills to fall by next year?
Pubs and hospitality also need the Government to recognise the impact of regulation, no matter how well intentioned, on small hospitality businesses in particular. It was disappointing that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Business Secretary seemed to acknowledge the warnings in their own impact assessment about the harms that could be caused to small businesses in sectors like hospitality by their employment legislation. Those fears are only made worse by reports the Government are considering further regulation, banning smoking in outdoor beer gardens and outside nightclubs. That change would have minimal, if any, health benefits while causing huge damage to venues. It could even have the perverse effect of shifting people from drinking outside in beer gardens to drinking and smoking more inside their homes.
Finally, as has been said, for the many pubs and hospitality venues that are just about getting by, the reported rise in employer’s national insurance contributions could tip many over the edge, making the difference between continuing and closing. If the Chancellor insists on going ahead with this highly damaging jobs tax, then it is even more important that the Government do more to support pubs and hospitality.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire for bringing this debate, because pubs and hospitality are a force for good. They need and deserve our support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
In the usual way, let me take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this debate and celebrating the contribution of pubs to life in his constituency. He rightly talked about the contribution that pubs make to social mobility and the journey all the way up to manager that those who start out as pot washers can potentially make. I noted in particular his praise for the Curzon Arms and I can assure him we will consider that as the campaign stop for when we visit his constituency at the next election to try to increase our majority in this House. He, and I hope the whole House, will understand if I briefly praise pubs in my own constituency—the great Horseshoe, where I have been privileged to watch one or two great victories by the Welsh rugby union team, and the Trinity pub where we have celebrated one or two election successes in recent times.
I will not be able to do justice in the time available to me to the richness of the contributions that we have had, for which I apologise to hon. Members across the House. Notwithstanding, let me try to make one or two points and to pick up some of the specific questions that people have outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) celebrated her constituency’s many pubs and venues, some of which I have had the privilege to visit during what seems like Labour’s annual trip to her great city. Perhaps she might like to buy me a round when I next have to visit one of those pubs—[Hon. Members: “Freebies!”] [Laughter.] Perhaps not, then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) referenced the Labour in Vain pub in her constituency. I am happy to sit down with her and talk about what else might be possible for that pub. She is right to celebrate community-owned pubs; I suspect that she, like me, comes from the Co-operative tradition in our ranks. The Co-operative party has championed the ambitions of many of our communities to own their own pub.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), in his inimitable way, championed the contribution of pubs to the life of his constituents. I hope I will have the opportunity at some point to come up and take advantage of the hospitality there. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) rightly praised the contribution of business improvement districts to supporting the environment around pubs. The business improvement district in my constituency does a particularly important job working with the police to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I know that work is replicated in business improvement districts across the country. He made an ambitious claim that the best kebab in the country is found in his constituency—I wonder whether others might have a slightly different perspective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is unfortunately not in his place, rightly championed the soft skills learned by those who work in the pub trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) made an interesting speech—I was not sure quite where it was going to end with the reference to nationalisation, but I look forward to having the opportunity to find out a bit more about the unique history of the pubs in her constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) underlined the role of pubs in his constituency and the crucial contribution that Scotch whisky makes not only to the Scottish economy, but to the UK economy as a whole. He will know of the work my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security is seeking to do to reduce some of the tariffs that Scotch whisky still faces around the world. If I heard him right, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) promised to visit all 116 pubs in his constituency before the next election.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) referenced previous work she had done with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and I will reflect on her contribution and the Committee’s work outside this House, if I may. I hope to touch on the contributions of one or two other hon. Members as I make my way through some of the broader points, where appropriate.
This debate is important because our pubs and the wider hospitality sector are crucial to the UK economy, employing around 2.2 million people across 154,000 businesses and generating revenues of around £52 billion per annum.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is making some important points about the employment generated by the sector. Does he agree that in areas such as North Norfolk, with a huge hospitality industry, greater training opportunities are vital to allow people to have full and flourishing careers in the hospitality sector? Are the Government supportive of extending that franchise?
Gareth Thomas
I congratulate the hon. Member on getting his constituency’s pubs into the debate. I look forward to having the opportunity to visit one or two of those in his constituency again. I will come back to the significant point about training, on which I hope we will have some good news for the pubs in his constituency and more generally.
Pubs and hospitality venues are important to local economies. They help to create vibrant towns and cities that we all want to visit, to study, work, live and invest. Pubs help us to celebrate the very essence of life and friendship, to socialise with family and friends, to enjoy music and great sport, and to celebrate the important points in life’s journey. They are crucial to supporting wider social objectives: providing accessible jobs, as other Members have already touched on, helping to support community cohesion and providing welcoming spaces for those who feel isolated and alone to enjoy the company of others.
In short, hospitality is the backbone of our high streets and the lifeblood of so many of our communities. We all know that hospitality businesses are still struggling. At the weekend, the Yorkshire Post published a survey suggesting some 500 pubs had closed in Yorkshire since 2019, which is just one indication of the challenges facing the pub and hospitality industry.
Jamie Stone
I value the Minister’s words. Does he accept my earlier point that those businesses could do with getting the eastern European and foreign workers they used to have?
Gareth Thomas
I heard the point the hon. Gentleman made, and I want to come to the issue of access to talent to work in pubs and hospitality venues. While we always need to consider issues around visas and the right to work, we can do more to help people in our country to get access to jobs in the pubs and hospitality industry. The point I intend to make in relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) is pertinent to that.
As I said, we all know that hospitality businesses are struggling to recover from the pandemic, where closures and customer restrictions decimated cash reserves and drove up levels of debt. I say this gently with so many Conservative Members present, but the subsequent cost of living crisis, which was driven in part by the incompetence of previous Governments, has compounded the challenge for hospitality businesses and increased costs, and it has caused real difficulties and challenges for businesses in repaying some of those debts. One thinks in particular of the contribution Liz Truss made to those issues.
Robbie Moore
I am sure the Minister will get to it, but I am really keen to understand some of the specifics of what he is doing in his role as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade. What is the nature of his conversations with the Chancellor and the Treasury, specifically around business rates relief, VAT threshold, VAT duty, beer duty and the concerns raised by the likes of UKHospitality with the Employment Rights Bill? I am sure he is getting there, but this side of the House is keen to understand what he is doing in his role in the conversations with the Chancellor on the forthcoming Budget.
Gareth Thomas
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the prompt to get on to the issues around the Budget next week. He will understand, as one or two of his colleagues alluded to earlier, that I will not speculate on what will or will not be included in the Chancellor’s Budget. However, I can say that we recognise the very important role that hospitality businesses play in supporting local economies and communities, and we understand the pressures facing those businesses. When we were in Opposition, one of the biggest complaints we heard from high street businesses was the unfairness of the antiquated system of business rates. I apologise to him—I appreciate it is difficult to hear—but I think one of the reasons his party lost the confidence of the business community was because it had made multiple promises to abolish or reform the business rates system, but never actually got to that issue.
Business rates are particularly unfair for hospitality, leisure and tourism businesses which, as others have alluded to, create 5% of the UK’s GDP but pay 15% of all business rates. Not only is the current system of business rates unfair, but we know that it disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our highstreets, and in the context of this debate, on pubs and hospitality and venues. That is why we included in our manifesto a commitment to reform business rates, and it is why the Chancellor has continued to commit to setting out next steps on that at the next Budget.
Esther McVey
I would like to take away some comfort and be able to speak with my pub owners and pub landlords. Will the Minister commit today to speaking to the Chancellor about business rates before the Budget next week? I want him just to confirm that he will be making the representations from today’s debate to the Chancellor before the Budget.
Gareth Thomas
I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Lady and the whole House that I will ensure that the Treasury and the Chancellor are aware of the comments made in this debate. She will understand that crucial to the future of pubs and the hospitality industry is getting growth going in our country—in particular, getting more disposable income into the pockets of potential customers of pubs and other hospitality venues.
That is one reason the Prime Minister has made growth the number one mission of the Government. It is why we have already taken a series of steps to underline the significance of growth, from publishing a Green Paper on industrial strategy through to the success of the investment summit last week. It is also why we have introduced the package of measures to make work pay, including the Employment Rights Bill, which the House debated yesterday.
I want to pick up one or two specific points hon. Members made, in particular the reference by the hon. Member for North Norfolk to training. He may know that there has been much frustration across the business community, including from pubs and hospitality businesses, about how the apprenticeship levy works. We have committed to reforming that levy and to giving more focus to the skills needs of businesses.
That is one reason we have already established Skills England, which will have a new partnership with employers at its heart and will transform the existing apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy, to support business and boost opportunities for those living and working in the UK—something the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) will be pleased to hear.
Interventions from the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) provide me with an opportunity to suggest gently that the Scottish Government might want to think again about their decision not to pass on the business rate relief to pubs that the Treasury in London sends them—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. Could the Minister start winding up his remarks?
Gareth Thomas
Lastly, Ms Vaz, Ofgem has announced a series of measures to protect non-domestic energy customers from poor behaviour by energy suppliers, which I hope will address some of the concerns that we heard on that issue.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Yes, thank you. I call Peter Bedford to wind up.
Mr Bedford
I thank the many hon. Members who contributed to today’s debate. We certainly had lots of recommendations for pubs and hospitality venues across the United Kingdom.
Members who have heard the Minister’s response may be a little frustrated that we have not quite got the answers we wanted, particularly in respect of reforms to business rate relief, VAT, the apprenticeship levy, planning and licensing, or a commitment on national insurance and beer duty. I hope the Minister will make representations to the Chancellor and the Treasury to ensure that that vital aspect of support is implemented by the Government. In closing, I ask that the Chancellor, in her upcoming Budget, implements policies that will not hinder the sector, but enable it to flourish and grow.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for pubs and the hospitality sector.
Renewable Energy: Cornwall
(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I will call Jayne Kirkham to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the development of renewable energy in Cornwall.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. To achieve net zero by 2030, Britain needs Cornwall. If I get anything across in the next 15 minutes, I want everyone in this room to leave with full knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, the vast and unique scale of the opportunity in Cornwall for a large-scale, thriving renewable energy sector that creates skilled jobs, brings social value to local people and generates clean energy, helping us to meet that 2030 target. It is a challenge that will require both hands to grasp, but that does not faze the people of Cornwall, who have known a rich industrial past and do not need convincing of the positives of a new industrial future.
Our riches are plentiful and unique. They are buried under our rock, under the waves that surround our 400 miles of coast, in our harsh, whistling south-westerly winds and from our come-and-go solar rays. Harnessing those riches has not always been easy, but if industrialism literally runs through the Cornish landscape, in the tin-rich veins that pass through our granite, resourcefulness runs through the blood of the Cornish. Our geography and landscape are unique and fundamental to our potential. We are surrounded on three sides by the sea, in particular the Celtic sea, which has a great water depth—Falmouth is the third deepest harbour in the world. We are sitting on globally significant mineral deposits, and our granite holds the heat of geothermal energy.
Around 37% of Cornwall’s electricity is currently generated from renewable sources, and the renewable sector already exists here: it is cutting-edge, thriving and leads the way nationally and internationally. But it is nowhere near the scale that we need to make the most of the opportunities that exist.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. As she has outlined, it is clear that we need Cornwall to achieve net zero. But it is also worth remembering that the Secretary of State said in the Chamber that this is an object for every part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Many other constituencies need to contribute as well. The hon. Lady puts forward Cornwall; will she also remember other parts of the United Kingdom?
Jayne Kirkham
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. My point is that Cornwall has some catching up to do with other parts of the country, but I am aware that other parts of the UK are in the same situation.
The Secretaries of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and for the Department for Business and Trade visited my constituency and that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), earlier this year, and met businesses with solutions in the marine, geo, tidal and wind spheres. The breadth of the innovation in Cornwall is huge. However, the sector needs investment along with the ambition and determination, and a long-term strategy from Government to make that vision a reality.
Under the previous Government, there was a de facto ban on onshore wind. Of planning applications for onshore wind turbines over 150 kW in Cornwall since January 2015, only one was successful in planning and has since become operational. I am very pleased that one of the first things this Government did was to end that ban on onshore wind. Community energy projects did not receive much support from the previous Government either. The rural community energy fund was only open from 2019 to 2022, and there were no new funding sources for urban community energy projects after that, except from local government.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for the case she is making today. I fully endorse everything she has said. She mentioned the previous Government’s effective ban on onshore wind: does she agree that the Conservative Government also scrapped sustainable homes regulations and other regulations, setting us back many years? We have a lot of time to make up. In Cornwall especially, there is significant enthusiasm to accelerate the pace so that we can become the green peninsula and be recognised for that throughout the UK.
Jayne Kirkham
I thank the hon. Member. That is true particularly around standards on homes, where our local solutions for ground source heating could have been made more of in the past and have obviously now been delayed for that reason.
The feed-in tariffs introduced by the previous Labour Government were reduced several times by the last Government and then finally ended in 2019. Despite that, the community energy sector is resilient and has continued to grow. In my constituency, Ladock won the low carbon communities challenge, and Low Carbon Ladock was given £500,000 under one of the last Governments, which it invested in solar panels on homes, biomass boilers, and ground-source and air-source heat systems. It has been able to put the profits into things for the community, such as safer school crossings, playing fields and more renewables.
The current state of play in Cornwall is that there are 104 wind turbines, 88 solar projects and two operational geothermal sites. Twenty-two projects have been granted planning permission in 2023-24 to date, including one geothermal, one onshore wind, eight battery and 12 solar photovoltaic projects. A further 22 projects have submitted planning applications in 2023-24, three of which are geothermal, four onshore wind, six battery and nine solar.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the time to act in Cornwall is right now? We have the US State Department, which is very interested in our renewable opportunities, and representatives from France coming to Cornwall. It would be a crying shame if our Government did not use the advantages available to make Cornwall a renewable energies cluster.
Jayne Kirkham
I agree that the opportunities are vast. We have all heard incredible enthusiasm from the Secretary of State for DESNZ in particular about grasping those opportunities for Cornwall with both hands. I am pleased that that will hopefully happen.
We already know and recognise the potential for wind and solar in Cornwall. The Duchy benefits from regular south-westerly winds, which would complement those in other parts of the country. Solar has its place as well. Much of it in my constituency at present is comprised of large solar farms that cluster around the spot where the power supply is broken down into smaller distribution networks. That is only halfway down Cornwall at Indian Queens. The community benefits of those schemes are mixed, and developers have tended to focus on agricultural land that has previously been used for crops—grade 3b land, which is used for potatoes, cauliflowers and daffodils among other things.
We have geothermal solutions as well, both grid-connected with contracts for difference in place and planning permissions, such as for Geothermal Engineering Ltd, and offgrid, such as Kensa heat pumps, which I mentioned earlier. At present, there are two deep geothermal wells with the potential for three more on council farms. Geothermal is a base source producing energy day and night, and whichever way the wind blows, and the 190° water that comes out of the wells has a great scope to heat homes.
It is worth noting that there is significant Cornish capability for developing tidal streams in the UK, Europe and beyond, such as Inyanga Marine Energy Group in my constituency. There is rising demand for clean energy from critical industries such as the tech metals industry and from new communities in my constituency, such as the build of Langarth garden village.
Cornwall is blessed to have resources of tin, lithium and geothermal heat that are simply not available anywhere else. Tin is used in the manufacture of virtually every single electrical device that we use, and it is crucial to our transition to a fossil-free economy. Demand for tin over the past decade or so has driven prices even higher —so much so that is now commercially viable to reopen some of our historical mines. Investment is already coming into Cornwall, most demonstrably at South Crofty mine, where pumping out water from the flooded mine chamber is already well underway, and that of course uses an awful lot of energy.
Lithium, which is a vital component of electric vehicle batteries, is another critical mineral that we have in abundance in Cornwall. We currently import 100% of our lithium, and yet Cornwall has the largest lithium deposits in Europe. We have enough to extract 50,000 tonnes per year. Those critical minerals are currently imported from east Asia and Latin America, where they are mined in a hugely damaging way. The process in Cornwall is completely different. There is a great story to tell here: we have a way to feed the new battery factory in Somerset and to give a shot in the arm to our automotive industry without being reliant on foreign imports in a more dangerous geopolitical environment.
Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea is the next frontier in the UK’s clean energy transition. We are positioned to unlock up to 4 GW of power by 2035, which is enough to power 4 million homes. There are huge opportunities here for Cornwall, as the Celtic sea is all around us. The ambition to put floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, where it would complement other offshore arrays, and the opportunities that would arise from it for Cornwall to expand supply chains, the economy and the number of good, skilled jobs are vast.
However, to be brutal, ambition is so far all that it is. Test and demonstration models are planned and ready to go—smaller, non-commercial pilot projects that prove the technology works to give confidence to investors— but the most ready is stalled by too low a price from previous contracts for difference rounds, while others are stalled by planning issues.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
We know the Cornish economy to be more dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises than elsewhere in the UK; the same is true of the supply chain for our great, burgeoning renewable energy industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the organs of industrial strategy must be attuned to the need for building a supply chain based on those SMEs and the very specific needs of those growth businesses?
Jayne Kirkham
Absolutely—scaling up and providing the skills that are required need to be done extremely quickly. It is a race against time to remove the barriers and kick-start those projects; then, the Crown Estate, the Government and GB Energy must work together to provide a feasible timeline of contracts for difference and leasing rounds, as well as doing the groundwork by investing in the surveys and the infrastructure, such as cabling and the grid, so that investors will come on board.
Our Cornish ports and harbours, such as Falmouth, are well placed to support floating offshore wind, with well-established marine engineering solutions, servicing, assembly and maintenance. They also have a huge role to play in decarbonising shipping and defence.
This Government have already ended the de facto ban on onshore wind, and have plans for doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and quadrupling offshore wind, as well as reforming the planning system. With Cornish Lithium’s Hard Rock plant recently designated a nationally significant site of strategic infrastructure, planning could be streamlined and fast-tracked. GB Energy has been working with the Crown Estate to invest in the infrastructure that will make floating offshore wind happen and provide the certainty to draw in investment. Our new local power plan will provide £3.3 billion for grants and loans for those local energy projects—the biggest expansion in community-owned energy in history. This will enable communities to own—in the realest sense—the energy they rely on and allow local authorities, such as Cornwall, to exploit the energy sources on our doorstep, like the geothermal assets on council land that could be heating homes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech in which she is once again standing up for her communities and clean power. Does she agree that the cost of living crisis—the worst in a generation, driven by the energy shock—will cast a long shadow for as long as we remain exposed to fossil fuels, and that we must embrace British-based nuclear and Cornwall renewables? The faster we go, the more secure we become. On the point about ground source heat pumps, can she say a little about Kensa, which manufactures heat pumps in Cornwall? I was privileged to see its heat pumps last week at the Sutton Dwellings in Chelsea. They are an amazing technology.
Jayne Kirkham
Yes, of course. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that business, which is on the edge of my constituency. I agree that we have to embrace all sorts of energy sources—the urgency is definitely there. Kensa is one of the largest manufacturers of ground source heat pumps in Europe, but it is currently stymied by regulation and the future homes standard. Hopefully it will be able to grow in the future.
Big challenges still remain. We need to get ready for floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea; there is a risk of places such as Cornwall losing out if we are not prepared. The grid network unites renewables businesses in Cornwall because of the capacity of the distribution network, which is a key barrier and constraint to growth. There is a lack of capacity and a slow speed, and the main grid stops at Indian Queens, which is only half-way into Cornwall. We need to upgrade those transmission and distribution networks. There are significant delays to accessing grid connections for projects such as onshore charging, the energy required by the potential new Kensa factory, and tin and lithium mining.
The National Energy System Operator is newly nationalised. There will be a connections action plan to decrease the time it takes to get connected to the grid. We will need to front-load the work, do the surveys, and lay the cables to plug in all those power sources. There is currently no strategic national plan for that infrastructure.
Vital plans to lay floating offshore wind cables, and the previous Government’s miserly £160 million FLOWMIS—the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—fund for ports, were awarded with no national strategy in place. The current Government has a £1.8 billion ports fund, which is welcome. However, the French Government have just put €900 million into the port of Brest—that is the equivalent of half our entire national ports fund for the next ten years invested in just one French port. We need a coherent plan for our ports.
One of the test and demonstration models is being held up by planning, as are other projects. We need to look at planning, as well as at the huge number of skilled workers who are needed but lacking for renewables in the energy sector and to retrofit for the warm homes plan.
The Crown Estate has partnered with Falmouth marine school to pay for children aged 14 to 16 from Helston community college to receive level 2 engineering training in the sphere of offshore wind. That is a pilot; there is no ongoing funding. It is great, but it will not address the massive skills gap. We need a huge scale-up. We have great local further education providers—Truro and Penwith college and Cornwall college—but they need the ability to scale up in conjunction with the industry.
There is no national oversight of the map around the country of floating offshore wind for the future, no timescale for “test and demos”, and no pipeline of contracts with the Crown Estate to build the Celtic sea out so that the investors have certainty. We can use contractual tie-ins with the lease, and we can use procurement, but national coordinated action is needed now. We also need new domestic production targets for critical minerals.
We are ready to be the multi-renewable power production capital of the UK. It is a vision of vast scale, which is not without challenges, but it shows that Cornwall is crucial because of what we offer, rather than what we need. It is time for us to step up and become the multi-renewable power production capital of the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing this debate and the other Members for their contributions. It is good to see a clean sweep of new MPs in Cornwall, although my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is a familiar face from days gone by. The passion of hon. Members for the region shines through, and all six MPs are brilliant advocates for Cornwall’s sheer potential.
I want to note the recent letter from the four Labour MPs in Cornwall to the Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), concerning the need for investment in the county. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned, the Minister for Industry and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade have visited the region recently. I know that both are aware of the county’s incredible potential for economic and industrial growth. I understand that the four MPs will be meeting my colleague, the Minister for Industry, very soon to discuss the issues raised in the letter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth will be aware that one of the Prime Minister’s five missions for national renewal is making Britain a clean energy superpower, including delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. As has been mentioned, we have wasted no time in getting started. Within our first 100 days in government, we lifted the onshore wind ban in England, consented to more nationally significant solar projects than had been consented to in the past 14 years, and delivered the most successful renewables auction in British history. Now we are busy setting up Great British Energy, which will drive clean energy deployment, creating jobs, boosting energy independence and ensuring that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy. As we heard, Cornwall has a vital role to play in that clean energy mission, and indeed our mission to secure economic growth.
Cornwall may be primarily known as a tourist destination these days, but it has a proud industrial past. It was once known as the mining capital of the world, with tin mining and clay, and was where Richard Trevithick invented the high-pressured steam engine. As much as tourism is welcomed in Cornwall, we know that it puts pressure on the local infrastructure and economy, particularly the housing supply, which then has a knock-on effect on public services in the area.
From meeting local businesses in Cornwall when I went down with the now Chief Secretary to the Treasury last year, I know that there is excitement about the opportunities offered by Cornwall’s huge industrial potential from wind, geothermal, lithium and more. Great work is already being done through the continuing development of a local area energy plan in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, and the Government are doing what they can to support the region too. Last September, three geothermal projects, all located in Cornwall, were successful in our contracts for difference auction for the first time, with contracts totalling 12 MW of generation. As part of my visit to Cornwall last year, I also went to see some of the exciting work that the Eden Project is doing on geothermal.
Critical minerals have been mentioned as an important area for future industrial development. Cornwall has some of the largest critical mineral deposits, with research showing that the county alone could meet more than half the UK’s 2030 demand for lithium, which is an essential part of the electric vehicle battery supply chain. As we transition to a renewables-based economy, the demand for critical minerals will only grow, and I note the concerns that have been raised about current sourcing and the need to diversify supply. Indeed, Cornwall is home to at least three of the 18 critical minerals, and I hope that local MPs, in the meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, can further discuss how we can take advantage of all that Cornwall has to offer on that front.
The county is perfectly placed to take advantage because of its strong mining heritage—I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said about the potential for reopening tin mines—as well as a growing supply chain, skilled workforce and supportive local government. It has the support of national Government too. In 2023, the UK Infrastructure Bank’s first equity deal was an equity investment of approximately £24 million to support Cornish Lithium in the development of the UK’s critical minerals supply chain.
One of the most exciting areas with huge potential is the floating offshore wind that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth talked about, which would enable turbines to be set up where the seabed is too deep for traditional fixed-bottom turbines. A new report from the floating offshore wind taskforce says that the UK’s floating wind industry will be able to support 97,000 jobs by 2050, contributing £47 billion to our economy, and we want Cornwall to have a proper stake in that via the Celtic sea.
I reassure Members present that we want to do all we can to support floating wind infrastructure and supply chains to develop the Celtic sea, to ensure that we get the floating wind pipeline built and bring jobs and growth to the area. As part of leasing round 5, the Crown Estate has launched a £10 million supply chain accelerator fund, focused on capturing some of the economic opportunities identified by the Celtic sea blueprint. A further £40 million has been earmarked, which could be deployed on further opportunities nationally.
More broadly speaking, Members present will know that last week, the Chancellor announced that the UK Infrastructure Bank is becoming the national wealth fund. Capitalised with £27.8 billion, it will have additional financial capacity and an enhanced risk budget, as well as an expanded remit beyond infrastructure in support of the Government’s industrial strategy. At least £5.8 billion of the national wealth fund’s capital will focus on priority sectors, including ports infrastructure, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth will be pleased to hear.
Also last week, we published in a Green Paper our vision for a modern industrial strategy—Invest 2035. That is a credible 10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability that businesses need to invest in high-growth sectors. It will help us create a pro-business environment and support high-potential clusters across the country. It will channel support to eight growth-driving sectors, including clean energy industries, and it will support those sectors to create high-quality, well paid jobs across the country, backed by employment rights fit for a modern economy.
If the plan is to be a success, it needs to be designed and implemented in lockstep with local and regional leaders. That is particularly important in places such as Cornwall, where we are looking at reindustrialisation to an extent, rather than building on current industrial clusters. We will explore how to build on existing place-based initiatives, how to create the best pro-business environment possible in city regions and high-potential clusters, and how to identify, select and intervene in industrial sites to make them magnets for globally mobile investment.
As I said, unlocking Cornwall’s potential is slightly different from going into other areas. That is absolutely key. Planning was mentioned; we must undo some of the blockages in the planning system. In relation to the grid, I very much remember, from when I visited, the knock-on impact of the fact that the transmission line goes only as far as Indian Queens. Until we create the grid infrastructure to cover the right areas and provide sufficient capacity, we cannot deliver on Cornwall’s potential. I think that one of the things holding the Eden Project back with its geothermal work was that it could not get that broader grid connection. The former chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, Chris Stark, has been put in charge of the mission board, and one of his key tasks is to bring in a more strategic approach to grid planning, speed it up and stop those blockages that mean that projects just do not get off the ground because they are stuck in that system.
Skills are also a very important issue, on which I hope we can have continued engagement. I think I am due to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth next week to follow up on some of these issues. I want to reassure her and colleagues that our doors are always open, in terms of discussing these things, and I will return to my original point that I share the excitement that Cornwall has huge potential. I think we want a more balanced economy—
Perran Moon
Looking at Cornwall, we have mentioned floating offshore wind, onshore wind, geothermal, tidal, solar, lithium, tin and manganese. Can the Minister name anywhere else in the UK where there is such a distillation of critical minerals and renewable energy opportunities? I am very excited by what she said about the cluster concept. Would not Cornwall be an ideal place to be an official cluster for renewables and critical minerals?
Kerry McCarthy
I am not sure that we quite have an official badge of cluster; we just have clusters, but yes, I think Cornwall is different in terms of the geography and the current use of the land and we have to approach it in a sensitive way, and one in which we might not have to approach areas that currently are perhaps transitioning from traditional fossil fuel industries to the clean industries of the future. This area is bringing something that, to an extent, is genuinely buried in the land—the industrial heritage there. It has so much potential. The question is how we can work across Departments, starting with my own, DESNZ, but also bringing in other Departments that can unlock that potential. I am sure that the brilliant advocates that there are in the region will all be pushing, and I really hope that we can see swift progress, because clean power by 2030 is such an important part of the Government’s mission and I do not think we can do it without Cornwall playing its part.
Question put and agreed to.
Whistleblowing Protections
(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered protections for whistleblowing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for today’s debate, Sir Mark. This week is Whistleblower Awareness Week, so it is a very timely debate, and one that is long overdue. For as long as there has been misconduct in public activity, there have been brave individuals willing to put their head above the parapet and highlight a problem. There have been brave individuals who have sought to shine a light on the dark recesses of corruption, and those who have said, “Up with this I will not put.”
We would normally think of those people as whistleblowers. We would think of them as being protected in some way, because we talk about protection for whistleblowers as if it is some sort of universal activity. It has, however, been shown to me, as somebody who is relatively new to the world of whistleblowing, that depending on how someone blows the whistle, on their relationship with the organisation about which they are highlighting a problem, and on the way in which they disclose that information, they could or could not be a whistleblower. I shall focus on that today. I shall also talk about the positive steps that the new Government have already committed to, and where I think there is an opportunity for further development of protections for whistleblowing. I will talk about a solution to some of the problems, which I know that people who are interested in the subject are particularly concerned about.
Over the last couple of decades, we have witnessed many problems, challenges and scandals. Those that are timely and pertinent today include the Horizon Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the tragedy of Grenfell, and the scandal of personal protective equipment NHS contracts and public waste. We often talk about whistleblowing after the event, after somebody has said, “This is a problem and we should do something about it.” The problem that leaves is that the damage is already done. We then have to say to those people that although they are doing the right thing, it could come at considerable personal cost and detriment to their character and standing. Ultimately, because of the way in which the current law is written, it could be boiled down to a dispute that ends up in an employment tribunal focusing on the relationship between the whistleblower and the organisation they are highlighting concern about, rather than the act that they were raising concern about in the first place. That leaves a whole series of problems that we need to address. I think there is a way of doing that through new laws, which I will talk about slightly later on in my remarks.
Like many of my colleagues here this afternoon, I come from a trade union background. Too often, whistleblowers end up in a situation akin to the blacklisting of trade union officials. People are willing to stand up and say the right thing, but then find themselves penalised within their sector and get labelled as the bad apple, the troublemaker or the person who has all too often tried to agitate and cause concern, when they are simply seeking to highlight something that is bad and wrong. That puts them at great risk, because the question then becomes, “Do I speak up?” Do they speak up about the bad thing that they see happening? Do they draw attention to misconduct or dereliction of public duty, or do they quietly get along with their job and life and keep their head down? The existing protections for whistleblowers do not give people the confidence to stand up and make that declaration, because of fear for their livelihood, job prospects, career and family. It is often a case of David versus Goliath, where an individual has bravely put their head above the parapet and said, “This is a problem.” Suddenly, the entire resources of large organisations are brought to bear against them.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on obtaining this important debate on whistleblowing, under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I know from speaking recently to a couple of constituents who are whistleblowers that part of the fear of speaking up, which my hon. Friend rightly highlights, is the imbalance of power between public institutions and the individual whistleblower.
The costs, as my hon. Friend said, are heavy on the individual. They can obviously be emotional, due to the stress of these processes. They can also be financial, when the individual tries to maintain their reputation against the full force of public institutions defending themselves and taking the matter through the courts. Those institutions have full access to public funds, which costs the taxpayer a lot.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s promise of a duty of candour could be a step forward in changing that imbalance of power between public institutions and whistleblowers? Hopefully, in time, if the public sector takes that duty of candour seriously, we can reduce the need for whistleblowers to call things out.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be brief.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) is absolutely right. We will not mention individual cases today, but we all know of individuals who have struggled doughtily against the huge available resources of large international corporations—public sector bodies in some cases—that have sought to use the weight and resource available to them, through their lawyers and HR departments, issuing threats and intimidation, to prevent people pursuing things they have seen and done that they know to be wrong. The organisations would rather spend that energy, time, money and effort on dismissing the whistleblower’s concern than put that resource into remedying the situation. The way my hon. Friend explained that was first class.
I want to talk about something that I found out relatively recently, as part of my work with WhistleblowersUK. I did not know that to be a whistleblower, the person has to be engaged in an employment role. I genuinely believed that the whistleblowing policies of organisations that someone had an attachment to would protect them if they saw something going wrong. I thought that if someone saw something they believed was bad—such as corruption, malfeasance, misconduct—and did the right thing by standing up and calling it out, as we all say we should, they would be protected, but they are not.
If a patient in hospital sees something, they are not protected. If a parent sees something wrong with a school, college, university or one of the many organisations their children might interact with, they are not protected. If someone is a school governor, although they have various requirements under safeguarding legislation, they are actually exposed in a way they might not be if they were employed. The contractual arrangements for contractors on site, who see the way that organisations work, would not provide protection. That is a glaring, gaping hole in protections, which we need to tackle.
That means that, when somebody does have the fortitude to stand up and say, “This is wrong,” it often ends up in an employment tribunal. The focus then is on the process by which the whistleblower raised the complaint and the detriment that individual may have incurred; it does not deal with the issue about which they were raising a flag. Again, that allows organisations to shift the emphasis and the attention of their own internal processes to that relationship rather than focusing on the issue that was raised. I think the Minister would agree that that needs to change.
The Minister knows that the new Government have made commitments, particularly through the Duty of Candour Bill, to make sure that individuals who have responsibilities in certain organisations and areas have a duty—a clear duty—to stand up and say, “This is wrong.” There also needs to be protection for that individual, so that when they comply with their new duty of candour responsibilities they can also be protected from detriment, regardless of the way in which they make that declaration to somebody who they believe can do something about it. At the moment, they are horribly exposed, which means there is a disincentive for them to do the right thing. It also means that we end up with people who, for a quiet life, would rather dismiss what they see than stand up.
It was only last night, when we were debating the Employment Rights Bill, that the Deputy Prime Minister said, in relation to the new sexual harassment arrangements for whistleblowers in the Bill:
“If they do the right thing and speak up about sexual harassment, the law will protect them.” —[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 53.]
I believe that should apply to anybody who is speaking up to highlight any problem, and not just to those who are employees where they see sexual harassment.
I welcome the fact that the Government have started a conversation about this issue and that they have taken steps, through the Employment Rights Bill, to remedy some of the deficiencies in our employment legislation. However, I return to my point: this needs to be about more than employment. It needs to be about the way we treat anyone who is willing to stand up, have their say and point out wrongdoing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was also quite clear last night when he summed up the debate on the Employment Rights Bill, saying:
“Protection for whistleblowers is a day one right.” —[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 140.]
I am glad that we are putting that into legislation, but I say again that it only applies to those people who are whistleblowing in an employment-related context. We need to make sure that that “day one right” of protection applies to anyone who blows the whistle anywhere in the UK.
Obviously, there has been progression. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 made some progress. However, I think it is fair to say that, in and of itself, its time has probably passed, and that there is a need to reconsider seriously how to improve the opportunities for whistleblowers to make declarations in a way that they are comfortable with and that protects them, so that people who see wrongdoing have the confidence to stand up and point it out as a preventive measure, as much as a curative measure after the event.
From my trade union days, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister did admirable work on this issue before he came to this place. Where someone has the confidence that they can speak truth to power, they can stop bad things from happening in the first place. When someone has the confidence that they will be listened to and protected, that encourages people to come forward and highlight problems before there is that horrible accident at work or that social tragedy, or before an act of misconduct costs the state hundreds, thousands and in some cases millions of pounds, which is obviously money that we can ill afford to lose after the inheritance we received from the previous Government.
How can we make the situation better? I ask that question because I genuinely believe that if we are to have this kind of debate, we should talk not only about what the problems are but about how we can make things better. Later in this Parliament I hope to introduce a new version of the Protection for Whistleblowing Bill—a Bill that will comprehensively rewrite the current rules and regulations around whistleblowing. First of all, it will comprehensively define what a whistleblower is, because at the moment that is a point of debate, and because it is a point of debate we end up in litigation and arbitration, with individuals finding that they have to justify why they made a disclosure in the first place rather than everyone focusing on what the disclosure was. We absolutely need to find a way of moving away from that situation.
Such a Bill would also create a statutory power to protect whistleblowers from detriment. I say, again with my trade union hat on, that we all know that financial recompense for suffering a detriment is the only way we can remedy such detriment, but that person has still suffered a detriment; they have still had a loss as a result of their whistleblowing. So, we need to find a way to prevent the loss in the first place.
The Bill would be able to look at how we do compensation and would have a statutory power to investigate and award penalties. Importantly, it would create the office of the whistleblower. The idea of such an office is neat and clear and something that my party has previously committed to in other debates and votes. The office would be able to put that comforting arm around people who blow the whistle, regardless of where or how they blow it. It would allow parity between those large organisations, or the state, with their HR departments, lawyers and resources, and an organisation and office that acts as a friend, support and neutral crutch on which the whistleblower could lean. All too often being a whistleblower takes its toll on that person’s family, and it can be lonely and scary. An office of the whistleblower would allow that burden to be shared with an organisation, an entity, an office that has an understanding of what the whistleblower is doing and hoping to achieve. It would also be able to look across organisations and spot the patterns. All too often, whistleblowers stand up and make a declaration about something over here, and somebody else will make a declaration over there, but nobody is looking at the patterns and asking, “Is there some underlying issue that we need to address?”
The office of the whistleblower would be responsible for identifying those patterns and generating reports saying whether something untoward might be happening in that organisation, part of the state or public sector body. That would be an important way of bringing that preventive measure to bear so that we can crack down on the waste, corruption and malfeasance. We can ensure that those individuals seeking to corrupt the way they work for their own personal benefit can be highlighted and brought to bear.
Creating the office would require the Government to act. It would require primary legislation as well as the political will to say that we need to catch up with some of our European counterparts who have already moved into this space of having an office of the whistleblower. Crucially, the Minister will be aware that only 18 months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), when she was shadowing the brief that the Minister now holds, clearly committed the Labour party to supporting an office of the whistleblower. The Labour party supported an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 that would have created an office of the whistleblower. I appreciate that the Minister cannot make a commitment from his position today because of the way that Government works, but I hope he will take away from the debate the commitments made in the past and the way in which the Labour party—now in government—understood the necessity of such an office, and how that has not changed. I ask whether he and his Department could review what the likelihood would be of taking that forward.
There have been reviews of the way that whistleblowing works over time. I understand that the review of the whistleblowing framework by the previous Government was completed in January. That report has not yet been published. Again, will the Minister undertake to go back to his Department, find that report and potentially publish it? If the report is deficient in some way and the review of the framework has not been undertaken in as comprehensive a way as we would all like, would he commit to refreshing it? Even if we cannot move as fast as I would like towards the outcome that I would like, would he look at reviewing the framework so that people at work, or not at work, who witness corruption, malfeasance or acts that endanger public safety have the confidence to say, “This is wrong”? If they can have the knowledge that somebody somewhere is standing with them, and that they have the support of a Government who take this seriously, we could move quickly towards a country where the scandals I mentioned at the beginning—with the devastating events that took place—could be prevented and we could all live happier, safer and better lives.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for setting the scene. I have said it to him before, but it really is a pleasure to see him back in the House and in his place. We had a friendship when he was here before, and it is good to see him back and working energetically on behalf of his constituents. I also thank him and the other members of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing for their continued interest in this important subject.
I said to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central that I wanted to give an example of someone who was a whistleblower—a good friend of mine—and explain how it affected him. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) referred to the effect that whistleblowing can have on health. My friend is dead and gone now, and anything I say will be complimentary to him and his family. It is important that, as his friend, I recall his commitment to whistleblowing and the fact that it was traumatic for him in every way.
As I say, my first experience of whistleblowing came with my childhood friend. I call him the late, great Brian Little, because he was. He and I went to school together; we grew up in Ballywalter village back in Northern Ireland. As often happens, we went to school, left school and did not see each other for 20-odd years, then all of a sudden we came together again and our friendship was renewed and reinvigorated. We caught up as our families grew up and other things happened.
I should have said before that it is nice to see the Minister in his place—I wish him well in his role—and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon).
Brian was a giant in battling for the underdog, and I miss him greatly to this day. As someone who has always taken for granted the ability to speak the truth and get respect for that, it was a great shock for me to see my friend brought so low for simply doing the right thing. That is what happened to him. He was a whistleblower. I will not go into the details of what it was or the company involved—that would be inappropriate —but the doing the right thing had such an effect on him, and he felt constrained that he had to do it. He lost almost everything, but he worked hard to get it back. He suffered from anxiety and depression, which, as the hon. Member for Shipley mentioned, is how whistleblowing affects people sometimes. He was physically broken by it, when all he did was highlight something that was incorrect in a big company. He did his job, and all of a sudden he suffered for that.
I supported Brian in his fight, and he supported me in the House with his expertise in financial matters. I have to be honest: his expertise fed into any speeches on financial issues that I made a few years ago. He had incredible knowledge of banking issues, the regulation of markets and financial matters. I miss his wise counsel greatly. He died quite suddenly on a Thursday in his daughter’s home. I perhaps had not realised just how many things he had done. He had helped so many people from all over this great United Kingdom—from Scotland, Wales, England and all across Northern Ireland—with their financial issues. The sympathy letters and emails that came in to express shock at his passing were testament to his ability to understand people and help them. He spent the latter years of his life in this world doing right, and literally hundreds of people owe him so much, as I do.
The experience of Brian and all that his family, particularly his wife Jacqui, who is still living, went through in his battle for justice highlighted to me that we certainly do not have it right in our battle for protection of whistleblowers. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is right to bring forward this debate, because the issue is key to many people across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I recall with fondness those who dared to stand up and be counted, and that is why I am here to support this debate. I am sure others will give similar examples.
The issue is clear, as a cursory glance at the number of whistleblowing cases ongoing in Northern Ireland shows. As you know, Mr Chairman, I always give the Northern Ireland perspective. I want to give that perspective to this debate and ultimately enable the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), to help with the questions that are being asked and how we can protect whistleblowers better.
We have had complaints in Northern Ireland on issues from covid information to Northern Ireland Water paying millions to contractors for work that had not been carried out, and on a host of issues in between. In each of these cases, it is clear that the current whistleblowing legislation is not robust enough to allow the little man or little woman to take on the big corporations. I think this is what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is seeking to have. I am looking to the Minister because I am pretty sure, if he does not mind me saying so, that he will be able to give us some reassurance on this issue.
While I welcome the steps proposed in the Employment Rights Bill on enhanced protections from harassment in the workplace, I feel—and I mean this gently, and honestly, and in a constructive fashion—that more could be done in the Bill to enhance protections and to ensure there is support for those who dare to speak truth to power. Truth is incredibly powerful, but it is how that truth can be expressed and how that whistleblower can get the answers, and be protected, and not be sanctioned or picked on because he or she had the guts to get up and do it.
We are all aware there are whistleblowing cases that amount to perhaps no more than a grudge against an employer, but those cases should not strip protection and support from those who are putting their necks on the line to protect the public interest and what we need to know. If something is wrong in a big company or a big corporation, it takes a lot of courage and a lot of guts to take that stand. It is my opinion that greater support should be available financially for those who determine to take those steps.
In relation to Northern Ireland I am very keen that, when summing up, the Minister gives some idea of how we can build upon this debate in a constructive fashion working with the Minister who has responsibility for this at the NI Assembly and, moving forward, how we exchange ideas on this with the regions. I look to the Minister—he is an honourable man—and ask what enhanced support we can provide for those genuine whistleblowers who are doing the public a service and who have no house to remortgage to pay legal fees, because current policies simply do not cut it.
My friend Brian had to self-fund his battle; that battle for rights, that battle for justice, that battle against the wrongdoing that he had the courage to highlight, and he was penalised for that. He ended up selling the family home to pay the legal fees. It was a quite extensive family farm. I knew his mum and dad and the family, as one comes to over the years, and it had been an ancestral home, in the family for generations, but it had to go to pay the bill. He was on the right side, but to prove he was right he had to stick fast and it cost him. I think it is true to say that he never fully got over that loss. However, Brian was a Christian and I know that his faith in God was one of the things that kept him going, even though financially, physically and emotionally, he was perhaps not the same person that I went to school with many years ago. Too many people simply do not have those kinds of money-raising facilities and also do not have the David versus Goliath mentality that Brian had. He knew that he could take on the giant because he was not alone. He finally won his case, but the effects on him were dramatic. I believe the message from this Chamber today needs to be clear: you are not alone when you do the right thing.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on bringing this really important debate to the House. I was reflecting on the number of different Departments involved in trying to tackle the issue, so I do not envy the Minister, but I hope that he will take the messages back to the other Departments that are connected, because I want to focus particularly on the NHS.
We know that the courageous people we have heard about, who blow the whistle, protect us and our communities, yet we do not offer them the same protection—that is the nub of the problem. As I said, I want to focus particularly on the NHS, because we have seen many examples—I will not go through them all—where someone in the NHS whistleblows and their career is in effect over, or very badly damaged, as a result. I want to raise that alarm to the House, and I hope the Minister will ensure that these messages are relayed to the Department of Health and Social Care.
In too many cases, whistleblowers face sanctions at work or threats, and the toll that takes on people’s mental health is enormous, as we heard described eloquently by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Before this Parliament, I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for a total of 13 years, including nine years as Chair, and back in 2014, when I was a member of the Committee, we looked into whistleblowing and found that there had been failure
“to protect some whistleblowers from being victimised.”
That puts it mildly. We recommended then that where the identity of whistleblowers is known, steps must be taken to
“ensure that they are protected, supported and have their welfare monitored.”
We said that that should include providing whistleblowers with
“support and advice, such as access to legal and counselling services.”
We also highlighted the fact that too often whistleblowers were “unclear” about who to raise their concerns with, and we recommended “a route map” that showed different
“internal and external reporting routes.”
The Government at the time agreed with the recommendations about a route map, but they deferred further action on whistleblowing policies across the NHS, as they were being considered separately through Sir Robert Francis’s Freedom to Speak Up review. That was a reasonable response from the Government at the time. But then I became Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and we revisited the issue of whistleblowing—and guess what? We were disappointed at the slow progress. If I had been paid £10 for every time I had to use that phrase in that role, I would probably not be here now but sunning myself in the Caribbean, because “too slow progress” is often the mantra.
We now have a new Government, with a new Employment Rights Bill, and I hope we will see further progress. We were not really convinced that change had happened on the ground and we were also very clear that whistleblowing is a sign of complete failure of the system. We should not have to have whistleblowing policies, because modern institutions that work well should have routes whereby complaints, concerns and issues are raised as a matter of routine. I will come to some good work in other sectors in a moment, but we found generally that there was not enough focus on whistleblowing in the wider public sector. The Francis review of the health sector highlighted the need for effective whistleblowing policies not just in the health sector, but more widely.
Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee revisited whistleblowing again—it seems to be a bit of a theme—and still we stressed the need to embed a “Speak up” environment. We were looking particularly at whistleblowing in the civil service at that point, but the lessons read across, sadly. The National Audit Office found earlier this year that just 52% of people in the civil service
“think it is safe to challenge the way things are done”.
That was from a review of the responses to the 2022 civil service people survey—that is a bit of a mouthful. The National Audit Office also highlighted the number in the NHS with the same concern—61.5%. That was in 2024, so this year. Less than two thirds of NHS workers think it is safe to challenge the way things are done; lots of work needs to be done to improve that.
There are institutions that do this quite well. Earlier this year, the Public Accounts Committee visited NASA, in Washington. As a result of the tragedies with the Columbia and Challenger space shuttles, the people there have a very open approach to raising concerns. However junior someone is, they are expected to raise a concern up their chain of command in their specialist area, and if they are still concerned, they can take that to another party within the organisation—a whole other set-up—to make sure that they are challenging the approach taken on risk. That is expected. It is embedded in the training that people look at the risk and make sure that they are calling things out. Nothing is too small, and no one is too junior.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend probably has unparalleled experience in this House, through her important scrutiny work as both a member of and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; I was happy to work with her on many inquiries when I was a member of that Committee too. Could I tempt her to tell us how many millions on public procurement projects we might have saved had the system that she has just described been in place in this country? How many hours of time might have been spared? It sounds like an incredible system, and one that this country should seek to emulate.
Dame Meg Hillier
As ever, my hon. Friend manages to cut through to a really important issue. It is not only about the whistleblower; in the whole public sector and parts of the private sector, it is time-consuming and cumbersome to deal with whistleblowing on both sides, and it is very mentally draining, particularly for the whistleblower. It is costly when a mistake happens and is not caught early. A stitch in time saves nine, as they say. That is very much the bread and butter of what the Public Accounts Committee does; it looks at where problems have arisen that could have been predicted and prevented.
The Chancellor is to launch her Budget next week and we need to save money, but—I am not being flippant—in the long term we need to see a change in culture. Aviation is another example of where things happen well. In that sector, it is expected that people call things out. Things do still go wrong, but staff get praised, rather than penalised, for calling out what might happen in safety terms.
This debate has come at an important time for my constituent, Sarah McMahon, who has agreed that I may share with hon. Members her sad experience as a whistleblower. Sarah is a consultant orthopaedic and limb reconstruction surgeon at Great Ormond Street hospital for children. In the summer of 2021, she was asked to look after some patients of her colleague, Yaser Jabbar, after he had an accident. Overseeing those patients, she found things that made her so alarmed that she blew the whistle in the autumn of that year. I am sure many Members will have heard about that case in the media; in short, Mr Jabbar was accused of inappropriate and unnecessary surgeries that led to life-changing injuries for children in his care.
Sarah McMahon wrote to suggest an external review, but nothing was done to address her concerns and Mr Jabbar was allowed to continue operating on children. She tells me:
“I was effectively told to keep quiet and concentrate on my own patients.”
Despite that, Ms McMahon bravely continued to raise concerns about Mr Jabbar and the harm caused to children in his care, and in February 2023—some 18 months after she first raised her concerns—an investigation by the Royal College of Surgeons began. That investigation concluded in spring this year and the outcome is now well known. When the investigation was launched, Sarah learnt that Mr Jabbar had raised counter-allegations against her. It was only last week that Sarah was given any information about those counter-allegations, which Great Ormond Street hospital has now confirmed were completely unfounded.
How terrible it must be for a surgeon doing their very best, working alongside a colleague with no animosity, and then discovering that there were problems. Sarah had to raise her concerns; it was absolutely the right thing to do, professionally and for the patients. She wrote to me about her experience of raising the alarm, saying:
“I have since been threatened with disciplinary action without proper basis. I feel sidelined and excluded in my work and I am exhausted. The impact of this stressful process on my health, family, reputation, and career has been profound. I feel greatly let down by the way I have been treated as a whistleblower.”
Three years into this ordeal, it is clear that hospitals cannot mark their own homework when it comes to whistleblowing concerns.
I want to raise with the Minister some points, not all of which are directly related to his portfolio. I hope that he and his civil service officials will take them back to the relevant Departments, as I ask him directly for a detailed response. An amendment is proposed to the Employment Rights Bill that would give further protection to whistleblowers; I hope it will be considered sympathetically or, if necessary, rewritten by the Government to make it work and deliver on that intention. I also hope that the Cabinet Office works hard to improve the situation across Whitehall. Its representatives appeared before us when I chaired the Public Accounts Committee, so we know that there are some bits of good practice, but a lot more needs to be done. I hope that the Government commit to making that a high priority.
I will not repeat the points that were made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central about the importance of the duty of candour, but I will say that we need that to be embedded in the system if we are to change the way these things work. I endorse the points made about the office for the whistleblower. Crucially, I hope that the Minister will talk to the Department of Health and NHS England. If we want to modernise our health service and ensure that patients are safe, we need to support brave people—like Sarah McMahon—who have had to go through the mill to raise concerns that have been proven to be very well-founded.
I will end with Sarah’s own words:
“Unless the safety system is radically reformed my advice to future colleagues facing this problem would be: ‘raise it, because you must, but do not expect to survive what follows.’”
What a terrible indictment of the system so far. I hope the Minister takes that message back to the relevant Departments.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank all those who have spoken before me in such an informative manner and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for securing the debate.
I have advised numerous whistleblowers throughout my career. Some themes emerge from the experience that speak directly to the points raised by a couple of previous speakers about the impact on whistleblowers when they realise there is something seriously wrong in their organisation and they speak up about it. I have found, particularly in the NHS, that there is an institutional reluctance—and I think I can understand it. I think it is psychologically extremely difficult for people to accept that their department might be systematically failing or sometimes actively damaging patients, and the result is that they tend to turn on the person blowing the whistle and to ostracise them. What follows is an investigation into that person’s behaviour or conduct as relationships deteriorate, and often then a dismissal under the term “some other substantial reason”.
There are five potentially lawful reasons for dismissal, including misconduct, incapability and so forth. One is “some other substantial reason” for dismissal. That phrase is really a catchall for, “There is some sort of decent reason for sacking this person”, but the case law has developed in such a way that “some other substantial reason” for dismissal can just be an absolute breakdown of relationships between people who work together—and that is almost always the case where there is a whistleblower. The result is that we have a massive gap in our law, whereby people who have blown the whistle are systematically being dismissed for “some other substantial reason”.
One of the most effective things we could do within the scope of the current system would be to outlaw the use of “some other substantial reason” dismissals in a whistleblowing framework, so that if someone has blown the whistle, there cannot be a “some other substantial reason” dismissal. There would still be the ability to dismiss for misconduct if there has genuinely been misconduct, but in the situations I have seen, that has usually not been the case; it is just that people have fallen out.
I think there is scope to improve whistleblowing protections in the current system. We could do it through amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, which is making its way through the House. In the longer term—I appreciate that this is not currently fiscally viable—but we could look at extending legal aid to whistleblowers. We could extend to whistleblowers the legal aid protection available to people on low incomes for discrimination claims; that would be in the public interest and would nicely back up the duty of candour that we have been talking about introducing. We could also look at whether the suggestions being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central could be linked to the fair work agency, and whether we could in due course extend the powers of that agency to examine this issue.
It is a terrible thing to advise whistleblowers, because they are so distressed—certainly one of the most distressed client groups I have ever come across. Whistleblowing is typically completely career-ending for them, and the results for many are terrible. We should look at whether our unfair dismissal legislation is well placed to handle such matters. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for raising this topic for debate.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Sir Mark. I have learned a valuable lesson this afternoon: get in there early, because if you do not, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Congleton (Mrs Russell) will make all the points that you had planned to far more eloquently. I have cut some of my notes so my speech will be brief, but I reaffirm many of the recommendations that they made.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for securing this debate and for his chairmanship of the all-party group for whistleblowing. This is the right week to have this conversation, and I am glad that other Members have joined us. As someone who, in a previous life, was a councillor and represented a family affected by Hillsborough, I know all too well the damage that the lack of candour there sometimes is in public life can inflict on a family. I saw that family destroyed while fighting for justice. I now have the honour of representing a family deeply impacted by the Horizon scandal, and I have seen the damage that it has done to them.
When whistleblowers speak out, it is so often the nature of organisations and institutions to look internally to protect themselves, instead of looking for the root cause of the problem. One of the problems I have noticed too often is the lack of confidence whistleblowers have about speaking out. My inbox is currently full of people—whether they are in the NHS or other public institutions—writing to put forward concerns about the level of services being provided to members of the public, but all too concerned about what will happen to their job prospects and their families if they do not have the protections to speak out. Too often, whistleblowers are our last line of defence when processes and institutions fail. Too many brave men and women, in seeking to protect the public, have been badly failed by the laws in place in this country.
I share the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in the Government’s commitment to addressing that imbalance and making sure that people feel that they have the protections to speak out. I hope that the Minister, in his response, will be able to reassure us that the Government remain committed to those pre-election pledges to ensure that people who are prepared to risk everything to protect the public and the public interest will have the confidence to do so, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because—as we have so often learned, including during our brief time in this Parliament—it costs us an awful lot of money as a country to redress those problems when we fail. I apologise for the slightly short nature of my speech, but I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, Sir Mark.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on securing the debate. The existing Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is simply not good enough; it is woefully inadequate in keeping pace with the modern workplace. For example, it does not cover all types of workers, such as members of the armed forces, volunteers and self-employed individuals. It forces whistleblowers to prove that they made a “protected disclosure” and that any retaliation they suffered was directly linked to their whistleblowing. That burden of proof can be very difficult to meet, as employers may mask retaliatory action as unrelated. Protection often requires whistleblowers to go through stressful employment tribunals, with limited remedies beyond compensation.
The inadequacies do not end there. The Act requires disclosures to be “in the public interest”, but that term is vague and has been subject to differing interpretations in the courts, creating uncertainty about whether specific whistleblowing cases are protected. There are insufficient provisions in the Act for emotional, financial or legal support for whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable as they often face significant personal and professional risks after disclosing information.
That list of flaws within the existing law feels endless, so the Liberal Democrats are championing the need for reform. We support passing a comprehensive anti-SLAPP— strategic lawsuits against public participation—law to provide robust protection for free speech, whistleblowers and media scrutiny against lawsuits that seek to intimidate and silence criticism. We want to ensure that there is justice for the victims of scandals and prevent them happening in the future. We want the Government to establish a new office of the whistleblower, creating a new set of legal protections and promoting greater awareness of their rights. The Labour party did some positive work on that while in Opposition, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the Liberal Democrat proposals and whether the Government will prioritise similar reforms.
I would also like to remind the Minister of the ask from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) during an Opposition day debate last week. Please can he give an assurance that, if the people at the Department for Work and Pensions have information about maladministration of the service that they have witnessed, and they wish to come forward with that information, they will be protected as whistleblowers?
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on securing this debate. I thank the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for Congleton (Mrs Russell) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for their contributions this afternoon.
I welcome the fact that so many Members recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without recrimination. Whistleblowers do absolutely crucial work to expose wrongdoing and ensure accountability. Forty-three per cent of economic crimes are highlighted by whistleblowers, and workers are often the first people to witness any type of wrongdoing within an organisation. Information that workers may uncover could prevent wrongdoing that may damage an organisation’s reputation or performance, and in extreme circumstances, even save people from harm or death.
For authorities tackling corruption, fraud and other forms of crime, whistleblowing is a crucial source of evidence, as those activities and their perpetrators can often be exposed only by insiders. That was keenly felt during the height of the covid-19 pandemic when the Care Quality Commission and the Health and Safety Executive recorded sharp increases in the number of whistleblowing disclosures that they received; and during the Horizon scandal, when a whistleblower was featured in a BBC “Panaroma” documentary in 2015, as has been mentioned, which helped to expose the truth, contributing to the successful postmasters’ legal case in 2019.
The UK’s whistleblowing framework was introduced through the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It was intended to build openness and trust in workplaces by ensuring that workers can hold their employers to account and then be treated fairly. It provides a route for workers to make disclosures of wrongdoing, including criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice or a breach of any legal obligation.
The previous Government recognised that there was weakness in that framework and made numerous attempts to improve it. In 2013, the Government published a wide-ranging call for evidence on the effectiveness of the framework, and in 2014, set out a plan of legislative and non-legislative means to improve it. That plan included extending protections to student nurses and midwives, regularly updating the list of prescribed persons and introduced a requirement of prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures that they receive.
Moreover, under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the previous Government launched a review in March 2023 of the whistleblowing framework. That review examined the effectiveness of the framework in meeting its intended objectives, which are to enable workers to come forward and speak up about wrongdoing and to protect those who do so against detriment and dismissal. The initial fact-finding element of that work was completed by Grant Thornton in January this year, as I think the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned in his opening speech. The Government response and the recommendations were awaited, and that work was yet to be completed before the election was called.
We on the Opposition Benches welcome the Government’s decision to strengthen protections for whistleblowers, including by updating protection for women who report sexual harassment at work. We will support the related measures in the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill. As Protect set out, this will
“send a clear signal that anyone who has been sexually harassed, or witnessed it, can raise their concerns through whistleblowing channels and will be protected from being victimised or dismissed if they do so.”
The Government have not yet published a response to the review of the whistleblowing framework. The review would provide an up-to-date evidence base on whistleblowing, allowing the House to effectively scrutinise the Government’s proposals. Will the Minister commit to publishing that review and, if so, when?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Mark. I start by offering my triple congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell): first, congratulations on returning to this place—it is good to see him back—secondly, congratulations on securing the debate; and thirdly, congratulations on being appointed chair of the all-party group for whistleblowing, which I am sure he will lead with distinction. We have heard a number of very important and passionate contributions today. I will do my best to sum them up, but it is fair to say that we are looking forward to working with all Members across the board on this very important topic.
Before addressing some of those points, I will start by discussing the current whistleblowing framework. As Members have said, it is essentially about employment protection, and that is the reason why I am here, as the Minister for Employment Rights, to respond on the Government’s behalf. The protections were introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which amended the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The legislation was intended to provide a route for workers to make disclosures of information that they reasonably believed were in the public interest and tended to show a relevant failure or someone covering up a relevant failure. Those relevant failures could include criminal offences, the endangerment of health and safety, causing damage to the environment, a miscarriage of justice or a breach of any legal obligation.
Disclosures need to be made in line with the requirements of the legislation, usually to a worker’s employer or lawyer, or a prescribed person. As Members may know, there are more than 90 different prescribed persons under the legislation to whom relevant failures can be reported. They are usually regulators, such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority. I will not go through every single prescribed person today, but most have a statutory obligation to report on the disclosures that they receive and to publish the reports annually.
Since the reporting requirements came into effect, there has been an increase in the number of disclosures that are made to prescribed persons. The volume of disclosures is around 50,000 a year and, as we can probably tell from the contributions today, they are highly concentrated in the health, public administration and financial and insurance sectors. The reports summarise the actions that a prescribed person has taken, but there is variation in how that information is protected. As we have discussed, workers have, under the law, a right not to be dismissed or subjected to a detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure, and there is recourse to an employment tribunal. The number of employment tribunal complaints under the jurisdiction for protected disclosure in each year since 2017-18 has increased, reaching 3,128 in 2020-21. That is the latest year for which a full dataset is available.
But enough of the overview. We need to talk about some of the important contributions that we have heard from Members. This debate is really about how whistleblowing affects individuals. We know that it can fundamentally and irrevocably damage, indeed end, that relationship with the employer. We know there are reasons why people will not speak up: some are in senior positions and fear for their career or their reputation, some may be at the other end of the spectrum and fear insecurity and power imbalances that may make it difficult to speak up, and some may have a link to the organisation but may not be covered under the legislation.
I would like to make a few comments about the contributions in this debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for contributing. I am sure if he had come in earlier, his speech would have covered many of the points that had already been made, but that is the lottery of Westminster Hall, and I am sure there will be many opportunities for him to speak earlier in other debates. He referenced a number of Members’ speeches.
It was particularly pleasing to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Sarah Russell), who brought her professional experience to bear today. She made an interesting suggestion about the use of “some other substantial reason” as a potentially fair reason for dismissing someone in whistleblowing cases. We probably need to look at the use of “some other substantial reason”, as it is likely that it gets overused. However, as she will be aware, the current Employment Rights Bill has enough in it for us to be getting on with. She made an interesting suggestion in respect of the potential use of the Fair Work Agency here, and that is something we will bear in mind.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), highlighted some of the legal issues under the current legislation, including the question whether someone is within scope, the hurdles that they have to overcome to qualify for protection and the public interest test. Those are all things that we want to look at in a broader sense, if we get around to a review of the legislation. I take his point about officials in the Department for Work and Pensions, but I hope that this Administration would want to be an exemplar of best practice, and we would want people to feel confident that they can speak out if they see a wrong or an injustice.
It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in his customary place—I may have swapped positions, but he remains a permanent fixture over there. He spoke very movingly about his friend Brian and the great personal cost of his efforts to expose wrongdoing. Brian’s resilience came through in the hon. Member’s description of his fight. As he said, it was about doing the right thing, and his message was that,
“you are not alone when you do the right thing.”
We should be sending that message to anyone who thinks about blowing the whistle. Of course, the matter is devolved to Northern Ireland, but that message should ring out across the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised some specific issues about the Department of Health and Social Care and her constituent Sarah McMahon. I am sorry to hear of the three years of personal difficulties Sarah McMahon has suffered as a result of doing the right thing. Unfortunately, too many organisations make it very difficult for individuals who blow the whistle. I understand that the Department for Health and Social Care has concluded a review of the statutory duty of candour, and it has issued a call for evidence, which I think is ongoing. I take her message of frustration about the length of time that these things take, and I will pass that message back to the Department.
However, my hon. Friend made the important point that some organisations have got it right and encourage people to speak up when they see a wrong. There are some very good examples, including the aviation industry, which is a particular exemplar of that. It is the standard that we should be aiming for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who opened the debate, said that the law looks at how things happen after the disclosure, and always through the prism of an employment relationship. That was a good analysis of where we are and perhaps why there are shortcomings in some of the legislation. I agree that this is about the law giving people the confidence to speak up. I am sure we will return to some of the things we hope to do on that.
Gareth Snell
I ask the Minister and his colleagues across Government to look at the way we fund and support our regulatory bodies. Often, the failure reported by a whistleblower would have been prevented from happening in the first place by a properly funded and resourced regulator. As much as anybody else, he will know that times are tough and budgets are tight, but investment in the regulatory framework early doors could help to save money and lives, and prevent people from having to put their own homes on the line to do the right thing.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I suspect that a week ahead of the Budget we will not get the kind of investment he would like to see. He talked about the legislation, focusing on existing employment relationships and the broader ambit of employment. The legislation was probably framed in that way in the first place because that is where the biggest power imbalance lies: between an employer and their employee.
We can consider how we would broaden this out, but we will bring in particular measures with our Employment Rights Bill. Hon. Members will be aware that Second Reading took place last night, when we made some specific announcements on our overall package. The Bill is the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, and in it we will address specific issues about whistleblowing on sexual harassment. The Trades Union Congress states that 58% of women have been sexually harassed at work. That is a staggering, appalling figure that must be tackled, and it is one of the reasons why we want to improve people’s ability to ring the alarm bell when sexual harassment occurs.
The Bill will require employers to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties. It will strengthen the legal duty of employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment before it starts, and it will enable regulations to specify steps that an employer must take to protect their employees from sexual harassment to ensure that effective steps are taken. It also includes protections for whistleblowers and will make clear that sexual harassment can be the basis for a protected disclosure, which is one of the most important steps we can take to make workplaces safer. Workers who make a protected disclosure will then have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to a detriment for speaking up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, as did several other Members, the possibility of an office for the whistleblower. There were a number of suggestions about the potential remit and role that it could have. Clearly, the cost and precise functions and powers of that would need careful consideration, particularly in how it would relate to current regulators. The point he made about the resources of regulators is relevant to that. There would also have to be some consideration given to how it would exist as an independent body from Government. I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton by saying that the pledge to create the office did not make it into our final manifesto, but that is not to say we are ruling it out forever and a day. We will consider it as we look at a broader review of the whistleblowing framework.
On that point, I will address the remarks made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, about the review initiated by the previous Government, which was intended to assess the effectiveness of the whistleblowing framework against its original objectives. As he rightly pointed out, that review was not released before the general election. It certainly does not seem appropriate for us to let that work go to waste; I will talk to my officials about how and when we can release that information, but I see no reason why we should not do so. It will be a starting point for further work in this area.
The number of issues raised today shows that the appetite for reform in this area is much broader than the review commissioned under the previous Government recognised. Of course, other measures are due to be enacted in the next 12 months, but we can do more to ensure people feel confident when they speak out.
As several Members said, the King’s Speech made clear that we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law to introduce a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities. The Prime Minister made clear that that Bill will enter Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. We believe it will be a catalyst for a change of culture in the public sector by improving transparency and accountability where public services have failed. It will help to address the unacceptable defensive culture that is prevalent across too much of the public sector. It has been said several times that the NHS is one of the worst examples of that; certainly, from my experience, there is a hard focus on trying to justify actions, rather than get to the root of the complaint.
Bishop James Jones’s report made it clear that those things have to change, not just in the NHS, but across the whole public sector. That Bill will be an important starting point in changing the culture both in the public sector and across the country. We all want it to improve so that whistleblowers have the confidence to speak out and have the assurance that, if something happens to them as a result, they will be protected and supported.
Gareth Snell
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his summation. I will make a couple of final points. I absolutely understand that the office of the whistleblower did not make its way into our manifesto, but I say to the Minister that the circumstances that led us in opposition to support to such a suggestion have not changed. Although I appreciate that we have had an election and Governments have changed, even an undertaking to meet those of us who think this proposal is part of the solution, to discuss it and go through it, would be welcome—
Gareth Snell
The Minister is nodding. I hope Hansard will record that fact for the purpose of my follow-up letters.
The Minister is right: I have no doubt that the Government will take seriously the protections that whistleblowers need, and that will require development and the evolution of our current protections under PIDA. That needs to be looked at. The opportunity to make the case would be welcomed. not just by me, but by those who have been campaigning on this issue for many years.
We could have spent many hours debating this subject. Members from all parties have cases in their inboxes involving individuals speaking out and coming to them with concerns about organisations, actions and activities that they have seen and are worried about. People can come to Members of Parliament; we are defined in legislation as people such issues can be reported to, and we have a duty to understand our own responsibilities and what we can do to help to foster and bring about the changes that are being raised by individuals who are brave enough to put their head above the parapet.
We have had only 90 minutes today. The contributions have been excellent, but I am sure that lurking in our inboxes will be cases of individuals who are just looking for help. One thing we should take away from this debate, which is timely as it is Whistleblowing Awareness Week, is that Members of all parties have a genuine desire to make it easier for whistleblowers to blow the whistle, and to make it better for those who come forward so that they do not suffer detriment and are not penalised for having done the right thing.
As my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly pointed out, we must send the message to those people that they are not alone, and that if they speak up, stand up and do the right thing, there are people in this place and around the country who will have their back, ensure they get the justice that they deserve and prevent the harm that could be done. I thank all Members for taking the time to participate in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered protections for whistleblowing.
Pie and Mash: Traditional Speciality Guaranteed Status
(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I will call Mr Richard Holden to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond to the debate. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention normally for 30-minute debates. However, we have one or two other Members present who may wish to intervene. It is obviously down to Mr Holden to determine who may or may not intervene on him, if he has not been given prior notice.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of providing traditional speciality guaranteed status to pie and mash.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, in this debate. What is this debate all about? Well, there is a big picture and a little picture, and I will start off small. In my constituency of Basildon and Billericay, there are two fantastic pie and mash shops: Robins Pie & Mash in the town square; and Stacey’s pie and mash shop on Timberlog Lane. Both of them provide fantastic local produce and they are absolute hubs of the local community. And it has been really interesting to see the feedback that I have already received from local people about this campaign to give protected status to this traditional British product.
What is pie and mash and why is it a traditional British product? It is a staple of cockney cuisine, moving out to places such as the east of England and Kent as the cockney diaspora moved post-war. That is why there are pie and mash shops in Basildon today. We seek recognition to safeguard the heritage of pie and mash, and to promote pie and mash, both here in the UK and internationally.
Back in the 1840s, pie and mash became an iconic food, closely associated with cockney culture and the social identity of non-posh Londoners. Over the years, more than a hundred pie and mash shops, typically family-owned, spread out from the inner London heartlands of Southwark and Tower Hamlets right across the areas across the country where the cockney diaspora had spread to.
Traditional pie and mash is an artisan food. The pie and mash and liquors are freshly made, using authentic family-owned recipes that have been passed down through generations like precious heirlooms. They are something that in Italy or France, let us say, would be instantly recognised as being worth celebrating and preserving, and I will say more on that broader point a little later.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. I was speaking to him beforehand and told him about what I have been able to do in the past. The Comber Early is a special potato back home. I applied to the EU for special designation status for it, which the EU granted. Does he hope to pursue something outside the EU—now that the United Kingdom is out of it—for pie and mash that is similar to what we have done in the past?
Mr Holden
That is exactly what I am attempting to do and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in this space. Actually, there are not enough British products that we have talked up for their local credentials and their special place in our country’s heritage, national cuisine and national heart.
France has over 800 products that have similar protected status and Italy has just under that number; the number for the UK is under a hundred. Given our culinary heritage, and particularly the culinary heritage of London as a global centre of cuisine, and given the great and diverse range of products and foodstuffs that we have across the country, we should be doing more in this area to talk up Britain and British food, to boost both food exports and our tourism.
Having more of these marks of protected status, whether that is the protected designation of origin or the geographic indication, would be a good start, but I am also thinking today of the third category, which is the traditional status guaranteed. That is not specifically geographically limited but is about the way that a product is produced. Pie and mash would be another brilliant food to do that for.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. He picks up on a very important point. In Staffordshire we have the famous Staffordshire oatcakes, which are enjoyed across the world. Does he agree that we need to focus on bringing regional cuisine to the forefront so that it can be exported more around the world and across the country?
Mr Holden
I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more. We should be doing everything we can to talk up regional cuisine from all parts of our country. I cannot think of anything better to come out of this debate than to ensure that regional food products such as pie and mash or Staffordshire oatcakes find their way on to the House of Commons menu in one of our regular regional food events. I hope that the catering team are listening, so that we can get these products promoted further.
Traditional speciality guarantee does not rely on a geographical connection but the way that a product is produced. I am sure that the Modern Cockney group I have been working on this with, and their founder Andy, and Ben who has been working with them from Loadstone, will be more than willing to get into the nitty-gritty details of what is required with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the coming months. This is just a small step in what we should be doing for more of our food products from across the country.
Traditional speciality guarantee is needed because there is a well-trodden media narrative that pie and mash is in decline. We are in an age of global fast food brands, yet pie and mash has shown a stubborn refusal to die. It has been really good to see it thriving in the shops I have visited. I have been multiple times over the last few months, particularly to the ones in Basildon. I have seen families going there, with fathers taking their daughters out. It is important that that continues, because it is great to see it thriving on a local level.
Right across the country, we have seen changes in demographics and taste. This has perhaps seen the movement of traditional pie and mash shops from their heartland in London out to places like Basildon and the new towns of the east of England. Cornish pasties and Bramley apple pies have traditional speciality guarantee, but we now want to see that for pie and mash. Pie and mash made by artisans is the next step in that direction. It is too often looked down on, and we need to start thinking about how we can celebrate it better.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. Does he agree that we can be guilty at times of taking our heritage for granted? I would like to commend you for raising this, because you have made me realise just how fortunate we are to be a part of this. Would you agree with me that—
James McMurdock
Forgive me. Would the Chair please pass my message on that as with the Cornish pasty and the Bramley apple pie, this is something we should be very proud of, and we as a people should recognise that we have a lot to be proud of?
Mr Holden
I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Member any more. Many of his constituents wander across the road to get to the pie and mash shops in my constituency, and I encourage them to do so even more in the future. He raises an important point about us as a country not recognising some of the great food heritage that we have and what an asset it is to our country.
I had an email from a constituent today—a chef working in a Michelin-starred restaurant in London—who had read about the debate being proposed in Parliament. He and his son agreed that we need to talk up what we have traditionally produced. He said that they love the original pie and mash and that he wishes us every success in the campaign. I thought that was a really good sign. Yes, there is obviously high-end cuisine that we want to celebrate at a national level, and I am sure that is exactly what the Government and DEFRA want to do too, but traditional speciality foods need to be looked at in the broader context and celebrated too.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am grateful to my Essex neighbour for giving way. My pie and mash journey began when I was a child in north London. I then moved to Basildon, and have eaten pie and mash in the Robins Pie & Mash shop many times. I now have two good ones in my constituency: Rayleigh Lanes Café and the Turkish café on the high street, both of which do very good pie and mash, which shows what a cosmopolitan food it has become. Does my right hon. Friend agree that pie and mash is a great British food? I want to do everything I can to endorse his campaign and give it the recognition it deserves.
Mr Holden
I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for raising that. I cannot wait to come down to Rayleigh and Wickford. Maybe we could do an Essex pie and mash championship and get an awards scheme going—maybe that is the next step for this campaign. But my right hon. Friend also makes an important point. Everybody starts somewhere on their journey with pie and mash. Mine started as a 19-year-old when I moved to east London and came across pie and mash for the first time. If we gave pie and mash a little bit of a status boost with traditional speciality guaranteed status, it would perhaps be opened up to more people, and more people might want to think about it. It would also provide a boost to that sector, particularly as our broader hospitality sector, as hon. Members know, has suffered since the covid pandemic and we are hoping to get it back on its feet.
So what are we after? We are after traditional speciality guaranteed status. We are not after a geographical designation, but we are after something that recognises the important traditional heritage of pie and mash. When do we want it to happen? Well, as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will look forward to working with the Modern Cockneys and pie and mash shops to bring it to fruition.
This debate points to something wider about British culinary heritage, about how we view food in Britain, and perhaps a little bit about how we view our own food in this country. That is something we need to look at again. We need to look at how we can celebrate it more. I hope that, as hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned, other parts of the country will look at how we can champion their local food produce—yes, in order for it to be recognised locally, which is a nice thing, but also for the broader economic narrative, whether that is exports or tourism.
I thank my pie and mash shops in Basildon and Billericay for putting up with me invading them over the last few weeks, particularly Robins, which has had the national media with it over the last couple of days. To everyone, I say: get out there—try that pie and mash. To the Minister, I say: I hope we will be able to get this status. I hope that at the end of this process, we can say to him, “Yes, Pie Minister.”
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) on securing this debate on the potential for traditional speciality guaranteed status for pie and mash. I was delighted to hear him say that he will start small, because I can guarantee him that this Government will go big on food and regional food in general. I am so pleased to see that Opposition Members now have time on their hands to tour the very best hostelries in their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are absolutely determined to celebrate our great British food.
I will start by talking about pie and mash. As a hearty meal with roots in the docks of London, pie and mash has long been cherished as a working-class staple, part of the rich culinary heritage of our capital city. Of course, it is not alone in being a recognised feature of London’s food landscape. London cure smoked salmon, produced in east London for over a century, is already recognised with a protected geographical indication. Products such as those show how local traditions can thrive and how we can celebrate them for their authenticity and tradition, which has been developed over a long time.
Let me say a little about the policy background to the debate. Geographical indications, or GIs, are an internationally recognised mark of quality and authenticity. They help to protect and promote the heritage, tradition and production methods of our most iconic food and drink products. They provide consumers with the confidence that they are purchasing genuine, high-quality products. Each one of the UK’s 93 protected products is the result of a unique combination of geography, history and know-how. Products such as Welsh lamb, Scottish salmon, Lough Neagh eels and Sussex wine showcase the diversity of our cuisine and highlight how GI schemes promote a range of traditional products.
Those designations can also play a role in enhancing tourism, attracting visitors eager to experience authentic local flavours. Many places proudly promote the GI status of their cherished foods in marketing campaigns to highlight the visitor offer. Through national recognition, local producers are celebrated and their industry sustained for future generations, creating new jobs and opportunities.
One example of using protected status to celebrate place and tradition is the Cornish pasty story, which was mentioned. That is underpinned by its protection as a PGI, but there are many others. Other products have become the focus of events, such as the Melton Mowbray food festival celebrating the region’s renowned pork pie, and the “Taste of Scotland” initiative championing Scotch whisky and beef. The Government are keen to see those fantastic products and events continue to grow in strength and reputation in future.
GI products represent around 25% of the UK’s food and drink exports by value. There is strong demand for British products around the world, with GIs indicating quality and providing a means of unlocking international markets for our producers. The protection of GIs through free trade agreements offers a platform for exemplary UK produce and supports their export growth while broadening market access opportunities.
Those agreements safeguard the principle of the UK’s GI system and maintain its high standards of protection. My colleague the Business and Trade Secretary announced in July that the Government would restart trade talks with a range of countries, such as India, South Korea and Turkey. We will seek protection for our world-class GIs through those negotiations. GI protection in trade agreements will not only support our rural communities and traditional industries, but help us to build the UK’s global reputation for excellence in food and drink production.
The Government want to see GIs grow in stature as part of our national food culture. Our GI conference held on 3 September was a key step in that effort, bringing together stakeholders from across the sector to discuss how we can best promote our GI products. By sharing the stories behind our GIs and highlighting the passion and craftsmanship that go into making them we can help to ensure that more consumers both here and internationally are aware of and appreciate the value of these products.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps through him I could take up the gauntlet that my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) threw down in a friendly manner. Although Robins Pie & Mash will be difficult to beat, I will pitch my pie and mash shops against his, perhaps for charity, and we will see who the winner will be.
Daniel Zeichner
Although I am grateful for that intervention, I certainly would not want to stand in the way or promote rivalry between the two right hon. Gentlemen. I am sure they can sort it out between them, achieving a satisfactory outcome for all.
In conclusion, the Government are committed to celebrating the UK’s GIs and will continue to promote them at home and abroad, working to ensure that the benefits are felt across the country. Although due process prevents me from commenting today on whether pie and mash would qualify for TSG status, I would warmly welcome a formal application. I am pleased that my officials are working closely with the proposer.
Question put and agreed to.
Large-scale Energy Projects and Food Security
(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered large scale energy projects and food security.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. Today is an opportunity to highlight the importance of food security in the face of the climate crisis, which is the biggest threat to food security. I believe that we must tackle climate change in a smart way that works best for our economy and communities. That is particularly true of areas where agriculture plays an important part in the economy and sustainability of our communities.
My constituency of Ynys Môn has been known as Môn Mam Cymru, or the mother of Wales, as the island’s fertile lands were used to grow food for all of Wales during the middle ages. Farming and agriculture are an important part of the island’s heritage and economy.
Ynys Môn is also known as energy island. We have a vital and developing tidal sector, onshore wind farms and two solar farms, with another one approved. We also have the nuclear site at Wylfa. I urge the UK Government to commit to a new nuclear power station at what is the best site in the UK.
Food and energy production are two strands that run throughout our island’s history, in balance with one another, not in opposition. However, I fear that recent developments will upset that balance. There are proposals for two large-scale solar farms on the north of Ynys Môn, covering 3,700 acres, around 2% of the island. The biggest of the two proposals—Maen Hir energy—is five times the size of the UK’s largest active solar farm. It will have a generating capacity of 360 MW and be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project, requiring development consent from the UK Secretary of State. Maen Hir will take up 3,173 acres of land to host solar panels and the associated infrastructure. The developer, Lightsource bp, says that the land predominantly consists of agricultural fields.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. This is an incredibly important issue—it was important in the last Parliament, and it certainly is in this one. Does she agree that we must continue with the previous Government’s intent to ensure that the best agricultural land is used as such, and not for solar farms? The improving farm productivity grant allowed rooftop solar panels to receive grants, and is an essential tool in helping farmers to farm and to do so in a sustainable and somewhat better and more profitable manner.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. We are going to go very close to the time limit in this debate. I ask Members who want to speak to resist intervening. Members will only get three minutes each, in order to accommodate the wind-up speeches from the Front1 Benches.
Llinos Medi
Thank you, Sir Mark.
The developer has also said that the project will maintain the land’s agricultural use, such as livestock raising and wildflower planting, enriching the local environment. However, the development presents a clear risk to the future of many farms on the island. Many farms rent the land rather than own it themselves. They will not feel the benefit of any lease fees being paid out to the landowners and their loss of income will likely result in many farms folding. Campaigners have pointed out that the land proposed for Maen Hir and Alaw Môn could see land equivalent to 31 farms being lost to solar panels. That would be devastating for the communities and the economy of Yyns Môn.
We know that the agricultural land in Wales is valuable. The Farmers Union of Wales says that the gross value added per hectare of agricultural land in Wales is £568.28. Applying that figure to the Maen Hir development would result in agricultural land with a GVA of over £558,000 being developed on. Removing that agricultural land from use would clearly damage the economy of Ynys Môn. Maen Hir will have an operational life of up to 60 years. During that time it will create only 12 full-time jobs. The local corner shop will offer more jobs.
It is estimated that both projects could create billions of pounds of profits for the companies involved. However, the Maen Hir project alone will result in a loss of £33 million in GVA for Ynys Môn. Clearly, the financial benefits will not be kept within Ynys Môn. At the same time as extracting profits, the developer for Maen Hir has threatened landowners with compulsory purchase orders if the application is approved. I am extremely concerned about our farmers’ mental wellbeing as they risk seeing their livelihoods destroyed by a large corporation extracting profits from our natural resources.
In Wales, we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, a law designed to ensure that the world we leave our children is better than the one we inherited. Food security and ensuring the supply of high quality, locally grown food is so important for the future of our young people. As the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales says,
“Wales needs a resilient, long-term plan that shifts agricultural impact towards having a positive outcome on climate and nature restoration, ensuring safe, affordable, healthy diets for people, especially children. Rural and farming communities are a big part of the solution—they are integral to feeding Wales, protecting nature and are part of our vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language.”
What discussions has the Minister had with the Future Generations Commissioner regarding the Maen Hir energy project and its implications for the well-being of future generations in Ynys Môn?
A recent news report has shown that only 6% of vegetables used in school dinners in Wales are grown in Wales. As the climate crisis continues we should grow more locally, not decreasing the amount of food we grow on our land. I note that the UK Government have established a solar taskforce and have a target for delivering 70 GW of solar energy by 2035—more than quadrupling the current capacity of 15.5 GW. The development of solar farms is an issue that will be of great importance going forward. It is crucial that our energy security plans are co-ordinated with food security plans. That means thinking carefully about where the projects go and how they affect our economy, food security and community resilience.
It should be Government policy to safeguard good quality agricultural land when considering development of large-scale energy projects. Will the Minister explain what importance the new Labour Government will give to food security in the process of deciding on new energy projects? There are alternatives to large-scale solar farms, such as the use of rooftop solar on buildings and car parks.
The countryside charity Campaign to Protect Rural England estimates that all suitable roof space and car parks in the UK could generate a staggering 117 GW, substantially more than the Government’s total target of 70 GW by 2035.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In Huntingdon we have a new solar farm proposed that is going through the planning application at present. It will be 1,900 acres in size. East Park Energy covers a vast range of farmland, all of which is grade 2 or grade 3a. Does the hon. Member agree with me that until we fully explore the opportunity to put solar panels on rooftops, we should not be pursuing putting solar power on good quality farmland?
Llinos Medi
I totally agree; I think that solar on good agricultural land is a very lazy way of producing green energy. I will move on to tidal energy.
I ask the Minister what can be done to ramp up smaller scale solar developments. There are other clean technologies that can be deployed. I call on the UK Government to commit to new nuclear on the Wylfa site, considering its huge potential to generate local jobs and clean energy.
Wales also has huge potential when it comes to wind and sea power. By 2050, the National Energy System Operator predicts that Wales will be using 42 TWh of energy, around three times more than today. However, we will be generating 71 TWh of energy, making Wales a major electricity exporter to the rest of Great Britain.
Ynys Môn has a growing tidal sector, with the pioneering Morlais project off its coast. That could be developed further by giving certainty to investors to develop tidal stream technology by seeing clear targets from the UK Government. Can the Minister set out what the Government are doing to maximise Wales’s huge energy potential, given the recent disappointment with the latest contract for difference auction—and will he listen to the calls to set a 1 GW deployment target for tidal stream by 2035?
I urge the Government to listen to my community. We need a smarter approach to large-scale solar farms that works with the needs of our communities and to safeguard food security. I am open to working with the Government to ensure that the transition to net zero is fast and fair to the people of Ynys Môn; will the Minister meet me to take that forward? There is a way where we harness our island’s full potential and maintain our long tradition of producing abundant food and energy in harmony.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on securing this debate.
My perspective is informed by my work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security —which the hon. Member is welcome to join—and also my role as a member of the Labour Growth Group, which I suspect she may not be willing to join. I am also proud to be an MP who represents some fantastic rural communities.
In all of those roles, I have seen how renewable projects offer farmers crucial opportunities to diversify their income streams in an unpredictable economic climate. The notion that food security and renewable energy are somehow mutually exclusive is a non sequitur. It does not add up, neither logically nor practically. I can attest to this from my own constituency, where thriving farms producing everything from carrots to poultry co-exist alongside new solar schemes, like Hessay, and hopefully Elvington, too. But when a harsh season strikes—such as a devastating flood or drought—farmers face the real possibility of losing a significant portion of their harvest. In those scenarios, having additional income from solar energy can help.
A striking example of this comes from Australia, where sheep farmers have turned to solar farming as secondary income. They allow their sheep to graze among solar panels, keeping the grass short while the panels provide shelter from the sun. One farm even demonstrated an increase in wool production after the installation of their solar farm. It is that kind of innovation in agriculture that we should embrace. The notion that food security and renewable energy are at odds falls at the first inspection.
Currently, ground-mounted solar panels occupy just 0.1% of all land in the UK. Even with ambitious expansion, this is expected to rise to no more than 0.3%. To put that into perspective, that is less than the land currently used by golf courses, and solar farms provide essential services, be that clean energy or income. Finally, solar farms are often built with temporary permissions, and can be decommissioned, returning the land to its original state. Soil disturbance during installation is minimal, and solar farms can actually benefit soil health, helping it recover from a period of intensive agricultural use.
Let me be clear: climate change is itself a major driver of food insecurity. By supporting renewable energy projects, we are not only protecting our environment, but safeguarding the future of food production.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. He has rightly highlighted that solar farms can be combined with food production. There are studies showing that there are even ways in which crop yields can be increased. But would he therefore encourage the Government to be clearer in their national planning policy framework that if solar farm applications are being put forward, they should be combined with food growing as part of the application?
Mr Charters
What will really help is if we work towards a position of having a land management framework, so that we can have the clarity of addressing some of these challenges.
Let me continue. The argument that there has to be a trade-off between food security and renewable energy is misguided. If anything, our farmers’ future depends on our commitment to both. With a small slice of land, a forward-thinking approach and a commitment to combating climate change, we can ensure that our fields are productive for generations to come. The solution is clear: renewables should be seen not as an obstacle to food security, but as a powerful tool to help secure it. As I said, golf courses will take up more land than solar projects, so let’s not get caught in the rough—we need to aim straight for the green.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob or to stand if they wish to speak. We are going to be very short of time and I will cut to the Front Benchers when appropriate, even if some Members have not spoken, so if you speak for too long, you are taking time off others.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. In following the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), I will start by putting the other side of the argument that he was trying to develop about compatibility or incompatibility with solar installations. I use the word “installations” deliberately, because the word “farms” conjures up images of warm, cuddly, nice things that we all like to see in our countryside, rather than these brutalist fields of glass, metal and plastic that take away the natural landscape as well as food production. I have no issue with farmers who wish, on a very modest scale, to take 10, 20 or perhaps even 50 acres of totally unproductive land in order to diversify into an energy project, be that ground-mounted solar or a wind turbine, or whatever it might be, but the clue is in the debate title: this is about the large-scale solar installations that are being proposed.
Rosefield in my constituency started off as a 2,100-acre proposal; the developers are trying to trim the edges a bit, but there is still a reality that it will take away food-producing land. The National Farmers Union’s own statistics show that we are losing land from cultivation at a rate of 100,000 acres per year. I understand that the proponents of ground-mounted solar want to talk about very low fractions of a percentage today, but if we look at the number of applications coming through in my constituency and, I dare say, in many other hon. Members’ constituencies, the cumulative impact will be considerable. Take Rosefield alone: we have already seen two battery storage proposals on prime agricultural land right next door, as well as National Grid having to come along and say, “Ah! If all these proposals go ahead, we are going to have to rebuild East Claydon substation to take in the power that these facilities are allegedly going to be generating.” And guess what, Sir Mark? That is on yet another farm in that neighbourhood, taking away more food-producing land.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing the debate.
Cornwall, and South East Cornwall in particular, has the potential to lead the way in the renewable energy revolution and in relation to our food security, offering significant opportunities. Does the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) agree that it is essential to have a balanced approach that respects our farming and fishing communities, which play a vital role both locally and in national food security and in relation to the environment, on which they depend? We must seize this opportunity to address Cornwall’s economic challenges and ensure that we do not damage ecosystems, as they play such an important role. A partnership approach would enable these essential areas across the UK, and Cornwall in particular, to succeed.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and congratulate her on squeezing her speech into it. I would argue that, yes, a balanced approach is right and important, but this goes to the nub of the argument that ground-mounted solar is actually incredibly inefficient. When we have something in scarce supply—land, in this country—we need to go for the technologies that are going to deliver.
I have used these important statistics in Westminster Hall before and I will make my penultimate point with them today. We need 2,000 acres of solar panels to produce enough power for 50,000 homes on current usage; for a small modular reactor, we need the space of two football pitches and it will produce enough power for a million homes. A single wind turbine will produce enough power for 16,000 homes and probably needs only half the size of the room we are in right now.
This debate is about efficiency and proper land use. It is about getting to renewable energy production, but it is also about using technology that does not destroy our countryside and that does not fundamentally take away our other core source of national security, which is food production.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on securing this important debate. As she is a fellow MP representing a rural Welsh constituency, she will be more than aware that our agriculture and energy sectors play a huge rule in the Welsh economy, and I welcome this opportunity to highlight the great work of our local farmers and energy projects. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for saying that there is a symbiotic relationship between energy security and food security; we can deliver on both counts.
It is important to remember that consecutive Conservative failures have wreaked havoc on our energy security and allowed the skyrocketing of energy bills for every family and business in Britain. This badly impacted farmers’ incomes when energy prices went up so high. The Conservatives’ failure to invest in clean energy has left a legacy of high energy bills, energy insecurity and a lack of clean energy jobs. The new Labour Government have hit the ground running, with our actions to deliver on our clean power mission, including through the Great British Energy Bill.
There is certainly a need for further development of large-scale clean energy projects across Wales, and those projects need to be in the right places, such as floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea and the fantastic Morlais scheme, which has recently been instigated by the Crown Estate.
Just as energy security is now a priority under this new Government, we also understand the pivotal role that our farmers play in our nation’s food security. That is why I am so proud to have stood on an election manifesto that committed to 50% of the food bought by the public sector being locally produced and sustainable. That is extremely important. It is important to me—as a smallholder in Monmouthshire, the proud daughter of a farmer and the representative of many farmers across Monmouthshire—that farmers’ voices are heard, and they are given the respect and understanding lacking under the last Government.
Finally, I know that Ministers in Wales, Welsh MPs and Welsh farmers welcome the return of constructive intergovernmental relations to ensure that Welsh farmers get the fair funding they deserve where they are supplying public benefits for public goods.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
It is a pleasure, Sir Mark, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this debate.
As one of the very few farming MPs—I have 865 acres of arable land and grassland—I am perhaps as qualified as most people here to speak about food security. Let me be abundantly clear: farming in the UK is on the verge of a catastrophic decline, unless some crucial decisions are made to revive the industry.
Farming is a very capital-intensive business— requiring both extensive investment in machinery and long-term planning—which desperately needs certainty to achieve real and sustainable success. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs causes far more problems than it solves, through high staff turnover, a rapidly mutating rulebook and its disdain for farmers.
This harvest has been very poor for most. Input costs remain high, world prices remain low and the weather for autumn drilling has been the worst I have ever known. Desperation is spreading across British agriculture, with farmers feeling entirely ignored by everybody in these buildings.
The risk-reward of farming is now favouring uptake of schemes that do not produce food. This is complete madness. We will all be affected if logical, long-term guidelines are not implemented, promoting farming and the people who understand it, rather than an army of pen-pushing bureaucrats.
In my opinion, we need to do the following as a matter of urgency: use productive land for food production; get the public sector buying British, including in all Parliament buildings; launch a big, national buy British campaign; enforce clear labelling so that people know what they are buying; allow and encourage diversification by improving planning across the country; set up more farming apprenticeships to address the ageing workforce; slash red tape; review the power of the supermarket distribution oligopoly structures; respect country sports; let farmers farm; and—here’s a mad one—listen to farmers.
Productive land must be used not for solar panels, not for rewilding, not for house building, but for farming. Always remember: no farmers means no food. We must ask ourselves: what happens then?
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi)—I hope I have pronounced the constituency name correctly—on securing this important debate, and Members from across the House, including my own colleagues, on their speeches. I support the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Mr Luke Charters) and for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). I should also declare an interest: I have a number of family members, although somewhat distant, who are farmers.
My experience of solar, including from visiting solar farms near Reading, is entirely positive. I want to describe a visit I went on with the former Conservative Minister, the former Member for Hexham. We visited a large solar farm next to the M4 motorway that is on a reclaimed site—a site that had been landfill and before that gravel pits, but which has been re-adopted as grassland with ground-mounted solar. The benefits for the economy are clearly enormous. The landscape imposition of the site is minimal, as it is on reclaimed land next to a motorway.
I would like to hear more talk about how land that has been reclaimed, or has low landscape value, can be used. I understand that in much of the country there are large areas that fall into that category. Certainly, my own county of Berkshire has the M4 motorway running through it, and we have other areas of lower landscape value, as well as some of very high landscape value. I would like to see a sensible approach, protecting very valuable landscapes.
My visit to the solar farm was entirely positive. The site is financed by pension contributions; it provides a long-term source of energy, as well as a long-term source of income to pension savers, which is also important, and general benefits to the economy. It was a huge win-win for everybody. While I was there, the former Member for Hexham—who has a strong rural background —pointed out to me the ability of sites to be built in the UK so that livestock can graze under the solar panels. His own experience in the north-east of England was exactly that. I commend that point to the House.
I will add a few related points. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) pointed out the pressure on farming incomes. It is worth remembering that many farmers are seeking to diversify. There is a strong tradition of farmers renting out disused barns and workshops to small enterprises. There is a place for farm diversity, and it is important to think about that aspect of farming. We should be commending farmers for their entrepreneurship and ability to be adaptable, as well as supporting them, as we do in many other ways.
It is also important to remember that there are large farm buildings in our landscapes that have had relatively light treatment in planning terms. I am thinking of the hon. Member for—I apologise, I cannot quite remember his constituency—
Matt Rodda
Mid Buckinghamshire—fantastic. He is obviously a Thames valley MP, like me. There are some large farm buildings in our part of the south-east that already—from the point of view of landscape—have a very large visual impact. Some ground-mounted solar arrays are low; they can be screened if they are looked at from ground level. The site I visited had trees on one side—obviously not shading it—so that a passer-by on a footpath would not necessarily know it was there. We need to bear in mind the importance of balancing different issues while looking at this topic, of working together in a cross-party way, and of supporting the move to a sustainable future and a sustainable economy.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on securing this important debate.
Farmers across the country are leading the UK’s renewable energy charge, and already host about 70% of the UK’s total solar generation capacity. Hosting renewable energy infrastructure can help British farmers at a time when they desperately need it, so the ability to diversify their business has been welcome for those who can do so. However, food security is paramount to national security. Energy security and food security go hand in hand, so we must secure the future of British farming.
Worryingly, recent research from Riverford Organic Farmers has found that 61% of farmers feel that they will have to give up their farms in the next 18 months due to financial pressures. British farmers have had to deal with significant challenges in the wake of Brexit, and the previous Conservative Government failed to give them the support they needed. They botched the transition from basic payments and negotiated damaging trade deals, all the while managing a staggering £358 million DEFRA underspend over the past three years. The Liberal Democrats know that we must support the nation’s farmers, and that is why we need to boost the environmental land management budget by £1 billion. Reports that the new Government are considering stripping £130 million from the agriculture budget are hugely concerning. That would be a serious misstep at a time when the nation’s food producers can least afford it.
In Glastonbury and Somerton, many farmers and landowners are taking the opportunity to host ground-mounted solar panels. Over the past few years, they have been installed in Cucklington, Milborne Port and Wincanton, to name just a few places, but it is important that solar farms are not developed on our best and most versatile land. The national planning policy framework states that poorer quality land should be used in preference.
Sarah Dyke
I will not, given the time.
Poorer quality land can still be productive, as sheep can graze underneath the solar panels, while the solar array provides a diversification opportunity for the farmer. It is important that the updated NPPF keeps that distinction so that poorer quality land with the ability to under-graze remains preferable to the best and most versatile.
We must make it easier for farmers to put solar panels on agricultural buildings. Solar arrays are space intensive, and can sometimes compete for land that would otherwise be used for other purposes. Putting solar panels on the roofs of farm buildings would avoid any land use conflict.
Rural communities such as Glastonbury and Somerton are leading the solar energy movement. My constituency is in the top 50 English parliamentary constituencies for domestic solar generation capacity. The Government should be looking to improve on the success of rural communities by enabling more solar panels on agricultural buildings, with affordable access to rural electricity grid connections. To ensure we are food secure, we must ensure that the future of British farming is safe. We must therefore give our farmers the support they need to feed the nation and protect our environment. To reach net zero by 2045, we must support the roll-out of renewables. Supporting farmers to host renewable infrastructure is common sense, but it must not be on our best, most versatile and most productive land. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments—
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch, Sir Mark. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi).
Land use is so important to this discussion. We all support green energy products. In fact, in Caerfyrddin many wind farms and energy park projects are already working their way through the planning system. Most people accept that if we want the lights kept on, this is the way forward. However, land is not infinite. Farmers like me—it is lovely to see a fellow farmer here—use it to produce food.
In a world in which there is more food insecurity than ever before, we need to ensure that any productive piece of land is used for that purpose. As my hon. Friend said, in Wales we produce only 6% of our publicly procured vegetables locally, and that needs to change. In Llanarthney, where I live, we have an exciting project in which we have taken over a council-owned farm to produce vegetables for the public plate. The Bremenda Isaf project has produced 5 tonnes of vegetables on 2 acres in this cold, wet year, due to the skill of the growing team of two and another two who help alongside the project.
Shared prosperity fund money was used to fund that innovation and the benefit to Ysgol Bro Dinefwr and to Awel Tywi residential home, to name just two beneficiaries, is immense. Nutritionally superior fresh vegetables are tasty; if they are tasty, the residents will eat more, and if they eat more, it results in better health outcomes. The carbon footprint is negligible and it is an excellent example of farm to fork.
We can learn from the Bremenda Isaf model and establish initiatives that not only look after our land, but feed the nation—or, in my case, feed the public plate in Carmarthenshire. That can work in harmony with energy production if we use our land in a sensible and targeted way. Land can be used for energy production, it can grow food, it can be used for infrastructure and homes, but we need an adult conversation on how it can be used and where large-scale energy parks need to be placed. For example, we need to decide whether the mountains around my constituency produce lamb or beef or are solely used for energy parks—or whether, with thought and community consideration, the two can co-exist.
My ask of the UK and Welsh Governments is to listen to the points raised in this debate about the need for large-scale energy projects and infrastructure, and to help maximise the use of our valuable agricultural land for horticulture and food production.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My remarks will be very short. I want to speak in relation to Northern Ireland, which produces enough food to feed over 10 million people across this United Kingdom and right across the globe. We must ensure our food security is protected alongside our energy. The two can be done hand in hand, but it is important to put on record the need for protections against vast amounts of our prime agricultural land being used such that it is taken out of production, as many of these solar farms are doing. There have been massive strides around solar farms, with sheep and activities able to continue, but not enough. There needs to be more investment into making solar farms friendlier to production and agricultural use alongside them.
On the part of Northern Ireland, we cannot allow those large-scale solar farms to be placed right across our countryside, putting our food security in jeopardy. I believe it undermines our own food self-sufficiency and will result in us becoming more dependent on importing food, which is contrary to what we want to be doing.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Sir Mark, to listen to this lively debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on bringing it to the Chamber. There are clearly some different opinions, but I think the overall consensus does obviously emerge. Food security and energy security are equally important. Clearly we should not be displacing good productive farmland for any use that is not food production. As I understand it, the pressure comes mainly from landlords evicting active tenant farmers from their land. In that context, I first ask the Minister whether the Government will actually bring in the long-awaited tenant farming commissioner, who would look at these tensions between landlords and tenant farmers.
As we have already heard, the threat to UK food security comes not from renewable energy projects, but from a number of complex interrelated issues relating to how our food is produced, how it is subsidised, sold onto the middleman and supermarkets, and to a demand and supply mechanism that is broken.
At the heart of our food supply problems globally is climate change. Therefore, tackling climate change must be our top priority. Solar plays a major part in our efforts to get to net zero. More renewables also means less dependence on oil and gas and better security for our constituents when it comes to their energy bills. This year, England will produce 26% less wheat than in 2023. This comes after the wettest 18 months since records began. The loss of wheat in 2024 alone is over 5,000 times greater than the loss of food production caused by three new solar farms being approved in July. These are the figures we need to take into consideration.
When it comes to food supply and security, solar farms are a drop in the ocean compared with what we lose to the climate crisis. Meeting the UK Government’s plans for increasing solar energy by 2035 would mean using about 0.3% of the UK’s land—and we have already heard the comparison with golf courses. We need to look at how we sensibly use all our land. My constituency of Bath is served by solar energy from Lightsource BP, which is helping the UK to transition to net zero through solar projects. Projects like these need timely grid connection, and the Minister will know that that is currently the biggest barrier to farmers diversifying their income through renewable energy.
Even if all future ground-mounted solar was built on farmland, the impact on UK food production as a result of the change in land use would be very small. As solar technology develops, it will need less space in the future. An example is bifacial panels that capture solar light on both sides of the panel. There are also types of solar panels where crops can be grown below. Many farmers who are unlikely to volunteer their best land for solar power are positive about this technology. Many solar farms are home to grazing animals like sheep, which live alongside the panels. We do not have to choose one or the other. Many farmers find it useful to lease less productive land to energy companies for solar farms, providing much-needed additional income. If farmers must keep productive farms, they must also be profitable. It would be bad for food security to take away what could be an important income stream for farmers.
The National Farmers Union agrees on the importance of renewables and says that,
“solar projects often offer a good diversification option for farmers.”
We should not be prohibiting farmers from using their land how they best see fit. If crops can grow and livestock can graze while the same land accommodates solar panels, where is the issue?
We need to guarantee food security by implementing a national food strategy. The Liberal Democrats would boost the farming budget by £1 billion. We must support farmers to produce high-quality food to high standards while also improving our natural environment, and we must encourage people to buy local. It is so important that people understand the connection between locally produced food and high-quality food—and, yes, we occasionally have to pay a little bit more for it, but these are the important connections and arguments we need to make.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for a proper visa and seasonal worker scheme. This would allow our farmers and fishers to access the workforce they need. We would also provide an extra £1 billion for the ELM scheme to support profitable, sustainable and nature-friendly farming across the UK. The Government also need to ensure effective regulation of UK food systems, agriculture and land use. We would seek to strengthen DEFRA, which is currently under-resourced and undervalued.
We should not have to choose between solar farms and food security. Farmers must be free to make their own choices and be supported to do so, and I hope the Government are listening to farmers.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on bringing forward this incredibly important debate. I visited her constituency once and a half on nuclear business—the half was due to me travelling on a rain-soaked day in May when events in London called me back somewhat earlier than planned. I completely agree with her points regarding Wylfa being the perfect site for a new nuclear power station, not only in the United Kingdom, but within Europe. I would urge the Minister to heed her words and move forward with what we had planned to do, which was to deliver a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa.
The last time this debate was heard in Westminster Hall—indeed the last time I was in Westminster Hall—I had the privilege of responding as a Minister to the debate brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). With circumstances somewhat changed in the intervening months—the cast list has changed considerably—I now respond as the shadow Minister. When speaking for the previous Government on the subject, I guaranteed that, should we be returned, the Conservative Administration would not countenance the industrialisation of our green and pleasant land. I gave that guarantee from this very place, though standing on the Government side, only six months ago. We changed the planning guidance to ensure that food and energy security were equally important and that top graded agricultural land would be protected, and began the process of ensuring independent verification of soil samples to ascertain the quality of land on which building was proposed.
At that time, I do not think anybody knew how soon the political landscape would be transformed, but I do know that at the time of the debate, colleagues in government were acutely aware of how the Labour party—now the Government—might have been inclined to drastically transform the energy landscape. It was telling, however, that not a single Labour, Liberal Democrat or SNP Member was in attendance at the debate that day, apart from the official Opposition spokesperson.
Indeed, within the first few months of this Government we have seen Labour ride roughshod over our attempts to protect rural Britain from the over-development we had pledged to oppose, with the approval of three mammoth solar farms: in July, the 2,000 acre Mallard Pass, the Gate Burton energy park in Lincolnshire and the Sunnica energy farm in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. More recently, we heard of the Corton solar farm.
The Government have committed to trebling solar capacity by the end of the decade. Speaking on his decision to approve those solar farms, the Secretary of State said:
“This is a Government in a hurry to deliver the change it promised.”
Our concern on the Opposition Benches is that the Government are in far too much of a hurry. That hurry leads the Government to ride roughshod over communities’ views, to disregard their discontent, and to sign over agricultural land to industrial use. I am sorry to say that that is a mistake on a number of fronts.
When I spoke on the subject as Minister for Energy, I acknowledged the fundamental need to balance the competing priorities and needs of our finite resources. We believe in solar power, on homes and on brownfield and industrial sites. Under the previous Government, we saw a near 5,000% increase in the number of homes with solar panels, to 1.5 million homes. Solar will play its part in our renewable energy mix and, I might add, has the support of many farmers, as a vital component of their land use, which serves to buoy the financial viability of their arable or livestock ventures through providing secure income.
Farmers host around 70% of Britain’s solar power capacity and many have integrated solar power to some extent, either through panels on outbuildings or by dedicating parts of their land to solar panels. However, we must acknowledge that the primary use for that land is and should remain agricultural. We must protect our domestic ability to feed Britain. Through the pandemic and the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fragility of international supply chains has been illustrated. It is vital that we protect our domestic agricultural capacity.
We produce only 60% of our own supply currently, with every development of 2,000 acres chipping away at potentially productive farmland. The ambition to reduce our carbon footprint, to produce more clean, cheap energy to power our homes and businesses, is a cause that rightly unites us across the House; I hope I am correct in thinking so. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), likes to think that his side of the House has a monopoly on that mission, but I remind him that it was the previous Government who oversaw the first to the fifth largest offshore windfarms in the world being built off British shores. The previous Government achieved the fastest decarbonisation in the G20 while still growing the economy, halving emissions during our period in office.
The Minister has our support for the ambition to decarbonise our energy sector and supply cleaner energy for the UK, but I gently say to him that this headlong rush to 2030 is alienating people in rural communities up and down the country. They too often feel that they are shouldering the burden for keeping the lights on in cities far from them, and that the sheer scale of this infrastructure build is leaving many across our islands feeling under siege.
I speak as the MP for such a community, and know that only too well. I am sure that newly elected Labour MPs representing rural constituencies, in some cases for the first time, will see in their inboxes the fear and anger being generated by these plans. We are united in our desire across the House to reduce our carbon footprint and to conserve our planet for future generations. However, it is evident that on these Benches we have a very different idea of how to attain that ideal. Our path to a cleaner future would not ride roughshod over community consent and would not sacrifice prime agricultural land.
I ask the Minister please to listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members from Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Reform party and the Green party, and from everybody who has spoken—bar from the Government Benches—in this debate. Please listen to them and ensure that food security has equal importance to energy security in the eyes of the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this important debate. We have been in a number of debates on topics like this over the past few weeks. It is great that her speech reflected that she is a champion of the renewable sector and the benefits that can bring to her constituency. She said that her constituency is now known as “energy island”, which is a true reflection of the powerhouse it has become in recent years. It has established technologies: solar, as she talked about, but also onshore wind and a number of other projects to come. It is also home to some of our newer technologies: tidal stream projects of around 38 MW are in the contracts for difference rounds, and we will be talking much more about that in the future.
I thank hon. Members for the tone of today’s debate and for their contributions. Our starting point, which the Government have been very clear on from day one, is that we want to deliver clean power by 2030. We want to do that for a number of reasons: to protect people from the wild price spikes that they suffered because of the volatility of global fuel markets, to tackle climate change—a lot of the discussion today on the importance of agriculture misses the importance of tackling climate change, which is currently having an enormous impact on farms right across the country and, if we do not act faster now, will continue to have an even greater impact—and to deliver the energy security the country needs.That will involve a diverse range of projects and technologies
We are not putting one technology forward as the answer to everything—this is about balance, as several hon. Members said today. Yes, ground-mounted solar plays a really important part, but so too does roof solar. We are not picking one or the other. Both are incredibly important, and there are huge opportunities for a rooftop solar revolution, which we will be seeing more about in the months ahead. But ground-mounted solar also has an important role to play. This is a question of balance.
Adrian Ramsay
The Minister always engages in a collegiate manner, which I welcome. On rooftop solar, I am sure, despite the disagreements today, that we would all agree that more solar on rooftops is crucial for tackling the climate crisis energy bills. Could he therefore confirm that the future homes standard will require all new homes to include solar panels as standard?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the collegiate way in which he engages in these debates. We will be saying more about the future homes standard in due course, so I will not announce that here, but his point has been heard.
I want to come back to the point about balance. It is key in a lot of the contributions made today, and indeed in other debates on this subject over the past few months. We have to find a way to balance the environment and our need to protect nature with supporting local communities to make sure that we can deliver cheaper, more secure energy in the future and tackle our climate change objectives. But new energy infrastructure is important in every single one of those points, so we have to build that infrastructure. The question is how to ensure we get that balance right. That is why we have announced that we will have a land use plan—something the previous Government failed to do. But it is also why we need to plan a lot of that infrastructure much more carefully.
I reflect on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) about the number of projects in particular areas, because we can take a lot from that about the cumulative impact of projects. That is why, just today, we commissioned the National Energy System Operator to carry out the first strategic spatial energy plan of the whole of Great Britain. Crucially, we recognise that if we plan new energy infrastructure much more strategically, we will avoid some of the questions that he raises. That is a really important point.
Nothing we have said rides roughshod over the planning system. The planning system in this country is extremely robust. People will continue to have opportunities to engage in that process and be consulted on. No matter the size of the energy project in question, it will be subject to a rigorous planning process, and the views and interests of the local community will be taken into account. On that point, I want to reflect on another Westminster Hall debate on community benefits, which are important here as well, and which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn mentioned in her opening speech. We need to do much more on community benefits, and solar is particularly important in that discussion. We have been very clear as a Government that we want to look at whether they should be mandatory rather than voluntary, and whether we should have a much clearer set of objectives for those funds so that there can be real community benefit. Ultimately, we want to do this with communities. Communities will have to host this infrastructure—there is no getting away from that—but it is important that they benefit from it in the process.
Finally, the Government recognise that food security is also national security, and we will champion British farming while protecting our natural environment. That is why we have already said that we will introduce a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen Britain’s food security.
I want to be clear: I do not believe for a second that the accelerated roll-out of clean energy infrastructure poses a threat to food security. There are, of course, huge competing demands on land use throughout the country, and they have to be balanced. However, taking solar as an example, even under the most ambitious plans in the country, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. I am afraid that the rhetoric does not meet the reality. That point has been backed up by the National Farmers Union, which believes that every farm is well positioned to deliver small-scale solar, wind or battery storage, which can be used on the farm but also provides benefits for local communities.
Food production is incredibly important, as is energy production. Those two are not mutually exclusive, and we can find a way for them to co-exist. I was interested in the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda). I recently visited Manor Farm solar farm, which is a good example of combining an agricultural strategy with a solar farm. It also contributes to the rewilding of areas and to the managed improvement in nature in the local community, which was not being done by the mismanaged agricultural land before, so we can get real benefits from it as well.
This is an important debate, and the balance is key. We have made no secret of this: we want to see the rapid development of energy infrastructure. It is important because people are paying far too much in their bills and we are exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets. For every year that we remain exposed to those markets, we remain vulnerable to the price spikes that our constituents are facing, so it is important to move at pace. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) about the pace at which we are moving, and I am grateful for his recognition of that.
This is our clean power mission. Together, we can provide energy security, reduce costs to consumers, deliver on our environmental responsibilities and ensure that we have economic growth and responsible use of land right across the country. I will close by thanking all hon. Members for participating in the debate. I hope that we will have many more of these discussions. They are important debates to have, and together we can find the balance and deliver the infrastructure and food security that the country needs.
Llinos Medi
I thank all Members for their contributions. Very quickly, I want to point out that there are not over 4,000 acres of golf courses on Ynys Môn, so the cumulative effect is something that we seriously need to consider. A UK-wide approach to numbers and figures will have a detrimental effect on Ynys Môn. Spatial planning is seriously needed, and both Governments have missed the fact that the energy and infrastructure strategies go hand in hand. Ynys Môn is seen as a place because of the grid capacity. On the impact on our rural economy, reclaimed land is totally different from good agricultural land that is creating livelihoods today.
I am glad that we have had the conversation. I want this debate to be a mature one where we balance the effects of the climate crisis and the crisis that we face in food production and the cost of producing that food.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered large scale energy projects and food security.
Written Correction
Ministerial Correction
Education
(2 months ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
On school-based nurseries, the pilot during the testing phase is for 300 places from April. Our ambition is for 3,000 places over the course of this Parliament.
[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 1020.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan):
Stephen Morgan
On school-based nurseries, the pilot during the testing phase is for up to 300 nurseries from September. Our ambition is to take this forward over the course of this Parliament.
Stephen Morgan
We are starting a test-and-learn phase in April; the roll-out will be in September.
[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 1024.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South:
Stephen Morgan
We are starting a test-and-learn phase with delivery of the first nursery places from September 2025.
Written Statements
Support to Ukraine
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The UK is committed, alongside our G7 allies, to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. Ensuring Ukraine’s security is in the interest of our own national security and shared values. We and our G7 partners have also repeatedly underscored that Russia’s obligations under international law are clear: Russia must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine.
The Government have today announced that the United Kingdom will contribute £2.26 billion—$3 billion —to the G7 “Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration” (ERA) Loans to Ukraine scheme. The ERA was announced on 14 June 2024. The scheme will provide Ukraine with approximately $50 billion of additional funding. This funding will be provided through budget support from the G7, repaid using the extraordinary profits generated on immobilised Russian sovereign assets primarily held in the EU.
This funding is additional to both the £3 billion per year of bilateral military support which the UK has committed to for as long as required, and UK Export Finance’s overall £3.5 billion capacity for Ukraine, including support for defence requirements. The UK has also committed to up to $5 billion in fiscal support through loan guarantees on World Bank lending to Ukraine since 2022.
The UK’s contribution to Ukraine under the ERA scheme will be used for budgetary support earmarked for military procurement, bolstering Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence in the face of Russia’s illegal war, and providing vital equipment and support to the front line.
The Government will introduce primary legislation, when parliamentary time allows, seeking parliamentary spending authority to provide this financial assistance. Subject to achieving Royal Assent and concluding a bilateral agreement with Ukraine, the UK will be able to begin disbursing funds to Ukraine and receiving repayments via the EU’s Ukraine Loan Co-operation Mechanism.
The Government intend to begin disbursals within this financial year.
[HCWS153]
Council of Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations Annual Reports and Accounts
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations (RFCA) annual reports and accounts 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, in accordance with the RFCA Regulations 2014.
[HCWS151]
Mainstream Free Schools: Review
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Education is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and give every young person the best start in life, no matter their background. This Government are determined to drive high and rising education standards for children across the country. We can only achieve this by making sure Government funding is targeted where it is most needed.
Under the last Administration, substantial funds were allocated to the free schools programme, often resulting in surpluses in school capacity. The National Audit Office set out in 2017 that of the 113,500 new places in mainstream free schools due by 2021, an estimated 57,500 amounted to spare capacity in the new schools’ local area. Not only is this poor value for money, the oversupply of places can be detrimental to the other, more established schools in that area—who might lose pupils, as well as teachers, to their new competitor.
Meanwhile, in the 14 years since the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, some of this funding could have been put to better use improving the deteriorating condition of our existing schools and colleges. We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that we have inherited and this will not be a quick fix.
I have therefore asked officials to review the mainstream free schools planned by the last Government, that have not yet opened. We will look at whether they will meet a need for places in their local area and offer value for taxpayers’ money. We will also take into account whether projects would provide a distinctive curriculum and any impact on existing local providers. Officials will work with local authorities and academy trusts to take this work forward over the autumn and will write to them now, setting out next steps in relation to individual projects. There are 44 centrally delivered, mainstream projects where we will engage with local authorities and trusts to review whether the school should open. More detail on schools in scope of the review will be provided in due course.
Our priority is to ensure children thrive in education, whatever type of school they are in—including free schools. Capacity varies from place to place, so we will continue to open new schools where they are needed. We also value the role of academy trusts within the school system. Strong trusts use their collaboration and leadership to deliver exceptional results for children and young people, including those in disadvantaged areas. Academy trusts will continue to have a crucial role in our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity.
We are setting this out now, so that we can work transparently and openly with trusts and local authorities as we undertake this important work.
The review announced today will only examine mainstream free school projects that were approved by central Government. It does not include those being delivered through competitions run by local authorities, which will continue as planned.
The Government are clear they want to make sure all children with special educational needs and disabilities receive the support they need to achieve and thrive. That is why the manifesto set out a clear ambition to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, while ensuring that special schools cater for children with the most complex needs.
Work to deliver special and alternative provision free schools is continuing. As with all Government investment, special and alternative provision free school projects will be subject to value for money consideration through their development, in line with the Government’s vision for the special educational needs system.
Access to high-quality school places that enable all children to achieve and thrive, including those who are disadvantaged and those with SEND, is fundamental in delivering our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity.
[HCWS150]
EU Foreign Affairs Council
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
I attended the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 14 October. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also attended via video teleconferencing.
This was the first time a UK Foreign Secretary has attended this meeting in over two years—and the first attendance at a regular FAC since Brexit. My visit, following that of the Prime Minister to Brussels on 2 October, marks a significant moment in our reset with Europe and has established a course towards a new UK-EU security partnership to address common threats and challenges.
Ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting, I met with the EU High Representative to take stock of the shared challenges facing Europe, including Russia’s war against Ukraine and the situation in the middle east. The High Representative and I agreed to establish a regular, six monthly strategic dialogue, with the first meeting in early 2025 to reaffirm the importance of the relationship between the UK and the EU and strengthen our co-operation in this difficult geopolitical context. In addition, we agreed to launch four new regular working groups on Russia/Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific, the western Balkans and hybrid threats.
At the Foreign Affairs Council itself, I described the common challenges facing our continent. I reiterated the UK’s ironclad commitment to Ukraine, and pushed for bold action, including accelerated financial and military support, ratcheting economic pressure on Russia, and tackling third-country support to Russia’s military industrial complex. I emphasised that investment in Ukraine’s security today was critical to ensuring Europe’s security for generations to come.
On the middle east, I called for an immediate ceasefire across the Israel-Lebanon border and stressed the UK’s unwavering support for UNIFIL’s role in South Lebanon, as mandated in UN resolution 1701. On Gaza, I called for the immediate release of hostages, unhindered access for humanitarian aid and renewed focus on a two-state solution. I condemned recent attacks on Israel and Iran’s ballistic missile supply to Russia, committing to sanctioning Iran’s regime in response. In the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting, I held a series of bilateral engagements with European counterparts from Germany, France, Romania, Spain, and Luxembourg.
This meeting marked a significant step forward in our reset of the UK’s relationship with our European neighbours and friends, in which we will deepen ties, grow our economies, and enhance our shared security against shared challenges. Together with my ministerial colleagues, this Government will continue to progress this work.
[HCWS154]
Point of Care Medicines Manufacture Regulations
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am pleased to announce that the draft Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2024 were laid before Parliament yesterday. When approved by Parliament, this instrument will create a new regulatory framework for innovative manufacturing methods for medicines that must be made near the patient, innovative medicines manufactured at the point of care, and modular manufacturing, where products are manufactured in modular, relocatable units.
The UK will be the first country worldwide to introduce such a regulatory framework. These regulatory changes will support the development of medicines at the forefront of technology, enable patient access to pioneering medicines and help move treatment closer to the patient.
Point of care manufactured products are often highly personalised, such as cell or gene therapies, 3D-printed medicines or treatments derived from a patient’s own blood. These products can have extremely short shelf lives, sometimes as brief as an hour or even a few minutes. This requires manufacturing and supply either at the point of care or close to where the patient is being treated. This could include in hospital wards, operating theatres, community health centres or even the patient’s home.
The current regulations are not geared for manufacturing at multiple different sites across the country in this way, and current regulatory barriers would make such manufacture complicated and burdensome. Current regulations also limit other innovative manufacturing models, such as modular, where products need to be manufactured in relocatable units, for example where cancer biopsies and blood-derived components are taken from a patient and sent to a local manufacturing site to manufacture a personalised cancer vaccine specific to that patient’s disease.
Many of these technologies are currently in early development. Providing regulatory clarity now will enable new products and manufacturing approaches to be developed. A tailored framework will ensure that these novel medicines meet the same rigorous standards of safety, quality and efficacy as more traditional treatments, while removing barriers to using innovative manufacturing methods.
The new framework will bring a range of benefits to:
Patients and carers—who will benefit from access to new and more personal treatments in a timely and more convenient manner with the potential for less travel and time in hospitals,
Healthcare professionals—by providing a greater range and more effective treatment options and improving patients’ response to treatment, and
Innovators—by providing clear regulatory expectations and enabling speedier product development.
This instrument follows a public consultation that gained feedback from a range of individuals and organisations across the UK and internationally. The overwhelming majority of responses were positive, with 91% of respondents agreeing that a new framework was required and 94% agreeing with the framework proposed.
The regulations, along with the associated explanatory memorandum and impact assessment, have been published on gov.uk.
[HCWS152]
Local Government Interventions: Birmingham and Slough
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
All hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning local councils which provide essential statutory services local residents rely upon. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent. Today, I would like to update the House on the statutory intervention in Birmingham, which was a year old as of 5 October, and my plans to reset the relationship between central and local government with a focus on reform and recovery. I will also update the House on the statutory intervention in Slough, which has been in place since December 2021.
Birmingham city council remains in a challenging place. Significant challenges continue to face the council, as outlined in the commissioners’ first progress report which I am publishing today. Steps towards financial stability have been taken, including setting the 2024-25 budget, and I am grateful for the significant oversight and direction from commissioners, who have been fundamental to this progress. The council is committed to leading its own recovery. I want to recognise the progress made by the council to date under the leadership of Councillor Cotton and his commitment to resolving the challenges facing the city. While there remains much more that needs to be done, I am keen that the intervention moves as quickly as possible to a model based around a more equal partnership with the council, working in the interests of the people of Birmingham.
Birmingham city council is committed to achieving financial stability, including finding a resolution to its significant equal pay liabilities once and for all, delivering the necessary savings to bridge the projected budget gap for 2024-25 and 2025-26 to move to a more stable financial footing and transforming local services, many of which still require significant improvement. I know that difficult decisions will need to be taken in the coming weeks and months. I am confident that Joanne Roney CBE, who has recently taken up her post as managing director at the council, will work with both officers and members to improve the culture and governance of the organisation and shift the focus to growth opportunities in the city.
I am exploring options to reset and reform the system to provide a more supportive approach to stewardship for local councils, establishing partnerships across local government built on mutual respect, genuine collaboration and meaningful engagement. In any system with adequate checks and balances there will always be a need for Government to work directly with a small number of councils in difficulty, but I am clear that this should be done in a different way that is not punitive and is based on genuine partnership to secure improvements.
Building a wider partnership to deliver for the city of Birmingham is essential. I encourage Birmingham city council to consider establishing and deepening partnerships with private and public partners in the region, including Mayor Parker of the West Midlands combined authority, so they can be more involved in shaping decisions around asset realisation and the growth strategy, linking in with local growth plans as necessary. Such partnerships will help unlock Birmingham’s huge potential for growth and drive forward skills, jobs and opportunities in the wider region.
I have asked that commissioners provide a further assessment of the council’s progress in January, including their assessment of how the council’s growth strategy can support the council’s recovery and contribute to this Government’s wider ambition for national renewal. I would like to place on record my gratitude to Lord Hutton, who is stepping down from his role as a political adviser to the intervention, for his knowledge and expertise which has been of immense value to both the council and the wider commissioner team.
I also want to acknowledge the diligent and hard-working members of staff at the council who do their utmost to provide essential frontline services for residents. I, in turn, will do my utmost to ensure that all interested parties/partners work collaboratively to guarantee Birmingham’s recovery remains on track so that residents have a well-functioning local authority with a set of statutory services they deserve.
I will keep the House and the public updated on any changes to the intervention, including publishing the second commissioners’ report in the new year.
Slough borough council has been in intervention since December 2021 and this House has received a series of updates on the recovery of the council. The last update was in February, when the view of commissioners was that the council would continue to need support beyond the scheduled end of the intervention on 30 November this year. Significant challenges continue to face the council, as outlined in the commissioner’s report from April and update letter from September, both of which I am publishing today.
While some improvements have been made since the start of the intervention, there are still a substantial number of areas which require further improvement. There remains volatility in the council’s financial position, and there is not yet a target operating model that aligns with the medium-term financial outlook. A robust and resourced transformation plan that aligns to the target operating model is needed to drive change, which must be underpinned by strong leadership and a comprehensive workforce strategy to foster and embed cultural change. Further improvements still need to be secured relating to risk management, governance, including the scrutiny function and audit committee, evidence-based decision making and resident engagement. Separately, the continued progress in children’s social care and SEND services under Department for Education intervention has been noted.
Having considered carefully the findings and evidence presented in the report and update letter, I have concluded that the council is not yet meeting its best value duty and that issuing new directions will provide Slough borough council with ongoing Government support via commissioners. They would continue to assist the council to design, implement and embed the necessary changes and improvements. Accordingly, I am now seeking representations by 4 November on the report and update letter and a proposal to issue new directions under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999. These would set a new end date for the intervention of 30 November 2026, require the council to take actions that are consistent with both the existing directions and the priorities the commissioners have set for the council, and provide for commissioners to continue to be able to exercise council functions relating to governance, finance and appointments. I understand that the council would welcome the extension of the intervention, given the challenges ahead that they also recognise, and I am keen to explore further opportunities to work in partnership to support their reset, reform and recovery.
If, following my consideration of any representations, I decide to implement my proposal, I intend to reappoint the existing commissioner team of Gavin Jones, Denise Murray and Ged Curran, who I know are working with the council with mutual respect, genuine collaboration and meaningful engagement. To further support the council to lead its own recovery, I also intend to appoint the interim chief executive, Will Tuckley, as managing director commissioner.
I again want to acknowledge the diligent and hard-working members of staff at the council who do their utmost to provide essential frontline services for residents, and reinforce my commitment to support Slough’s recovery remaining on track so that residents have a well-functioning local authority with a set of statutory services they deserve.
I will keep the House and the public updated on my proposed change to the intervention.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, which are also being published on www.gov.uk today.
[HCWS155]
Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity Package
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
As I informed the House earlier today, this Government inherited a prison system at the point of crisis. Prior to September, the adult male prison estate was running at over 99% capacity for 18 months, and the system was at risk of imminent collapse, with grave consequences for public safety and the whole criminal justice system.
In July we made the difficult but necessary decision to introduce a temporary change in the law to reduce the eligible standard determinate sentence release point from 50% to 40% (SDS40), with the second tranche of releases being implemented today. There are important offence exclusions for serious violent offences with a sentence of four years or more, sex offences, and certain domestic abuse-connected offences, and a commitment to review the change in 18 months. This decision was not taken lightly, but we are clear that this was the safest way forward given the scale of the emergency facing our prisons.
SDS40 bought us valuable time, which has ensured that we could keep sending criminals to prison, protect the public and make prisons safer for hard-working staff. We have already ended the previous Government’s “end of custody supervised licence” scheme, which released over 10,000 offenders early, often with very little warning to probation officers, placing them under enormous strain. We have also deactivated Operation Safeguard, which saw cells in police custody suites made available to hold prisoners temporarily when reception prisons did not have space to accept new prisoners. The headroom created by SDS40 enabled us to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers—from six to 12 months’ maximum custodial for a single triable either-way offence—in order to bear down on our large remand population. This measure will also help reduce the Crown court backlog. However, SDS40 was not a permanent solution, and we must now turn our attention to implementing a sustainable solution to the population crisis.
New prison places will continue to form a key part of our solution. We are committed to continuing the prison build programme that the last Government promised but did not deliver, building 14,000 places through the construction of a further four new prisons, as well as the expansion and refurbishment of the existing estate. We will also publish a 10-year capacity strategy later this year, which will set out our long-term plan for the prison estate, including streamlining the planning process.
However, we cannot build our way out of this crisis. The prison population is rising by around 4,500 each year. The current level of demand would see us need to build three mega-jails a year. The last Conservative Government managed to build three prisons in the last 10 years. However fast we build, increasing demand will outstrip supply. While there will always be a place for prison to punish offenders and keep the public safe, we must therefore review our sentencing framework, ensuring we never run out of prison places again.
We have therefore today commissioned an independent review of sentencing, which will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date. It has a clear objective to re-evaluate the sentencing framework to ensure that this Government are never again in a position where we are forced into the emergency release of prisoners. To ensure an effective and coherent justice system, the sentencing review will be guided by three principles:
First, sentences must punish offenders and protect the public, and there must always be space in prison for dangerous offenders;
Secondly, sentences must encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime; and
Thirdly, we must expand the use of punishment outside of prison. In doing so, the review will look at how technology can support the administration of sentences outside of prison.
This will be chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. David Gauke, supported by a panel that will include judicial expertise and expertise from across the justice system.
After the violent disorder, we came dangerously close to a disaster. Without action, we would have faced the prospect of a total breakdown of law and order. As a result, pressure on the system has increased, and so we must implement further urgent measures that will ensure the prison system avoids collapse before the sentencing review concludes and we can implement its recommendations. We will take a transparent approach that is proportionate to the levels of pressures seen, and this will not mean any further emergency releases.
We will:
Extend the maximum curfew period that offenders can spend on home detention curfew (HDC) from six to 12 months, meaning that those released on HDC will spend less time in prison and longer in the community subject to electronically monitored curfew.
Change the policy of risk-assessed recall review (RARR) to enable its use in a greater number of low-risk cases than at present to target the unsustainable growth in the recall population.
Work with the Home Office to identify further ways to speed up the removal of foreign national offenders from prison.
The measures on HDC and recall reform will make greater requirements of the probation service. In addition to our commitment to fund at least 1,000 additional trainee probation officers by the end of March 2025, HM Prison and Probation Service will also be considering what operational changes may be required in order to maintain a focus on higher-risk individuals supervised in the community and ensure that the public continue to be protected.
We are extremely grateful for the ongoing support shown by all those working in the criminal justice system, who have worked tirelessly to keep the system from collapsing. This Government will always put the country and its safety first and will take steps so the prison system is never allowed to reach this point again.
[HCWS156]
UK Airspace Design Service: Consultation
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Today, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) are launching a consultation proposing the creation of a new UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS) that would act as a single guiding mind for modernising the design of UK airspace.
The consultation demonstrates the Government’s commitment to delivering holistic and modernised UK airspace as part of the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy (AMS). The AMS vision is to provide quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, and more capacity for the benefit of those who use and are affected by UK airspace.
Modernisation will help meet the needs of passengers, businesses and the wider economy, while bringing environmental improvements that contribute towards the aviation sector achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
UK airspace is an invisible but vital piece of our national infrastructure. Using an ageing network of ground navigation beacons, its design has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s, when there were fewer than 1 million flights per year in UK airspace. This compares with 2.5 million flights in 2019 and projections of 3 million annually by 20301. In many cases, today’s aircraft still use the same outdated routes, flying further than necessary at sub-optimal altitudes and speeds because the routes rely on the location of the ground navigation beacons, instead of following shorter, more efficient flight paths.
Doing nothing is not an option. If UK airspace is not modernised, NATS (En Route) plc (NERL), the UK’s licensed provider of en route air traffic control services, estimates that by 2040, delays at a national level may increase by more than 200%, which would result in one in five flights experiencing disruption of more than 45 minutes2.
Modernised airspace will make it easier for aircraft to fly more direct routes, with better climb and descent profiles to and from energy-efficient cruising altitudes to help reduce CO2 emissions. It will also ensure that future technologies such as remotely piloted aircraft systems can operate beyond visual line of sight in the UK in a safe and efficient manner.
The current model for airspace change requires airports and air traffic control providers to develop their own airspace designs individually. Co-ordinating these changes creates significant challenges, particularly for the airports in and around the complex London area, where airspace designs overlap.
The consultation proposes creating a new single guiding mind on future airspace design, to deliver much-needed modernisation at scale and at pace. This will help to instil confidence among stakeholders in the delivery of airspace changes that will facilitate overall reductions in carbon emissions, noise and delays.
The consultation seeks views on the overall concept of a UKADS, including its responsibilities, governance and funding. Views from stakeholders will be critical to the next phase of work and we welcome responses from all interested parties.
1 NATS (En Route) plc forecast traffic growth estimates (2026 to 2040)
2 Airspace Change Masterplan Iteration 2, CAP2312b, ACOG (2022).
[HCWS149]
Pensions Dashboard
(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty's Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Government want to shape the pensions system to serve the interests of savers and future pensioners, ensuring decent, secure retirement incomes for all. As part of achieving that goal, we want to make it easier for people to understand their pensions information so they can better prepare for financial security in later life.
As people often move around the labour market throughout their working lives, this can make it difficult for individuals to keep track of their pensions savings. To help solve this problem, the Government are committed to the delivery of pensions dashboards.
Pensions dashboards will provide a secure way for individuals to view a summary of their pensions picture online, including information about the state pension. This will help people find their lost pension pots and promote greater engagement—empowering individuals to plan their future more confidently.
The Pensions Dashboards Programme (PDP), which is part of the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS), recently concluded a formal reset process which generated a revised delivery plan. In line with that plan, the programme has begun testing the connection journey with a small number of external organisations which will help facilitate wider industry connections. Alongside this, the PDP has published an updated draft code of connection, technical standards, and data standards to support the pensions industry to prepare for connection. As a result of the PDP’s progress, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has increased its confidence in the programme’s ability to deliver against their revised plan.
While it is too early to confirm a launch date for public use, we are taking steps to help the public realise the benefits of using a pensions dashboard at the earliest opportunity. I have directed the PDP to focus its efforts on the connection and launch of the MoneyHelper dashboard service (provided by MaPS), before turning to the work of connecting commercial dashboard services.
The Government support the principle of enabling multiple commercial pensions dashboard services, which will provide savers with greater choice to access their pensions information from organisations they are familiar with, promoting greater engagement with pensions. However, in the interests of ensuring consumers have the best experience on dashboards, it is prudent to allow a period while only the MoneyHelper dashboard is operational. Prioritising the launch of the Government-backed dashboard in this way will provide an opportunity to obtain better insights into customer behaviour and ensure greater confidence in operational delivery, security, and consumer protection before facilitating the connection of commercial dashboards.
We are committed to the existing published timetable for the connection of pension schemes and providers to the pensions dashboards ecosystem, which is expected to begin in April 2025, as well as the overall connection deadline of 31 October 2026. It is therefore essential that the pensions industry continues to prepare for connection, having regard to the timetable set out in DWP’s guidance.
Facilitating the launch of pensions dashboards is a challenging and complex undertaking, but the Government are firmly committed to their successful delivery and to unlocking the potential benefits they will offer to future pensioners.
[HCWS148]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am not expecting one, but if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 2 September. I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which I shall, for the purposes of brevity, call the ACMD from here on in, for its detailed and thorough advice, which has informed this draft order.
The purpose of this draft order is to amend Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act, known as the MDA. The draft order will control six substances, as well as introduce a generic definition for nitazenes, as class A drugs and control 16 substances as class C drugs. The draft order will also make an amendment to an existing class B drug to give further clarity by adding an additional common name and its International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name to its entry.
I turn to 2-methyl-AP-237 and closely related substances. New synthetic opioids remain a current international and domestic public health threat. The ACMD has reported that, as with traditional opioids such as heroin, these can lead to dose-dependent adverse effects, including overdose risks, as well as the high potential for addiction and dependence. One of the 22 substances that I mentioned, 2-methyl-AP-237, was added to Schedule 1 to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 following the 66th session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The UK is a signatory to that—I hope that Members have followed me so far—and we have an obligation to consider its introduction under domestic legislation.
On 27 March, the ACMD issued a report which considered the harms of 2-methyl-AP-237 but also provided advice to Ministers on closely related acyl piperazine opioids. The ACMD also noted the likelihood of further increases in their prevalence, as well as the potential health and social harms associated with specific acyl piperazine opioids. Following the recommendation from the ACMD, this draft order seeks to control four named acyl piperazine opioids and two chemically bridged acyl piperazine derivatives, which include 2-methyl-AP-237, as class A drugs under the MDA.
Under the MDA, there are several named nitazenes—another form of synthetic opioid—that are already listed as class A drugs. However, more needs to be done to reduce the opportunity for criminals to circumvent existing controls by making minor alterations to the chemical structure of these named drugs under control. As such, with this order we are trying to introduce a generic definition for nitazenes that has been recommended by the ACMD. The purpose of this is to future-proof the legislation by covering known and predicted variants likely to present a significant risk to health. The ACMD has already published four updates to address new structurally related compounds under the definition. As such, the draft order is designed to introduce a generic definition for nitazenes as a class A drug under the MDA.
I add for the Grand Committee’s consideration that many known benzodiazepines are used for medicinal purposes in the UK for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia and epilepsy, but more recently there has been an increase in the non-medical use of novel benzodiazepines and related compounds, which have been associated with significant health harms, including an increase in annual numbers of deaths where a benzodiazepine has been implicated.
The ACMD reported on benzodiazepines in 2020 but has since provided further advice on substances that are not controlled under the MDA. In the report dated March 2024—it obviously went to the previous Government—the ACMD recommended 15 benzo- diazepines for control, none of which is licensed as a medicine in the UK. As such, this draft order seeks to control those 15 benzodiazepines and related compounds as class C drugs under the MDA, in line with the ACMD’s advice.
We have seen an increase in the illicit use of xylazine, a non-opioid tranquiliser that has been approved for use in veterinary practice. Xylazine is being used to adulterate illicitly manufactured opioids, such as fentanyl, to produce a mixture known as “tranq” in the USA. In combination with other sedatives, it can dangerously lower a person’s level of consciousness. Again, these are recommendations to me, the ministry and the Home Office, and therefore, via the Home Office, to this House. The ACMD has recommended that the draft order should control xylazine as a class C drug under the MDA.
The order also looks at the entry for methoxphenidine, to add an additional common-use name and its full international standardised name, which will be covered by the order. This does not affect the existing control status of the substance as a class B drug. Instead, it will add clarity on exactly which drug is controlled, given that there are multiple common names.
I turn to the effect of this order. If it is made today, it will make the substances that I have indicated subject to controls under the MDA and associated offences. This will provide enforcement agencies, such as the police, with the appropriate powers to further restrict the supply and general use of the substances that I have mentioned. Unless exempt, these substances are likely also to be subject to the provisions of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, on which I fondly remember sitting in Committee in another place for many moons. Once controlled, they will be subject only to the provisions of the MDA and will no longer be covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act.
The MDA contains much higher penalties for the supply of these drugs and provides for a simple possession offence. Those who supply or produce class A drugs could face up to life imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or indeed both. For a class C drug, the penalty could be up to 14 years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. Those found in unlawful possession face up to seven years in prison for a class A drug and up to two years in prison for a class C drug, or an unlimited fine, or indeed both.
Therefore, if this order is made, another statutory instrument will have to be introduced later, via the negative resolution procedure. This will seek to make amendments to the associated legislation, namely the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and, if necessary, the 2015 misuse of drugs designation order. This negative statutory instrument will seek to schedule and designate these substances to ensure that they are appropriately available for legitimate use, which is important for this House to know and consider.
Although all these substances, and the generic definition of nitazenes, have been identified as having no recognised medicinal use in the United Kingdom, xylazine remains a veterinary medicine. As such, this will be the only substance placed under Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the MDR, to enable its continued legitimate use. All others will be listed as Schedule 1 drugs and will require a Home Office-approved licence for research and other special purposes. It is the Government’s intention that these amendments will come into force on the same date as this affirmative order in due course early next year.
I hope that I have not surrounded noble Lords with too much information or too many acronyms, but it is important to note that this draft order encompasses a number of recommendations, all of which have been made by the ACMD following detailed and independent assessment of the harms associated with these substances. Noble Lords will know that drugs can ruin lives and continue to affect society as a whole. This Government are committed to protecting the public against such dangerous substances and ensuring that appropriate controls are in place. I hope that the Grand Committee will agree with the Home Office’s recommendations and this draft order. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we accept the recommendation of the advisory council and support the tightening of these regulations. I shall add a couple of comments. In relation to synthetic opioids, given the continual emergence of new individual nitazenes, we are in favour of introducing a generic control for these substances. They can be much more potent than heroin, leaving users at a particularly high risk of accidental overdose. Nitazenes have already cost lives in the UK, and although there is little local evidence of the impact of the other six synthetic opioids named in the order, the potential harm they could wreak is abundantly clear, given the high risk posed for addiction and fatality, as outlined by the Minister.
The need to keep up with organised crime’s ability to synthetise new varieties of opioid is crucial at a time when the UK and European markets are especially vulnerable to their influx, given the noted drop in the supply of heroin and fentanyl. The market is shifting as people seek alternatives, so it is highly likely that the substances named will become much more prevalent. The advisory council’s report calls the individual controlling of these six named synthetic opioids “a short-term approach”. Will the Government consult on the introduction of a generic definition for these substances similar to that for nitazenes?
I also have real concern about the UK’s ability to detect these new substances in a timely fashion. I note that screening and chemical testing for them is extremely limited, that many laboratories do not have the resources routinely to check for them and that they are often not incorporated into police drug tests. Given the damage that we have seen synthetic opioid addiction wreak on parts of the USA, it is of the utmost importance that we have all the warnings we can get of what is emerging on the UK market and where.
The importance of this is underlined by another of the substances we are dealing with today, xylazine. The first UK death in which it was implicated came to light only thanks to the vigilance of a toxicologist who detected it at postmortem because they decided to investigate what they thought were strange results. Internationally, heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are increasingly being cut with xylazine, and we know it is increasingly present in fatal overdoses in the US where in some states it is present in more than one-quarter of all drug deaths, yet because xylazine is not included in standard UK drug testing we do not know how widespread its use is here. It is a not a nice drug. It leaves people like zombies and its continued use rots their skin from the inside. Back in 2022, there was also apparently no way of recording it in the UK drug deaths database. Is this still the case? Will the Minister address my wider concerns around testing?
The Liberal Democrats do not believe that criminalising individuals for drug possession is the answer, and we will continue to call for a better public health response to tackling the drugs crisis. Will the Government make any additional funding available to enable the consistent national implementation of pre-arrest and pre-prosecution police drug diversion schemes?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Conservative Party welcomes this order. It controls six substances, introduces a generic definition for nitazenes as class A drugs and controls 16 substances as class C drugs. These Benches believe deeply in the principles of law and order, personal responsibility and the protection of our communities. This amendment embodies those very principles by addressing the evolving nature of the drugs trade and reinforcing our nation’s commitment to keeping our streets safe.
In May, the previous Conservative Government accepted all five recommendations set out in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ March 2024 report. I welcome the new Government’s continuation of our excellent work. These regulations will build on the previous Government’s work to mitigate the real threat of synthetic opioids across the UK by banning 15 new synthetic opioid drugs.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for their contributions from both Opposition Front Benches.
I will deal initially with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. She made an important point about consultation and the further discussions around a potential generic definition for the six synthetic opioids and for nitazenes. She will know that the original order has arisen because of the ACMD’s recommendation of 24 March that consultation be undertaken with various stakeholders. Consultation was undertaken with academia, the chemicals industry and the pharmaceutical industry on the introduction of the generic control in order to cover the points before the Committee today.
Following the consultation, the ACMD recommended that generic control be added to class A of the MDA, consistent with the classification of other potent opioids. We will certainly consider the noble Baroness’s suggestion that it would be appropriate to consult key stakeholders in due course. I assure her that that will be kept under review and that we will rely particularly on the ACMD’s future advice on that generic definition; however, as with the 24 March order, consultation will take place.
The noble Baroness rightly recognised the great harm done, particularly in the United States, by some of the drugs mentioned in this order. She also rightly highlighted the need to monitor drug deaths accordingly. Detections of xylazine in drug-related deaths are now recorded on the drugs death database, which is available through the Office for National Statistics. I accept that that is not necessarily the most user-friendly way of getting those figures, but they are available, open to scrutiny and open to comment from the noble Baroness. The HMG Synthetic Opioids Taskforce is currently overseeing and co-ordinating the Government’s strategic response to the threat of synthetic opioids—and threat there is. The task force will look at the prevalence and harms of xylazine and its co-use with synthetic opioids; I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance on that point.
The noble Baroness raised the important issue of the public health response. This is a drug response. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, there is a criminal justice aspect to that response in today’s order, but it is important that we focus on the public health response as well. The noble Baroness will know that we are currently in the process of carrying out a financial review for 2025-26 and that the Chancellor is in a pre-Budget period, so it is difficult to discuss these matters generally, but I give her this commitment: it is the Government’s firm belief that we need to ensure that we divert people from illegal drugs through interventions, such as drug treatment services, to help reduce drug misuse, drug-related crimes and reoffending.
Before I came to this House or to the other place, I worked as director of a charity dealing with drug and solvent abuse. Interventions are key to prevention, in both family and individual support, by ensuring that they reduce access to drugs and reduce offending accordingly.
We support the use of drug testing on arrest and out-of-court resolutions to ensure that individuals who commit drug-related offences are given the opportunity to change their behaviour. Again, I hope that while this is a drug identification and criminal justice response, there is a wider agenda underneath to examine the points that have been made. I also put it to the noble Baroness that any substance capable of producing a psychoactive effect is likely to be captured by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which will mean that the supply remains unlawful.
I am grateful also for the general support of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. He may well, dare I say it, have seen some of the information that relates to this when in a previous Government he held, with some great support, the post that I hold now. He will know that we will examine a range of mechanisms. The points that he raised today are extremely valid and supported, and we will certainly look at them as we take this matter forward. He particularly raised the generic definition of nitazenes. The ACMD has published four addendums to the generic definition and we, and the ACMD, will continue to monitor the position accordingly. If new compounds emerge, self-evidently we, as a Government with the advice of experts, would want to ensure that those were legislated on to protect the public and support individuals, in the same way that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord introduced—rather cheekily, if I may say so—the question of whether, if these penalties are approved, as they potentially will be in due course, there will be a potential impact on prison places. I should clarify that that approval will be by the Privy Council. He will know that my right honourable friend Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, is currently examining mechanisms to ensure that those serving short prison sentences find alternatives to custody in a positive way, while still paying a penalty to society and still being potentially under either house arrest or some other treatment order. That will depend on the reason why they committed offences in the first place.
I reassure the noble Lord that prison will be there for people who deserve it, but that there will be alternative sentences where deemed appropriate by the judiciary. We are trying, with the Ministry of Justice, to expand the potential examination of those issues. The noble Lord will also know that a sentencing review has just been announced under a former Member of Parliament from his own Benches, David Gauke. That will ultimately feed into a justice policy that I hope is fit for the next 10 years, as opposed to the last 14.
I clarify for the Committee that the amendments will come into force on the same date as this affirmative order, early next year. They will go to the Privy Council for approval and, once approved, as I hope they will be by this House as well as the Privy Council, will become law to tackle what are difficult issues, but on which I sense that there is an element of coterminosity between the three speakers in this debate.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024
(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
It is me and my colleagues again, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord German, is in a tag team and working to have an input on this order. This order amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003—or, as I will now call it for short, the 2003 order—to support the Government’s preferred model for the French delivery of the EU entry/exit system, or EES, in Dover.
As noble Lords will know, EES is the EU’s new border entry system, which is driven primarily by the desire for greater border security and a more secure Europe. The UK Government are supporting the aims of EES, which complement our shared objectives on migration and secure borders. We have been working at pace and closely with our French and EU partners, as well as with industry and across UK government, to ensure readiness for the changes that will potentially be made shortly. I am grateful to all parties for their constructive approach to this.
For the benefit of noble Lords who wish to have greater clarity, the EES requires that non-EU citizens—excluding EU residents, visa holders and those protected by the withdrawal agreement—who wish to enter the Schengen area provide fingerprints and facial scans at EU borders to EU border officials and answer questions about their stay. This will increase the time taken to complete the Schengen entry process.
As immigration controls in Dover are juxtaposed, non-EU citizens, which includes most British nationals, will provide these details to officers of the French Police aux Frontières—PAF for short. PAF officers conduct Schengen entry checks in the control area at the eastern docks in Dover, which, as noble Lords will know, is a confined space with large volumes of freight and passenger traffic going through Dover, particularly at peak times. If this continues in the current format once EES is implemented, there is likely to be severe congestion or disruption at the Port of Dover; the very nature of fingerprinting and facial recognition take longer than the current system.
Therefore, the Government have engaged constructively with the French and the EU to explore mitigations. France has agreed—with our thanks—that its PAF officers should complete EES checks for coaches in an additional coach control zone at the western docks. This approach will ensure that there is sufficient capacity to conduct EES checks on coaches that is not available at the eastern docks.
To do this—this is the key part of the SI before the Committee today—France has requested two changes to ensure that PAF officers can operate the controls effectively. These are that PAF officers must be able to travel between the control zones with their service weapons, and that PAF officers must be able to escort any detained persons they have arrested following immigration examination in the new control zone at the western docks to the control zone at the eastern docks, where they currently carry out their immigration controls in full.
As your Lordships would expect, government officials have consulted relevant stakeholders, including Kent Police and a number of other agencies, on this requirement of the French authorities. Senior officers are satisfied that the risks are minimal and can be managed through appropriate safeguards and standard operating procedures. The French have agreed to these and the Government have approved France’s requests.
This order, therefore, creates what we are calling a “circulation area”, which will be a section of the A20 public road, approximately 1.5 miles long, linking the French control zone at the western docks with the existing control zone in Dover. It will also enable PAF officers to travel between control zones via the circulation area and will extend certain powers and provisions in the 2003 order, which are applicable only in a control zone and now to the circulation area.
Therefore, PAF officers will be permitted to travel with their service weapons, in the circulation area only, between control zones. Officers will also be able to escort detained persons between control zones. They will not, however, be able to arrest or detain anyone in the circulation area who has not already been detained by them in the exercise of their functions within a control zone.
When PAF officers escort a detained person in the circulation area, certain provisions will apply, just as they do when officers exercise their powers in a control zone. Specifically, PAF officers will be protected against acts or omissions committed against them that constitute offences under an immigration control enactment—for example, assault or obstruction—in the same way that British immigration officers are protected against these. They also cannot be prosecuted for any offence committed when they are exercising their lawful powers under the 2003 order in the circulation area. Additionally, procedures concerning the arrest of a PAF officer for acts performed in a control zone will also apply to PAF officers exercising the power to escort detained persons in the circulation area.
Lord German (LD)
On first sight, this would appear to be straightforward legislation and would obviously merit support. But, on closer reading and on listening to the Minister, there are three areas of interest that I would like to question him about. One of them has come about as a result of his introduction, so we can clarify that in a moment.
My first set of questions surround the issue of juxtaposition in Calais. We as a country are going to introduce our own entry system. I hesitate to ask when it is likely to be brought in but, in a similar manner that the one for the Schengen area has been slightly delayed, I suspect that we may not be very far apart in what the two countries are doing. The first question is: is an equal juxtaposition going to occur in Calais and will that be only at the ferry terminal? The other question is: is there anywhere else in the United Kingdom where there is a juxtaposition? There are clear examples of working at both ends of a ferry terminal. I can tell noble Lords of my personal experience of Ouistreham. The French inspected all the vehicles, including my own, and then, when we got to Portsmouth, the British inspected the same vehicles for the same purpose. There was obviously wasted energy there because one inspection would have done on behalf of both within the secure zones. Is the ferry terminal the only place where there is juxtaposition? If there are others, will there be an equivalent need for this legislation? Perhaps in answering that query, the noble Lord may say when the British are going to have their own scheme and whether they are likely to happen fairly close together in time for their introduction? We will need a similar facility at Calais.
My second concern relates to the circulation area. Having read the legislation and the Explanatory Memorandum closely, it would appear to me that the circulation area is a link between the facilities at both ends, the western docks and the eastern docks. Anybody who has been to Dover will know that the connection between those docks is either a road, an esplanade with beautiful gardens and a walking facility and bicycle path alongside, or a beach.
I presume that the intention, although it is not mentioned in the information, is that the PAF officers will move between the two by vehicle. If that is not the case—the Minister indicated that there would be a map—I hesitate to think that we would have armed French officials walking along the beach together with tourists who would be using the same facility. I therefore presume it must be by vehicle, but if it is not, I cannot understand how that connection could take place without some other form of assistance. That question has to be answered, because if we are calling it a circulation area, something must be done about the road, the bike path, the esplanade or the beach to designate it. Perhaps the Minister might tell Sue, who has a seafood operation on that esplanade, which is well used.
My third set of questions relates to the separation between the eastern and western docks. As I understand it, the Minister said that all coach transport will first call at the western docks, where people will be asked to get off and go through the required inspection checks, then people will get back on the coach and it will proceed along the esplanade to the eastern docks. Part of the problem is that, as those of us who have used this route know, if you come via Canterbury, the entrance to the eastern docks is via a dual carriageway which comes down into them. That means that coaches using that route would have to travel along the seafront to the western docks, be processed, turn around and come back again. Even without the entry system, much traffic builds up along that route along the seafront in Dover to the eastern docks, so there must be traffic implications somewhere in this.
Nowhere in the documentation before us does it mention that this is for coaches only, so presumably this legislation can be used for any passenger in any vehicle travelling to France on the Dover/Calais route. Since the legislation does not exclude cars, minibuses or foot passengers, there is nothing to say that that cannot be achieved. It would make more sense to use it just for coach travel, even though that will have some implications for local roads. However, since it is not mentioned in the legislation, this legislation could be used for foot and car passengers, which would be a nightmare. Whatever route you are taking into Dover, having to travel back and forth across the area would create an incredible build-up of traffic and passengers on that stretch of road.
Once people have been through the initial Schengen checks, they will carry with them some form of statement, agreement or whatever, or they can simply turn up at the eastern docks and say, “I have already got the biometric Schengen agreement”. That means that some people will be allowed entry into the eastern docks on their own and some people, perhaps even two of them sharing a car, will have to zigzag back and forward if one has and one has not. The legislation is not clear about precisely what will happen when people have the Schengen documentation available and what happens if they are in a mixed vehicle when one might have it and one might not.
This all predisposes that the legislation does not talk just about coaches. If it is to be coaches, I suggest that it should be amended to be clear that this does not apply to every passenger going through Dover.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we welcome this order. I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the regulations, which was helpful. Perhaps I can help him by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord German, that, when I was in the Home Office, the rollout of the ETAs to which he referred was very much on track and was highly efficient—I am sure it still is.
My party does not have quite the same forensic interest in the geography of Dover as the noble Lord, Lord German, and it is content that the regulations will deliver what is expected of them. But I do have a couple of brief questions. According to the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, no impact assessment has been undertaken. Is there a particular reason for that, or a perfectly innocent explanation? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in the Room, I should say that I am asking this mostly because he used to ask me for impact assessments regularly when I was standing in his place.
I appreciate the detailed description of the powers of the PAF officers, but I did not hear the circumstances in which the use of firearms would be permitted. What are the restrictions, if any, on those officers? It may be that I just did not hear that.
Are arrangements in place to allow the employees of other foreign agencies to carry firearms when working in the United Kingdom? More generally, is this a reserved or a devolved matter?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for noble Lords’ questions, which I will try to answer to help them understand the legislation and its impact—and hopefully to support it.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that this is being undertaken and framed in this way because Dover carried 68,000 coaches in 2023, and 4,000 in the peak month of July. The noble Lord will know that the Schengen changes have been delayed to a date yet to be determined, and we do not yet know what their impact will be when they come in, but, undoubtedly, unless these measures are put in place, there will be longer delays for coach travel.
The noble Lord asked whether that is an issue for vehicles. He asked about cars. I hope I can reassure him by saying that the Port of Dover is looking at significant work, including reclaiming land in the port specifically for EES registration. Therefore, conversations are ongoing on the potential new area being used for car registrations as well as for coaches. The order does not preclude any particular type of vehicle, but the primary purpose at the moment, to ease any pressure in the event of the regulations being introduced by the EU, would be for the 68,000 coaches travelling through the Port of Dover each year.
The noble Lord mentioned the circulation area, which, as I indicated, is a 1.5 mile-long stretch of the A20 linking the French control zone at the western docks with the existing control zone in Dover. I reassure him—I hope this will help—that it will be for use just by vehicles by the French authorities and it is not envisaged or agreed that it will be undertaken by any means other than vehicles.
The noble Lord asked about juxtaposed controls generally. Dover/Calais is a classic example of where we need those controls in place. I hope I can reassure him by saying that we have juxtaposed controls in France, not just at Calais but at Dunkirk for ferry crossings, at Coquelles for the Eurotunnel, and at Paris Gare du Nord and Lille-Europe for the Eurostar. We also have them in Belgium at Brussels-Midi, and in the Netherlands at Amsterdam and Rotterdam, for train services. That is part of the general relationship that we have to have with the European Union in the post-Brexit era. We were never part of Schengen in the first place, so even under a pre-Brexit solution, that would still be a challenge that the Government would have needed to examine. I hope that reassures the noble Lord on those points.
Lord German (LD)
Does the Minister have a date for the introduction of the UK ETA scheme? The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, told us that it was going along admirably.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord German, asks an interesting and pertinent question. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, indicated that, under his administration, it was moving along swimmingly. Let me tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that it still is. I will leave it at that.
I shall answer a couple of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. First, he rightly asked—again, my noble friend Lord Coaker has asked this question many times—what the economic impact will be. I can tell the noble Lord—I hope that this also reassures my noble friend—that the estimated cost of this is minimal: around £3,052 over a 10-year appraisal period. It was therefore well short of any threshold that required a full impact assessment; in fact, any impact assessment would have cost more than its results. So that impact assessment has not happened, but I hope the noble Lord understands why that was the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, also asked why and how PAF officers would potentially need to use their service weapons in the UK if they were carrying out immigration checks only. I need not remind the Committee, I hope, that any individual at any time can be a danger to those checking border paperwork and looking at issues to do with the regulation of this area. We do not know at any particular time who is going to be there and what threat they may pose. It is a requirement for the French authorities that they carry weapons accordingly, but I assure the noble Lord that that will be regulated by French national legislation in accordance with their normal working practices. PAF officers are required to carry service weapons; they do so while carrying out their work at the juxtaposed controls in the UK, but they do so under the same strict regulation that we discussed earlier in the Chamber in relation to firearm control. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
With those comments, I again commend this order to the Committee.
Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024
(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in force for another year the legislation that governs the Armed Forces Act 2006. That body of legislation provides the legal framework for our brave service personnel to continue to operate throughout the world wherever they are needed. The act of yearly renewal reflects the constitutional requirement, which stretches back to the Bill of Rights 1689, that His Majesty’s Armed Forces may not be maintained without Parliament’s consent. Further, there is a five-yearly renewal by Act of Parliament, which is the primary purpose of the Armed Forces Acts. The latest Armed Forces Act was in 2021 and the next is required by the end of 2026.
However, between these Acts there must be an annual renewal by Order in Council. This is the purpose of today’s draft order, which is necessary for the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2021, to remain in force until the end of 2025. If the Order in Council is not made before the close of 14 December 2024, the 2006 Act will automatically expire, effectively ending the powers and provisions to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies.
As a reminder to noble Lords—and as many noble and gallant Members of your Lordships’ House will already know—those serving in His Majesty’s Armed Forces do not have contracts of employment and, therefore, have no duties as employees. Instead, service- persons have an obligation as members of the Armed Forces to obey lawful orders as set out in the 2006 Act, which provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the Armed Forces of command, discipline and justice.
If the Act were not renewed, commanding officers and the court martial would no longer have the power to punish or discipline servicepersons for infractions of the rules, irrespective of how minor or serious the matter might be. Discipline is fundamental to the operational effectiveness and efficiency of any professional military force. It ensures team cohesiveness and effectiveness, efficiency in executing orders and confidence in the chain of command, while encouraging and reinforcing self-discipline. Such qualities have proved vital in underpinning the professionalism and capabilities of our Armed Forces.
I acknowledge that, as of today, we inhabit a world that is more dangerous than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, witnessing as it has the return of great power politics. However, that is not to say that we are less safe. After all, we have seen the growth and strengthening of the Euro-Atlantic alliance, with new and powerful NATO members welcomed into its ranks, while we continue to support, equip and train Ukraine in its fight against Russia, which has witnessed Putin fail in every one of his strategic aims in that country.
In the Middle East, we continue to work closely with allies and partners on aid deliveries to Gaza, supporting the Lebanese army, training the Iraqi security forces and ensuring freedom of navigation. In the Indo-Pacific, we have AUKUS and GCAP working alongside our allies to ensure stability in that region and provide a strong deterrence to would-be aggressors.
No Government can do this without the men and women of our Armed Forces and the civilian staff who support them. We also cannot do it without Armed Forces’ families, who sacrifice so much and move so often to support our national security. We should also remember our veterans. As a Government, we have committed to strengthen the nation’s contract with those who serve, their families and, as I said, veterans, including by putting the Armed Forces covenant fully into law and by appointing an Armed Forces commissioner to be a strong, independent champion for serving personnel and their families.
Therefore, we ask that His Majesty’s Armed Forces receive the full support of this Committee with approval of this draft continuation order. This will provide a sound legal basis for our Armed Forces to continue to afford us their indispensable protection. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords—oh, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith; I am so eager.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
Yes, there is obviously a certain choreography to this: the smaller opposition Front Bench is allowed to go first.
This time last year—or not quite this time last year, but when we renewed our commitment to the Armed Forces in 2023—we again had a rather small group of Peers speak in the debate. I note this tendency, despite the fact that, in 1688, the Bill of Rights found it so important that Parliament consented to having our Armed Forces that we had to give our consent. Now, we tend to have a very small number of parliamentarians discussing this vital matter and we are tucked away in Grand Committee. One noble Lord referred to this the other day, saying to me, “It’s a cupboard. Nobody takes any notice if we do things in Grand Committee”.
However, we clearly should take notice of the commitment to His Majesty’s Armed Forces that this renewal order gives and which all our Benches wish to support. Each year, we remind ourselves and others of the important role that His Majesty’s Armed Forces play in the security of the realm, which matters to each and every individual. The fact that so few individuals who are not service personnel, in their families or veterans, do not spend very long thinking or talking about His Majesty’s Armed Forces is perhaps a sign of how effective those forces are: we do not have to think daily about our security because the Armed Forces are doing that.
I note that the Explanatory Memorandum quotes the Bill of Rights, saying that
“raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against law”.
Clearly, the United Kingdom is not in a state of war with any other countries but I wonder how we should interpret the idea of being at peace, because there are so many parts of the world where His Majesty’s forces are deployed. When I looked back at the debate we had last year, it turned out to have been 16 months ago. For some reason, the previous Government felt the need to have the 2023 renewal on 15 June 2023. That was in a slightly different context.
We were at that time already supporting Ukraine but the context of the Middle East now, referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks, was somewhat different. It was before the horrific attacks on Israel of 7 October 2023. Since then, the United Kingdom has been involved in the support of Israel, in particular the support of Israel’s Iron Dome. Questions have been raised about our own defence and security, so I will reiterate one of the questions that I raised last year when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was responding at the Dispatch Box. I said that His Majesty’s Armed Forces serve the United Kingdom incredibly well, but asked: do we serve our Armed Forces sufficiently well?
I welcome from these Benches the comments the Minister just made about the commitment to enshrine the Armed Forces covenant in law—I hope it will be made applicable to His Majesty’s Government, rather than just to certain councils and other bodies—and to having an Armed Forces commissioner. But does the Minister feel that we are doing sufficient to support our Armed Forces community, and should we be doing more in this time of heightened security concerns? I realise that his default position will probably be to say that we have a strategic defence review in the offing. Nevertheless, some commitment to ensuring that we have adequate resources for our Armed Forces in terms of their equipment and accommodation, but also service numbers, would be very welcome.
Finally, given that this continuation order is very much about service justice and that just last week we received the first report of the service complaints commissioner, do the Government feel that this new role and service justice are working well? In conclusion, we obviously wish to support the continuation of the Armed Forces and this draft Order in Council.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for my alacrity in wanting to contribute to this debate and for rudely seeking to barge in front of her.
I remember with pleasure having to move this annual order as a Minister. On the one hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, it is entirely process in character, and that perhaps caused some perplexity about what exactly we should be saying. On the other, the effect of the order could not be more important in keeping our Armed Forces legally constituted and, as has been said, compliant with the fundamental provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that invitation. I shall start with a general welcome for the points that the noble Baronesses made about the professionalism and dedication of our Armed Forces. The cross-party unanimity in support of that will have been heard. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was right to highlight some of the achievements over the past year. No doubt there will be achievements and special events over the next year. I am grateful to her for doing that and I know the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will be too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned HMS “Prince of Wales”. I was on that carrier yesterday and saw for myself the preparations for it to attain full operational capability. HMS “Dauntless” and other ships were around it. F35Bs demonstrated taking off to a cross-section of us who went to visit the ship. Yesterday morning, we flew out by Merlin helicopter from RAF Northolt to the carrier and flew back. It was a hugely impressive demonstration of UK hard power, and we know that when the carrier strike group goes to the Indo-Pacific next year, it will be with various allies. The co-operation with other carrier groups across NATO now and when it goes to the Indo-Pacific with further carrier groups is a credit to our nation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know, the building of those two carriers was ordered under Gordon Brown’s Government, but their development and continuation was carried through under the previous Government and will continue under this Government.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that when we ask whether we have done well by our Armed Forces, there are no doubt examples to which we can point of where we could have done better with equipment, the delivery of certain things or decisions that were made but, alongside that, we should do more to set out and praise the sort of things that I saw yesterday, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned in her opening remarks and which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will have seen as well.
Yesterday’s demonstration was impressive in front of the ambassador of Iceland, our French allies, the Norwegian ambassador and others. On the carrier, there were multiple nationalities. The ability of that strike group to go to the Indo-Pacific next year will be as a result of our international alliances. That is not a sign of weakness that says that we cannot do it, but a sign that this country can do it and wants to work with international allies to deliver the hard power projection that we want alongside soft power activity.
We should sometimes remember the things that we can do and perhaps highlight those a little more, alongside the challenges that we face. The reminder of this by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is not new. It has happened over our history, as mentioned by the commemoration of Operation Market Garden. I, too, went to watch that commemoration in Holland. The gratitude of the Dutch people for what happened there, involving our soldiers, the American soldiers and Polish soldiers, including paratroopers, was properly commemorated. It was a fantastic example of the sacrifice made in the past. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, played a part by visiting many of those events, including the D-Day commemoration a few months ago. It is important to remember that, not to dwell on the past but as a reminder that our freedoms today have been built on the sacrifices of those who came before, including —perhaps I may say, because it is appropriate—my uncle, who was killed on D-Day. I am named after him. He lies in a grave in Ranville war cemetery near Caen. Those points are important.
On funding, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know that the Government have committed to attain 2.5% of GDP spending as soon as possible. I will resist the political point that could be made alongside that. It is a long time since spending has been at 2.5% but, as the new Government, we will achieve that as soon as we can.
However, the overall tenor of her remarks and the support for the order from her and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, were points well made. The noble Baroness mentioned the small number of Peers here for this continuation order. That may be the case but a significant number of Peers are speaking in the debate on the US-UK mutual defence agreement tomorrow. Huge numbers of Peers are speaking on Friday in the Ukraine debate, and there will no doubt be many others for the Question tomorrow afternoon about the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. There may not be many attending this debate but there is knowledge, experience and interest, including that of my noble friend Lady Anderson next to me, who has taken a keen interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. Huge numbers of our colleagues in the House of Lords take an interest and contribute to the debate and our awareness of these things. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, but that should not be seen as reflective of the interest that your Lordships’ House takes. The only thing I can say about 1688 and now is that we are in different times and we act in a way that is appropriate legislatively.
On the point made by the noble Baroness about not being in a state of war and her asking what this says about this continuation order, someone—it was not me—said that the way the way not to be in a state of war is to prepare for war. There is the issue of deterrence and ensuring that people recognise that there will be a reaction as a result of anybody taking unilateral action. Ukraine is an example of where NATO was supposed to crumble in the face of the Russian assault, whereas in fact it was strengthened, with Sweden and Finland joining the alliance. Far from it being weakened, it was strengthened by what has happened. That is an example of our situation. Our Armed Forces travel all over the world in support of our allies, the defence of freedom, international human rights and the rule of law. All are things that we can be proud of.
We will search for the best way to do those things. We will discuss and debate what they mean and how we can do them. We have a “NATO first” policy; that is the priority for the Government, but it also means that we will take an interest in the Indo-Pacific. As I say, the GCAP is happening; the AUKUS alliance and the carrier strike group going there are really important.
What do we do about the High North, the global South and Africa? I will be going to South America in a couple of weeks. All these sorts of places are of interest to us all and will be debated in due course.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about the service justice system. It is an important issue. If the noble Baroness does not mind, I will read out a few paragraphs because it is important for us all to hear about that. An MoD spokesperson said:
“The experiences set out”
in the various reports looking at the subject of women in the Armed Forces, for example, are truly awful and
“totally unacceptable. No-one should be subjected to these incidents and any form of sexual assault, bullying, harassment, or discrimination will not be tolerated”.
We have done a great deal of work to raise awareness of sexual offending; the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was a real champion of that when she had responsibility for it. The MoD said:
“All of this has been implemented alongside work to raise awareness of sexual offending, reporting mechanisms and implications to ensure that service personnel know that they will be believed and that we will act upon any allegation of an offence”.
That is not completely right yet, but it is the direction we will take.
A new tri-service investigative capability for all serious offending was launched in December 2022. Improvements in victim and witness care followed in March 2023 with the creation of an independent specialist unit. All of us would welcome an increase in reporting rates if it was indicative that our strategies were working in terms of raising awareness and improving willingness to report. A new statutory process for handling complaints about the service police was launched in June 2023, overseen by the Police Complaints Commissioner; consideration is being given to what further changes and improvements might be made with respect to that. In direct answer to the question, “Are we where we should be?”, I say no. However, is progress being made? I think we can all say that it is; we just want it to be faster.
I think I have answered or commented on the various points that noble Lords have made, but let me finish by saying again that nobody in this Room—whether it be the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s spokesman or the Government; indeed, whether it be any of us, here or in the other place—does anything but fully support our Armed Forces. There are discussions and debates around that, but we are proud of our Armed Forces. They do an outstanding job, not only in Europe but across the world. We are very proud of them.
Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 2nd Report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft statutory instrument proposes amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which will expand access to naloxone, a life-saving medication that prevents death from opioid overdose. In addition, this draft statutory instrument makes amendments to keep the regulations current by updating references to Public Health England and the Health and Social Care Board, following the dissolution of those bodies.
We know the devastating impact that illicit drugs cause. Drugs destroy lives, tear families apart and make our streets less safe. Drug misuse deaths have doubled in number over the past 10 years, and we know that people who die from drug misuse often do so at a tragically young age, often in their 40s. Almost half of drug misuse deaths in 2022 involved opiates such as heroin. These deaths are avoidable. Dedicated drug treatment services provide the path to recovery and this Government are continuing to ensure that treatment is available and of high quality.
However, we also know that over half of people struggling with opiate addiction are not engaged in treatment. These are incredibly vulnerable people who often have multiple and complex needs; they are at increased risk of accidentally overdosing and dying. Tackling this issue supports the Government’s health mission. It will ensure that people can live longer, happier and healthier lives, and it chimes in with our collective efforts to break down barriers to opportunity and create a fairer society.
Naloxone is a highly effective antidote to opiate overdose. It can already be administered quickly and safely by anyone in an emergency, but current regulations specifically enable only drug and alcohol treatment services to supply it for future use without a prescription. That limits the reach of this life-saving medicine.
The draft instrument that we are debating today proposes two key UK-wide changes to existing regulations: first, to expand the list of services and professionals named in the regulations who can give out naloxone without a prescription. That means that professionals such as registered nurses and probation officers will be able to provide take-home supplies of naloxone where appropriate, should they wish to do so.
Secondly, it proposes to establish national registration services across the whole UK. This will enable other services and professionals who are not able to be named in the legislation but who come into contact with people at risk of overdose, including housing and homelessness services, to register and procure naloxone.
There is a positive background to these changes. The Department of Health and Social Care consulted on them at the beginning of this year and received over 300 responses spanning a range of organisations and professionals from across all four nations of the UK. Of these responses, approximately 95% agreed with the proposals that are set out. This demonstrates the level of interest in this important issue and the breadth of support for the changes we are seeking to achieve.
These changes have also been called for by experts in the sector such as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its review of naloxone in the UK. In addition, Dame Carol Black recommended naloxone provision as an important harm reduction measure in her two-part independent review of drugs.
Allowing more services and professionals to supply naloxone will mean easier access to it for people at risk, which in turn will mean lives saved. With the growing threat posed by synthetic opioids, which are often more potent and more deadly, the importance of this work only continues to increase as time goes on.
I want to provide reassurance that, with these changes, there is no compromise on safety. Naloxone is very safe and effective, even when administered by a layperson with no prior experience. It has an effect only if the person has been taking opioids and it is already widely used across the UK and internationally.
We are taking steps to mitigate against any very limited risks associated with wider access. We will provide updated guidance for services in scope, and we will set out robust requirements for training and safeguarding. I reassure the Committee that the intention of these changes is not to create additional burdens for services, particularly as we are aware that many of those in scope will already be facing pressures. These new powers are enabling, not mandatory. They provide an opportunity for increased provision, based on local need, but they do not make any requirements.
Finally, addiction is not a choice. It is often fuelled by wider issues, such as trauma and housing instability. This is a complex public health issue and must be tackled as such. We must change the narrative on addiction to one that is about the prevention of drug use, the reduction of harm and enabling recovery. The changes we are discussing here will save lives. On this basis, I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister for setting out the rationale for this draft statutory instrument so well. I agree that this is a step forward in the ongoing battle against the devastating impacts of opioid overdoses. As she said, opioid overdoses have reached alarming levels, claiming thousands of lives every year. According to the latest statistics, opioid-related deaths have surged alarmingly in most regions. This is not merely a statistic. This is about the loss of lives, families shattered and far too many left to grieve, so it is important to take further action that is effective and wrapped in compassion. The temporary measures taken in Scotland show that the changes outlined in these regulations work and will save lives.
Naloxone, when used in the right place at the right time, is a life-saving medication. This draft statutory instrument will facilitate local supply networks, ensuring a broader distribution system and therefore more effective use of naloxone, empowering, among others, healthcare professionals, the police, prison and probation staff, and people in the youth justice system to facilitate the supply of this life-saving drug.
In response to one of the issues that the noble Baroness raised, a question occurred to me. As this will not be a mandatory provision across the country, how will the Government monitor lives that could be saved but that may not be saved because of a lack of take-up of this in certain towns, cities or regions? It could end up that a life will be saved if one body decides to do this, while a life could be lost in a neighbouring county, city or town if that does not take place.
One of the key provisions in this draft statutory instrument is the move to enable the friends and family of those at risk to administer this drug. Allowing those closest to individuals at risk to carry and administer naloxone creates a lifeline that will, literally, make the difference between life and death.
I listened to what the Minister said about setting up local naloxone providers and supply co-ordinators, and I have read the draft statutory instrument and the explanation—but I am still not clear about what regulatory oversight of these bodies will be in place. Who will be the regulator and what powers will they have to deal with the improvement or, indeed, withdrawal of such a service if it is deemed that the local provider is not carrying out the rules laid down in the draft statutory instrument?
Clearly, the broader implications of these amendments are not merely about the use naloxone but about standing with those who struggle with addiction, and their families. These amendments are an essential evidence-based response to the dramatic increase in opioid use and overdoses. By enabling greater access to naloxone, they will help to save lives.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the provisions in the regulations before us so well. This debate touches on a vital aspect of this country’s public health. Opioids are a pernicious threat to our society, a destroyer of lives and a menace to our streets. The ONS reported that 2022 was the deadliest year since records began for drug-related deaths in England and Wales. Of those, opioids accounted for the largest number of mortalities, at 46%. That is 2,261 people dying every year from opioid toxicity. In Scotland, the statistics make for even starker reading. According to the National Records of Scotland, in 2023, opioids were implicated in 80% of all drug deaths.
So we have a problem, but we also have a solution. As noble Lords will be aware, naloxone is a highly effective treatment for opioid intoxication and has been successfully deployed to prevent death from opioid overdose. I am immensely proud that it was a Conservative Government who launched the consultation on proposals to expand access to this life-saving medication, which concluded in March. The regulations laid before your Lordships are the outcome of that process, and I welcome their positive measures.
I will take this opportunity to ensure that the Government have taken all the necessary considerations. As the second report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, there is no indication of the costs associated with the instrument. The Department of Health and Social Care told the scrutiny committee that services that wish to widen the availability of naloxone would have to do so out of their own pocket, which, given the financial pressures already faced by such providers, may limit the efficacy of the provisions laid before us.
For these regulations to have the desired effect—that is, of course, to reduce opioid-related deaths—access to naloxone products must also be expanded. What is the point of increasing the number of people who can administer the drug if they are unable to procure enough of the medication? Furthermore, will service providers be able to afford the necessary training for the administration and storage of the drug? Would this not somewhat undermine the efforts of the regulations? In the light of these concerns, can the Minister confirm that funding will not impact the rollout of these provisions?
Although Regulation 8 does make provision for training, clarification is required. Naloxone can be administered by three different routes: intravenously, intramuscularly and by intranasal spray. Obviously, the first two require injection, which is a medical procedure for which specific training is required. The NHS, rightly, sets stringent guidelines on who is permitted to provide such services, so I think noble Lords could benefit from assurances that the IV and IM methods of administration are permitted only by medical professionals with full phlebotomy training.
Further to this point, I highlight that intranasal spray administration is, of course, the most effective method of widening access to the drug. Intranasal applicators can be used by the full range of providers specified in these regulations and can be easily distributed into the community. They therefore allow for a rapid response to an individual experiencing an opioid overdose and, I hope, should have a greater impact in reducing mortality rates. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will pursue greater distribution of the intranasal spray to complement this regulation?
I conclude by saying that we are pleased that His Majesty’s Government have continued the policy initiated by the previous Conservative Government by laying these regulations before us. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions I have laid out.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who I do not believe I have had the opportunity of welcoming formally to his new Front-Bench role. I am delighted to do that today; he is most welcome. I very much look forward to working with him and hope that he enjoys his role. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, as ever, for his contribution.
I am pleased that both noble Lords, on behalf of their Front Benches, have been so positive in welcoming these regulations. I certainly agree with the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: in doing this today, we are standing with those who struggle with drug use and with those around them—the communities, their families and their friends. It is with that motivation in mind that we are doing this.
I will of course write to noble Lords if there are any points that I do not manage to cover adequately. To pick up some of the points, however, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked who will regulate. As part of the legislation, as I said in my introduction, there will be training and data-reporting requirements attached to both routes for new providers. Those new providers could be the emergency services, for example, and they will have to report on levels of prescribing so that effectiveness and safety can be monitored. That will absolutely be required of them.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister might not still welcome me to my place now but although I understand that, my point was: what powers do those whom they report to have in ensuring compliance? That is the bit I did not get from reading the regulations.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is understood. I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to know that this is to be established, but he is certainly quite right to raise that point. I will ensure that, once that detail is established, it is made known.
On the point about a potential additional burden on services, which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, raised, we certainly recognise the fact that there are challenges in the scope of these regulations. Our intention—I stress intention—is not to create any additional burden. I think I was quite clear in mentioning that these are enabling, not compulsory, requirements. That is important, because it means that no service or individual professional will actually be required to give out take-home naloxone as a result of these regulations. That potentially allows a more gradual introduction of this.
For example, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned that there may be differences in the level of take-up across the country. I suspect that may well be the case. It will be our job not just to encourage it to be taken up but to work out why it is not being taken up. We will not just bring in this instrument; we will seek to actively promote it. As I said, we are confident that there is a high level of support for these changes and we will continue to work closely with services and professionals to support them with provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, rightly said that the previous Government undertook the consultation. I am most grateful for that because it has informed where we are today. That consultation under the previous Government received significant positive support from the sector, with the overwhelming majority of respondents agreeing with the set-up of the changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, raised a question about costs. There is no direct cost to the Government associated with these changes since, as the noble Lord will understand, this is only an enabling provision. It will be for services to determine whether they use this power and give out take-home naloxone. At the moment, local authorities provide funding for naloxone, which is supplied through drug treatment services based on their assessment of local need. Although local authority public health services will want to support the wider provision of naloxone, I recognise that their resources are limited; I am sure that many of them will tell me that. This will potentially mean that there is an additional call on their resources and they may need to pay for it through their own funding streams. However, we will monitor demand and engage with services and local areas to understand where any pressures may be.
Another point here is that this is not a neutral act. There will be benefits, in relation not just to personal health and saving lives but to costs associated with dealing with overdoses. I hope that will be seen.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, also asked whether the methods of administration are permitted only by medical professionals. It is already the case under current regulations that naloxone can be administered by anyone. I emphasise the point about high levels of safety and that it can be administered by a lay person.
I think I have picked up most of the points raised, but as I said, if I have not I shall be very pleased to look further into any other points and to write.
To summarise, the changes we are proposing will allow more services and more professionals to give out take-home supplies of naloxone without a prescription. As I said, it can already be administered by anyone but having more services with the ability to supply it will mean easier access for the people who are at risk of overdose. It will support them and those around them, as has been generously welcomed and acknowledged by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Evans.
In short, these changes will widen access to a life-saving medicine. I am sure we can all agree that any death from an illicit drug is tragic and preventable, and we should take every step we can to reduce drug-related deaths; that is what we are doing today. On this basis, I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these important regulatory changes. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses. In Australia, Canada and some states in the United States the nasal spray is available over the counter. Does the Minister have any knowledge of any plans to administer it via our pharmacies?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am waiting for inspiration, as the noble Lord will realise. In fact, I would rather write to him, as he has made an important point and I want to be quite clear on it. I thank him for reiterating the point.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, these important regulations were laid before the House on 15 May 2024 by the previous Government, and one of my early tasks in post was to approve that this change in legislation be put before Parliament. I am pleased that we have secured this time today and grateful for stakeholders’ patience.
This legislation brings us one step closer to extending the chance to start a family. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 provides the legislative framework for regulating fertility treatments and the use of gametes and embryos in the UK. These draft regulations amend two aspects of Schedule 3A to the 1990 Act, which were inherited from the European Union’s tissues and cells directive 2006/17/EC.
The first issue we are seeking to address in these regulations is where “partner donation” is defined as being between a man and a woman who are in an intimate physical relationship, which excludes female same-sex couples. We are in an age where social attitudes to same-sex couples and family formation are very different and, alongside this advancement in attitudes, assisted reproduction techniques have developed that now allow both female partners to take part in the creation of a child. This is through reciprocal IVF where one partner donates her egg to make an embryo with donor sperm, forming a biological link to their child; then the other partner undergoes IVF, becomes pregnant and delivers their child.
Legislation has not kept pace at all with these advances. Currently, female same-sex couples who undergo reciprocal IVF as a non-partner donation are required to have additional screening for infectious and genetic diseases. This leads to an additional financial burden for female same-sex couples undergoing this treatment. It can cost more than £1,000 when compared to opposite-sex couples undergoing IVF using their own gametes, where there is no clinical reason for the screening.
The second issue we seek to address under the 1990 Act is where a person living with HIV cannot donate their gametes to create a family, unless it is with a partner in an opposite-sex couple. Thankfully, through the advances in the treatment of HIV, such as anti-retroviral therapy, the risk of transmission is now regarded as negligible through unprotected sexual intercourse and by extension, gamete donation.
The proposed regulations would allow people with HIV who meet certain conditions to donate their gametes to known recipients, where certain conditions are met. These are: that they have an undetectable HIV viral load of less than 200 copies per millilitre, shown by two tests prior to donation; that they have been receiving anti-retroviral treatment for at least six months prior to donation; and that the recipient knows of the donor’s HIV diagnosis and provides informed consent.
The proposed regulations will also modify the definition of partner donation to include female same-sex couples, allowing them to undergo the same testing requirements as opposite-sex couples. The regulations also create a new defined term of “partner donated egg” and exempt these donations from the requirement to comply with more stringent screening criteria. These policy changes have been adopted following advice from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute briefly to this short debate for one specific reason. Back in 1990, when the defining Act was passed, it was at the end of a strenuous five-year battle of attrition, as certain Members in this Committee—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Winston—will recall. The right honourable Enoch Powell had tried in 1985 to get a Private Member’s Bill, the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, on to the statute book. It was hugely controversial; if passed, it would have prevented essential research into both infertility and avoiding certain hereditary disabilities, such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy. I should declare my own interests: we then had two boys who were alive with hereditary conditions.
This led to the establishment of the organisation Progress. Three of us were trustees: the late Jo Richardson, Peter Thurnham and myself. We were immensely indebted to advice and guidance from the medical fraternity, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Winston, people such as Robert Edwards and Michael Laurence, and a number of others. When that Bill was originally put forward by Enoch Powell in February 1985, it was passed in the House of Commons by 238 to 66 votes. By 1990, five years later, there had been such a sea-change in public perception—thanks to much of the work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and his colleagues—that the House of Lords passed what became the 1990 Act by 238 to 80 votes and, at Second Reading in the House of Commons, it was passed by 362 to 189 votes. It was an immense change in the public mood.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and his colleagues for their pioneering work. I also pay tribute to those who have done such great work over the past 35 years at Progress and its successor organisation, PET, which is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.
On these specific regulations, I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, can she confirm that the devolved regimes—in particular, Senedd Cymru —are fully in support? Although this is not a devolved matter, it obviously overlaps with responsibilities that are devolved. Secondly, can the Minister give some indication of the potential additional costs on clients, to which reference is made in paragraph 9.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum? Might these be punitive, or even prohibitive? Thirdly, is there any likelihood of costs escalating to over £10 million? If so, what would be the mechanism for a statutory review, as mentioned in the regulations?
I welcome this instrument but I would be grateful for answers to those specific questions.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am rather embarrassed after the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has spoken so volubly and over-kindly about the work we did together. I have to say that when he was Dafydd Wigley MP his amazing attempts to help us subvert Enoch Powell’s Unborn Children (Protection) Bill meant sitting all night several nights running to prevent that legislation going through, even though there was a big majority in the House of Commons. It is a remarkable story that has never really properly been told, but perhaps it should not be told. I cannot divert the Committee now, but one of the extraordinary things was that by the end of that I had remarkable respect for Enoch Powell, which I never expected. He behaved in an extraordinary way and with great dignity, even when he was losing. He was not quite as prejudiced as people made out. I think he was intellectually challenged by what he was seeing in front of him.
I return to the amendment, the business in hand today, which is essentially the issue with HIV-positive patients. We were the first people in the world to treat people who were HIV positive back in the 1980s. We had a baby as early as about 1986, possibly 1985—I cannot remember. It was a long time ago. That was before the regulations. We were aware that there was a small risk of transmission, but with caesarean section and so on the risk was so minuscule that we felt it was worthwhile. It got a lot of adverse publicity, until it was copied by a lot of other people, and it went on to be accepted. However, I accept completely that what the Minister is recommending is safer, but there are just a few questions I would like to ask her.
First, what would happen if the recipient was already HIV positive? Is there some regulation? That was something we faced nearly 40 years ago. I should like her to explain because I am sure things have moved on with the legislation, and I am not now clinically in practice, although I am still active in research. Secondly, I am concerned that the Minister should argue that this is just a matter for private practice. That is not acceptable. This should be available under the health service. The fact that somebody has a problem with HIV should in no way discriminate against their getting or giving proper treatment to a friend, relative or other person. I regard that as an essential human right. I suspect that there might be some reason to question that.
Unfortunately, one of the terrible things that has happened in Britain is that at the moment human in vitro fertilisation has become colossally expensive. The Minister gave a figure of £1,000. I regret to say that in London that would be almost impossible. I suspect that most people getting donations of this kind would be spending far more than that, even though it may not be clear. Clinics do not declare what they charge. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority claims that it has no power to deal with the price of IVF. That is important to consider. I hope that the Minister will at least address that issue because undoubtedly—I beg her for obvious reasons because she will have sympathy—there is massive exploitation of women going through in vitro fertilisation. Every week, I get stories by email that suggest that what is happening not other than somewhat under the table, so that is the other issue.
The Minister made no mention of counselling. When the Bill was initiated back in 1990—it was passed first in the House of Lords, of course—there was a clear discussion during that debate about the need for counselling. It was repeated in the House of Commons as well—I see the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, nodding—and it was written into the workings of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It is therefore important that proper counselling is part of this, and it should be written in in some way so that there is some understanding that it should be there.
The issues with HIV are always of concern, certainly in IVF. Suppose that somebody who was negative suddenly becomes positive again, which is not impossible, even though they may have had retroviral treatment in between. We ought to be aware of those things with this instrument.
Having spoken at great length on what seems quite a trivial matter, I have probably wasted the Committee’s time a bit. I am completely in agreement with the aim of what is undertaken here. I do not think there is any need to change the wording or anything like that, but what I am talking about must be considered. I thank the Minister, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his extraordinary work 40 years ago, which is still remembered and greatly appreciated.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I disagree with him: he never wastes the Committee’s time with his knowledge and expertise in helping this field move forward. After listening to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Winston, I think that this statutory instrument is not just a one-off regulatory update; it represents a continuation of the journey in the realm of reproductive rights, scientific progress and ethical standards in this part of healthcare. It is important that both noble Lords asked us to look at these amendments in the context of that journey.
The landscape of reproductive rights technology has evolved dramatically—particularly recently—with advancements in IVF, genetic screening and other reproductive technologies. We have the potential to transform countless lives in this field. I note that the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Wigley, say that some people are perhaps debarred because of the lack of provision on the NHS. In a wider debate in a wider context, I am sure the Minister would want to take up the discussion and debate that when we have the time.
However, we must note that progress comes with challenges, especially regarding ethical considerations and access to these technologies. These amendments seek to address some of those concerns so that couples made up of two women and those living with HIV have a better chance, or a more equal chance, of accessing this kind of healthcare and technology. These regulations are a step forward in this area in health provision and help to promote equity so that more people can pursue their dreams of parenthood, notwithstanding the issue of where they get that provision, whether in the private sector or the NHS.
As the Minister said, it is essential that these regulations highlight the importance of supporting diverse family structures in 2024. These amendments recognise that families come in various forms and that reproductive technologies should be accessible to all families on an equal basis.
Over the past couple of days, I discussed what was coming before the House with friends, and some people raised concerns, interestingly, about the implications of the use of gametes from people living with HIV. Therefore, it is crucial to understand that the amendment does not advocate unrestricted access without proper oversight. It promotes a balanced approach that prioritises ethical standards while facilitating innovations in HIV medicine. Advancements in HIV treatment have not only significantly improved health outcomes for individuals living with HIV but have made it safe to include people living with HIV more broadly in these amendments.
These regulations champion access, ethical standards and innovation in reproductive health. Notwithstanding the questions asked by the noble Lords, I have no questions because we support this SI. We believe it not only empowers individuals and families but fosters a reproductive healthcare service that values inclusivity, diversity and ethical progress.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, when I came here today, I did not think I would be hearing about Enoch Powell. I think that, if he were here today, he would be very interested in what we have been debating. Enoch Powell’s consistency was Wolverhampton South West. In the 2010 election, a colleague of mine of Asian background, a Sikh, won by the same majority as Enoch won it by in 1950. I am glad to say that Mrs Enoch said that Enoch would have been delighted by my Conservative colleague Paul Uppal winning that seat. It shows that people change over time. I wish he were here to hear what I am about to say.
I welcome these regulations laid before us by His Majesty’s Government. They bring forward the plans from May this year that were established by the Conservative Government. Now, as then, we believe that equality under the law is a long-established principle in this country and any improvement towards this end is to be lauded. I am sure that can receive support from all noble Lords.
These regulations mark a further step towards ensuring equal access to IVF services for people living with HIV and for female same-sex couples. It is another stage in the process of ensuring that as many people as possible can fulfil their dreams of parenthood, and it builds on the incredible work done to reduce the stigma associated with HIV, which has for so long prevented people getting tested and seeking treatment. With these changes, we will make it clear that people with HIV can live happy and fruitful lives.
The conditions in these regulations limit donation to those with an HIV viral load of no more than 200 copies per millilitre, meaning that the infection is undetectable and therefore non-transmittable. This requires the donor and recipient to have a personal relationship with one another and ensuring that safeguards are in place to minimise any risks associated with partner donation from people diagnosed with HIV. This will benefit hundreds of couples who have been trying in vain to become parents, and it will also reduce costs relating to IVF.
I hope that His Majesty’s Government will continue in the steps of the previous Conservative Government with efforts to help those living with HIV to have equal access to healthcare services.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to sense not just support for this draft statutory instrument but recognition in this debate. Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I acknowledge the contribution of my predecessor as Minister responsible for this area, who pressed on with the SI and ensured that it was laid. I am glad to be speaking to it today, as I know he is. I am also pleased to note that Adam Freedman from the National AIDS Trust is with us today. He is most welcome to the Committee. He has come to see the statutory instrument debated. He and his colleagues have patiently encouraged the previous Government and this Government in the right direction, and I thank him for that.
On the points raised by noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked whether the devolved Governments were content. I delighted to tell him that they are. He also asked about additional costs. A de minimis assessment was carried out, and it estimates £46,000 to £92,000 for the impact on the fertility sector. Obviously, as has been evidenced and described in this debate, there is a hugely positive impact from the measures within this draft statutory instrument.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. I put down that he, along with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and other parliamentary colleagues past and present, are veterans of change and of the Acts we are talking about. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, this is a journey—one that I suspect is not at its end, although I am pleased to take us further on that journey today. I also pay tribute to the contribution in this area of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, over many years, and to the contributions of other colleagues, who have given it their support and professionalism.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked what the case would be if a recipient were HIV positive. The answer is that they will be able to get IVF. They are not actually affected by these regulations, which impact donors, not recipients. I assure the noble Lord that he was far from wasting the Committee’s time with his comments. I heard clearly his comments about counselling and the need for support. I will look closely at that with officials, following his remarks. I clarify that the £1,000 I referred to was not for IVF. It was an estimated cost for the additional screening required for female same-sex couples, which we are now seeking to correct.
On funding and the issue of availability on the National Health Service, as noble Lords will know, funding for IVF is devolved to ICBs. I am very well aware of the differential provision to different groups and individuals. I will consider future policy options, having picked up this part of the brief and spoken to a number of people about their concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also asked about access to IVF on the NHS. In addition to the point about consideration of advice that I will be getting about improving the service, I want to share his comment about this being just one more step in a positive direction. It is about supporting the fact that families come in all shapes and sizes. A family or a household is a family or a household, and parents are parents. They are there to support and bring up their child in a positive way, and we want to support that too.
I finish by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for reminding us that one thing that these regulations will do is take us a step on another journey—that of reducing the stigma for those who live with HIV. There have been so many medical advances, which is why we are able to bring this instrument forward today. But attitudes continue to be something to be challenged at times, and I am glad that noble Lords recognise the contribution of the legislative change we seek to make.
We want to ensure that those who want to start a family do not face barriers where there is no reason for those barriers. I place on record my thanks to the organisations who have pushed for and supported these reforms, particularly the National AIDS Trust, Stonewall, the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I thank all those parliamentarians and others along the way who have got us to this place today.
Government of Wales Act 2006 (Devolved Welsh Authorities) (Amendment) Order 2024
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Devolved Welsh Authorities) (Amendment) Order 2024.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, before I move on to today’s business, I know that the thoughts of your Lordships’ House are with the family and friends of the man who lost his life in the train collision near Llanbrynmair, as well as the others involved. Our thanks go to the emergency services who have worked tirelessly at the scene. I also put on record our thanks to the train staff who have supported all the travellers affected.
I have the heaviest of colds, and this is a very technical amendment, so I plan to be short and sweet. The Government of Wales Act 2006 defines devolved Welsh authorities for the purposes of that Act. Section 157A defines a “devolved Welsh authority” as a public authority whose functions
“are exercisable only in relation to Wales, and … wholly or mainly … do not relate to reserved matters”.
A public authority is also a devolved Welsh authority if it is included in the list in Schedule 9A to the Government of Wales Act 2006. This list provides a partly confirmatory role to increase transparency by naming the authorities that meet the conditions in Section 157A. Section 157A(5) includes a power to amend this schedule by order so as to add, remove or revise entries in the list where necessary to ensure that it remains up to date.
The draft order before the Committee updates the list of devolved Welsh authorities in light of the Senedd’s Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022. This Act established the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, a new Welsh Government-sponsored body responsible for strategy, funding and oversight of further and higher education, adult education, and apprenticeships and training in Wales. The commission became operational from August of this year and took on the functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, which has now been dissolved.
The Commission for Tertiary Education and Research meets the conditions of Section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and is, therefore, a devolved Welsh authority. This draft order inserts a reference in Schedule 9A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 to the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, and it removes the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.
In line with requirements in Section 157A of the Government of Wales Act, I can confirm that the draft order was approved by the Senedd on 18 June. I beg to move.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I echo the Minister’s reference to yesterday’s train crash in Llanbrynmair and add my condolences to the family concerned.
This order removes the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales—HEFCW—from the list of devolved Welsh authorities in Schedule 9A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 and replaces it with the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, or Comisiwn Addysg Drydyddol ac Ymchwil. However, this is much more than a change of name. The commission, which was set up by the Welsh Senedd in its Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022, operates at arm’s length from the Welsh Government but is answerable to them. Its board operates within a strategic planning and funding framework established by Welsh Ministers and is responsible for funding and regulating all areas of post-16 education in Wales, including further education, higher education, apprenticeships, school sixth forms, adult community learning, and government-funded research and innovation. It therefore takes over the responsibilities of HEFCW, but much more in addition, as that list shows.
HEFCW, as it is almost affectionately called, has been so much a part of the Welsh education system and our educational vocabulary since 1992, when it was established, that it will be strange to think of the sector without the name in future. I am pleased that the commission has been given a more user-friendly name than its official title and will be known as Medr, the Welsh word for skill or ability, which seems absolutely appropriate. The official title appears below the Medr heading on its website and letterheads, so it will not be lost.
The board, which provides the strategic leadership, consists of 17 members appointed by the Welsh Government and includes four non-voting associate members representing learners and the education workforce. They all have an important task ahead of them as they navigate the new tertiary landscape in Wales, and I wish them every success in the future. On behalf of the Lib Dem Benches, I support the aims of this statutory instrument.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the sentiments of the Minister regarding the dreadful accident in mid Wales. I also pay tribute to her in her new role and wish her well in it. It is quite an extensive role. It covers not just Wales but Northern Ireland, Scotland and lots of other things as well, but those are the three things that matter most.
I shall speak briefly about this order, which I support. It is a technical order in many ways, but it gives the Committee the opportunity to touch upon the points, as the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, just did. The commission is a brand-new body that takes into account further education and technical education. Before I entered the House of Commons in 1987, I spent 17 years teaching in Welsh further education in Ebbw Vale. I always thought that the distinction and differences between technical, further and higher education were very artificial. Eventually, as the years went on, that became quite obvious, so this is a natural progression in how the Welsh Government and the Senedd deal with post-16 education in Wales. I welcome that as well.
This order gives us an opportunity to mention briefly the issue that the Minister has been raising for some time: the importance of co-operation between the Government in Cardiff and the Government here in London. That is particularly significant on this issue because roughly 50% of students in Welsh universities come from outside Wales and roughly 50% of Welsh students go outside Wales to study, so there is a constant interchange between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. and beyond, for example, in America, where it is important for good co-operation. I hope that our Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, and the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education, Lynne Neagle—she is my Member of the Senedd—will be in constant communication, talking to each other about the importance of higher education and further education in both countries. I also hope that the Minister will take that message back.
The other point that I want to touch on concerns something that I was involved in about 14 years ago. At that time, the Welsh Government asked me to look at opportunities for Welsh students to go to Oxford and Cambridge, Russell group universities and, beyond that, Harvard or Yale, as some have done from Welsh schools. Incidentally, some of those students were from very deprived Welsh schools. That project became known as Seren in Wales. It is a system by which students in Wales can get access to opportunities to learn about different universities. In my view, it has been a considerable success, but it is also a good example of how the English education system could learn from what we do in Wales with regard to ensuring that people whose backgrounds mean that they would not normally expect to go to our top universities in England, Wales and elsewhere can do so. There is an opportunity for co-operation there as well.
I wish the new body and the new Government here in Whitehall good luck. I also wish good luck to the co-operation between the Welsh Government and the United Kingdom.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, who commented on this order. I will speak very briefly indeed.
On the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about going outside Wales for higher education, I attended Manchester University. There were some 300 students from Wales at Manchester University, about 20 or 30 of them from Neath Grammar School alone. It was incredible. It was a gain for all of us who went to Manchester but, in some ways, it was a loss for Wales and its communities. So many who could have contributed did not, in fact, have an opportunity to come back. Therefore, there is a question about how within the expanded higher education responsibilities we organise some facility to help people get back if they so desire. This must fall jointly on the Senedd in Cardiff and government bodies here in Westminster.
The Minister opened her comments today with the Llanbrynmair rail tragedy. I add my condolences. I have, in fact—perhaps I can give notice to Government Ministers through saying this—approached the Lord Speaker to get a Private Notice Question tomorrow on it. I have a lot of interest in it because my father was born in Llanbrynmair and my wife’s father and mother were born in that council area.
I have a couple of questions about this order. I do so not least because no Plaid MP was selected to be on the House of Commons committee dealing with this specifically Welsh order; I trust that that can be sorted out in another place at another time. As has been said, this order allows the new body, Medr, to replace the former body, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. Can the Minister confirm that Medr’s powers do in fact go beyond those of the funding council? I believe they do. Can she also confirm that, notwithstanding that, they are within the ambit of the Act 2006 on which the devolution model was predicated?
Secondly, the question of funding was raised by Nia Griffiths on 8 October. In column 5 of the Hansard report, she slammed the previous Conservative Government for considerably reducing the funds available for higher education. The question that I will naturally put to the Minister is can she confirm that the Welsh Government will now get more money in order to meet that shortcoming that has been highlighted?
Thirdly, I do not know whether the Minister has looked at whether Medr has any role in further education beyond the boundaries of Wales—particularly with regard to the types of students to which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred—but, if there is that responsibility, I wonder whether the model defining the powers that Medr and the Senedd have can adequately cover that relationship. I would add that, if any students from Wales get the opportunity to go to Oxford or Cambridge, they should always take it, then come back enhanced by the education they got there; that is certainly the approach I would take.
Fourthly, in the context of Welsh students going outside Wales, particularly to England, I ask the Minister, please, to ensure—through other government departments, I suspect—that, when we come to the next census in 2031, we have questions asked of those people living in England who have a background in the Welsh language and Wales. That sort of information could be massively important in helping to develop the opportunities that they need to come back to Wales and those that others have when they are thinking of going outside Wales for their further education. It would help them to know that there is some landline with which they can maintain their connections with Wales. Those census figures could be very useful indeed.
Having said that, I of course support this order.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I had not planned to say anything but, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, let me just say this. A couple of days ago, I was talking to a friend of mine whose son went to Oxford as a result of the Seren project initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. He is about to complete and is coming back to Wales to further his career. For our generation, education has always been a pathway out of poverty. We should never put barriers in the way of young people creating and getting opportunities for a complete, fulfilling life. We should do nothing to deny them that opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I are totally as one on this. It is a great project. It shows that the co-operation between Wales and England, and England and Wales, has a huge benefit for all of us.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I, too, begin by adding my condolences to the family of the person who tragically died last night in the terrible accident at Llanbrynmair.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, to her place as the Minister dealing with devolved issues. I am sure that we will have some interesting engagement in future.
I speak on behalf of the Opposition on this matter. I am grateful to the Government for bringing these regulations forward. They are simple and give effect to the Welsh Government’s decision to replace the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales with the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research.
I am bound to say from the Conservative Benches that, as a Conservative Government, we have had a strong record on education in England. Successive Governments have made significant improvements in this area. England now has the best readers in the western world, and the numbers of students going to university across the UK are at near-record levels. We on these Benches want to see students continuing to achieve good outcomes. We will be holding the Government to account on their record.
In particular, we are concerned that the Government do not choose to go down the path of the Labour Government in Wales, who have failed so comprehensively on education. The OECD’s head of education said that the education system under Labour in Wales has seen its performance decline and has “lost its soul”. Indeed, we have seen the attainment gap between students from poorer and wealthier backgrounds increase under Labour in Wales. The PISA results for Labour in Wales show that scores have decreased since 2018 in mathematics, reading and science, by 21, 17 and 15 points respectively.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, while I recognise that education is devolved in Wales, can she explain to noble Lords what practical steps the Government are taking to support the Labour-run Welsh Government to drive up educational attainment in Wales? Secondly, can she confirm whether Education Ministers have met their Welsh counterparts to discuss their plan to deliver better standards of education to students in Wales?
As I said, I am grateful to the Government for bringing this order forward. I look forward to the response to my questions.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, which have been wide-ranging. I want to put on record the fact that I am the first person in my family to have gone to university. I am very clear—from having a single mum who lived on a council estate—that the pathway out of poverty is education. I will be forever grateful for the opportunities that were given to me by having an extraordinary mother who got me there. I therefore look forward to working with all noble Lords to ensure that, in any of the nations I apparently now represent, educational outcomes and attainment are fulfilled.
I thank everyone for their support, but before I move on I very much thank my noble friend Lord Murphy, who is mentoring me across several of my new responsibilities. I am beyond grateful for his support. I look forward to hearing more about the Seren project from him and my noble friend Lord Touhig.
In answer to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Murphy, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, many of the issues now are about co-operation between Cardiff and London. I think that was a theme of today. One thing I want to be clear on is that the benefit of having a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour Government in Cardiff is that co-operation is more easily given. We are definitely working more closely with our colleagues in Cardiff than the previous Administration did. There are regular meetings and engagement, but I will write to provide more detail on that to the noble Lord.
As has been pointed out, this is a devolved matter and I therefore cannot comment in detail on the Senedd’s decisions. It is for Members of the Senedd and Welsh Ministers to decide how they will operate it and what they want to do, but we will do everything we can to provide support to all Ministers in the Senedd, which they may or may not want, and to seek their advice on occasion on how they can help us as we move forward.
On the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, yes, Medr has taken on functions in many post-16 areas from the Welsh Government. I ask the noble Lord to bear with me because I am working my way through his list. On funding, I think he will be aware that we have a significant fiscal event happening in only eight days’ time. As much as I would love to be able to tell him what will be in the Budget, I think he, like me, will have to wait until the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands up next Wednesday.
On Medr beyond the boundaries of Wales, the Welsh Government’s budget for the commission’s responsibility is approximately £900 million. The commission receives a proportion in line with—this is what happens when you have to read someone else’s handwriting and it is a challenge. Sorry—I will write to the noble Lord.
On the questions about the census, the commission can regulate the activities of Welsh institutions in England. There is a consultation on questions that can be added in the run-up to each census. I will make sure that the noble Lord has the details and that we work collectively for the consultation on any new and additional questions.
If the noble Lord is successful with his PNQ, then I look forward to talking about it with him tomorrow. Investigations are currently under way by Transport for Wales, which is working with all the relevant authorities to understand how the incident happened. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment further while investigations are ongoing, so any conversation tomorrow would be limited because we cannot really discuss it.
As I outlined, this order will make changes to the list of devolved Welsh authorities in Schedule 9A to the Government of Wales Act to take account of the establishment of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research and the dissolution of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. I close—so I can have a Lemsip—by again offering my thanks for the productive manner in which the Welsh and UK Governments have worked together in preparing this draft order, and for the Committee’s support today.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Death of a Member: Lord Hanningfield
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on 20 October. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Schools: Absenteeism
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce absenteeism in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, tackling absence is at the heart of our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. If children are not in school, it does not matter how effective or well supported teaching and learning is; they will not benefit. That is why we are committed to working with the sector to provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and rolling out breakfast clubs to every primary school.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that. Does the Minister agree that Covid weakened the contract between parents and schools? As a result, we have over 150,000 children missing on average every other day, double the number pre Covid, as well as 1.7 million missing on average every other Friday, again double the number pre Covid. Against the policies that she has just announced, will she agree to have targets to reduce absenteeism for those two categories?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to identify the scale of children who are both missing school and, in the case of those who are severely absent, missing more than 50%. We have seen those figures continue to rise, unfortunately. I am open to the idea of targets being the right approach, but I absolutely assure him that we are working extremely hard with a range of policies: the breakfast clubs that I have outlined, the specialist mental health professionals, the new guidance expecting close working between schools and local authorities, and the work on data and better analysis of those who are absent. That was started by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and we are absolutely determined to build on it to make sure that we bring those figures down.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the Minister that we should ensure that children are in school and get the best possible learning opportunities. However, we have a system whereby any parent can take their child out of school and say, “I am home educating them”. We have no checks on whether that home education is taking place, on its quality or on whether children are safeguarded. After Covid, we have seen children go back to school, not like school and say, “Can I be home educated?” “Yes.” Is the Minister prepared to support my Private Member’s Bill on home education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is of course talking about a slightly different issue from absenteeism, which is where somebody is already on a school roll and is not attending. He makes a valiant plug for his Private Member’s Bill, which I am delighted to say I will respond to on 15 November. It is probably also worth saying that of course, through our children’s well-being Bill, we will legislate to introduce children not in school registers, to improve the visibility of children and young people who are not on school rolls, including those getting unsuitable home education.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that children in the care of local authorities have generally had very disturbed childhoods and, because of that, missed a great deal of schooling. Will everything be done to help them catch up?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Sometimes children in the care system have to move too frequently from one placement to another, which too often means that they have to move schools. They rightly get priority for admissions to schools but it is crucial that, through the work of our virtual schools and all corporate parents of children in care, we ensure that they have the stability to enable them to attend school and succeed.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the main drivers of school absence are mental ill health and poverty, so it is very welcome that the Government will provide specialist mental health counsellors in each school. Hitherto where that has been provided, it has mainly been paid for from the pupil premium. Given that a number of those pupils now requiring assistance and counselling are not in receipt of free school meals, how will it be paid for and will it be the responsibility of the Department for Education or the Department of Health and Social Care?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that mental health disorders among children are a growing problem. Working alongside the Department of Health and Social Care, we will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and develop new young futures hubs, which will include access to mental health support workers. Also, we will recruit an additional 8,500 new mental health staff to treat children and adults, to cut the unacceptably long time that children and young people have to wait for child and adolescent mental health services; that commitment is specific to the Department of Health.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, is there any causal correlation between poverty, particularly in the wake of the cost of living crisis, and absenteeism from school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right to identify that. The data shows that those on free school meals are far more likely to be absent from schools than those who are not. That is why we need a wide-ranging approach to ensure that we provide both the school action and the home backgrounds that will enable children to attend school and learn. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are working hard on the cross-government childhood poverty strategy precisely to address some of those issues.
Baroness Barran (Con)
What is the Minister’s assessment of the National Parent Survey 2024 published by the charity Parentkind, which showed that three in 10 parents are now more relaxed about school attendance? This aligns with the department’s excellent data, which shows a big rise in that group since the pandemic.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My assessment is that it is concerning that parents, for whatever reason are becoming relaxed about their children’s attendance at school. As the noble Lord suggested, this has partly been linked to the pandemic. We know that each day of lost learning can do serious harm. Days missed can add up quickly. There is a link between absence and attainment, and pupils who are persistently absent are less than half as likely to achieve good GCSEs as those who attend every day. We need to give that message loud and clear to parents who, in being relaxed about their children’s attendance at school, are fundamentally damaging their future prospects.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of arts and creative programmes on attendance and engagement, which is especially true for pupils from at-risk populations, where absenteeism of course creates an even longer shadow. Will the curriculum and assessment review take account of this evidence in considering the value of arts subjects, and will the Government encourage more schools to take up Artsmark, given that 96% of Artsmark schools report positive improvements on attendance, punctuality and engagement?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we need a curriculum in schools that will encourage all children to flourish and to be engaged. That is why, in setting up the curriculum and assessment review led by Professor Becky Francis, we have specifically asked it to consider how we can ensure that the curriculum meets the needs of disadvantaged pupils and those with special educational needs, and that it does that through creating space for exactly the sort of creativity for which the noble Baroness is a strong advocate.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Has any work been done on working from home? I gather that this is a factor which is leading to some absenteeism. As we are likely to see a growth in the number of people working from home, could we see that, at least in the public service, part of the contract is that those working from home will give an undertaking that their children will go to school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an interesting point. In my response earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I was very clear that, to be honest, it does not matter whether you are working from home as a parent, or where you are working—your responsibility is to ensure that your children are in school every day. If you do not do that, you are disadvantaging their futures. I do not think my noble friend meant this, but I would not want there to be some idea that there is some sort of excuse because of the way in which there are—quite rightly—more flexibilities about the way in which we work. However we as adults work, we have a responsibility to ensure that our children are in school, because that is where they will learn and have the best chance of a successful future.
Social Housing: Awaab’s Law
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to introduce legislation to implement ‘Awaab’s Law’.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her tireless work under the previous Government in introducing the enabling powers for Awaab’s law through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act. I also pay tribute to Awaab Ishak and his parents, and the family’s efforts in campaigning for Awaab’s law. Their constructive work with the Government on this crucial policy deserves this place’s thanks and recognition. The Government will introduce Awaab’s law in both the social and private rented sector. This will support tenants to secure faster repairs, reducing health and safety risks. We will bring forward secondary legislation for Awaab’s law in the social rented sector in autumn.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the Government have extended the timeline for implementing the secondary legislation that will set the standards that social landlords must comply with under Awaab’s law in order to also set out the rules that private landlords must comply with under the Renters’ Rights Bill. However, given that winter is approaching, bringing colder and damper days and nights, will the Minister commit to a more urgent timeline to ensure that no other child dies because of inhumane housing conditions?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The consultation received over 1,000 responses. It is important that we consider these responses in full before confirming the requirements of Awaab’s law. We intend to publish the Government’s response to the consultation and lay the statutory instrument for Awaab’s law in Parliament this autumn. Alongside it, the Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we have similar legislation for the private rented sector. The noble Baroness is right that we want to get this done as fast as possible. No one should ever have to lose a child because of the condition of their home. No one should have to suffer appalling living conditions. Nor should anyone feel powerless in the face of landlords who will not listen to them or who make them feel like they are the problem when they ask for help.
Lord Bird (CB)
Do the Government agree with me that one of the problems we have now is that many social housing associations are behaving like private landlords? Many of the problems that happen for tenants, including mould, are happening in the public housing sector. Maybe we need to think again about whether we need more council houses and fewer housing associations.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
On enforcement, seeking redress is important and tenants should challenge their landlords, whether it is a private landlord or the social housing sector. There are important ways to address this through the courts, but there is also the Housing Ombudsman. Tenants can challenge their landlord and if they do not get a satisfactory response, the Housing Ombudsman can address the issue, whether it is in the private or social sector. The noble Lord makes a valid point about the problems being widespread and not just in the private rented sector.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, only last week, the Housing Ombudsman said that damp and mould complaints constitute half of all its complaints. It named and shamed 20 social housing providers to which it had served severe maladministration orders. It is clear to me that the sector is already struggling with the timescales involved in Awaab’s law. Can the Minister assure us that all parties are ready for this? Following the comments made about speed, does he agree with me that new legislation is valuable only if it is enforceable? If it will not work, and if the sector is already struggling to make it work, do we not need to listen to the sector for a little longer before extending this legislation to the private rented sector?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, we are working with social landlord and tenant groups to consider the practical implications of the proposed requirements to be set through Awaab’s law. The Government’s response to the consultation, which will be published in due course, as well as subsequent regulations, will provide details on how Awaab’s law will work. We will issue guidance for landlords and residents on the new duties to be set by the regulations. The guidance will be published before the regulations come into force, to give landlords time to prepare and for tenants to know their rights.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that Awaab’s law is not just important to our housing policy but absolutely germane to preventing child poverty? A child’s life chances depend on having a home that is clean, safe and habitable.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend’s excellent and eloquent point. It is for us all to learn lessons from what happened. She talked about the wider societal issues and unfortunate challenges we have to deal with, and I hope that we can work together across government to address them.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, in 1997, the Labour Government inherited damp and cold houses, and they had years to try to fix them. This Government have inherited from the previous Government 13 years of neglect. I welcome the measures that the Government are taking. Can the Minister introduce them as quickly as possible?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I note my noble friend’s point. There is a challenge ahead. There is a different set of economic circumstances in 2024 than there was in 1997, but we are equally focused to ensure that we can tackle this scourge in both the private and social rented sectors. We will work hard to ensure that, after the responses to the consultation, we can move on swiftly—which was the premise of the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, what extra resources will be made to local authorities to provide stronger investigatory powers and, ultimately, to deliver swift enforcement action?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The consultation on Awaab’s law in the social rented sector invited views on the costs of the policy. The department has considered those views and will publish an updated impact assessment alongside the government response to the consultation. As we set out in our manifesto, we recognise that councils and housing associations need support to build their capacity and make a greater contribution to an affordable housing supply. We will set out our plans at the next fiscal event, to give councils and housing associations the rent stability they need to borrow and to invest in both new and existing homes.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the Government are right to bring some pressure to bear on the housing associations and councils to get their properties up to scratch; it is essential if we are to prevent any more incidents like the death of poor little Awaab Ishak in his damp, cold and mouldy home. But those housing associations and councils need income to keep their stock in good nick, and that means not having reductions, caps and constraints on the rental income that they receive. Can the Government assure us that rents will be allowed to rise in line with costs and not be the subject of the constraints which have kept the income down and therefore the level of repairs and major improvements at a level that is unacceptable?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and pay tribute to the excellent work he has done in this area for a number of years. To reassure him, as proposed in the consultation, Awaab’s law includes a provision for social landlords to defend themselves against legal action if they have taken all reasonable steps to comply with requirements but it has not been possible for reasons beyond their control. There is no plan by the Government to have any rent controls.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my heart goes out to the parents of Awaab Ishak and anyone whose children are living in those kinds of unacceptable conditions. Can I press the Minister on a timetable? The consultation on the social housing aspect was in January of this year. We are some months down the line, with no apparent date for the regulations. Would there not be merit in at least introducing this for social housing now, and maybe getting some of these homes updated urgently, while the Government rightly work out how to extend it to private landlords as well?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I note the point made by the Baroness, Lady Altmann, about timing. As I said at the start, we intend to publish the Government’s response to the consultation and lay the statutory instrument for Awaab’s law before Parliament this autumn. In relation to the private rented sector, which the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, also talked about, the provision will be brought forward in the Renters’ Rights Bill, subject to consultation. On implementation, we continue to work with the sector on this and will confirm the commencement date for requirements when we introduce the regulations and publish the Government’s response.
Child Poverty: Benefit Cap
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the benefit cap on child poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
Child poverty is a multifaceted issue and the benefit cap is just one factor that can influence the level of financial support available to children and families. Comprehensive action is essential to address the root causes of child poverty. This Government are committed to examining all the ways to dismantle barriers to opportunity, alleviate poverty and help families move towards sustainable employment. The child poverty task force is driving forward this work and will publish its strategy in the spring.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend knows well, not only is the cap a driver of child poverty, especially deep poverty, but it undermines government goals with regard to homelessness and domestic abuse. Will she therefore impress on the child poverty task force the case for its abolition alongside the two-child limit and, in the meantime, do what she can to ensure that at least the cap is uprated in line with inflation as a matter of course so that some of the poorest families are not denied the protection of the annual uprating?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State is currently in the process of reviewing the levels of social security benefits that are uprated annually, and a statement will be made in due course. When the benefit cap was introduced by the coalition Government in 2013, the legislation required that it be reviewed every five years. The next review is due by November 2027. However, I hear my noble friend’s comments about the challenges facing many families in poverty. The child poverty task force, which is getting to work already, is determined to use all available levers to drive forward short-term and long-term actions across government to reduce child poverty. It is taking evidence from families, activists, local government and people across the country, and I will make sure that her comments are conveyed to it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments about the child poverty task force, but it is an urgent question and this idea is putting things into the long grass. We want to hear from the Minister how quickly this group will report and produce some action to stop children living in poverty in this country.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, the child poverty task force has already started urgent work to address this, and it will publish a child poverty strategy in the spring. Given that the Government have not been in place for very long, looking across the whole of government to produce a strategy by spring reflects a real sense of urgency.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, in Wales children are more likely to be living in poverty than those in other age groups. Will the Minister tell us what tangible steps the two Labour Governments will take to eradicate child poverty in Wales?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I know that the Welsh Government take these matters very seriously. To make it clear, from the UK position the task force will work closely with the devolved Administrations. In fact, I can reassure her that the co-chairs of the task force have already written to the First Ministers to ensure that the strategy represents the interests of communities across the UK.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the child poverty strategy group will urgently take advice in particular from teachers, who often find themselves at the forefront of attempting to alleviate the grinding poverty in which some of our children arrive in school, particularly because of the two-child cap.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I am very conscious that teachers are on the front line of this and that they see the day-to-day effects of the significant rise in child poverty we have seen in recent years. They are very much people who have things to say to us. That is why the strategy is being co-chaired by my boss, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and my noble friend’s boss, the Secretary of State for Education. Child poverty is not restricted to a single aspect of anyone’s life. It has many different causes and many different solutions. We will work across government, as a joined-up Government, to tackle this properly.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have indicated the financial cost of abolishing the two-child benefit cap. Can the Minister indicate the social cost of keeping 4.3 million children in poverty?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will be nerdy for a moment. We inherited two different policies. One is the two-child limit, which limits the benefits paid to any family to the first two children, except in certain circumstances; the second is the benefit cap we are talking about here, which limits the total amount that can be given to any family. I apologise—nerdiness over. One of the reasons this matters is that those problems have different solutions. One of the reasons we are having a child poverty strategy is that the different policies we inherited, the state of the social security system and the series of piecemeal changes all combine with rises in the cost of living, problems in social housing, problems with energy and problems across our society to produce the effects my noble friend is describing. That is why they have to be tackled together.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Last week the blast furnaces at Port Talbot closed and 2,700 people lost their jobs. That surely has a massive influence on the number of children in poverty in Wales. In consultation with the Welsh Senedd, what proposals do the Government have to make sure that those workers are re-employed?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am so grateful to the noble Lord for raising that. One of the things we are determined to do is to revisit the way in which my department supports people into work. We need our jobcentres across the country to work closely with local, regional and devolved administrations to make sure we are addressing the problems in local labour markets and in local areas. In the near future we will publish a White Paper that sets out the new approach. But the noble Lord put his finger on it: we have to tackle the problems in communities to give people a chance of getting back to work. We need the country to be working—we want an 80% employment rate across our country. That is not just good for the economy or for the individuals; it is good for their children as well.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, we always welcome new initiatives to help unemployed people get back to work. With that in mind, will the Minister update the House on the current number of job vacancies?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
There is always something that you wish you had put in your pack when you stand up. Today it is that. I will write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think the Minister should apologise to the House for being “nerdy”. This is definitely an area where nerdiness is welcomed across the House. Can she reassure us that the work of the task force will be comprehensively supported by evidence looking across all aspects of the issue, with granularity around issues such as support for carers and people with disabilities? What has the experience of any exemptions been? How helpful has that been? We need to be sure that the work is not only comprehensive but evidence based and transparent.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for the absolution and for the thought that I am among friends. Nerds are my people.
She makes an important point. We have a lot of evidence, but there are real gaps in it. The commission will gather the evidence that is there, listen to how people are experiencing these things on the ground and look at the impact of policies across government. To give one small example, she mentions disability. In the benefit cap, households are exempted if they get a whole series of benefits. If they are getting universal credit because of a disability—if they are getting the UC care element, carer’s allowance, PIP or ESA—they are exempt from the benefit cap, but that does not take away the problem that there is still a massive disability employment gap. We want people to get into work. If we are to hit that 80% employment target, a challenge is to look not just at the kind of jobs that are out there but at how we close the gap between people who want to work and employers who want employees. That is part of what we will do in the evidence process.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, in respect of child poverty, will the Minister do all that she can to ensure that estranged parents, especially fathers, pay their proper maintenance agreements?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Absolutely, my Lords. It is not only an area of my responsibility in the department but one of long-standing concern. A significant amount of money changes hands already but we are looking at each stage—how do we make the Child Maintenance Service operate ever better than it does at the moment? An awful lot of money changes hands, mostly relatively smoothly. There are challenges with some non-resident parents and some who simply do not wish to pay, so the Child Maintenance Service is constantly updating the range of powers it has to go after them.
We all take the same view: you may separate from your partner, but you do not separate from your children. We need to find ways to make sure that both parents contribute. We have a consultation out, which we are looking at. We are also reviewing the child maintenance calculation. We are committed to making sure that the service works well and that the principles are up to date, but no one gets away from the fact that you may leave your partner, but you do not leave your kids.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, to continue the Welsh theme, 30% of children in Wales are living in poverty, according to the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, so I stress to the Minister the urgency of reducing child poverty across the UK.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Lord and I are as one mind on this. Child poverty is too high across the UK. It went up significantly under the last Administration. We are determined to bring it down, and we will do so.
Waste: Incineration
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to implement the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to pause permission for new incineration plants to allow for a review of the treatment of residual waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to transitioning to a circular economy. We are considering the role of energy from waste in the context of circularity, economic growth and reaching net zero. As part of this, we are giving consideration to the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation. This year, Defra will publish an analysis of energy-from-waste capacity in England to inform future policy. We continue work to implement packaging reforms, drive up recycling rates and take material out of incineration.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister, but I am deeply dissatisfied. This Government, in whom I had a lot of trust, have made the deeply irresponsible decision to allow the Portland incinerator to go ahead. I declare an interest as a resident of Dorset, although nowhere near Portland. Incineration and energy from waste is not a practical way forward; it is very damaging both in terms of public health and environmentally. I beg the Minister to speak to her department and suggest getting better advice on energy?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it does say in the Companion that you should not thank a noble Member for their Question—so, on this occasion, I will not. The environmental permitting regulations prevent the incineration of separately collected paper, metal, glass or plastic waste, unless it has gone through some sort of treatment process first. Following that treatment, incineration is seen to be the best environmental outcome. We know that the recycling rate is too low, that we burn too much waste and that, for too long, recycling rates in England have plateaued. The way forward is to look at the whole big picture and our circular economy ambitions are designed to address this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the noble Baroness commit to looking not just at incinerators but at anaerobic digesters and accept that they have a powerful role to play not just in getting rid of residual waste, particularly household waste, which is a very vexatious challenge, but in heating people’s homes at a reduced rate? Will the Government keep an open mind on energy from waste, including anaerobic digestion?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I just mentioned, we are looking to do a review right across the piece on this, so anaerobic waste will certainly be part of that.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is all very well to incinerate waste, but does the Minister agree that a real priority should be to reduce the amount of waste that we produce as a country? The real way to deal with this problem is just to produce less waste.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is a really important point that the noble Lord makes. If we are moving to a more circular economy, as this Government want, we have to see less residual waste being generated —in fact, less waste as a whole. There is a statutory target to effectively halve residual waste by 2042 from 2019 levels, but there still will be an estimated 17.6 million tonnes of residual waste to manage in 2042. Therefore, we have to look at the bigger picture. How do we actually reduce waste overall?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, is not the biggest incinerator in the country the Drax power station? It receives eye-watering subsidies for burning wood that has been transported across the oceans, creating emissions, which has had to be dried and cut into chips, also making emissions, and which emits, on being burned, more CO2 than coal. This is justified on the grounds that, over the next half-century to a century, trees replanted in those forests will absorb CO2. If we can take this leisurely approach to reducing CO2, is there really a climate emergency?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not consider the Government to be taking a leisurely approach on this aspect. What is really important is that we look at how we decarbonise our energy from waste facilities going forward. We have consulted on expanding the UK Emissions Trading Scheme to waste incineration and energy from waste, and we are taking on board the responses to that and will bring forward detailed final policy in due course. We plan to include energy from waste under decarbonisation readiness requirements.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Currently, we are incinerating over a million tonnes of food waste a year, as well as 64,000 tonnes of potentially edible food that gets sent to anaerobic digesters; the latter in particular is a clear violation of the WRAP food hierarchy. What will the Government do to re-energise the WRAP campaign around food waste, which, for a while, seemed to work really well but now is very much on the back burner, and food waste is going up. As a redistribution charity, we could really do with that food.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point around food waste: it is a real challenge. I know from talking to my counterparts in the department that, as part of our review of how we manage waste going forward, looking at food waste is critical, because there are so many different complex aspects to it, such as what is included, what is not included, and how we work with supermarkets and with local government. She is absolutely right to raise that issue and I will be discussing it further with my department.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in line with the Government’s climate commitments and, given energy from incineration is now our most CO2-intensive generation, will the Government consider prioritising incineration plants for their £21.7 billion package of carbon capture and storage funding? Is it not better to fix an existing problem than create new problems around hydrogen production to fix?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, the noble Lord knows that we have the new CCS—carbon capture and storage—facilities open. We see that as a critical funding decision that we need to be working on to move forward in this area. It is also important to think about how we regulate in this area going forward and how we recover the energy from this. It a very big picture that DESNZ is working on to ensure that we have sufficient energy capacity in the future, particularly around industry, and that that energy capacity is produced in a way that fits in with the circular economy and decarbonisation, so that we can meet our climate change targets.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, when Conwy County Borough Council in North Wales switched to four-weekly collections of residual waste, this led to an 11% spike in the tonnage of recyclables collected and a reduction of 12% of residual waste. The council’s cabinet member put this down to residents being incredibly motivated to recycle and understanding the local and global benefits of recycling. How are the Government working with local authorities to improve awareness of personal responsibility in this area?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are working very closely with local authorities but also with devolved Administrations. One thing we see as a high priority is building constructive working relationships with the devolved Administrations and different tiers of government. It is only by working together and sharing best practice that you achieve the kind of results that the noble Baroness is talking about.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. In the race to net zero, and given the importance of reducing carbon footprints, how excited are this Government about our world-leading advances in small modular reactors—SMR nuclear?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This Government, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, have pledged great support for nuclear energy going forward. We need it as part of our future energy security, and small modular reactors are clearly a part of that nuclear journey.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, plastic waste is a major problem for the planet, yet plastic is eminently reusable. What action are the Government taking to improve and increase the level of reuse of plastic?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is a very good point: we talk about recycling a lot but we do not talk enough about reuse. That has to be a critical part of reducing the amount of waste that we have as a country. This is very much part of the discussions with local authorities, because they have a key role to play in this. Also, encouraging people on behaviour change is difficult and the Government definitely have a role to play in that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, considering that we are being nerdy, I wonder whether the Minister can share with the House the technologies that are being looked at to clean up the emissions from waste incineration plants.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Unfortunately, I am not nerdy, so I am unable to answer the noble Lord’s question, but I am sure that we can get back to him in writing.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, some people do not like nuclear power and will not support it, and some do not seem to like any sort of generated energy proposals. But, after 13 years of neglect, it is right that the Government take a view that they will look to reduce pollution in the environment but also keep the lights on.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. It is critical that we drive forward our energy policy as a matter of urgency. The last thing we want is not only to have power cuts and insufficient energy but to become too reliant on other countries for our energy all the time. We need to manage our own energy in this country, build the kinds of energy plants we want, work on CCC and nuclear and invest in the future for our long-term energy security.
Police: Firearms Officers
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the acquittal of a police officer charged with murder in the case of Chris Kaba, what steps they plan to take to review the legal position of firearms officers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his question. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in her response to yesterday’s verdict, this case has caused deep concern for communities and police officers—and, of course, for both families involved. It is important that those families are given space to process the verdict. The Home Secretary confirmed to Parliament in September that work begun under the previous Government on the police accountability system was important and would continue. She intends to set out further steps on that work in the Commons in the coming days. Of course, I will update this House when she does.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the Minister for that reply, and I apologise to the House for not reading out the Question, as I believe I should have.
Obviously, this is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that a man died, and it is a tragedy for the family, for their son, perhaps for the brothers and the rest of the family. I realise that. But despite the fact that the jury in this case was unaware—as we all were until today—that Mr Kaba was to be charged and indicted for a shooting only days before he was shot dead, that he was linked to a person being shot in May of the same year, and that the vehicle in which he was traveling had been linked to a further shooting, it took a jury only three hours to find the officer in the case not guilty.
Police officers who carry firearms are very few. There are 67 million people in this country, but only around 3,000 who, on our behalf, are volunteers who must go forward to face someone who is armed or otherwise dangerous. They are paid no more for taking that awful responsibility. They do not go to work each day to kill anyone. It seems that the system does not give them the benefit of doubt that was given by the jury in this case.
Perhaps the Minister will consider in his reply today, or, if necessary, tomorrow, how the legal system can give the benefit of the doubt to these brave men and women, who on our behalf, in a fraction of a second, have to make the most awful decision they will make—perhaps never, but usually only once in a career.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine what charges are processed. In this case, under current regulations, it determined to make those charges at this time. It is also for the jury to consider the evidence put before it, which it did in this case, and reached a verdict of acquittal within a short space of time. It is also for the Home Office to ensure that we support our police officers in doing a dangerous job upholding the law and protecting our society. All those aspects and the outcome of this trial will be assessed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As I have indicated to the House, and to the noble Lord, I will report back when we make the Home Office Statement in the House of Commons and, in due course, this noble House also.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all the armed police officers who serve, particularly those who protect us in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, this is indeed a tragic situation. But yesterday Sergeant Martyn Blake was exonerated fully. As another accused and exonerated officer, Tony Long, writes today in the Telegraph:
“The public is only now finding out the whole truth about Chris Kaba”.
He says of Mr Kaba’s fellow gang members that
“they should have all benefited from anonymity, granted by the courts, while Martyn Blake was denied the same privilege, isn’t just ironic, it’s a national disgrace.
I agree. What steps will the Minister take to reassure current firearms officers so that they have the confidence that they can carry out their duties with the support and backing they deserve?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. He will know that the jury in this case made its assessment and gave its verdict on the evidence presented before it. Other matters on which he has commented were not presented to the jury and, therefore, the acquittal in this case was determined by the information presented by the prosecution and the defence.
The noble Lord will also know that it is important to thank the officers, who are voluntarily doing the task of being armed officers. This Government are certainly aware that we need to examine the regime and discussions around it in the light of this case and others that he has mentioned. Police officers are accountable to the law for their use of force and it is right that their powers are scrutinised robustly. It is also important that we commit to working with the police to strengthen officers’ confidence that they have the support of the Home Office in undertaking their task.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my policing interests in the register. Of course, it is appropriate in any case where lethal force is used by the police that it is properly looked at, accountability is maintained and everyone can be satisfied whether or not that force was used appropriately. But why does it have to take so long? These cases drag out, often for several years. That is not appropriate and not in the interests of the family of the person killed or anyone else. What could be done to expedite matters?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that it is in the interests of society as a whole, and of both the community and officers, that when difficult decisions are taken around charging following killings by police officers, these matters are resolved as speedily as possible. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is reflecting on that; she and I will report to both Houses and consider those matters further.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, for any family to lose a child is truly tragic, but it is absolutely dreadful to lose a child in such circumstances. When you add to this the deep distrust of the police in some communities, this can lead to all sorts of problems and suspicion. The police must never be above the law, but neither should they have to wait two years for a jury unanimously to find them not guilty of such a serious charge that has been hanging over them and their family. The situation is appalling. What steps are the Government taking to fix the criminal justice system, which is broken on all levels?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her question. An individual lost his life in this circumstance. The jury made a decision based on the evidence before it. That is not to take away from the fact that an individual lost their life and that that has a big impact on the family. There has also been a major impact on the police officer who has been charged with, and now acquitted of, the offence initially suggested by the CPS. How long that takes is a valid question and I understand why the noble Baroness raised it. We will look at that in due course.
The noble Baroness said that the criminal justice system is broken. It has many challenges but this Government have not had stewardship of that system for the last 14 years. I did, in part, when I was a Minister in the previous Labour Government. There are challenges now about timing and a range of issues, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice will be examining. Issues that relate to the Home Office and the matters before us in the Question from the well-versed and experienced noble Lord, Lord Hogan- Howe, will be examined in due course.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, some police officers have been found convicted of appalling crimes but many others have given their lives in the line of duty, so there is a difficult balance to be struck here. It is of course right that police should be held accountable, but is the Met Commissioner not right when he says that if we crush the morale of the police, we make all of our society less safe? So, in considering the way forward, what discussions and consultation will the Home Secretary be having with those who work on the front line of policing in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his question. It is vital both that the police have confidence to exercise their duties, as demanded by this House and the Government as a whole, and that they do that in a way that is accountable but with proportion and under the rule of law. That is what we are going to examine: whether the experience of this case affects and impacts upon that particular aspect.
It is also important that the community has confidence in policing, and the two go hand in hand. We therefore need to ensure that we work through this, not just today but in the longer term, to build community confidence in policing and to ensure that the police themselves have confidence in their operational skills and that, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, they have confidence to discharge their duties. At the end of the day, they are protecting society and are given those powers by this House and the House of Commons to do so.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the way in which the Minister is dealing with this. I had the privilege of meeting the armed section of the British Transport Police some years ago, and I was in awe of the responsibility that we place on police officers who are armed and on the front line for us. Obviously, this is a particularly tragic case, but it is also important that we say to the police that we give them our full support when they are carrying out their duty to protect the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support and for his welcome. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is continuing the accountability review that was established by previous Home Secretaries in previous Governments to examine the issues that are before this House in many of the questions raised today. My right honourable friend is reaching urgent conclusions on that and, as I have indicated today, will be reporting back to the House of Commons. My commitment to the noble Lord and this House is that, the moment she does so, I will be here to do the same, and I will be open to questions on the detail of any proposals in due course.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. A former armed police officer speaking on the BBC’s “Today” programme this morning—and I commend his contribution to noble Lords—asked whether an alternative akin to a military court martial could be used in such cases. Is that something the Government would consider?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, brings great experience to this matter. He has made a suggestion that is worth reflecting upon, but I do not wish to give consideration to it today. There are areas that we are looking at in this whole process that I will discuss with this House in due course, but today I would rather reflect on the fact that we have confidence in our police to do the job, that the jury and the CPS came to a conclusion in the trial yesterday that respects the rule of law, and that the jury has been unanimous in its decision. We will reflect on how we approach the situation post today, if the noble Lord will allow it.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The Minister said that the jury was wholly unaware of the recent evidence that we have now been given in relation to the victim and various activities that he had been involved in. But, of course, the police will have been aware of all those matters; equally, the prosecution authorities will have been aware of those matters when deciding whether or not it was appropriate to charge and try the defendant. Is the Minister happy that, with all that information, it was nevertheless considered appropriate to bring this matter to trial?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is for the Home Office to make decisions on a range of issues. Rightly, I am not eligible to become the Crown Prosecution Service and determine what information it presents to a jury; nor am I in a position to be the jury in the trial because I have not been party to the information that was presented to it. It is for the CPS to charge and the jury to determine, and then—if a conviction takes place, which in this case it did not—for the judge to pass sentence and for the criminal justice system to manage that sentence in an effective and appropriate way. I hope the noble Lord will accept that his points are interesting but not for me.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in 35 years as a serving police officer, many as a detective, I developed a very high regard for members of juries. I think we tend to not give them all the information. When I was the president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, we campaigned vehemently to change the law on the right to silence. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that when we interviewed prisoners who continually said “no comment”—noble Lords will probably have seen that happen on television —we were not allowed to give that information to the jury as it was felt that it would be too prejudicial. The law was changed and I think we have had a better justice system since then. Martyn Blake was acquitted—and what a catastrophe it might have been had he been convicted. Can the Minister say whether an appeal on the evidence we have heard today would have been put before the appeal hearing?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I know the noble Lord has great experience of policing, but he will also know that those policing matters, those charging decisions, that acquittal decision and any appeal decision are not for the Home Office. The issues that we will be examining are around police accountability and the issues that have arisen out of this case, but not this case. It is not for me to be judge, jury, CPS or, indeed, police. If I did all those things, this House would soon call me to order.
Liaison Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Purvis of Tweed be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Walmsley.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 and 12 September be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 October.
Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL] View all Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL] Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who spoke in the debate on the Bill and have otherwise indicated support and commented on the Bill. There have been no amendments throughout the Bill. I wish that could be said for many other Bills, but I suspect that may not be the case as we proceed. This is a straightforward Bill, limited in its scope, requested by the Church of England with the simple aim to extend by five years the arrangements in place for the appointment of Lords spiritual contained within the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015.
I particularly thank the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for being here today—for his support during the passage of the Bill, along with other noble Lords who spoke and engaged in the debate.
Your Lordships will know that, as a result of that legislation six female Bishops have already been appointed to your Lordships’ House more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. In fact, we are about to see the benefits of this legislation in place again. Following the retirement of the Bishop of Worcester, the Bishop of Peterborough will replace him in the House of Lords in due course under this legislation. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for his 12 years of dedicated service in this place, and I very much look forward to welcoming another female Bishop to the Bishops’ Benches.
Finally, I thank my officials and those from the Church of England, who worked together on the Bill. I thank the Official Opposition for their support and other noble Lords too. I hope it will have as smooth a passage in the other place. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Bill has strong support in the House, and that support includes these Benches. We are pleased to work with the Government in cases such as this where our objectives are aligned. I am proud of our record supporting women in this House, and our women Bishops have made many valuable contributions to Parliament since they first became Members of your Lordships’ House. As a frequent member of church congregations, I can confirm that this reflects the sterling work of female clergy right across the country.
Finally, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place but has so eloquently led for the Bishops on this matter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her work on this Bill and I thank the officials involved. As she has said, I hope the other place looks upon the Bill favourably.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I think it is down to me to thank the Government. All the other Bishops are at a House of Bishops residential elsewhere. I thank the Government for taking this on and thank those who contributed to the debate at different stages. This is a mechanism to allow us to make the progress which we need to make more quickly. I am grateful to the Government and the House for their support.
St Helena: UK Immigration
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 21 October:
“The House is aware that a political agreement has been reached with Mauritius about the long-term future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Once any treaty with Mauritius comes into force, following its proper parliamentary scrutiny, Mauritius will be responsible for any migrants who arrive there. However, we needed to find an interim contingency solution for the period before that agreement comes into force. Given that there is no permanent population, BIOT has never been an appropriate long-term location for migrants due to the logistical challenges of providing appropriate care in such a remote place without civilian infrastructure.
On 15 October, a new memorandum of understanding was reached with the Government of St Helena so that any new migrants arriving in the interim period will be transferred to St Helena. The intention is for that agreement to last until the treaty with Mauritius comes into force, recalling that, in practice, no new migrants have arrived on Diego Garcia since 2022.
We are hugely grateful to the St Helena Government for their assistance. Their Chief Minister has said:
‘This arrangement presents a unique opportunity for a British Overseas Territory to be in a position to assist the UK, and we are pleased to be able to work in close partnership with the UK Government towards a mutually beneficial solution’.
The UK Government have agreed to provide one-off funding of £6.65 million to St Helena to improve health and education outcomes, and upgrade government infrastructure. This is consistent with our long-term support to the community in St Helena, which is of course crucial. This is a long-term, consistent partnership. We will support St Helena by providing technical support and funding the transfer and subsistence costs for any migrants affected. Of course, this is not the first time that St Helena has supported the wider UK family. The agreement is testament to its integral place in our family. We thank it for its support”.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As noble Lords will remember, the previous Government were often criticised, sometimes justifiably, for making announcements in the media as opposed to making them to Parliament. It was therefore disappointing to see that this announcement was made by briefing to the media before Parliament was briefed on it.
As the noble Baroness said, an agreement was reached with the Government of St Helena. Does that mean that it was reached with the entire Legislative Council of St Helena and the residents who will be affected by this policy? Can the Minister say whether the Government are now in favour of offshoring asylum seekers while their applications are processed?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As to whether the agreement was reached with the entire Legislative Council, we respect the democratic autonomy of St Helena. It is for St Helena to determine what consultation or engagement it wishes to have; it is not for the UK Government to take those decisions on behalf of St Helena, which has the right to take them and has chosen to handle this in this way. The Minister from St Helena’s comment is very clear.
On offshoring, I think the noble Earl is trying to probe how this may or may not relate to the previous Government’s Rwanda programme. Noble Lords will recall that that programme cost £700 million and returned four migrants, voluntarily.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is good news that the Government have reached an agreement with Mauritius in principle, although there are of course still concerns about the involvement of the Chagossians in the process. Will any migrant who gets to these territories and is then transferred to St Helena have an opportunity to apply for asylum in this country, given the role we are playing in the interim period before Mauritius takes over its responsibilities? Will the Mauritius agreement be subject to scrutiny by the International Agreements Committee of this House? If so, when is it likely to come before us? Will the Tamil asylum seekers, who were kept in awful conditions on Diego Garcia without a solution being found until recently, be able to seek asylum in this country, even though they may have to transfer elsewhere in the interim? If so, what will be the timescale?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
These are theoretical migrants, as no migrants would be subject to the new agreement with St Helena. It is not an international agreement in the same way that our agreement with Mauritius is; it is an agreement with one of our overseas territories, so it is slightly different. In the very unlikely event that any new migrants arrive in the Chagos Islands, they would be removed to St Helena and it would be for St Helena to process them and make any decisions about their status. It is our position that Diego Garcia is not a suitable place for the current migrants; most have left, as we discussed a couple of weeks ago. They will not be subject to this agreement and will be dealt with separately.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
As I was recently in St Helena at a Commonwealth small islands conference, I was shocked to hear about this development. The education, health and other facilities for the small population of the island will be severely stretched. Can the Minister give us some idea of the numbers envisaged and the timescales, given the remoteness of St Helena and the transport difficulties?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I shall endeavour to reassure the noble Baroness, whose care for St Helena is clear in her question. Our hope is that no migrants arrive in the Chagos Islands during the 18 months that this agreement will be in place—it is either for 18 months or until the agreement with Mauritius is ratified, whichever is sooner. We hope that it is much sooner than 18 months and that nobody arrives and needs to be taken to St Helena. However, the noble Baroness is right to say that, regardless of any new migrants, St Helenians face health and education support challenges, and we are providing them with £7 million for that. We would also pay for the transport and subsistence of any new migrants, so we think this agreement is good for St Helena, which is why it has welcomed it so warmly.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, this is a substantial amount of money. Does the Minister agree with me that it could be much better spent on a comprehensive feasibility study of the practicalities of resettling the Chagossians on the outer islands? If that was successful and worked, surely the Sri Lankans currently on Diego Garcia could go to the outer islands.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord rightly says that £6.65 million is a lot of money, but I point out that the previous Government were spending £50 million every year on housing those migrants on Diego Garcia. We think that that is not an appropriate place for them to be, and we are going to work to make sure that they are more appropriately dealt with.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that Diego Garcia is not an appropriate place to house migrants; indeed, there were returns of Sri Lankans to Sri Lanka. But under the agreement, if people arrive during the 18-month period, what happens to those who are rejected for asylum after the processing takes place on St Helena? Secondly, will those who are entitled to claim asylum in St Helena be granted the same entry rights that St Helena’s residents are to enter the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is important to note that there would be no automatic right to entry rights or citizenship. It is for the Helenian Government to make a determination about anybody who arrives and facilitate their removal.
Lord Empey (UUP)
How will people be physically removed? How will they get to St Helena? Is accommodation being provided for them on St Helena on their arrival?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Again, we are not anticipating migrants arriving, and this is very much a contingency measure. But should that happen, transport would be provided and they would be accommodated, in line with all the obligations anyone would expect in terms of decency, far better on St Helena, where there is a civilian population and healthcare and education facilities. It is far better there than on BIOT, where no such facilities were available.
Criminal Justice System: Capacity
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for engaging with me in correspondence last week, in which he calmly set out his reasoning for the present policy proposal. I express my deep sympathy to him for having to respond to questions on a Statement from the other place that is heavy in hyperbole and very weak on reasoning.
What is particularly surprising is that by this morning, the Justice Secretary, who made the original Statement in the other place, was conceding in an interview that this is not a problem you can build yourself out of.
Where did this policy originate? The last Labour Government, while recognising the obvious link between sentencing and prison capacity, decided to advance a policy that relied on prison capacity being predicted and adjusted to accommodate sentencing policy, rather than sentencing policy taking account of prison capacity. The Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford described this “predict and provide” policy as flawed. The then president of the Prison Governors Association described the then Labour Government’s policy as
“an out-of-control demand met by the provision of little more than penal warehousing”.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, then chair of the prison policy group, described the policy as “simplistic”.
What did the then Labour Government do? They announced plans for the building of three titan prisons with massive capacity. What did they do next? They announced the abandonment of plans for three titan prisons with massive capacity and announced plans for the building of five new prisons. If we could find them all, we might utilise their capacity, but the fundamental issue here is not prison cells but penal policy. It is not only obvious but well established that if you increase sentencing powers, sentences increase. Magistrates, like science, cannot resist a vacuum. They will fill it. Increasing sentencing in the magistrates’ court may well relieve some pressure on the Crown Court, but it is liable to increase pressure on reception prisons and category C prisons.
What will that impact be? We have no impact assessment, but the means to carry out such an assessment are potentially available. During the pandemic, the sentencing powers of magistrates were temporarily increased from six to 12 months. It should be possible to correlate this with the impact on reception prisons and category C prisons. Why has that not been done?
I note the Government’s most recent decision, which is to appoint the former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke to carry out a review. I applaud their decision to call on his expertise and ability to properly inform them as to what they should do next.
I come on to the question of early release, which is connected to this proposal over sentencing. If the Government are to release more prisoners in the next few days, will they please try to release the right ones? Last time, they released dozens of prisoners who did not qualify for release and dozens of prisoners who had breached restraining orders and should never have qualified for early release. Of those who did qualify for early release, some were let out on licence without an electronic tag, which might have made it a little difficult to work out where they had gone.
In coming to a conclusion, I observe that the marrying up of social policy, penal policy, sentencing policy and prison capacity in the context of recidivism, extensive substance abuse, mental health issues and the requirements for care in the community and family support raises complex issues, particularly when the Treasury will rarely, if ever, invite the Ministry of Justice to the front of the spending queue. Those issues have to be addressed as a whole and, in my respectful view, they are not well served by a simplistic statement of blame, which was essentially what was delivered in the other place.
I conclude by thanking the Minister once again for his reasoned and calm engagement on this topic and I look forward to his response.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, gave us some interesting historical context, but I had expected an apology—or at least a guilty plea, with the plea in mitigation that he chose to leave the previous Government before the ceiling really started to fall in. They left an appalling situation: overflowing prisons, a huge backlog of untried cases, record numbers of remand prisoners, and victims seeing no outcome or closure to what they had suffered. This Government now have to deal with that, and they are running out of their few options to do so. I welcome their decision to have a fundamental review of sentencing policy and to invite David Gauke to carry it out. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord on that; he is a good choice and I wish him well in the task.
Why are we filling prisons with more offenders than any other western European country? Why are we failing to recognise that we are putting resources into a prison system that is institutionally ill equipped to do the kind of rehabilitative work that is clearly necessary? Unless we see a significant reduction in prisoner numbers, what hope is there that rehabilitation programmes can work in prisons?
With so few options available to them, it seems logical and sensible for the Government to make use of the available time of magistrates who are willing to sit on more serious cases, freeing up time in Crown Courts. However, last time, this was not found to be very effective; it led to an increase in the demand for prison places. The Lord Chancellor conceded in the Commons:
“That is what happened and what I expect to happen again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/24; col. 1011.]
It is not even a temporary solution. Do these plans overlook the possibility that some defendants will opt for a jury trial when they no longer have the incentive that magistrates can sentence them only to six months? That means longer sentences and larger prisoner numbers. Will special training be provided to magistrates to try to ensure that good use is made of them in cases dealing with more serious offences that require a longer sentence, but that the new powers do not simply inflate sentences that would otherwise have been given to potentially shorter-sentence prisoners?
The Lord Chancellor has said, and I agree with her, that
“people have to know and believe there are consequences to breaking our laws”.
This is not achieved when prisoners are released without completing their sentences or any serious regard to why they were imprisoned for a long period. Neither is it achieved by using a significant part of our resources in a prison system which is ill equipped, ill resourced and ill prepared to rehabilitate offenders. If this announcement buys the Government some time, can we have some reassurance that it will be used for fundamental change?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I will first address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and then turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.
On the noble Lord’s final point about buying time, that is the Government’s objective with SDS40; the standard determinate sentencing going from 50% down to 40% is indeed to buy time. As he will know, there was a Statement in the House of Commons today on a sentencing review, which we are very grateful that David Gauke has agreed to chair. That Statement will be repeated in this House in due course, so we can debate the issues raised in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked some specific questions, including whether increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months will incentivise defendants to opt for jury trial. In the brief interlude when that happened before, there was no statistical data to say that might be the case, so on that particular example we are confident that there will not be any appreciable increase in the number of defendants opting for a jury trial.
As far as training goes, there will be refresher training available to magistrates. When I was in opposition, I personally did the training for the increase in sentences. It was not that long ago, but if some magistrates feel they want the refresher training then it will be available to them.
The central point that the noble Lord made was about filling up prisons. As my noble friend Lord Timpson often reminds me, if you do nothing then the prison population will go up by 80 a week. That is the reason we are initiating this review of sentencing, which will get under way very quickly.
The closing remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, were much more acceptable than his opening remarks. In his closing remarks, he acknowledged the complexity of the situation, that there are many interacting factors in the situation we have arrived at today, and that there needs to be a multifaceted approach to try to turn the tide on the ever-increasing number of people we find in our prisons. I agree with the point he made in his closing remarks.
I think the noble and learned Lord might have been tweaking my nose with his other point. He said that magistrates cannot resist a vacuum, but he knows that that is absolutely not true. Magistrates sentence within the sentencing guidelines, as do district judges. The problem with magistrates and district judges is that they sentence quicker than Crown Courts, not that they sentence more harshly. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, is nodding her head, because she knows that what I have said is correct.
The overall objective of this announcement is to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers back from six to 12 months. I look forward to answering more questions from other noble Lords on that matter.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Could the Minister perhaps respond to my inquiry as to why no impact assessment was carried out, given that there is potentially data available from the previous period when magistrates’ sentencing powers were increased from six to 12 months? If this is going to be an interim measure of some relief, we ought to know whether it is going to provide that relief or exacerbate an otherwise very difficult situation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
This measure was unavailable to the previous Government, who had to reverse it because they ran the system so close to collapse. They left the backlog unaddressed and victims had to wait far too long for justice. The prediction is that we will see a slight increase in the overall prison population, but by bearing down on the remand population in our reception prisons we will create capacity where we need it most. However, I am confident that there is currently enough capacity in prisons to absorb the initial inflationary impact, and there is no evidence that magistrates send people to prison more or for longer. Because of how precarious the situation is, we believe that now is the right time to take this measure.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to Back-Bench questions, let me be absolutely clear that this is 20 minutes of questions—short, succinct and sharp questions—not speeches.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, last month, 37 prisoners were mistakenly released from prison under the early release scheme. One was charged with sexually assaulting a woman on the same day that he was released. Can the Minister please explain what evaluation is given and criteria used when deciding whether a prisoner is eligible to be released under the early release scheme?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. All prisoners who were released in error under the first tranche of releases are now back behind bars. I will write to her on her question but, broadly speaking, the criteria includes whether offences were sexual and violent or related to domestic abuse. I will write to her with the specific list; it is in my notes, but I am not sure that I can find it in proper time today.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I can see why increasing magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers may be necessary as a short-term measure to deal with the backlog of about 17,000 remand prisoners. However, will it not result in a great increase in the number of short sentences? We know that the reoffending rate for short sentences is around 50%, or even a bit more. Although it may be necessary as a short-term measure, how long will this last? If it lasts for too long, surely it will have a reverse effect and we will end up with the revolving-door syndrome that we have seen for short sentences over many years.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I do not agree with the premise of the noble Lord’s question. It is not right that we will see an increase in the number of short sentences. Certainly, in my experience as a sentencing magistrate who gave short sentences, I gave them only to those who were already on community orders or suspended sentences. I cannot remember giving a short sentence to somebody who had a previous good character.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about training? I understood him to say that it would be available to magistrates who feel that they need it. Is it not better that there should be some supervision to identify which magistrates really need training? When will the training be available?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
All magistrates were trained the first time these sentencing powers were put in place. Of course, there will be some new magistrates aboard and some who feel that they would like to retrain, so there will be online courses available either for refreshing or for magistrates who are relatively recently in post. The magistrates are regularly appraised—winger magistrates every four years and presiding magistrates every two years—so we can be confident that the standards are being kept up.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, before his death, the late Lord Ramsbotham regularly asked the same question of the Government: when will there be a royal commission on criminal justice? The mess in the prison system is highlighted by the Statement made the other day, but, as we know, there are nearly 70,000 cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court. Is it not time to stop applying sticking plasters and short-term measures, and instead have a proper look at how the whole system should work?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for her question. I very much remember the noble Lord regularly asking for a royal commission. The reality is that we feel that we have a big job of work to do on reviewing sentencing and then managing the whole prison population and estate, so that it stops increasing. That is where our focus is right now. I will take back the question of a royal commission to my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor, but, to be frank, I have not heard it spoken about in the time I have been in government.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support a smaller prison population, not just because there are not enough places for the people who have been sentenced but because there are too many people in prison. However, one of the consequences of releasing people early, at a quicker pace than one might have planned for, is that it will put more pressure on the police service. This Government made a manifesto pledge to increase the size of the police by around 4,000 officers, but we have not heard an awful lot about that since the Government took office.
Secondly, as has been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in passing, one of the measures for mitigating the recidivism of those who are released is tagging—normal tagging to determine where the person is and sobriety tagging, where alcohol is an aggravating factor, and now there is also drug tagging. Finally, the response to those tags when they are breached should go straight to the police, not to a private company to be emailed to the police to be dealt with some time later. Is the Minister able to respond to those points about resourcing?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I have just consulted with my noble friend Lord Timpson and I can reassure the noble Lord that we do have enough tags for the process which we are embarking on. I should also mention that both my noble friend Lord Timpson and I were fitted with a sobriety tag for a while to see whether it worked, and I can assure the noble Lord that it does work.
The noble Lord’s opening point was about more pressure on the police. That is right; there will be some more pressure on the police and also on the Probation Service and some social services such as housing. The philosophy underlying the Government’s SDS40 approach rather than the previous approach is planning down the whole pipeline, including people who will regrettably reoffend and how to deal with them. By managing this with a more planned approach, we hope and expect that we will reduce the chances of reoffending.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, can I refer the Minister to the recent quite appalling race riots that took place during the summer? I think everyone agrees that those involved in violence and incitement to violence, including online incitement to violence, deserved extremely harsh punishment. But the Minister will be aware that many of these people had no previous convictions and posed no immediate threat to the public and yet nearly all were remanded in custody, thus putting greater pressure on the Prison Service. Can the Minister comment on this point?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Of course, the matter of sentencing is for judges. My personal view is that the sentences I read about seemed entirely appropriate, but this is a matter for them. This was a particular situation where maybe the judges felt that even people who were of previous good character needed to be made an example of—but that was a matter for them.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Speaking as a former magistrate who worked in a young offender institution, I can say that short sentences clearly do not work. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it is preferable to have fewer people in prison, have the Government looked at the prison system in Holland? The Netherlands has managed to reduce its prison population significantly, such that it can even outsource prison spaces to other countries, but this depends on a lot of resources being put into the Probation Service and community sentences. Can the Minister respond?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with every word the noble Baroness has said. My noble friend Lord Timpson has just whispered in my ear that he has been to Holland, so we are looking at that very closely. The other point he made is that they use a lot of tagging in Holland, so that is another factor when we are looking at reviewing sentencing as a whole, although of course the sentencing review will look at adult sentencing and not at youth matters.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am worried about a public loss of confidence in the contradictions around sentencing. I think there was public disquiet about the high-profile case of a woman given a two-and-a-half-year sentence for a social media post, which the noble Lord has pointed out was possibly somebody being made an example of. Yet letting people out before their sentence is up for more serious crimes seems to contradict that. Also—dare I mention?—many IPP prisoners have served their tariff in prison. Will the Minister comment on whether some of those could be looked at to see whether, having done their time, they could be released earlier than their indefinite sentence? They have done their time for the crime they committed and yet they still languish in prison. It just does not seem to make any sense to the public.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. In a sense, she exemplifies the difficulty of the various matters we are grappling with when trying to address the overall problem of having this large number of people in prison at the same time as the riots were happening over the summer period. I acknowledge that that is a difficult situation. Regarding the IPP sentences, the Government have set up an IPP action plan which they are working at full speed on, and proposals will be coming forward in due course.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister described very well the process which he undertook when sentencing somebody, giving them a sentence of imprisonment only when other avenues had been properly explored. I was a recorder for some considerable time and that very much echoes my approach and, I suspect, the approach of most judges: a real reluctance to send people to prison unless there is no other alternative. However, during the last Labour Government, there was an enormous amount of legislation changing the sentencing powers of judges and magistrates—particularly judges—and not trusting the judges to make their own assessment of what the appropriate sentence was. When there is this review of the appropriate response to the prison crisis, can the Minister convey to his colleagues that it is not a good idea to fetter the discretion of a judge and prevent them coming to the right conclusion in the right case?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I think I can reassure the noble Lord. It is intended that we will have very senior former judges on the sentencing review, who I am sure will take to heart the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, this measure is intended, in part at least, to take pressure off the Crown Courts, but can the Minister say something about the pressure on magistrates? Is it the case that the number of magistrates fell by 50% over the decade to 2021 and has not yet got anywhere near that number? Can he say something about the backlog of cases at magistrates’ courts, too, please?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I became a magistrate just under 20 years ago and at that point there were 30,000 magistrates in England and Wales. There are now about 14,000 and we are trying to get the number back up to 18,000. So, I accept the point the noble Baroness made on that. The other point is that in the youth court, magistrates have powers to sentence up to two years—I was a youth magistrate as well. The change is important and significant, but it is not such a big step change that magistrates will not be able to handle it in any way. I am confident that they will be able to handle it, and the backlogs in the magistrates’ courts are nowhere near as bad as those in the Crown Court.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, may I seek some further clarification from the Minister? I asked him about remanding in custody and, having worked in the criminal justice system as a barrister, I am well aware that obviously the sentencing is up to the judges or magistrates. However, remanding in custody is not meant as a punishment; it is meant to protect the public.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Of course, I accept the point. The objective is not to change the number of people who are remanded in custody, because obviously that is a judicial decision, but to reduce the time those who are remanded in custody spend in custody. If we can do that through reducing the backlog, that will be a desirable effect. We think that some 2,000 days of Crown Court sittings could be saved by this change to the rules of magistrates’ sentencing powers.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Can the Minister assure us that the training of magistrates covers the circumstances in which it is right for somebody to be remanded in custody? Following the riots, suspicions were raised that some people were being remanded without true consideration of whether they justified that treatment. It is rather an important issue, and I hope that the training does cover it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I absolutely assure the noble and learned Lord that remanding in custody is covered in magistrate training. When I used to oversee new magistrates, I said to them on their first day in court that remanding in custody is the most difficult decision they will make, both on the first day and on the last day. It is consistently a difficult decision to make and one that magistrates and the judiciary, I am sure, are fully aware of and trained in.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
Can my noble friend the Minister give some reassurance that with the increased number of cases before magistrates, they will have increased resources to receive pre-sentencing reports from the Probation Service? That is so important, particularly for women with family responsibilities, before magistrates consider the sentence.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My noble friend raises a good point. There has certainly been increased resource in probation, and we are recruiting additional probation officers. That is going very well, but it takes time to train those probation officers. The other factor is an increased number of legal advisers, who are often the unsung heroes of our court system. Again, recruitment is going okay but they need time to gain the experience so that the system can be in equilibrium with these new sentencing powers.
Lord Lexden (Con)
In due course will the Government bring forward proposals to improve the way in which prisoners are rehabilitated?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
It is certainly our intention to do so. That underpins so much of what we are going to do. We are increasing the number of people in the Probation Service. Obviously, we want to increase the rehabilitation figures and reduce the reoffending figures. The spotlight will be on the Probation Service to try to deliver that objective.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, given the importance of employment in stopping reoffending, are there plans to increase the number of employers that will consider taking on ex-offenders? Will the Government provide any incentives for them to do so?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Timpson has just whispered in my ear “Employment advisory boards”, of which he was a leading light and which we intend to increase. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that if people can get gainful employment when they leave prison, they are far less likely to reoffend.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has already had a question about the rehabilitation of prisoners. A number of organisations are having quite good results in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Are the Government working with these organisations, and are they concerned with the lack of funding that many of these small organisations have? Could the Government outsource some of this work?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point, and of course we value the contribution that they make. We all know these organisations. I remember working very closely with them when we were in opposition, and we continue to work with them in government. Many of them bring real expertise to the table. We want to work collaboratively to achieve our overall goal of turning around the ever-increasing prison population we have seen over the last decades.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (18 Oct 2024)
Earl Russell
“Report on impact of this Act on the Sovereign GrantThe Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act and each subsequent year, lay before Parliament a report into the effect of this Act on the size of the Sovereign Grant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act on the size of the Sovereign Grant.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act on the size of the sovereign grant. I have tabled it as I feel that, as part of our consideration of the Crown Estate Bill, it is important to look at the direct link between the future planned growth of Crown Estate activities and the increase in profits that will result directly from the partnership with GB Energy, and the interlinked direct impact these changes will also have on the practical workings of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011.
The Sovereign Grant Act came into force on 1 April 2012 and changed the arrangements for funding Queen Elizabeth’s official duties. It consolidated four separate sources of funding into one new sovereign grant. The grant is intended to be a more permanent system than the previous one, which was reign specific. The sovereign grant is paid annually by His Majesty’s Treasury at a value indexed as a direct percentage of the revenues from the Crown Estate. It was initially set as an indexed percentage of 15%. The percentage is reviewed every five years by the royal trustees, made up of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. The level of the grant is protected by law from decreasing because of falling Crown Estate profits, as there were during the Covid pandemic. With annual accounts published by the Keeper of the Privy Purse and audited by the National Audit Office, the process promised to be more accountable. The level of the grant has risen in recent years to help fund, in part, a £369 million refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, which was approved by Parliament. After King Charles III’s accession to the Throne, the new King approved a statutory Order in Council to allow the existing sovereign grant provisions to continue throughout his reign.
This is all very well but, to come to the heart of the matter, my concern is the direct link between the profits that the Crown Estate makes and the calculation of the amount of the sovereign grant going forward. My request is that the direct link is discussed today, and I call on the Government to consider amending it. My amendment calling for an annual review was the closest wording I was able to table on this matter.
There is a world of difference between the direct binary link that we have now, where a set percentage of the Crown Estate’s revenues is used as the only calculation basis in determining the size of the sovereign grant, and the system that I would prefer, where the Government pay due regard to the Crown Estate’s revenues as part of the process of determining the size of the sovereign grant.
I have five areas of concern about the future of these arrangements after this Bill passes. First, my personal feeling is that the present calculation is somewhat obtuse and that the Sovereign Grant Act is not a particularly helpful or appropriate way of determining how, and at what level, we fund the Royal Family. The trouble with all this is that the attempt to link royal funding to the profits of the Crown Estate is a conjurer’s trick; it is an accounting sleight of hand. The two are not related at all. The Crown Estate’s profits are, and always have been, government funds.
I am not here to have a conversation about the role, purpose or future of the Royal Family; I am not anti-monarchy. Nor do I wish to discuss the appropriate levels of funding, as none of this is relevant to the Bill. Before us is a Bill that will see the Crown Estate allowed to borrow from the Treasury, subject to approval, and if all goes well this will result in rapid investment in, and growth at, the core of the Crown Estate’s business, that of leasing seabed plots for offshore floating and offshore wind developments. When the Crown Estate is at the heart of a rapid green energy revolution, and the sovereign grant is calculated as a percentage of revenue profits and reviewed only every five years, it is only sensible for us to take a moment to examine the potential impacts that this rapid growth will have on the calculation of the grant.
My second concern is that this rapid and exceptional period of Crown Estate growth was not foreseen when the 2011 grant Act was passed, and this makes future calculations more difficult.
Thirdly, I am worried that it may potentially put the King personally in a difficult position. Your Lordships should note that, in January 2023, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, speaking on behalf of the King, asked the Government to reduce the percentage used to calculate the sovereign grant so that the total did not include the income from new offshore wind leases, calculated to be worth £1 billion annually to the Crown Estate. The request was made by the King, out of his desire that the money described as a “windfall” could be best used for “wider public good” instead of funding the Royal Family during a cost of living crisis, which he had referred to only weeks earlier. In July last year, with further Crown Estate profits, the Government announced that the grant would be changed to 12% in the following year, down from 25%, while maintaining the same level payable.
It is my understanding that a further reduction is planned to come in through primary legislation following 2026-27. In the words of the Report of the Royal Trustees on the Sovereign Grant Review 2023,
“The Crown Estate’s Net Revenue Profits are expected to increase significantly in future years”.
The trustees’ projected figures show an increase from £442 million in 2022-23 to £1.05 billion in 2024-25. With predicted exceptional linear growth forecast for the foreseeable future, will we see newspaper headlines every year to the effect of “Exceptional growth in Crown Estate’s green energy brings huge profits to the King: the King kindly wishes that these are used for the public good”?
My fourth point is that the five-year review is inadequate in this period of exceptional continuous growth. I call on the Government to amend the 2011 Act to make the review annual.
My fifth and final point relates to what is a complex and confusing system that is not only poorly publicly understood but a hostage to fortune. The system is ripe for exploitation by those who are either against the energy transition, are supportive of the old energy architecture or simply wish to use the politicisation of the energy transition to spread disinformation and propaganda. This is my biggest worry. From the challenges to well-established basic climate science to deliberate attempts to undermine the transition to heat pumps and electric vehicles to miscalculations of costs, propaganda is, sadly, ever present. A system that can all too easily be used to link the green energy transition to extra funding to the Royal Family is ripe to be manipulated by those who wish to argue that the green transition will cost you more because all the benefits are funding the Royal Family. A highly effective government communications strategy that works in partnership, wins hearts and minds, extols the benefits and lower bills is essential to support the transition, and this link does not help with that.
The move to green energy and the financial support received by the Royal Family are uneasy bedfellows. I foresee this as an opportunity that will be exploited by those aimed against the transition. My humble opinion is that the calculation of the sovereign grant as a direct percentage of Crown Estate profits represents a weakness in the system that leaves us vulnerable to interference as we transition our power generation. My wish is simply that this Government consider amending the direct nature of this link and conduct an annual review of the sovereign grant during this period of rapid growth. My amendment is here simply to allow this conversation to take place. I look forward to hearing the opinion of your Lordships and the Minister’s response on these issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on this group. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not in this place and so was unable to speak to his amendment. I understand why the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tabled his amendment, and I am grateful to him for his exposition of the background to it. On these Benches, we recognise the unusual role that the Crown Estate has in the stewardship of the assets held in the right of the Crown. We recognise, too, that the revenues from the assets do not belong to the sovereign, nor is any part of them payable directly to the monarch.
The issue here is one of communication. It must be—it is absolutely essential—that there be no perception of any direct financial link between the sovereign and any amounts received under the sovereign grant and the amount of revenue generated by the Crown Estate. Upon the announcement of the partnership with GB Energy, there was a perception from some of the more excitable end of the media that the sovereign was somehow party to, and specifically approving of, the arrangement. I encourage the Minister and commissioners of the Crown Estate to ensure that information in the public domain about the operation of the Crown Estate, but also any further partnerships that may come down the track, cannot possibly suggest any direct involvement from the sovereign and, therefore, that there should be no undue benefit accrued.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and I will seek to address some of the points that he has raised. This amendment would require the Government, within one year of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, to lay before Parliament a report into the effect of this Act on the size of the sovereign grant. The Government agree that it is important that there is transparency in how the sovereign grant is affected by changes in Crown Estate profits. Indeed, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 includes a number of requirements that provide for regular effective review and reporting to Parliament.
As the noble Earl observed, under the Act, the grant for each financial year is set by reference to the profits of the Crown Estate. In broad terms, under Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act it is currently the higher of 12% of the Crown Estate profits two years previously or the previous year’s grant. For example, the level of the grant for 2025-26 will be set at 12% of the profits the Crown Estate reported in its annual accounts for 2022-23, published in July.
Section 7 of the Sovereign Grant Act provides for regular reviews of the percentage used in calculation of the grant to ensure the grant remains at an appropriate level. These reviews are conducted by the three royal trustees—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. The trustees must lay a copy of the report of their review before Parliament. The last review concluded in July last year and concluded that the reference rate should be reduced from 25% to 12%, reflecting an expected increase in the Crown Estate’s profits. The next review will commence in 2026, with a view to making any change to the grant calculation for 2027-28 onwards. As with previous reviews, it will consider both the future funding needs of the Royal Household and the likely future path of Crown Estate profits—including, of course, the effect of the Crown Estate Bill that we are debating today on those profits—to determine the appropriate percentage to use.
I should note in this context that the grant for 2026-27 will include the final tranche of funding for the current 10-year programme of reservicing of Buckingham Palace’s infrastructure. The percentage for 2027-28 onwards will therefore need to reflect the significant downward adjustment to the household’s funding requirements. The Sovereign Grant Act currently restricts the level of the grant itself being reduced from one year to the next. That provision was written into the Sovereign Grant Act to reflect the view that many of the duties of the Head of State cannot be abruptly stopped, and therefore it would not be appropriate to significantly reduce funding in response to a sudden drop in Crown Estate profits. That will, however, constrain the ability to reduce the grant by the likely appropriate amount once the reservicing of Buckingham Palace is complete. In 2016, when the previous Government agreed to provide funding for the resurfacing programme, they noted an intention to bring forward legislation to reset the level of the sovereign grant to an appropriate level once the reservicing works have been completed. I can confirm that it is also the intention of this Government.
Those statutory reviews therefore provide Parliament with a report of the impact of this Bill on the sovereign grant. They also provide a mechanism to ensure that additional Crown Estate profits do not lead to excessive funding for the Royal Household. Where that is not possible under the Sovereign Grant Act, the Government will legislate accordingly.
On reporting requirements, the Sovereign Grant Act also requires two further reports on the grant to be produced and laid before Parliament each year. First, Section 5 requires the royal trustees to produce a report annually stating the level of the grant for the following financial year and how that has been determined in line with a prescribed method set out in Section 6 of the Act. This report must be laid before Parliament. Secondly, Section 2 requires the Keeper of the Privy Purse to produce annual accounts relating to the Royal Household, including the use of the sovereign grant. In common with other central government bodies, the accounts are prepared in accordance with an accounts direction issued by the Treasury, audited by the National Audit Office and laid in Parliament. The Crown Estate Act 1961 also contains a requirement for the Crown Estate to produce an annual report and accounts.
The Government therefore agree that it is important that there is regular reporting to Parliament on how the changes in this Bill will impact the sovereign grant. As I have detailed, there is already a considerable set of statutory requirements in this respect and beyond.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comments. I appreciate that there is information of which the Government are aware from the reports that come to Parliament on this. Some of my questions might have been answered had I had sight of the business case, so I look forward to that being published.
The only slightly outstanding issue for me is about our communications strategy around the green revolution, making sure that the Government are communicating properly and taking the public with them. I still worry that there is a bit of confusion between us. I will withdraw my amendment and thank the Minister for his response, which I will go away and consider.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“Salmon farms on the Crown EstateAfter section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—“3A Salmon farms on the Crown Estate(1) In carrying out their functions under this Act, the Commissioners must assess the—(a) environmental impact, and(b) animal welfare standardsof salmon farms on the Crown Estate.(2) If the assessment under subsection (1) determines that a salmon farm—(a) is causing environmental damage, or(b) has significant animal welfare issues,then they must revoke the licence for the farm in question.(3) The Commissioners must assess the potential—(a) environmental impact, and(b) animal welfare standardsof applications for licences for salmon farms on the Crown Estate.(4) If the assessment under subsection (3) determines that an application for a licence for a salmon farm—(a) may cause environmental damage, or(b) raises significant animal welfare concerns,then they must refuse the application.””
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move this very modest and uncontroversial amendment, which would place a duty on the Crown Estate, in carrying out its functions under the Bill, to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If an assessment determines that a salmon farm is causing environmental damage or significant animal welfare issues, it must revoke the licence for the farm in question. If assessments of the potential environmental impact and animal welfare standards of applications for salmon farms on the Crown Estate determine that they may cause environmental damage or raise significant animal welfare issues of concern, the Crown Estate must refuse these applications. Who could be against that, except people running salmon farms that do not meet those conditions?
I should begin by declaring an interest. I am a fisherman and my family own one week on the River Tay. I confess that I am absolutely bewitched by the glory of Atlantic salmon, which are now considered an endangered species alongside mountain gorillas and Siberian tigers. This is a really serious issue.
The Crown Estate commissioners on both sides of the border—I regret that the Bill does not cover the commissioners’ activities north of the border because of devolution, but I am sure that if England sets the standard then others will follow—have a responsibility to protect the seabed, which was owned by the Crown and has been vested in the Crown commissioners for centuries. The monarch is not involved, but the commissioners should have a clear duty to protect the environment and nurture the ocean’s wildlife, particularly given the commitment to those ideals of members of the Royal Family, in whose name they act.
I shall concentrate on the impact of farming Atlantic salmon, which has to be licensed by the Crown Estate. There are farming interests that have very high standards, but a wide variation of standards has been applied to salmon farming across the globe. All over the world, salmon farming has resulted in environmental damage to wild fish populations and threatened other species as a result of varying practices.
Salmon are often concentrated in large numbers in open-net cages and flushed with chemicals and antibiotics to combat disease and lice—lice that literally eat the fish alive if not treated. The death rate in the cages is appalling and would never be allowed for conventional farming. Some 20 to 40% of those salmon die and are dumped. Imagine what people would say if they were going past fields of cows or sheep and finding those sorts of casualty levels—there would be an outcry. But of course all this is unseen because it is below the surface of the water.
The list of various toxic chemicals that have been used to tackle lice includes organophosphates, which are highly dangerous, as we were often reminded by a former Member of this House. Other chemicals work by dissolving the bodies of the lice on the salmon, which are crustaceans. That results in the chemicals leaching into the sea and may very well explain why fishermen then start catching lobsters and crabs with half their shells dissolved. I urge anyone listening to this debate to look on YouTube at the horrific condition of salmon in some of these cages as a result of uncontrolled sea life predation. It is a horror movie that is widely available and very easily seen.
The feed that these salmon are given is fishmeal pellets, to which further chemicals are added, including in some cases dioxins and PCBs. These are all controlled, but to present this as a sustainable environmentally-friendly product stretches credibility. Other chemicals are included in the feed in order to change the colour of the flesh. If you are a supermarket, rather like when you want to paint your house, you can get a colour code and choose in which shade of orange or red you would like the fish on your shelves to appear—perhaps, as a result, misleading the customers as to what it is they are buying.
The importance of ensuring effective regulation and best practice hardly needs emphasising. The supply of pellets demands catching gargantuan quantities of small fish. Estimates vary, but those that I have seen are that between 3 and 5 kilograms of anchovies, sardines and other small pelagic fish are needed to produce just 1 kilogram of farmed salmon. That is a ratio, if you are being kind, of 3:1. To describe this as a sustainable business beggars belief. The scale is such that whole fishing communities have lost their livelihoods in west Africa, where the fish are taken by large vessels and turned into fishmeal, creating a lack of employment for local fishermen and a collapse in local economies.
There is also irreversible damage being done to the seabed as fish faeces, chemicals and uneaten food fall through the cages. All that lands on the seabed, creating a disgusting, vile brew on an industrial scale. There are vast numbers of fish. Even in a small tank there will be 20,000 salmon, with up to 90,000 in the larger cages.
Such high concentrations of salmon produce high concentrations of lice. These swarms of lice attach themselves to wild, migrating salmon, with fatal results. Escapees bring diseases to the wild population and whole rivers have been cleaned out of wild fish. Diseases include ISA—infectious salmon anaemia—and bacterial kidney disease. ISA is like AIDS for salmon but without any possible cure. There are many examples of how these viruses have been transmitted. In California, believe it or not, Atlantic salmon were being farmed using eggs transported from Norway. Those eggs contained the virus, which then took out the local population of Pacific salmon.
Some in the industry are in denial. The truth is that, when the salmon farms arrive, it seems that the wild population crashes. Examples include the loss of the sea trout runs on the Scottish west coast and the once-great salmon rivers in Norway. In British Columbia, on the Broughton archipelago, the wild pink salmon population was reduced by 80% by sea lice that came from fish farming. In Chile, ISA—that virus I have just spoken of—resulted in the collapse of the entire industry. Iceland saw huge protests, with about 1% of the population turning up to protest outside the Parliament about the possibility of fish farms being allowed to continue.
Wild fish interbreed, diluting the gene pool and reducing the ability of the progeny to make migratory journeys. This ability has been honed over hundreds of thousands of years by fish that are genetically unique to each river. They are breeding with the salmon from the farms. They are described as “Scottish salmon”. They are no more Scottish salmon than anything else. They are based on Norwegian salmon and are genetically modified to grow quickly. They are a million miles away in terms of their gene pool and structure from the fish that operate in the rivers of Scotland, each of which has a unique genetic identity and as a result is equipped to be able to run the river to spawn and to go out to sea and return after one or three years. If those fish interbreed with this alien species, the result is progeny incapable of making that journey and therefore the destruction of the population in the rivers concerned. And by the way, on the numbers escaping, in Loch Melfort in Scotland 48,000 fish escaped, dwarfing the wild population.
There is a growing realisation around the world of the environmental damage being caused. This is resulting in complete bans on fish farms. Alaska has had a ban since 1990. Argentina has introduced a ban. California has introduced a ban in state waters. In British Columbia, the plan is to phase out open-net farms by 2025 and move to closed systems.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth and have signed Amendment 37. We have now got to the stage of the debate where this amendment has been grouped with Amendments 37F and 37G from my noble friends Lord Leicester and Lord Douglas-Miller.
This is a really interesting debate, because much of what this involves is in Scotland. Of course, there are aspects of this which are devolved. It might be tempting for the Minister to say that it is nothing to do with him, but I think that would be unwise and unhelpful. I hope that the Minister is not tempted to do that, because Clause 3(1) states:
“This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
It would be helpful to know what discussions, if any, have taken place between the Minister’s department and Scotland Office Ministers about the kinds of issues that have been raised so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I say “eloquently” but I mean vividly as well and, in some cases, very movingly, too.
I am not one of those who has always been implacably opposed to salmon farms around Scotland. What I very much oppose is what my noble friend described and has described in his amendment as lowering “environmental impact” and lowering “animal welfare standards”. It must be in all our interests to ensure that these salmon farms, which provide so much economic activity in relatively marginal areas, should also be run in such a way that we can all be proud of what they are doing.
I look forward particularly to the speech on aquaculture that my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller will make in a few moments, and that of my noble friend Lord Leicester on offshore energy installations and generation. In the meantime, I do not know whether the Minister will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment—it would be great if he could—but what I suspect is more likely, and what I would like him to do, is to give a very positive encouragement to this amendment so that perhaps at a later stage the Government might come forward with their own amendment to put right what is clearly a wrong.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I am supportive of the Bill’s objective to enable the Crown Estate to continue to fulfil its core duty of maintaining and enhancing its value.
Amendment 37, as introduced so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and to which I have added my name, is a massive improvement to the Bill. I also agree with what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in his impressive speech. I suspect that the main purpose of the Bill in the minds of its drafters was to ensure that the Crown Estate should continue to focus on activities which align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth, as the Explanatory Notes make clear. Indeed, the Bill specifically mentions its role as an enabler of offshore wind power generation.
Offshore wind power generation has a part to play in our energy mix, but it may receive too much emphasis as most offshore wind projects produce electricity too far away from where it is needed, and the costs of transmission and storage are often opaque. I would like to see more emphasis on small and so-called advanced nuclear reactors, which can be sited adjacent to data centres and industrial clusters where the energy is actually needed.
It would appear that the Government have introduced this legislation with only one major objective: to encourage and enable the Crown Estate to build more offshore wind farms. This is also evidenced by the announcement of the partnership with Great British Energy. I look forward to learning more about how GBE will operate; there are still relatively few details available. However, it is important in legislating to increase commercial activity in the seabed around our shores that restrictions must be placed on the development of salmon farms in England and Wales, especially given the damaging effects on nature and the environment resulting from salmon farms operated in coastal waters and sea lochs in Scotland. I declare an interest in that I fish in England on the River Tamar, as well as on the Rivers Laggan and Sorn on the Scottish island of Islay. We do not want to see the depleted populations of salmon migrating to English and Welsh rivers exposed to the additional threats posed by salmon farms.
Just over a month ago, my noble friend Lord Forsyth asked in Grand Committee what steps the Government were taking to protect wild salmon populations. I confess to having been underwhelmed by the reply to the debate given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, especially on two points: the need to monitor more strictly the harmful activities of some salmon farms, and the quite ridiculous restrictions placed on river-keepers’ ability to control stocks of predators such as cormorants. She noted that some predators are themselves protected so we had to be
“careful about how and when such predators can be managed”.—[Official Report, 12/9/24; cols. GC 170-171.]
I think that the noble Baroness is unaware that the cormorant population has increased from some 2,000 in the 1980s to over 62,000 today. Each bird requires over a pound of fish a day; why are they still protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? Why does the EU still protect them under the birds directive? Does the Minister know how many gamekeepers are employed by the Crown Estate and how many cormorants they are licensed to shoot each year?
In replying to the debate last month, the noble Baroness the Minister said that the Government recognised the need for higher standards to be maintained in fish farms. The problems of excessive sea lice escaping fish possessing a very different genetic make-up and a very different DNA construct compared with indigenous fish were raised by several noble Lords in that debate, and spoken to especially powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forsyth just now. What discussions has the Minister had with the Crown Estate about fish farms and about moving to more sustainable methods of farming salmon, especially land-based farms, which are completely isolated from the endangered wild salmon population? As my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Strathclyde have already said, this amendment would very much improve the Bill.
It is fortunate that, until now, English river systems have been, I believe, free of open-net fish farms, but I worry that the encouragement, implicit in the Bill, for the Crown Estate to increase commercial activity might change that—and I believe that this amendment is therefore absolutely necessary. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—words that I never thought I would hear myself speak. I was unable to attend the Second Reading but my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle did attend. After the previous day in Committee, I was approached by four different Conservative Peers who complained that a Green had not spoken on that day. One of those Peers was the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who has consistently, over the 11 years I have been here, complained that Greens speak too much. I hope to hear him express his gratitude today to hear a Green speak.
I support the amendment because, although I am highly suspicious of Conservatives and their environmental credentials, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is absolutely genuine in his care for salmon—and I support that completely. This is a very sensible amendment, and I cannot see any reason for the Labour Government not to accept it, so I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why they will not.
These issues of environmental impact and animal welfare standards should be an overarching staple of any check on any Bill or policy that the Labour Government bring forward. I am afraid that these days I have my doubts about the Labour Government’s environmental credentials. We have seen some horrific decisions already in the first 100 days, or three months, so I sincerely hope that the Labour Government will accept this quite simple but, I think, very necessary amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I too rise in support of the very modest amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Woe betide any Government who fail to accept an amendment tabled by four such eminent Peers as the movers of this amendment. I hope that the Government will recognise that this very modest amendment is worthy of significant support.
I say that it is modest because internationally, as has been pointed out by my noble friend, salmon farms are banned in multiple countries—not only the countries that he has mentioned but Denmark and Australia, to name two more. The practices that have led to these bans differ. Some are concerned that, with thousands of fish in each pen, salmon farms can act as a breeding ground for diseases and pests, which is undoubtedly the case, particularly with sea lice. Almost half the salmon in Scottish salmon farms are said to be infested with the common salmon louse. The consequences of that were made very clear by my noble friend in his opening speech.
There is another reason. In Argentina the main concern was that a provincial government voted to ban intensive salmon fishing after campaigners successfully argued that it would wreak environmental havoc, close down local fishing fleets and threaten the nature tourism established there.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I also support my noble friend, who recently sponsored an important debate in the Moses Room on this very subject. I inform noble Lords, if they had not spotted it already, that this is a very modest measure. It is not instructing the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or the local planning authority; it is simply instructing the commissioners of the Crown Estate and asking them to be more responsible in terms of outlook to the environment and, in particular, to the obvious evidence that is accumulating about the damage being done to salmon and sea-trout.
I want to reinforce what I hope the Minister is going to say by giving him what I think it is the really important example of the River Lochy on the west coast of Scotland near Fort William. That was once a very important salmon river with a prolific angling catch of well over 1,500. It has gone downhill quite catastrophically: the numbers have decreased; the number of staff employed as ghillies on the river has gone right down; and the impact of tourism on the economy has been very badly affected.
About seven years ago, the two fish farms in Loch Linnhe were both fallowed for a year. The following year, the number of grilse coming into the river went up very sharply and the angling catch went up by a factor of three and a half. That seems to me to be quite compelling and overwhelming evidence of the damage that is being done, which my noble friend described so eloquently. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment because it is a modest amendment and, as I say, it is not actually affecting any government or local government organisation; it is simply affecting the commissioners and giving them this extra duty. I support my noble friend.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I declare interests as a trustee of the Burnham Overy Harbour Trust and president of the Wells-next-the-Sea RNLI station—I say that only because they both go out to sea. I apologise that I was not here at Second Reading on 2 September; I was in the Netherlands on business also relating to the environment. Like my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I agree that the main purpose of the Bill is to allow the Crown Estate to borrow and leverage against its assets and manage them in a way becoming of the 21st century.
I am astounded that the Crown Estate is not required to undertake the same level of environmental impact assessment that we do on the mainland. Amendment 37F is incredibly straightforward. It seeks to install in law a requirement for the Crown Estate to undertake an EIA, just like any other business on the mainland planning to undertake large-scale engineering works.
In preparation for this amendment, I spoke to a number of people in my local community on the coast of North Norfolk: Andy Frary of the Wells & District Inshore Fishermen’s Association; Bob Smith, the Wells-next-the-Sea harbourmaster; Leo Hambro, founder of Tidal Transit; and Professor Jenny Gill of the School of Biological Sciences at UEA—she is not really in my community any more, because she has just moved to Fife.
As the harbourmaster and I discussed, obviously the Crown Estate wants the rent, but this EIA needs to be rather more rigorous. If we insist that the Crown Estate will be required to undertake detailed environmental impact assessments, who will monitor that? Will it be the MMO? Bob Smith’s view is that the MMO is vastly removed from the coalfaces; it gives out the licences but has inexperienced staff and does not really understand local communities.
The fishermen I spoke to, the harbourmaster and I are very much for wind farms out to sea. We have marine protected areas and, ironically, once a wind farm is established, it becomes a sort of natural marine protected area. Rock armour is placed around the base of the wind turbines to protect them from big tides and scarring, et cetera. It then quickly attracts crustaceans—lobsters and crabs—and fish and there is a 50-metre “no fishing” rule for fishermen, who cannot get close to them. It is almost a sanctuary for all these crustacea. As they develop and thrive, they move out and the fishermen can then catch them.
There was also concern that giving licences to different companies for different wind farms was rather disjointed; they should be liaising on where their cables can come together out to sea so that they hit the land in one place. That has happened to an extent in North Norfolk, where they come ashore at Weybourne.
Professor Jenny Gill looks at this from an environmental point of view. The location of these wind farms is the most important thing. We need to avoid putting them where birds are—they are easier to monitor than fish and sea mammals. The concern is bird strike out to sea. Organisations such as the BTO and the RSPB have done a lot of work on flight heights of migratory birds and sea birds in relation to rotor speed and on whether bird strike is a big threat. Bob Smith surveys boats going out from Wells-next-the-Sea; maybe they are lucky and the wind farm they have been surveying is in the right place, but they come back and say, “We saw four birds today”. That damage is not happening.
In seeking this EIA, I am encouraging the Government to involve nature conservation organisations at an early stage so that they can be part of the planning process. Professor Gill mentioned that this is getting quite complicated. Beth Scott, professor in marine ecology at Aberdeen University, has worked on how tides work in open sea and form around tidal nodes and on whether putting static turbines on the ground changes the way tides work and the spatial way in which they move.
The big thing is making the planning process more transparent and getting conservation organisations at the table. They do not want to be adversarial; they are all at the green end of the scale and want to see a lot more of this renewable energy.
I had a very interesting conversation with Leo Hambro, of Tidal Transit. He operates crew transfer boats. I talked to him about the construction phase of these wind farms. He said that there have been improvements of late, in the last few years, including air bubble rings that are placed around the piling system which let out bubbles to reduce the sonic boom—which of course carries a long way underwater—therefore, we hope, mitigating damage to mammals. However, that has happened only recently.
When trenching, that is done either through some sort of underground machine that pulls a plough through the sand or, more often, through a large ship pulling a plough which turns over a trench a metre deep, into which the big cable is placed and then sand is placed back over it. If necessary, a few more rocks are placed on top of it. However, there really ought to be an EIA to decide which route these cables take. I suspect they probably take the shortest and cheapest route, but do they avoid mussel lays? They must avoid sunken ships, but off the coast of north Norfolk, in Cromer, we have a very important chalk reef, and it is important that that is protected.
To go back to crew transfer boats, Leo Hambro has seven of them. In fact, there are 200 around the UK and 700 around the world. Some 80% of them are in the UK and Europe because of the large-scale wind farms we have out to sea. To explain, these boats go out every day and take engineers to maintain and man the wind farms. The average stat for the industry is to use 1,500 litres of red diesel a day. In reality, he said they could use 2,500 to 4,000 litres a day, particularly if they are servicing a wind farm which is 45 miles away. He has to service East Anglia ONE from Lowestoft. These boats are going at 20 knots, so they are burning a lot of diesel.
It is not the case that when they get out there they switch their engines off. They have to spend up to two hours pushing against the turbine to make a safe platform for workers, transferring kit on and off the boat, et cetera. When they are then waiting for another three hours or so for the engineers to do their work, they have to stand off, but they do not drop an anchor and switch off; they have to run their engines to maintain generators and such on-board.
Leo Hambro is operating boats out of Wick, Grimsby, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. An interesting point to which I hope the Minister pays attention is that one of his boats is being converted to run on pure electric. That is being done in Great Yarmouth and should be ready for May 2025, thanks to DfT UK SHORE funding. It also includes offshore and onshore charging infrastructure, which I will come to in a second. The reason I mention these boats is that, for 200 boats using 2,500 litres of red diesel a day on average, five days a week, 50 days a year, that is 125 million litres of diesel.
That takes me to exhausts. AdBlue is added to the exhaust to reduce toxins, including nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide, and diesel particulates. AdBlue is made of synthetic ammonia—
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My apologies—this is it. AdBlue is not made from green ammonia. All these marine exhausts omit their fumes below the water to keep the exhausts cool. AdBlue is depositing heavy metal poisoning into the sea. I will stop there.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the amendment standing in my own name, I support my noble friend Lord Leicester in his amendment. I would add to it the requirement of the offshore wind industry to provide adequate funding to research and understand the cumulative impact of all these offshore wind developments on migratory birds and fish. By way of comparison, what we now understand with aquaculture is that one farm on its own makes no material difference to the wider environment. The problem is that the cumulative impact of all these developments is devastating.
Most regrettably, the aquaculture industry has no obligation to pay towards monitoring this impact on the environment or on wild salmon and other species, with the burden of proof left to the NGO and charitable sector to fund the science that demonstrates the terrible impact that aquaculture is having. Let us not repeat this disastrous situation again with offshore renewables. It should be a cost of business and a licence requirement for the offshore wind industry to fund independent, ongoing research into the impacts of individual and cumulative sites on migratory birds and fish, with the results of this work directly influencing future developments.
On the amendment standing in my name, I declare my interests as set out in the register and draw attention to my roles as a trustee of the Kyle of Sutherland District Salmon Fisheries Board, as the past chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and as the proprietor of two salmon rivers in Scotland.
I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who spoke so passionately about the issues of aquaculture. During a recent Question for Short Debate tabled by my noble friend on the parlous state of the UK’s salmon stock, many noble Lords raised serious questions about the impact that aquaculture, and in particular open-cage salmon farming, was having on salmon stocks and the wider environment. This is becoming a worrying theme. We have all seen the harrowing pictures of malformed and diseased farmed salmon held in very questionable conditions by bad operators in this industry.
What is much harder to see is the impact that the cumulative size of this industry is having on our wild salmon and the wider environment. However, any objective review of the science leads to the conclusion that there are a number of serious negative impacts from this industry. The three most serious are: first, the catastrophic impact of elevated sea lice numbers caused by a direct result of intensive open-cage salmon farming on juvenile wild salmon survival; secondly, the impact of intensive salmon farming on animal husbandry standards for fish kept in open-net cages in such density and the subsequent cross-contamination of numerous diseases from farmed to wild fish; and, thirdly, the impact of genetic introgression from genetically modified farmed salmon escapees interbreeding with wild salmon populations, rendering them unfit to survive the rigours of the natural world. These are serious issues that are having a profound long-term negative impact on the natural environment and on wild salmon stocks specifically.
Why is this relevant to the Crown Estate Bill? In simple terms, salmon farmers are there only because they get a licence from the Crown Estate. Without a Crown Estate licence, they would have no right to be there, and the cumulative impact of the industry, and the bad operators among them, would not be causing the levels of environmental damage and animal suffering that they are. Given the nature of this monopoly, it is surely right that the Crown Estate commissioners are enabled through the Bill to hold to account those to whom they have granted a licence, and that they themselves are held accountable for the outcomes that they enable. Without these amendments, the Crown Estate commissioners are unable to fulfil their duty of care to others with whom they share the coastal space to ensure that they are not adversely impacted. They are unable to prevent the negative animal welfare issues from continuing; unable to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on other species that live in this precious ecosystem; and unable to ensure that the wider environment is not damaged by the bad operators to whom they have granted a licence to operate.
These amendments seek to give the public and the environment a practical and sensible level of protection against malpractice and environmental damage, by giving those who enable these fish farm operators—namely, the Crown Estate—the tools to manage the cumulative impact and to remove the bad operators. They will also give the Government the power to hold the Crown Estate commissioners to account to ensure that they do this. We have all seen the devastating impact that can occur if we fail to hold those in a monopolistic position to account in areas such as sewage discharge, so let us not repeat the same mistakes here.
As it stands, the Crown Estate has no ability to influence or remove bad operators in the aquaculture industry to whom it has issued a licence. Crucially, the Government have no ability to hold the Crown Estate commissioners to account for any negative outcomes arising from the issuing of these licences. It is simply not right that the organisation that is in the sole position to enable an entire industry—and, incidentally, to make tens of millions of pounds from issuing these licences—can have no influence over, or responsibility for, any negative outcomes from its actions.
The simple measure of requiring the Crown Estate commissioners to report annually on the impact of aquaculture on the environment and animal welfare standards—and enabling and compelling them to remove licences from those operators that fall short of the required standards—must surely be a desirable and fair outcome for everyone. It would significantly reduce any negative impact on the environment and help to improve animal welfare standards. These amendments have substantial cross-party support, and I hope that the Government will accept them as improving the Crown Estate Bill.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments. I was not sure which one most suited the comments I wished to make, but I think it is probably Amendment 37F in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.
At the heart of all three amendments is a question about the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic activity that we wish to undertake, quite properly, and, on the other, the environmental and natural consequences that may take place. It is about the right balance between what we seek to do economically and what we seek to protect environmentally. I will speak to that general point.
Taking my lead from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I should declare my interests. I too am an angler, although I do not get to spend nearly enough time on the river, and I also happen to own the river, which is rather nice. I am chairman of the Caithness District Salmon Fishery Board, which is currently very involved with Crown Estate Scotland on various issues. I may also be—I hope—the beneficiary of a number of renewable projects. I have every sort of interest that you could possibly have; I think that they are broadly covered by my register, but I thought that I had better spell them out.
As I said, the heart of the three amendments is about seeking to ensure that, when we set out to undertake an economic activity of any kind—and this is absolutely what happens on land—we make a proper and full assessment of what the impact is likely to be on the environment that we are putting that economic activity into. That includes the flora, fauna, fungi and everything else that you might find there.
I want to give one quick example; it is in Scotland but I think it is relevant. We on the north coast have four rivers which are all in very good health. On the Thurso we electrofish every year and for some years now we have known that you cannot get any more juveniles into the river, it is in that good order. So, at a time when most of Scotland has salmon stocks that are endangered, as the noble Lord pointed out in introducing his amendment, we have the one bit of Scotland that actually is in good order and producing good salmon—and long may that last.
The west of Shetland wind farm, which is going to go ahead in the not-too-distant future, and which I support as a piece of offshore energy, may have a problem for us in the fishing world, and that is that we do not know where our smolts go. When the salmon grow in the river, they come to a point where they smoltify and they take to the sea and off they go. They are then called “smolts” or “post-smolts” and we do not actually know where they go. There has been smolt tagging and tracking in the Moray Firth which discovered that the fish that come out of various rivers in the deep south around Inverness and places like that have a tendency not to do what you would expect, which is to scoot up the coast and head past Orkney. For reasons known only to them, they leg it across to Aberdeenshire, which I always thought showed a bit of a lack of taste. The point about that is they do not go through the Beatrice wind farm and that piece of knowledge is vital in being able to look at what you may need to do to mitigate.
Similar studies on the west coast show that Irish and west coast fish tend to go due north, as you would expect, and straight off to Iceland. We just do not know where our smolts are going, so we made contact with Crown Estate Scotland, which I have to say has been incredibly helpful on this, and the chairman put me in touch with various people. As a result, I believe that there will be a smolt-tracking project which will allow us to know where our smolts are going and we will therefore know whether we have a problem, so we can look at what can be done to mitigate it if we have.
That comes back to the point I was making that, without information, you cannot make a decision on the appropriate thing to do. Crown Estate Scotland on this occasion has been extremely helpful, as I said. It wishes to make sure that it does the least harm, which is wonderful, but it seems to me correct that, in forming any legislation, it is appropriate, as we do with the nuclear industry and a whole range of other things, to state what it is that people have to provide by way of information in terms of an economic impact assessment and what they will do to mitigate the inevitable downsides that occur when you have developments of these kinds.
So I am not sure whether I am supporting anybody in particular—noble Lords will have to make up their own minds on that—but I am supporting the principle that we need knowledge and information about what may happen so that we can then make an informed choice on what mitigation is required and how much damage we are prepared to accept for the value brought by the economic activity.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way and I am much heartened to hear that his rivers and fish are doing very well. I just wonder what his reaction would be if someone decided they wanted to put a fish farm in the track of his migrating smolts when he knows where they are.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
I suspect I would be pretty horrified, given all the information that I know about it, but I have long tried to stick to a principle in your Lordships’ House to speak about what I really know about and avoid the things I do not know too much about, so I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go down that road.
To come back to my central point on the need to get information, it is about the right duty that we should ask the Crown Estate to have and then the process it should follow to deliver it. So my request to the Minister would be to look at the obvious strength of feeling on all of these points and perhaps the Government should look at what their view would be as to the right process and the right way to put it into the Bill and come back with an amendment that would achieve that and would suit the Government.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and in particular as a trustee of the Blair Charitable Trust. I will make two brief points, but generally I feel very supportive of both Amendments 37 and 37G.
The first point begins with the Defra food security statistics, as updated in October 2023, where it is noted that the production-to-supply ratio in the UK is 75%. That is essentially a measure of the number of calories that we produce on these islands that we need to eat. We need to import, therefore, a quarter of all the calories at least that we eat. In fact, it is more, because we export some of what we produce as well. No new land is being produced and we are chipping away at the existing farmland with forestry, development and a certain amount of rewilding, and the population is growing, so the number of calories is going up. Aquaculture is therefore a very obvious way of improving the situation and, while I fully accept all of the many problems that we heard about so powerfully from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, earlier on, we are going to have to face up to the fact that aquaculture is something that we will need if we are going to try to narrow the gap of the production-to-supply ratio.
As the Minister said in his Second Reading speech— I am sorry that I was not there—the Crown Estate is very rarely here in this Chamber; it last came in 1961. So it is important to prep the Crown Estate and do some future-proofing of it, and much of the Bill is about getting on top of energy and prepping it for energy as well. Again, we are going to need to grapple with the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised, but on this visit to the House I think we must prep it for aquaculture as well. That means that we are going to have to have some amendments that are along the lines of Amendments 37 and 37G. I slightly prefer the width of Amendment 37G, but there are good things in both of them.
I move to my second point. There is a lot to learn from the experiences of Scotland in aquaculture, and English commissioners will certainly and inevitably face the problem faced by the trustees of the Blair Charitable Trust that a high financial offer for the use of something may come from a riskier and lower-quality bidder. The effect of Amendments 37 and 37G would be to give those commissioners an easier ability to turn down somebody who has offered a larger amount of money but has lower environmental standards and to say clearly, “No, your bid is not there, it is not in the overall interests of managing the land”—on behalf of all of us, I may say. That is a very important point.
A few years ago, I went to stay with some friends near Oban and they took us down to visit a bankrupt fish farm. I do not know whether anyone else has visited a bankrupt fish farm recently, and I know that “desert” is the wrong word when one is talking about a sea loch, but “desert” is quite a good word for describing what we saw. It was awful, and of course it goes a long way beyond all of the netting arrangements. It was dead and horrible and it smelled and there was waste everywhere and our friends told us of the great difficulty in working out who was going to clear it all up and who was going to pay for the clear-up, because Crown Estate Scotland had not put in place bonding arrangements —something those in construction would do because, if the construction company goes wrong, you can finish off the problem. It usually happens with shipbuilding, although not with Scottish ferries, but bonding arrangements are extremely important and they had not been put in place. I am glad to say that I went back a couple of years later and the area has improved, but it is not perfect. I therefore have direct experience of the horrors of things if you do not get it right, and I suspect there are many war stories—so if aquaculture comes, as I know it will, to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, people can learn from their Scottish cousins.
On my experience of charitable trustees worrying about potential land users, I went back and looked at some trustee board papers, and the process we actually follow in real life when we are considering letting land users on to the Blair Charitable Trust, which is quite big, is very similar to the two processes set out in Amendments 37 and 37G. That process has been going on for a long time on what is a very old-established plot of land. I therefore feel that these are tried and tested routes to something as well, and that they are very good. They have a long-term view built into them, as well as the fact that you must look to the whole environment, as we do at the Blair Charitable Trust. These amendments are therefore vital, and they will make the job of the Crown Estate commissioners much easier.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate to listen to. I had not intended to partake in it, but I was prompted to do so by the last two speeches, by my noble kinsman Lord Thurso and by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. This is clearly a much bigger problem than just salmon. From listening to the debate, it seems that we all want the offshore energy—we need it—and, undoubtedly, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, we will need aquaculture in the future in a much more abundant way than we have it at the moment.
It strikes me that it is very odd that those who operate our farms and our energy on land face very different hurdles to those who operate at sea. Can the Minister, who has quite a lot to take away and think about from this well-informed debate, look at this whole question? This is a rare opportunity for us to try to get this right for future generations. We do not want to solve a problem now by creating a further problem for the future. Let us get this right so that we take a holistic view of development at sea, whether it be fish farming, agriculture or energy, so that the right environmental standards and precautions are put into place before and after an event. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, at the moment it is all too easy for fish farmers to put themselves into liquidation and leave a mess for others to clear up. That cannot be allowed to happen in the future.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I want to make a very brief intervention on the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and I would like some assurance from the Minister on some important points that the noble Earl made.
One of the points the noble Earl made was that we need to look at offshore developments not one by one in sequence but holistically. We are moving now into new waters with floating offshore wind; I am particularly aware of the Celtic Sea development, but obviously there is also floating offshore wind further out in Scottish waters. I would very much like an assurance from the Minister that, before those developments take place, in terms of actual building and specific location, there will be an overall environmental assessment for the whole of the future developments as opposed to each one individually. We want to understand the total effect rather than those individual effects.
We also need to consider the issues around the landing of those electric cables and all the infrastructure. In the North Sea, we have had the issue of a spaghetti of energy cables coming into various places all around it, and now, far too late, we are looking at trying to change that into a rational grid where we can have greater interdependence and greater trading but also fewer landing areas in terms of environmental damage.
In an earlier group, I raised the issue of a potential conflict of interests between the Crown Estate wanting to have offshore wind and therefore doing its own environmental assessments for these developments to be oven-ready—to use that phrase so badly used in the past. I very much wish to be assured by the Minister that there will be that global view of future areas of development, particularly of floating offshore wind, rather than doing it piecemeal in the ineffective and rather damaging way that we have done in the past.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Douglas-Miller and Lord Leicester for these important amendments. I first declare my interests as set out in the register as the owner of fishing rights in both Devon and Sutherland, as a developer and owner of renewable energy assets and as president of the South West Rivers Association.
Amendments 37 and 37G require the Crown Estate to take responsibility for the environmental impact of salmon and broader fish farming, as well as the welfare standards in those industries. This applies both to existing licensed salmon and fish farms as well as new applicants for licences.
We support sustainable farming of wild Atlantic salmon or any fish species when it is done with sufficient respect for animal welfare and with protection of the environment in mind. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and recognise that it is critical that fish can be farmed so a growing global population can continue to include fish within its diet without putting unsustainable pressure on wild fish populations. We also celebrate that the United Kingdom is one of the few places in the world that has ideal coastlines and sea conditions, and that the industry can bring much-needed jobs to parts of the country with limited employment opportunities. Its contribution to those communities is important. However, the salmon farming industry should not be at the expense of the wild population that spawned it and was already occupying this coastline and these river systems for millennia before farming began, or at the expense of equally valuable jobs in managing the rod and line fisheries or indeed historic salmon-netting rights.
This Bill and these amendments target only England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As we all fully understand, the Scottish Crown Estate has been devolved. However, it is hard to debate these amendments without acknowledging the damage that Scottish salmon farms have done not only to the west-coast-of-Scotland rivers but to English, Welsh and Irish rivers. Migratory patterns of salmon and sea trout are still not fully understood, but it is clear that fish travelling to these rivers also have to navigate open-cage salmon farms in Scottish waters.
To my knowledge, there is only one fish farm in UK waters outside of Scottish waters, and that is in Northern Ireland. While these amendments will capture that farm, we also hope and intend that they will provide that any future development of salmon farms in our waters, or indeed any other aquaculture, is done with much greater scrutiny of the environmental implications and with full accountability for any harm caused and with the highest standards of animal welfare.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth and other noble Lords mentioned, the evidence against salmon farms for their impact on wild Atlantic salmon and other salmonids has been well laid out: they are a reservoir of sea lice that prey on passing salmon; they are a reservoir and breeding ground of disease and bacterial and fungal infections; and there is the long-term existential threat, as farmed species’ genetics increasingly diverge from wild, that interbreeding with the wild species by escaped fish has on their continued viability in the wild. I note that it is thought that 5,000 salmon escaped from the Northern Irish salmon farm earlier this year.
There are other environmental impacts that have also been discussed: the amount of wild fish that are caught solely to be processed for fishmeal and fish oil to feed farmed salmon; the dead zones created on the seabed; and the chemicals that are used to treat diseases impacting on local wildlife. In addition, lumpfish and five species of wrasse have been used since the 1990s as cleaner fish in the industry to eat sea lice. The lumpfish are also farmed, and the industry is moving to farming of wrasse as well. What environmental standards do these have, as well as animal welfare standards?
There are also significant welfare concerns for the farmed fish themselves, as expressed during this debate—exposure to predation from sea lice; images of hundreds of tonnes of dead fish routinely being taken out of these cages and disposed of by incineration, burial and other means; and the apparent overcrowding of these fish within the open-cage salmon farms.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, Washington state chose to ban open-cage Atlantic salmon farming in 2018, and British Columbia plans to shut all its open-cage salmon farming by next year. That is not what is suggested by these amendments, which would ensure that the Crown Estate environmental and welfare obligations are explicit and that the entity is held accountable for any environmental damage or welfare issues caused on its estate. Better practice is available in the world; there are better techniques for farming Atlantic salmon that could be brought into operation to mitigate and even eliminate many of the causes of damage. We understand that these are all likely to add to the cost of production, but why should our environment and our wild Atlantic salmon subsidise this industry? Surely we have learned our lesson from the impact of the green revolution on native bird species and river system health?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for the points raised during this debate and for powerfully highlighting such important issues. I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Douglas-Miller—who was the Minister for Animal Health and Welfare in the previous Government—and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, which all touch on environmental and animal welfare protections.
These amendments would require the Crown commissioners to assess, on an ongoing basis, the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of, respectively, salmon farms, offshore energy installation and generation and aquacultural practices on the Crown Estate. Where that assessment determines that a salmon farm, a relevant offshore energy installation and generation, or relevant aquaculture is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, the Crown Estate would be required to revoke the relevant licence. The commissioners would also be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms or the installation and generation of offshore energy on the estate. Where the commissioners determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.
The Government wholeheartedly support the objectives behind these amendments. It might help noble Lords if I set out the protections that currently exist in regulations and legislation, which apply regardless of the landlord. All aquaculture activity in England, including salmon farming, is regulated with the intention of ensuring that it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare, although I appreciate from the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this intent is not currently being achieved. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland. As has been observed, the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter.
The Government’s starting point is that these amendments may duplicate existing protections that already exist in legislation or protections that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture and offshore energy installations. Specifically, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any protected animal. The assimilated Council Regulation No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires that farmed fish are spared avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and related operations. The Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 contain provisions to protect farmed fish from serious disease by introducing a system of authorisation for businesses involved in aquaculture.
To address a point on environmental impacts made by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 require the competent authority—in this context, the Crown Estate —to determine whether a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European marine site. If so, it is then subject to an appropriate assessment. If that assessment shows that the plan or project could have an adverse impact on the integrity of the site that cannot be mitigated, authorisation of the activity must be refused unless specific derogations apply. For marine areas that are designated as a marine conservation zone under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, a marine conservation zone assessment is carried out by the public authority to test activities that may hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives of the specific zone and decide from the assessments whether the application for an activity can be authorised.
The Crown Estate seeks to supports the regulators through the inclusion of necessary requirements on any leases and requires all practitioners to comply fully with all legal obligations, including animal welfare practices. When developing or managing its assets, especially in areas such as offshore wind farms, coastal management and urban redevelopment, the Crown Estate must comply with regulations that require environmental impact assessments. An example of this happening in practice was in February 2017, when the Crown Estate launched an opportunity for existing wind farms to apply for project extensions. Following a habitats regulations assessment, the Crown Estate confirmed that seven of these extension application projects would progress to the award of development rights.
The Crown Estate also received an application for an extension project where the majority of the site of the proposed extension sat within the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge special area of conservation. The plan-level habitats regulations assessment determined that it would not be possible to rule out an adverse effect on the integrity of the special area of conservation. Therefore, the Crown Estate decided that this extension project would not progress to the award of leasing rights as part of the 2017 extensions round.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about looking at impacts holistically, that is exactly what this Bill seeks, by enabling the Crown Estate to map the whole seabed and therefore improve the understanding of how to ensure benefits for nature for the long term.
I would be interested to know in due course whether noble Lords consider that these existing regulations and the legislation are inadequate or are currently being inadequately applied. I hope that, for now, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Douglas-Miller, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, feel able not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
Is the Minister able to address the issue of pollution from all these crew transfer boats? I mentioned 125 million litres of diesel every year. If we are to have many more wind farms out to sea, that amount of diesel may get very large. Can he comment on converting these boats to electric?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am afraid that is not something I know about, but I am happy to write to the noble Earl.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which was clearly written by Treasury officials who do not get out very much. The Minister has been kind enough to say that we should indicate whether we think the existing legislative requirements and regulations are working. We have just had an excellent debate, which has made it absolutely clear that wild salmon are being destroyed, not just in this country, but elsewhere, so the answer is: it is hurting, and it is not working. A very modest requirement on the landlords, the owners of the seabed to—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Just to be clear, I wanted clarification as to whether the existing legislation could work, or, in itself, could not work.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I would be very happy for the Minister to come back with an amendment that would indicate how it could be made to work, because it is not working. It seems to me a very modest measure that would say to the Crown Estate that it has given a licence to these people, so it is therefore under a duty to make sure that they act in accordance with all regulations and in a way which protects the environment for which they have responsibility. I cannot imagine why the Minister would reject that.
In view of the very inadequate response, I am very tempted to test the opinion of the Committee, but I will not because I hope that, perhaps in further discussions with the Minister, we can get an amendment which will actually offer some degree of protection to the hundreds of thousands of fishermen who are concerned about this, to the communities who are concerned about this and to the many, many people on a cross-party basis. I cite the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I who are united; we are linked at the hip in our determination to make this happen.
However, I would like to thank everyone who has spoken in the debate in support of not just my amendment but that of my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller, who made a very fine speech explaining precisely why things are not working. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Trenchard, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Moynihan and Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of course, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—it is quite a gathering. The Minister ought to go back and think about this again, and we will table a further amendment on Report.
I am most grateful to my colleague my noble friend Lord Roborough for the support that he gave to this amendment and his careful consideration. I have to say that I am not sure the Minister’s officials have shown the same diligence in looking at what is a major problem which, if not tackled with immediacy, will see the extinction of the wild salmon in this country. That is not something that any Government would want on their record. Given the response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull
“Report on differences between provisions of this Act about the Crown Estate in England and equivalent provisions in ScotlandThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report assessing any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland.”
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Amendment 37D is a simple amendment that allows us the opportunity to discuss the lack of symmetry after the passing of this Bill. I should just say that, following the last grouping, I think I have the answer to the Minister’s question about why things are inadequate at the moment.
I discussed in the previous group how I view this Bill as being an opportunity to prep the Crown Estate for energy and agriculture. Clearly, it will improve things here, but not in my native land at the same time. I have had the benefit, in preparing this amendment, of quite a few discussions with the chair of Crown Estate Scotland and had help from his team, and I thank them for that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I will not try the patience of the Committee for very long on this issue. It is fairly rare that I do not support amendments that are moved by that powerful combination of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux; but, on this occasion, I am rather troubled by this amendment. I believe that we have to defend the principle of devolution. There are many who want the devolution in name but not in actual fact. I am afraid that when I heard the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, use the word “symmetry”, every antenna was raised. I have already argued in earlier phases of this Bill that we should have devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales—that is fundamentally important—and it is important that we reinforce and understand the importance of a genuine devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland as established in current law. That is in our collaboration, partnership, sharing practice—
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am so sorry. I probably did not make it clear that the reason that I was talking to the Crown Estate Scotland was because it contacted me. It is very keen to have the symmetry, and I understand through the Crown Estate Scotland that the Scottish Government is also pretty keen to have it. I am not proposing anything that is not consented to by all parties. I am just worried that the parties will get busy doing other things and will not get on with it. The idea of the pencil in the back is to get consenting adults to get on with it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I appreciate that intervention from the noble Earl because I now understand his position better, but I do not think that is how this clause would be used. It would create a level of dissent, with each side saying, “We do it better than you do”, and “You need to copy us”. We can see the kind of constant pressures that come to—I am losing language; it is just so late—dilute the power of devolution.
On that basis, I do not support this language. Co-operation, partnership, looking at best practice—all those things are extremely positive, but let us be absolutely clear: the Crown Estate Scotland falls under the Scottish Government. Interestingly, it is often much more regulated than the Crown Estate back in England. I hope we learn from the Scottish experience not that each needs to mirror the other by rote, but that devolution works and should be extended to Wales.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I may not entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on this. I agree with the intention of this amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. While we also acknowledge that the Crown Estate in Scotland is devolved, the entity remains closely aligned in its nature and the objectives sought from it, with considerable overlap in the kind of assets that are owned and managed. The Bill before us creates considerable new powers for the Crown Estate of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. First among those is the power to borrow, with the benefits to investment and flexibility that that allows. It also creates new obligations—hopefully, to include taking full responsibility for the environmental impact of offshore energy and fish farming. Those are not present in the devolved Crown Estate of Scotland. As noble Lords have described, it may well be helpful if the Minister committed to providing clear information on those differences once the Act has been implemented in order to allow both entities to learn what is best practice. Oversight and transparency are desirable in all areas of government, and I am most interested to hear the Minister’s response to this amendment and debate.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 37D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of the day this Act is passed that assesses any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland.
It is possible now to provide such an assessment, and I am happy to set that out. Section 36 of the Scotland Act 2016 inserted a new Section 90B into the Scotland Act 1998. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 90B provided for the devolution in relation to Scotland of the commissioners’ management functions relating to property, rights or interests in land in Scotland and rights in relation to the Scottish zone.
Devolution occurred on 1 April 2017 under, and in accordance with, the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. The relevant property, rights and interests are now managed separately by Crown Estate Scotland under the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 and the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, as enacted by the Scottish Parliament. They do not form part of the Crown Estate as currently managed by the Crown Estate commissioners.
The relationship between Crown Estate Scotland and the Scottish Government is governed by a public framework document which sets out a broad framework within which Crown Estate Scotland operates, and certain financial aspects. Any changes to that framework document or the wider legislation that underpins it are a matter for the Scottish Government.
I turn to the principal differences and similarities. The Bill grants the commissioners of the Crown Estate a power to borrow with Treasury consent and provides the Treasury with the power to issue loans and financial assistance to the commissioners, including out of the National Loans Fund. The Bill also specifies that the Treasury may determine the rate of interest on any loan and requires the Treasury to pay any sums received in respect of the loan into the National Loans Fund.
In comparison, Part 2, Section 1.1 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that
“Scottish Ministers may make grants and loans to Crown Estate Scotland”
and such grants and loans are
“subject to such conditions (including conditions as to repayment) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.
Part 2, Section 2.1 requires that:
“All borrowing by Crown Estate Scotland … shall be from the Scottish Ministers in accordance with guidance in the Borrowing, Lending & Investment section of the”
Scottish Public Finance Manual.
On investment, this Bill clarifies the commissioners’ existing ability to invest by inserting into the 1961 Act that:
“The powers exercisable by the Commissioners in the discharge of their functions under this Act include powers to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions”.
It also omits subsection (4) from Section 3 of the 1961 Act, which will broaden the commissioner’s investment powers.
In comparison, Part 1, Section 3.2 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that Scottish Ministers are responsible for
“approving Crown Estate Scotland’s Corporate Plan”,
which includes their investment strategy. Part 2, Section 7.3 requires Crown Estate Scotland to
“undertake investment in line with its legislative duties”,
which are set out in the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, principally in Part 3, across Sections 7 to 21.
On the constitution of the commissioners, the Bill increases the maximum number of commissioners from eight to 12 and omits the requirement that the second Crown Estate commissioner, if any, be deputy chairman. It also simplifies the legislative process by which commissioners are paid, such that the commissioners’ salaries and expenses are paid directly out of the income of the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, which comes from the return made by the commissioners to the Government each year.
In comparison, under Part 1, Section 3.5 of the frame- work document for Crown Estate Scotland, the board membership is limited to nine members, including the chair. On remuneration, Section 7 of the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 makes it clear that
“Crown Estate Scotland … must pay each member such remuneration and allowances (including expenses) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.
The differences between these two organisations reflect the fact that the organisations have formed in different ways. The 1961 Act, which, as I have set out, is the legislative basis of the Crown Estate in its current form, was fulfilling a recommendation of the government Committee on Crown Lands—as set out in its report presented to Parliament in June 1955—to appoint an independent board of commissioners to manage the Crown Estate, with provisions designed to enable Parliament and the Treasury to know how it is discharging its responsibilities. To briefly quote from the 1955 report:
“The board should be a public authority, but not a government department in the sense of an organ of executive government. … We do however respectfully advise that the board should be more, not less, independent than the present Commissioners and that they should be given defined powers and duties as trustees and allowed to work them out with the minimum of direction and control.”
In comparison, Crown Estate Scotland was created by the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, which makes specific provisions about the management of the Scottish Crown Estate and followed on from a process of devolution established by the Scotland Act 2016. Crown Estate Scotland is specifically required to align its aims and objectives with the Scottish Government’s published programme for government, and Scotland’s economic strategy and national performance framework.
I hope this assessment was helpful and that I have provided some clarity on the points raised.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
It is very interesting that the Minister has not mentioned—unusually, because he is always incredibly well briefed—the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017, which was the scheme under Section 90B of the Scotland Act, under which this was transferred. Schedule 4 of that is headed, “Protection of UK-wide interests”, which is quite a thing, and the subject we have been talking about this afternoon. I wonder whether he would comment on that and how it affects the assessment that he has just made.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Earl on that point. In the meantime, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The Minister has not really addressed the fundamental point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: fish and birds do not know where the border is between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and there are common interests. All he has done is read out a list of regulations and statutes that apply to the two commissions. I think the noble Earl was asking what provisions can be made, so that the two sets of commissioners are able to operate in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. As a unionist, he will surely appreciate the importance of that.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
What I read out was a response to the amendment tabled, which asked for exactly that; that is why I read it out. The noble Lord raises profound constitutional questions which I may not be the right person to address them to.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I asked a question as well: is the Minister going to afford every assistance to what is going on? This is something worth discussing. There is a danger here, and it is in the interests of all of us, as sub-owners of the Crown Estate, that the position is regularised. I am sorry if symmetry is too strong a word because they are differently enacted, but it is important to be in a position where they have very similar powers. It is in the interests of everyone in these islands that the two things can work together when required and that they have similar powers, so they can engage in the same energy deals and the same things in aquaculture.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to have that meeting. I do not know whether the noble Lord does want to join, but of course he is always welcome.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
That will be a matter for the noble Lord. On that basis—and I very much appreciate the spirit and the smile on the Minister’s face as he said that—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Crown Estate Bill from coming into force until two months after the Framework Document has been laid before Parliament with a motion for resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 39 and 40 in my name.
These amendments concern the publication of a framework document and the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate. We must have the opportunity to see, and vote on, the framework document before the Bill can be passed. Amendment 38 prevents the Crown Estate Bill coming into force until two months after the framework document has been laid before Parliament and has been subject to a vote. Amendments 39 and 40 in my name similarly seek to ensure the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate is laid before Parliament before the Bill is passed.
It would be negligent to pass a Bill without consideration of such integral documents. We must see the framework document and partnership agreement with Great British Energy before we can accept this legislation and I express my deepest concern over the absence of these documents to date. We must scrutinise the framework document to understand and be confident that it is appropriate for the Bill. Currently, the details on the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy are similarly limited. As I propose with the framework agreement, we must also have sight of the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate and Amendments 39 and 40 demand that this will be laid before Parliament before the Bill is passed.
This is a major and unprecedented partnership. The Crown Estate estimated that it will result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. Considering this, we must be given the opportunity to read, review and scrutinise the partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy before we accept this legislation.
I agree with the sentiment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in her Amendment 41, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his Amendment 42. I echo their concerns over the absence of the publication of the fiscal framework with Wales and its lease extension policy.
I hope the Minister will carefully consider the concerns I have raised and will confirm to the House that the framework document and partnership agreement and memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will be published and laid before Parliament before this Bill is passed.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, Amendment 41 in my name is included in this group of amendments and is supported by my noble friend Lord Wigley. This amendment would require the publication of an agreed fiscal framework between the Treasury and the Crown Estate before commencement of the Act.
During day one of Committee there were strong arguments made in support of the second group of amendments—a number of them seeking to write a fiscal framework. I believe that there is a shared view from around the Chamber that such a framework should have been drafted and published before Second Reading of this Bill. I am therefore grateful that the Minister, in his response to the second group of amendments, committed to publishing the framework before Report. If that is the case, I will not need to push for an amendment of this kind on Report.
However, I will take this opportunity to highlight some concerns regarding the possible content of the fiscal framework. I am concerned by the possibility of no hard cap on borrowing. I am led to believe that the framework will instead impose a loan-to-value ratio of 25%, which, as the Minister has already noted, would currently be around £3 billion and could go beyond that. To put this into perspective, the Welsh Government fiscal framework has a cap of £l billion on capital expenditure, with an annual borrowing limit of £150 million, which it can borrow from the National Loans Fund or a commercial bank. I ask the Minister: would the passing of this Bill as it stands, alongside a fiscal framework of a loan-to-value ratio of 25%, give the Crown Estate more or less borrowing power than the devolved Government of Wales?
I share the view expressed by the noble baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Crown Estate is no “cuddly” organisation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my question on how the proposed borrowing powers will compare to the current fiscal powers of the devolved Governments, particularly the Welsh Government.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 42 in this group. It is another attempt at putting a condition on the Government in bringing this Bill into effect, until the Crown Estate in my case has fulfilled the undertakings given on Report of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act: specifically, the commitment that it would publish its lease extension policy. I got an answer from the Minister’s colleague in July when I asked when this was going to happen. The answer was very interesting. It was that the Crown would act in accordance with the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and the statutes it amended, subject to specific specified conditions—I do not know what specific unspecified conditions are, but we will leave that out—set out in the undertaking, and the expectation was that the Crown bodies would work with the tenants as they developed these policies.
The problem is of course that the specific specifying conditions referred to refer to the Isles of Scilly and the tenants there—about whom I have spoken to your Lordships many times—are suffering significantly due to their inability to negotiate leases of a reasonable length of time which would be allowed under the new Act.
I was told subsequently that this Crown statement cannot be made in advance of the relevant regulations under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act being tabled, because that is the way it always is. But the worry I have is also that the Duchy of Cornwall and Crown Estate may publish them and there will be no opportunity for debating them and offering and suggesting changes to them. This gets back to my question last time we raised this: who is in charge? I was very pleased to get a response from Dr John Kirkhope, an expert on Duchy things, explaining that this is all because of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838. It is because the two Duchies got their revenue from George I and George IV and, before that, from being Electors of Hanover rather than Kings or Queens of England
I am told that, under Salic law, a female could not be elector of Hanover, so Queen Victoria suddenly thought that she was going to lose all this money. She persuaded the Parliament of the time to bring in this Bill, which became the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838. I can read out the whole Act—it is not that long—but I think noble Lords would probably prefer that I did not. It required the two duchies to submit accounts to the Government every year for Parliament to approve.
When I tried to put down a Question to ask for how many years this had taken place, who could tell me which years those were and where the accounts were, I was told by the clerks that it was a bit unclear who was in charge. Was it Parliament, the Government or the Crown? I do not think it would be the Crown, because that would mean the Crown being in charge of itself, which is probably not very desirable and probably not true. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could tell me over how many years these two duchies have submitted accounts and over how many years, if any, they have been debated in either House of Parliament.
My question to my noble friend is: when will the Government publish these Crown Estate policies? Do they have to wait until they have published secondary legislation on leasehold reform? When these special conditions are published, will the Government provide an opportunity for debate? I can see the Crown saying that it is in charge and that nobody can tell it what to do, and so we cannot debate them. The conditions applicable to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act will be modified to the extent that the people of the Isles of Scilly, who suffer quite a lot, not just from rents but from transport and a few other things, will not have an opportunity to debate this and see whether the duchies are playing fair. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I confess that I was fascinated by the amendments put down by the shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, whom I remember on many occasions defending Henry VIII clause after Henry VIII clause. She is now calling for extraordinary levels of accountability, but I suppose going into opposition somehow changes a perspective.
The documents that have been requested, which is the main content of this group of amendments, are, in essence, documents that I requested at the beginning of the process. The Minister has been generous, in a way that I think would not have happened in the past, to assure us that those documents will be made available before we reach Report so that, at that final stage of the process, we have enough information to know whether we need to challenge the content of the Bill or can accept it. I am satisfied to take his word for it, as his comments were made on the Floor of the House.
If the Minister can add anything about timing or content, that would be interesting. We had some confusion at one point about what is a memorandum of understanding and what is a framework agreement, but that has been clarified. I am satisfied that we are getting more information from this Government than, frankly, I ever could have hoped for, on similar issues, from the Government before.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere of Norbiton and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which all seek to alter the timing of the Bill’s commencement.
I start by addressing Amendment 42, tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. This amendment would alter the commencement of the Bill, so that it comes into force either two months after the Bill has passed or after the Crown Estate commissioners have published the Crown Estate’s lease extension policy and a Minister of the Crown has tabled a Motion in both Houses to debate the policy—whichever is later.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I offer another view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer: perhaps going into government also changes the perspective of Members of this House. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to these amendments and for his contribution to this debate. We have not really had the answers that we are looking for but, in the meantime, I am happy to withdraw.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 22nd October 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
First, I thank noble Lords who contributed to the debate following His Majesty’s gracious Speech, when we first discussed this Bill. That was also my maiden speech, and it seems an awfully long time ago. I thank noble Lords who attended the recent open briefing sessions with me in this House to talk about the Bill and the work that the Government are doing in this area. Our central mission is to grow the economy. We have set out a modern industrial strategy with a primary objective of long-term sustainable growth in our highest-potential growth-driving sectors.
To succeed in our growth mission, we need to harness the talent of our people, meet businesses’ skills needs and break down the barriers to opportunity. Education is critical to breaking down those barriers, and we are focused on ensuring that all children and learners can achieve their ambitions and thrive in education, work and life, no matter their background.
However, I am sorry to report that this country’s workers still lack the skills they need. This means that businesses cannot grow and people are not able to make the most of the opportunities that come their way. For example, around 7.5 million working-age adults do not have even basic digital skills, despite most employers saying that these are vital for their businesses. As recently as two years ago, UK employers put over one-third of their vacancies down to skills shortages.
Our businesses have become overly reliant on importing skilled workers from abroad as they have not seen a plan to develop the skills they need in this country. Compared with other countries, our workers are underqualified. The OECD states that 26% of the UK workforce are underqualified for their job, compared with an OECD average of 18%. That underqualification is in part the result of a “missing middle” in our skills system. Not enough people attain post-school qualifications in sought-after disciplines.
Technical training at levels 4 and 5, between A-levels and undergraduate study, is low compared with other countries and with our own historical levels. In England only 4% of people have level 4 and 5 qualifications as their highest qualification, compared with around 20% in Germany and 34% in Canada.
Not only do we lack the skills we need today; our economy’s skills needs are changing, with 1.4 million jobs in new fields projected by 2035. England’s skills system has a crucial role in ensuring that businesses and individuals are prepared for the future, but the current fragmented skills system is preventing young—and older—people from seizing the opportunities that are out there.
That is the sorry state of the skills system that we have inherited from the last Government, a system that employers and individuals report is overly complex, where people cannot find the training opportunities that would help them achieve and which is holding back our businesses, our public services and our economy from accessing the skills they need to grow. After 14 years of tinkering with qualifications, introducing a levy that has seen apprenticeship starts fall, and a failure to look to the future needs of our economy, the skills system is failing individuals and our country. The skills system needs an overhaul. It needs to be strategic, creating opportunities for young people to get on and for adults to upskill and retrain, and delivering the skills that will help our businesses to grow.
The Bill is a crucial step towards creating a skills system fit for the future, enabling our growth and opportunity missions to deliver better life chances for all, meeting the challenge of our industrial strategy, supporting our NHS to have access to the people and skills that it will rely on, and delivering the skills to build the houses and infrastructure that we need and to support our clean energy superpower mission.
This Government have already begun to take action. In July the Prime Minister announced the launch of Skills England, which then published its first report in September. This new organisation will bring coherence to the system, ensuring that we have a clear assessment not just of where the skills gaps are now but of what we will need in the future to realise our potential in a rapidly changing world. It will use that assessment to ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access. At its heart will be employers working with trade unions, training providers across our further education, higher education and independent sectors, and local and regional government—a partnership raising the profile and impact of our skills system. Skills England’s strong board and chair will deliver the operational independence, external expertise and challenge to drive the change that we need to see. Its link back into government will provide the voice and the advice to ensure that skills sit at the heart of joined-up decision-making across government.
Skills England will transform our ability to determine and then deliver the skills that our country needs, giving it a key role as part of an even more ambitious programme of reform and national renewal. The launch of our industrial strategy will provide the firm foundation and confidence for businesses to plan. We are moving away from the chaos of recent years, where policy changed as quickly as Prime Ministers. Skills need to support this growth and investment rather than being the barrier that many employers highlight, so Skills England will work closely with the industrial strategy council to remove those barriers.
Skills England will work closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on our major cross-government effort to get Britain working and tackle deep-seated challenges in our labour market. It will work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that we have a strong skills pipeline.
We plan further fundamental reform to support a vibrant and responsive skills and education system. We are creating a growth and skills levy to bring the focus and flexibility lacked by the last Government’s levy; a curriculum and assessment review to ensure that our schools are providing the learning to maximise all children’s chances to develop the skills, knowledge and creativity to make the most of their education; a youth guarantee to ensure that all young people have access to jobs and training; and a new national jobs and careers service to provide direction and support for people entering the workforce.
To create a single, unified body in Skills England, it is crucial that the functions that currently sit with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education are folded into it. Skills England will build on IfATE’s role in securing the quality of technical qualifications and apprenticeships, and we are grateful for the role that IfATE has played in doing that—but, to pave the way for Skills England, the Bill will abolish IfATE. It will remove functions relating to IfATE’s current accountability to the Secretary of State and Parliament, transfer IfATE’s functions to the Secretary of State and amend five of them. It will allow the skills system to operate without organisational boundaries and administrative hurdles. Skills England will help the skills system become more agile and responsive by identifying what skills are needed where in the economy, supporting our industrial strategy and securing the availability of high-quality qualifications that meet those needs.
The Bill is narrow in scope and technical in nature. There are two main elements. The first part of the Bill, as outlined, will abolish IfATE and transfer its functions to the Secretary of State. These functions will largely be exercised by Skills England, operating as an executive agency. The Bill will also enable the transfer of IfATE’s property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. The second part makes changes to some of the functions to be transferred. We have examined the functions carefully and determined that the way some of them are set out in the existing legislation is overly prescriptive and could hamper the responsive and agile skills system we need.
The Government therefore propose some changes to functions relating to apprenticeships and technical education to increase our responsiveness and allow the Secretary of State to make small and fast adjustments to our education and training programmes. This should provide the speed and flexibility the skills system needs. Clauses 4 and 5 remove the requirement for each occupational standard and apprenticeship assessment plan to have been prepared by an appropriate “group of persons”.
Employers will continue to be central to how technical qualifications and apprenticeships are produced. In the preparation and design of standards and apprenticeship assessment plans, while design by employers and others will be maintained as the default position, these changes will allow greater flexibility in scenarios where preparation by a group can be unnecessary or restrictive—for example, where training requirements are already tightly defined as a result of there being a regulator or an industry-recognised qualification, such as the dental hygienist occupation being regulated by the General Dental Council. Giving the Secretary of State the flexibility to consider whether to convene a group of persons in such cases will enable the skills system to be more agile.
Where the Secretary of State makes the determination not to use a group of persons to prepare standards or apprenticeship assessment plans, a high level of rigour and recognition of the value of external input will be upheld, for example by publishing standards in draft for stakeholder comment before they are finalised.
Clause 6 will retain the duty to maintain arrangements to review technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. But we will remove the duty to review these at regular intervals and publish information about these intervals. This change is necessary in light of there now being more than 700 standards, spanning a huge range of sectors and occupational specialisms. The frequency with which different standards should be reviewed and updated will depend on their performance, how widely they are used and the pace and extent of technological advancements resulting in changes to the type of tasks performed and expertise required. This change will therefore allow the Secretary of State flexibility to focus on reviews with the greatest need and impact.
Clause 7 will remove the requirement for a third-party examination of a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan to be carried out before approval. Again, we expect the default position to remain that standards and assessment plans will be examined by independent third parties. The Secretary of State will deviate from this only in a minority of instances, where appropriate. This change will allow flexibility where examination would add limited value—for example, in highly regulated occupations in the health and finance sectors where the assessment plan simply sets out the regulator’s requirements.
Clause 8 will allow the Secretary of State to grant an exception to Ofqual, which is currently prevented from exercising its accreditation power for technical qualifications. This amendment would allow Ofqual, where the Secretary of State deemed it appropriate, to be given the discretion to apply its accreditation power to specified technical education qualification types, subject to appropriate consultation. This change reintroduces the potential for technical qualifications to be accredited in the same way as general qualifications, so that learners and employers can be assured of the quality of the most high-stake qualifications.
These flexibilities reflect the calls from employers and others to ensure that the system is agile and flexible and can respond to rapidly changing needs. In developing Skills England we are already building the vital partnership I mentioned earlier through a series of engagement events. So far, the round tables led by Skills England’s interim chair, Richard Pennycook, have involved more than 100 key stakeholders, including a wide range of employers. These sessions have emphasised the need for greater flexibility in the skills system and more opportunities becoming available to shape technical qualifications and apprenticeships so that they best reflect the changing needs of industry, particularly in the most critical sectors. It is in this spirit that we bring forward the Bill.
The Bill makes vital, practical changes that enable us to deliver Skills England, to bring coherence to the skills system and ultimately to deliver the skills we need for the future. These reforms will sit at the heart of this Government’s missions to drive economic growth and to spread opportunity across all parts of this country. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. The apprenticeship model is a win-win that builds a skilled labour force while at the same time stimulating local economies and creating jobs. There are surely few better ways to foster innovation, enhance productivity and drive growth. IfATE was part of our commitment to deliver employer-led apprenticeship standards.
Since 2010, 5.7 million people have started an apprenticeship—our system is working, and we were on track to building a skills and apprenticeships nation. We would have increased investment in apprenticeships to £2.7 billion per year by 2025. Leading companies agree with our policy: Amazon, Specsavers and Premier Inn all make the most of their levy funds to recruit talent. In fact, 98% of the apprenticeship budget was spent over the last two years.
More than 690 apprenticeships are now available for a broader variety of jobs than ever before. We train nurses, lawyers and scientists, with around 750,000 people currently on apprenticeships. These apprenticeships are all designed by employers, so apprentices can be confident that they are learning skills valued by businesses. A national survey of apprentices revealed that 92% of respondents felt that the employer-defined knowledge, skills and behaviours they are required to learn through their apprenticeship would equip them to succeed in the future, while 80% said they felt empowered to have successful careers in their industry.
One has only to look to Preston in Lancashire, where BAE Systems has a vast college in which it trains apprentices on its fighter programmes, or to Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where they train on submarines. BAE’s number of apprenticeships has nearly tripled since 2017. Higher apprenticeship levels 4 to 7, from foundation degrees to master’s level, increased from 27,000 to 112,000. These levels give apprentices the opportunity to earn a degree, combined with enjoying many years of work experience at top UK firms, and the benefit of avoiding taking on significant student debt.
In February this year, BAE Systems and the University of Portsmouth launched the UK’s first ever degree apprenticeship in space systems engineering. Not content with stopping at space systems, IfATE is also helping heritage industries such as stonemasonry. In 2020 just one person took up an apprenticeship. Last year, that number jumped to 53. In March this year, we pledged to create a new £60 million investment fund to enable up to 20,000 more apprenticeships, including for young people and small businesses.
Our record speaks for itself, so we have concerns around various proposals in the Bill. It is not yet clear whether Skills England will be established in statute as IfATE was, which raises questions about its independence from the Department for Education and its ability to galvanise other government departments. How will it be able to pitch for the money needed from the Treasury to fund the skills gap that we know we have? Can the Minister please enlighten the House on this?
Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to prepare apprenticeship standards either herself or to commission others. It would therefore technically be possible for an apprenticeship standard to be prepared without the input of employers, providers or industry groups. The Secretary of State could even close down or fundamentally change Skills England without the consent of Parliament. Can the Minister explain what failsafe measures will be put in place to avoid this happening to the detriment of employees, employers and the many people who currently benefit from the apprenticeship programme?
There are concerns that the Bill may decrease the standards of technical qualifications because Clause 6 removes the IfATE requirement that reviews of approved technical qualifications should happen at regular intervals. The reason given in the Explanatory Notes is
“to enable flexibility to review standards according to priorities and employers’ needs”.
But how can the Government guarantee to maintain the high standard required if this clause is left in place? A regular review process significantly improves performance via proactive feedback, identifying areas for improvement and setting clear and achievable goals. We designed an apprenticeship programme to encourage personal and professional growth, which ultimately leads to enhanced productivity and job satisfaction. Will the Minister please explain whether there will be a guaranteed minimum amount of reviews per annum?
The Bill’s impact assessment states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, Skills England. It states that this will disproportionately impact adult apprentices and disadvantaged learners and regions. AI and technology are transforming the nature of work and the skills people need to be successful. Many older people need help to be better with technology. We have more than 5 million older workers in the UK who are thinking of retiring early and, of those, circa 500,000 said that they could not keep up with the skills needed. These are the people who will be hit, according to the impact statement. What assurances can the Minister give us that this negative impact will be mitigated as much as possible?
There are also concerns that the unions will have a disproportionate influence over Skills England, to the detriment of employers. The senior deputy general secretary of Prospect welcomed the launch of Skills England, but argued that it
“won’t achieve its objectives without engaging and involving trade unions at every level”.
What reassurances can the Minister give the House that there will not be undue involvement of the unions, to the detriment of employers and learners?
The Government have said that they will build 300,000 new homes every year, but we do not have the electricians, plumbers, bricklayers or roofers needed to build that number of homes every year. Their skills cannot be conjured up; they need training and apprenticeships, which take time.
In March this year, the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced that Labour would fund 1,000 new careers advisers in schools and a number of employment advisers in new young futures hubs. The Government committed to 1,000, but what is the timetable for getting them all in place?
In the Government’s manifesto, they set out plans to reform the levy and allow businesses to use 50% of their funds for non-apprenticeship training. But analysis has shown that, if you allow employers to use half the funds for other skills training, you materially reduce the number of apprenticeships. Are the Government still taking this course of action and, if yes, why?
Apprenticeships and technical qualifications are the engine room of the UK economy. A successful programme leads to innovation, productivity and growth. This must work, so that everyone in the country feels the benefits. We very much look to forward hearing from the Minister on our concerns.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish.
It is an odd experience to find yourself looking at a document with a background that seems to agree with you. In the last speech I made in the previous Parliament on this subject I said that levels 4 and 5 needed tremendous support and encouragement. We now have a document which, in the policy summary notes, says more or less that. So I can sit down and say. “The Government are listening to me at last” and all will be right in the world.
But when you see something that is all going to the Secretary of State—their office, but really the person in charge—alarm bells start to ring. If the Secretary of State is going to do it, what happens if they do something which is slightly off? What is the warning construction? Does Skills England go back and say, “You’re wrong”? How would we resolve that? Would we actually find out if there was real disagreement? That is something we should have a long hard look at during this Bill.
We also have to make sure that we have a balanced approach to skills. Key to this is the approach—the previous Government did start this—to careers guidance. The two have to work together to get a decent result. We have to make sure that people know what the skills are and where you are going to start to apply them. I was never comfortable with the previous Government’s approach to the breakdown between the local skills structure and the national skills structure. We should get a better balance, especially for levels 4 and 5, with a big emphasis on the technician level. We have historically been bad at this—for decades we have been bad at this. When I first got into Parliament, I was told that we were bad at it.
If we are going to do that, where should that support come? Where are we going to look at that balance of getting a high technical level of training? It might be delivered by the higher education sector in places—indeed, it probably should be. One of the things we might have lost when we lost polytechnics was something that bridged that gap. I know that that battle was already lost before this came in, but how will we deliver that higher level of training? Apprenticeships are one way to access this, and colleges will be another. How do we balance these two things and how does Skills England take on this role? That is one of the important things we have not heard about in enough detail to pass judgment.
If we are being more flexible and removing barriers to flexibility, we are also removing potential safeguards. It is the trade off, balancing the two. How will we know when the Government have decided that something has gone wrong? And it will—there will be mistakes and misjudgments; all Governments make them. It is not making a mistake that damns you; it is not realising and not adjusting. How will they report back and let us know what is going on? How will they let the sector know that they are making changes? That will be vital to ensure confidence, which is once again a feeding-in point; if there is confidence across the sector, people will buy in. It is important that we hear that during the Bill’s progress. Our skill here will be tested with probing amendments, but we need to know what the Government’s approach is in more detail than we will get tonight.
I could speak for a long time but I do not think it is appropriate—I could try to work salmon into my speech but I think I will give that a miss. The final brick that will make this work is knowing where we will get the structure to examine what is being done, if it is all held in the department. This has got to talk to every other bit of government, and then all the bits outside government. If there is a central structure, how that is intended to happen and its capacity to change—how to extend bits that work well and what to do when bits do not—is what we are coming to.
The intention behind the Bill is basically good; it is the delivery that we should talk about. How do we bring in practical solutions, from inside and outside government—indeed, from inside and outside the Department for Education? The Department of Health, for instance, will know what it requires, and if those two bits of Whitehall can talk to each other, that is great. But anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that Chinese walls take a lot of kicking to get through. Everybody here has done that. Whoever is looking after trade or local government will have an input. If Ministers can say what they expect to happen, at least within Whitehall, I would be much more sanguine about the Bill. But we will have to find out how this works to have real confidence in the process.
I wish the Government well, because any sane person would, but we are not writing them a blank cheque yet. We would like to hear about the process behind this, because if it achieves success then that will be great, but knowing how they will recover from any mistakes and adapt to them—the cock-up school of history is one I agree with—would reassure me. I hope that the Government will be forthcoming about their plans. In that way, we will all be able to rest a little easier in looking at the training agenda.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to talk about the importance of skills with many who we might think of as the usual suspects assembled here this evening, even at rather a late hour. I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish.
I welcome this Bill, which is an important, if mainly technical, step towards a much-needed revamp of overall skills policy. Other elements of this include the establishment of Skills England, a new growth and skills levy to replace the apprenticeship levy, and the curriculum and assessment review addressing those two aspects of education. All this is in the overall context of the industrial strategy launched last week, which rightly includes a strong focus on people and skills.
Three of the Government’s five missions, on growth, net zero and opportunity for all, make specific reference to jobs, productivity or education, and the NHS mission also depends on skills. The skills system is a critical enabler of economic growth. Yet employers across virtually all sectors report significant skills shortages, combined with growing future skills needs. Meanwhile, the education system is failing to respond adequately to these needs, particularly for young people who are less academically inclined and do not aspire to university but are not made sufficiently aware of the alternative technical and vocational pathways available to them and the rewarding and fulfilling employment opportunities that those pathways can lead to. In her foreword to Skills England’s first report, the Secretary of State for Education highlights that we have a
“fragmented and confusing skills landscape that lets down learners, frustrates businesses and holds back growth”.
This Second Reading debate poses an unusual challenge: whether to focus on the Bill itself, which is relatively short and technical, or to address the bigger skills policy picture, of which the Bill is a harbinger. The Minister has managed skilfully to ride both these horses. By the way, it is very good that we have the Skills Minister in the House of Lords, and I wish her every success in her crucial role. Taking my cue from her, but possibly in another order, I shall address some provisions in the Bill before raising questions about other aspects of the Government’s overall skills plans.
The Bill transfers IfATE functions to the Secretary of State, with the intention that most of them will be passed on to Skills England when it is up and running. What can the Minister tell us about what criteria will be used to determine which functions will or will not be transferred?
Clauses 4 and 5 provide the option for standards and apprenticeship assessment plans to be prepared by the Secretary of State rather than “a group of persons”—typically a group of key employers. I have heard mixed reactions from employers to this: it is welcome if it speeds up the review process for minor changes so long as it does not become the default, but there are concerns if it results in employers becoming less engaged or even bypassed and the quality and consistency of apprenticeship being undermined. I was reassured by some of what the Minister said about the intentions.
Can the Minister confirm that both standard-setting and assessment plans will be transferred to Skills England to avoid inconsistent outcomes for the same apprenticeship if these functions are separated? In particular, will Skills England be required to work closely with industry skills bodies to ensure effective employer input?
The Bill’s impact assessment, as a previous speaker mentioned, recognises that there may be some delays in approving qualifications during the transition process. What is the Government’s assessment of the likely impact of these on learners and employers, and what steps are they taking to mitigate or minimise that impact? Together, the points I have mentioned come down to a single underlying question: what reassurance can the Minister give that the specific proposals in the Bill will not be used in a way that results in the influence and centrality of employers in the process being diluted?
I turn now to three broader skills policy issues. I could have covered many more, so I will try to keep to just the three. The first relates to the proposed growth and skills levy and how it might address the perennial challenge of persuading more small businesses to offer apprenticeships. Taking construction as an example, the Government are seeking to build 1.5 million new homes over the next five years which, according to the Construction Industry Training Board, will require the current workforce of the sector to increase by an estimated 30%, or some 152,000 people. Where are these people going to come from if not from SMEs, which account for 98% of the construction industry?
Yet the tight margins on which SMEs in the sector operate, exacerbated by issues such as cash retentions—about which noble Lords have regularly heard me complain—mean that they find it hard to invest in apprenticeships and other forms of training and lack sufficient incentives and support to do so. How will the growth and skills levy seek to overcome the challenges of funding and bureaucracy preventing so many SMEs, not just in construction, from offering apprenticeships? Might the Government be considering some sort of weighting in the allocation of growth and skills levy funds—for example, to prioritise apprenticeships in smaller businesses, or for younger people, or for higher priority sectors, or at lower levels, given that employer skills needs in construction are primarily at level 3 and below? Hitherto, it has been very unclear what the desired balance of apprenticeships in these areas might be.
My second issue concerns the limited focus, and lack of alignment and agility, of the education system in meeting the skills needs of the employment market which students will need to navigate. The Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee on which I served last year, some of whose members are here today, found an alarming imbalance between the academic subjects required to obtain good GCSE results and the more technical and vocational options that develop the essential practical and life skills sought by employers, including digital skills, communication skills, such as oracy, which I wish I had learned, teamwork, problem-solving, resilience and creative skills. An effective skills strategy must be clear not only about the skills that employers in key sectors need, now and in the future, to boost productivity and growth, but also how the education system should be adapted to provide those skills. Will these issues be fully taken on board by the curriculum and assessment review, and how will employer needs be reflected in the review, given that there seem to be no employer representatives in its membership?
Finally, to pick up on what previous speakers have said, what can the Minister tell us about how Skills England, as a non-statutory—and “Why non-statutory?” I ask—executive agency within the Department for Education, headed by a chief executive at Civil Service director level, and with a range of detailed technical and regulatory functions to fulfil, will at the same time be able to co-ordinate skills needs across sectors and regions, building on local skills improvement plans and driving strategic collaboration across the whole of government, in partnership with sector skills bodies, unions, the devolved nations and others? That is an enormous task for any single organisation to fulfil, particularly at that level of government. How will the pieces of this complex puzzle fit together to create a coherent national strategy, fully integrated with the industrial strategy, to ensure that the identified demand for skills is matched by the provision from education and training at all levels, and who will be responsible for driving this process across government? To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, what tools will be available to identify and fix things that are not working, and who will exercise them?
The Government have set themselves ambitious and inspiring goals for skills policy, and I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how they will be achieved and what part this Bill will play in what will be a long, complex and vitally important process.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I realise that I stand in the way of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, which I look forward to hearing shortly. I shall try to be brief.
I support the Bill in principle, and certainly the ambition behind it—and I certainly understand the logic behind it. A number of questions have already been raised about it that will need some careful addressing and answering if the House is to be confident about what is proposed. I want to focus on the FE sector, which has been facing some difficulty in recent years—facing the uncertainty while awaiting the outcome of the Government’s pause and review of level 3 qualifications, deals with FE pay being considered separately from the ongoing negotiations for the recently resurrected School Support Staff Negotiating Body, and faces up to the impact of sustained cuts and falls in funding in real terms. But FE is doing amazing work, particularly with particular sectors of our young people.
My questions relate to the move of IfATE into Skills England in relation to several issues. First, on young people, the apprenticeship levy has resulted in fewer young people undertaking apprenticeships, Young people in general, but especially those not in employment, education or training, form a demographic that stands to benefit immensely from apprenticeships, but it seems to me that we have seen a trend of employers choosing to spend their apprenticeship levy on older employees or career changers, as young people are sometimes perceived as harder to work with. How will Skills England incentivise the recruitment and training of young people through apprenticeships?
Secondly, on SMEs, small and medium-sized enterprises have not found the apprenticeship levy simple to navigate. It is much simpler for those with a turnover of more than £3 million a year, as they contribute automatically. Complexity and perceived uncertainty around a solution of co-investment has limited the take-up of apprentices by SMEs, which can disproportionately affect smaller or more rural communities, where larger businesses simply may not operate. How will the new structures around apprenticeships incentivise and support provision of apprenticeships by small and medium-sized businesses?
On the question of levels, the apprenticeship levy has had a much bigger impact on higher-level qualifications, such as higher and degree apprenticeships, and in turn therefore helps higher education institutions. But it is not improving the range and offer of courses available at lower levels, such as intermediate apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3, to anywhere near the same level. Arguably, that increases the options available to already more privileged or socially mobile apprenticeship candidates, while restricting the options available to those most in need.
I shall give an example to illustrate my point. There is currently a crisis in care. Statistically, care-experienced young people are far more likely to study at FE institutions than HE institutions. Given the weaker social fabric supporting them, and the complexity of transitioning to independent adulthood after 18, which is challenging enough as they leave the care system, these young people should be the ideal candidates for apprenticeships and the training and salary or wages that they provide. However, they are more likely to need to undertake a lower-level apprenticeship in the first instance, and are seen by some providers as harder to work with, as I indicated earlier, and are therefore doubly passed over in favour of older and more experienced candidates undertaking higher or degree level apprenticeships, for which a young learner may not be eligible, depending on their prior education. How will Skills England use apprenticeship structures and incentives to make sure that our apprenticeship structures and technical education are making the most impact for our most vulnerable young adults and learners?
Lord Beamish (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to give my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. I begin by thanking Black Rod and her staff for their help and assistance since my introduction. I also thank the principal doorkeeper and other doorkeepers and other House staff for their welcome and advice, along with the warm welcome that I have received from noble Lords from across the House.
I also take this opportunity to thank my two sponsors, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I have been friends with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, for many years. We served together on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. On our many travels, she used to describe me as her unofficial Batman, as I carried bags through numerous airports around the world. However, it was a delight to undertake that role for such a noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has similarly been a good friend and, like me, is an early riser. We were both members for many years of the House of Commons tearoom breakfast club, which meets at 7.30 am every day. It is an opportunity to read the morning papers, and usually by 9 am the assembled masses have put the world to rights. I am also pleased to be reunited in your Lordships’ House with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom. We served together on the House of Commons Defence Committee, but more importantly we have also worked for more than 15 years on the campaign to get justice for sub-postmasters affected by the Post Office Horizon scandal. Although we are of different political parties, we have worked well together and over the years have helped right a grave injustice. In your Lordships’ House I hope to continue that work on Post Office justice. The latest scandal is around a system called Capture, which pre-dates the Horizon system and has just been the subject of a report by the Department for Business highlighting a similar scandal that took place with that system. It is something that I think we now need to address.
I join your Lordships’ House having had the honour of being the Member of Parliament for North Durham for 23 years. Many people have inquired about the origins of my title, Lord Beamish. Many, including my good friend Gavin Robinson, the leader of the DUP in the Commons, asked me whether it is in honour of the famous Irish stout. No, it is not. It is one of the many villages that make up the North Durham constituency and, as those from the north-east know, it is also the site of the world-famous open-air museum. As your Lordships know, it is always difficult to decide which village or community to include in one’s title, but I drew the line at a village very close to Beamish called No Place—I did not think that being Lord No Place would have the same ring.
I am the third former Labour Member of Parliament from North Durham or its predecessor constituency to enter your Lordships’ House, the others being Jack Lawson—Attlee’s Minister of War in the 1945 Labour Government—in 1950, and Giles Radice in 2001. I know that many noble Lords will remember him with affection. In his maiden speech to your Lordships’ House in 1950, Lawson said that
“I have listened to the debates in this House for some weeks. I confess that from time to time I felt very much like David Copperfield on one occasion, when we are told he felt ‘very, very young’”.—[Official Report, 23/5/1950; col. 442.]
Being a 60 year-old, I think I understand what he was saying.
My maiden speech in the House of Commons in 2001 described North Durham as
“a rural constituency with urban problems”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/01; cols. 585-86.]
It is a former coal-mining constituency with beautiful countryside, and the sad thing is that the economic reason why most of the communities existed is no longer there: coal mining closed and industry moved away. The jobs now are mainly to be found to the north, in Newcastle, Sunderland and the A1 corridor. The communities are still very strong, but jobs are needed. The other thing that is needed is to raise the aspirations of many young people who live there. That is why I welcome the new Government’s commitment, as one of their key missions, to economic growth and concentration on skills.
There has been much debate about the need for capital investment but, unless we invest in people, the economic gains that we strive for will not be achieved. If your Lordships look around the world, the most successful economies are those that invest in their workforce. This Bill is a key step in that direction. As the Minister said in opening the debate, the skills landscape for too long has been fragmented. If Skills England is to succeed, though, it will need to be a genuine partnership between government, the education sector and the private sector. Government and the private sector will need to come together not only to identify the areas where skills are needed but to make sure that resources are directed towards them. I also argue that skills and Skills England need to be hard-wired into all government departments—they need to be thinking about skills when policies are developed.
I note that the policy publication for the Bill, produced by the Department for Education, refers to work with devolved Administrations, combined authorities and government department such as the Department for Energy Security, DWP and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology but does not mention other departments such as, for example, the Ministry of Defence. As many noble Lords know, defence has been one of my interests, as a former Defence Minister. According to ADS, aerospace, defence, security and space employ 427,000 people in the UK, from large primes down to small SMEs, and provide some 20,000 apprenticeships every year. It is therefore vital that the Ministry of Defence and groups such as ADS work in partnership with Skills England when drawing up strategies for those sectors.
As has been said in this debate, skills are important for the economic well-being of our nation, but I also argue that they are vital for our national security. As a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I saw at first hand that if we are to defend our nation against those who wish to threaten us, whether they be nation states or not, we will need a new generation with computer and IT skills and mathematicians in the future. That is something that needs to be thought about. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the work that is going on at GCHQ with the neurodiverse community, tapping into a resource that is not only having great beneficial results for the individuals but helping it develop new programmes and ways to protect our country.
When government departments, particularly the Treasury, are awarding contracts, they also need to think about skills. Some 38p in every pound spent on a defence contract with a UK company not only comes back to the Government in tax and national insurance but helps grow the skills base of our country. This was clearly demonstrated in Philip Dunne’s excellent 2018 report Growing the Contribution of Defence to UK Prosperity. Sadly, the last Government completely ignored that excellent report.
I conclude by making a plea for what I call our traditional skills. There is still a need for stonemasons, glass craftsman and traditional carpenters, and I commend the work being done by the Beamish museum in giving apprenticeship opportunities to young people in those skills, which are in danger of dying out. If the Houses of Parliament ever decide to get around to the restoration and renewal programme of the Palace of Westminster, these skills will be vital.
I thank your Lordships for listening to my maiden speech. I look forward to making further contributions and taking an active part in the work of the House.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
It is my great pleasure and privilege to follow my noble friend and congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. We are very glad that he is here, bringing the experience he outlined, his cross-party campaigning zeal on the Post Office scandal and his work on defence. My noble friend on our Front Bench will very much welcome his expertise. I agree with him about craft skills, which my city was built on as well, and the collaboration between the public and private sectors that we will need if we are to make the skills agenda work. I appreciate that very much.
I knew about the Beamish open-air industrial museum. As my noble friend was making his maiden speech, I was thinking that he had moved from one museum to another. This is more like a natural history museum where the occasional dinosaur moves around the corridors—responsible, in part at least, for not changing the sitting hours of this House. So here we are debating something really important late on a Tuesday night, perhaps too late to do it justice. I will therefore cut my speech down. I declare my interests in the register on a wide range of issues relating to education.
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on being able to ride the two horses—and Houses; she has been in both—referred to earlier of addressing the minutiae of this legislation and the greater vision of Skills England. I was proud to lead on the learning and skills proposals published two years ago from which Skills England, the growth and skills levy and much else have been drawn.
I am still struggling with the idea of being on the Government Benches rather than in opposition. After 14 years, it is quite hard not to make a remark like “This Bill is necessary but not necessarily sufficient” sound like a criticism. While the Bill is needed to transfer IfATE’s duties to Skills England, it is only a tiny part of creating a vision and pathway to generate the energy, drive and commitment of everyone involved to make Skills England a force to be reckoned with. Some of the questions already asked today arise directly from that.
Figure 7 in chapter 3 of the paper published on 24 September—the day the Prime Minister made a speech at Labour’s party conference—lays out the challenge of getting the right skills in the right places, not just now but for the future. That paper made some interesting comments that I strongly welcome and hope we can build on in Committee and in responses from the Government, as well as in wider workforce planning.
My noble friend Lord Beamish referred to using other departments as a template. He noted the massive investment of the Ministry of Defence. Defence procurement reminds me that we have an enormous opportunity that has not yet found its way into government policy: using procurement to drive apprenticeships as well as the necessary skills agenda for the future. When asked what consultation he had carried out on the production of his first car, Henry Ford indicated that, if he had bothered to consult anybody, their first thought would have been “faster horses”. In just the first 25 years of the last century, the proportion of movements by mechanical means moved from 5% to 95% due to the creation and development of vehicles. We are at a point where enormous change is happening as we speak.
That is why, as I imagine my noble friend will know, there is such controversy in Germany at the moment about where it is going on the skills agenda and investment for the future. We have always turned to Germany as an example of what we might have done in the past and might do today. I fear that the world is changing around us, sometimes leading us and sometimes giving us an example of how we have to skip a generation in what we are doing in order to be in the right place to deliver the skills we need for the future.
My noble friend mentioned dental technicians. I make a plea that we move very rapidly to decentralise the accreditation of industry standards to organisations such as the Construction Industry Training Board and the ECITB—both of which had a role in this area before 2016 when IfATE was created—to cut out the bureaucracy. Over the last eight years IfATE has undoubtedly developed a bureaucracy, but we owe it a debt of gratitude because it has had a thankless task. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, its chief exec, all its staff and Richard Pennycook, who has done an incredible but unsung job in a very short period of time to get shadow Skills England off the ground.
There are questions about the level of the post of chief exec, which I hope my noble friend will address not just now but in the weeks ahead. We have an incredibly powerful director-general in the Department for Education who has a reputation for delivery and is in a position to drive Skills England forward. However, we are talking not about individuals in a post but about whether Skills England will have a chair who can deal with business, trade unions and departments in an independent and vigorous fashion and advocate for the resources needed.
The apprenticeship levy—I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say much more about it next week—is fundamental and should be expanded. The Treasury should stop top-slicing it and thereby diminishing the amount of money and resource available to deliver. Skills England can play an important part in making that advocacy work, but not if it does not have the clout or reputation to ensure that it can be done.
I was going to raise many other questions but, to respect those still to come on this late Tuesday night, I will end with this. We have to be really ambitious. Microcredits and modular learning will mean that in future we will need a learning passport; to answer a query raised earlier, we will need to reinstate the Union Learning Fund created in 1998. I was very proud of that, because along with it went learning representatives who advocated alongside management for learning in the workplace and beyond. There are many examples of how well that worked, such as the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.
Let us not reinvent the wheel; let us work out what worked in the past and what did not, and then build on it. Let us also rejoice in the fact that we have a Minister of State in this House with hands-on experience, who understands the economic and business needs required and who can be a great leader in ensuring, along with the Secretary of State, that we get it right. Tonight is the beginning of a journey that I hope we will be on together.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking in tonight’s debate and I draw attention to my registered interests. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on his maiden speech and very much look forward to his contribution to the House.
As this debate has already shown, across the House there is cross-party agreement on the importance of an effective skills agenda to develop a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that fulfils employers’ needs and provides the opportunities and training that employees need to thrive.
I, too, recently served as a member of the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Select Committee with a number of other noble Lords speaking today. While our focus was on the schools system, during our evidence sessions we heard time and again from witnesses about the need for an increased focus on skills and training to equip our young people for the world of work both now and in the future.
The data bears that out. Studies consistently highlight the importance of skills to growth, with around one-third of average annual UK productivity growth between 2001 and 2019 attributable to the expansion of skills in the workforce. As we have heard, it is estimated that there will be 1.4 million new jobs in the economy by 2035.
For instance, evidence to our Select Committee suggested that, over the next five to 10 years, more than 200,000 jobs could be created in the energy efficiency sector, with the retrofitting of buildings alone requiring the training of 45,000 new technicians a year. It is against this context of the changing skills demands of the economy that we are considering this Bill.
Yet the Bill does not tell us anything much about the Government’s approach to the challenges. As the Minister said in her opening remarks, the Bill is narrow in scope and technical in nature. That is certainly true and it raises some concerns.
The Bill abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, giving the Secretary of State significant powers as a result, but includes nothing at all about the new body, Skills England, that is intended to be at the centre of the skills landscape under this Government and absolutely fundamental to the delivery of their agenda.
Despite the department’s policy summary repeatedly referring to the role of Skills England, as the Minister set out in her opening remarks, the Bill itself does nothing practically to progress its establishment. Surprisingly, the organisation which is intended to be the “driving force” behind a
“much-needed upskilling of our economy in the coming decades”
is not mentioned once in the Bill. Instead, most measures transfer a significant number of powers and functions directly to the Secretary of State.
In its briefing on the Bill, CITB noted that this was
“contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the … King’s speech … and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”.
In her introduction to the first report published last month by Skills England in its shadow form, the Secretary of State set out a number of responsibilities that will be invested in the new organisation: first, bringing together business, training partners and unions with national and local government to develop a clear assessment of the country’s skills needs and how they can be filled; secondly, working closely with the Industrial Strategy Council, the Migration Advisory Committee and across government to deliver the necessary skilled workforce required in the future; and, finally, shaping the Government’s response to skills needs by identifying key priorities, including advising on the new growth and skills levy.
In his foreword, Richard Pennycook, interim chair of Skills England, added a further list of actions the body will be taking, including working with providers in further and higher education to clarify and strengthen the skills landscape, and supporting schools in the provision of high-quality advice to students on career opportunities.
There is no question but that these roles are extremely important and need to be fulfilled, but there is no detail about any of this in the Bill. So we are being asked to abolish IfATE and give the Secretary of State significant powers, but with no legislative underpinning of what Skills England will actually do in practice, and no details about how it will fulfil its extremely important functions to achieve the laudable outcomes the Government want.
I am not sure how the Bill fits with the speech made by the Attorney-General last week, in which he said:
“Excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses or skeleton legislation upsets the … balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values ... but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”.
The Labour manifesto itself made several very clear commitments about Skills England: that it would work with the Migration Advisory Committee, co-ordinate with local and regional authorities and determine which courses would be eligible for levy funding. So I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why at the very least these are not included in the Bill, with reference to the creation of Skills England.
The lack of a statutory footing for Skills England and the centralisation of powers in the Secretary of State in the Bill raise questions for many of us. With all the powers in the Bill passed to the Secretary of State, how independent will Skills England—and indeed the board—really be able to be in practice? Will they truly feel able to challenge Ministers if they believe that government policy is not delivering on the outcomes intended if they have no legal independence? How in practice and on what basis will their relationship develop with the Industrial Strategy Council and the Migration Advisory Committee? What role will they have in approving new qualifications or overseeing the system and what will be the extent of their responsibilities?
There are also important unanswered questions around how Skills England will be asked to oversee the apprenticeship system. Policy Exchange’s report, Reforming the Apprenticeship Levy, published last year, found a recurring complaint from employers of all sizes that standards were too inflexible for their needs. How will Skills England address this problem and what safeguards will be in place to ensure that powers taken by the Secretary of State are used appropriately?
Unfortunately, with the paucity of detail about the new body within the Bill, there is a very long list of questions. So, in conclusion, I believe the Bill raises more questions than it answers and I look forward to our more detailed discussions during its passage, when I hope the Minister will build on her opening comments to provide much more detail on the role and responsibilities of Skills England, and, perhaps most importantly, offer clear reassurances that it will have the autonomy, responsibility and flexibility to lead the revitalisation of our skills system that we all want to see.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as ever, I declare my interest as a teacher in a state secondary school in east London. I thank the organisations that briefed us—there were a lot of them. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on his excellent speech. I have to admit that I am rather sad not to be congratulating the noble Lord, Lord No Place—but that was maybe a good choice.
This is an interesting one. We get very little detail in the Bill, so this debate is more about a wish list than talking about the Bill itself. Through the Bill we get Skills England and its utopian dream: stronger, flexible, nimble, swerving, agile, breaking through barriers. This is less of an arm’s-length body and more of a job description for an England rugby fullback.
So here is the first question the Minister might like to answer. According to the Association of Employment Learning Providers:
“The remit of the IfATE had become bloated and not fit for purpose”.
Given the larger remit of Skills England, how will it remain nimble? Now that so much power will be vested in the Secretary of State, how is this agility going to work? I am not being flippant when I ask: does the department have the skill set for this new agile way of working?
As my noble friend Lord Aberdare quoted, in its first report Skills England said that over a third of the vacancies in 2022 were the result of skills shortages. It said that the qualifications landscape for employers was “opaque”; that, for learners, career paths were “not sufficiently clear”; and that the current skills system was not always equipping learners with the necessary skills.
There is work to do; we need to go back to fundamentals. We must not confuse skills with knowledge. Skills are practical abilities developed through practice and application. The knowledge-rich curriculum in schools has been to the detriment of skills. For too long, we have concentrated too much on getting the best maths results this side of Mars, while downplaying skills that employers want and need. By prioritising mathematics and engineering, the Government sought to boost innovation and competitiveness, but neglected the very sectors that have made the UK a cultural powerhouse: arts, music, design and literature. Obviously, an ability in maths and English is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. The Empire is gone; there are no jobs for life.
As a teacher, I am constantly amazed that students can name every god in the major religions but cannot use Microsoft Office. Designing and populating a spreadsheet should be part of the basic maths taught in primary school. Every student should leave school having started at least one business, and I commend the work of Young Enterprise in this field. Every student should have the skills to build healthy work, social and sexual relationships, and again I urge the Minister to look at the work of the charity Tender if she does not know it. These are some of the many reasons why every child should be in school. Maybe by making the curriculum more relevant, we could tempt the abstainers and their families back into the fold—it might also be fun to teach—otherwise, I have no idea where the thousands of new teachers will come from.
I welcome the recent government Statement on the British film industry:
“Britain is open for business, and creativity is … at its heart”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/24; col. 317.]
That is great news given that successive Governments spent time downgrading creative subjects.
Can we say goodbye to Ebacc and Progress 8, which penalise schools and give them no credit for large amounts of high-performing creative subjects? Can the Minister expand on an answer she gave during Oral Questions earlier this afternoon, when she said that the “curriculum and assessment review” would be “creating space for … creativity”?
Qualifications are a mess. Apparently, Skills England will intervene “sometimes” in the award of technical qualifications. Clause 8 means that Ofqual may not decide whether there may be an accreditation requirement for approving technical education. Can the Minister explain the high-stakes qualifications and the specified technical education types? I am afraid that I still do not understand them.
I am member of the APPG on T-levels and I have chaired a conference on them. Time and again, we hear that they are too technical and that schools and colleges are struggling to find meaningful relations with industry. The Minister said in an answer yesterday that T-levels would be beefed up—great gung-ho language. Does she have more detail of the beef to be applied? I have taught both the unloved BTECs and V Certs, and friends of mine have taught unteachable V Certs. What will happen to those lower qualifications?
According to the CITB, each year 58,900 people either on a construction apprenticeship or an FE course fail to achieve their qualification or immediately progress into construction employment on completion of their qualification. The main reasons for this training wastage are the limited focus, the lack of alignment and the limited agility of the education system to meet construction employer skills needs, which are primarily at level 3 and below. Ultimately, this leads to low apprenticeship completion rates and unacceptable FE outcomes for the industry. The Minister mentioned the short qualification reform review; can she say how that is going?
Overall, this Bill is to be welcomed. Skills England talks a great fight, and if it can truly deliver the skilled workforce that this country so desperately needs, it will have achieved something monumental. However, this Government need to be brave, for Skills England can thrive only in an education system that is as agile and relevant as Skills England itself.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish. I warmly welcome this Bill for two reasons. The first is economic growth. That is obvious, but equally importantly—I want to stress this perspective—skills are crucial for people and their individual ability to earn a living. For those two reasons, it is highly desirable that we have a well-focused system of skills development led by a single body. That is what this Bill will provide.
However, when I read the brief from the DfE for Skills England and the first report that it produced, I immediately noticed what seems to be an imbalance. It is concentrating entirely on the first of the two reasons I gave: the perceived needs of existing employers for labour and the estimates of the new types of jobs of the future. This is very important—it is crucial that we know all that in order to have the right balance of training that fits the pattern of future jobs—but there is also the other perspective: that of the individual.
If one were thinking about the need for a particular volume of training, that would lead one to ask how many young people need to be trained to earn a decent income. I have not seen them mentioned in the documents I have read so far. It is quite impracticable to say how many people should be trained just by adding up the estimates from employers and the estimates of new jobs. If you want to think about the numbers that have to be trained, you have to think about how many people are out there. The estimates from employers and the estimates of new jobs are vital for understanding the pattern of training.
If we want to think about the total volume of training, we should start with the very simple principle that it is in the national interest that every young person achieves the highest level of skill they can and wish to achieve. It is a prime duty of the state to get every young person off to the best possible start in working life. It is a much lower duty of the state to support lifelong learning, and indeed most in-service training should be, as it always has been, paid for by employers. By contrast, getting people off to a good start in life is central to the Government’s opportunity mission, but we are currently far from achieving that.
Where is the problem? The problem is not in schools. At age 15, our young people do better in the PISA tests than youngsters in France, Germany and most other European countries. However, by age 25, they are way behind, unless they are in the group who went to university. It is after school that the real barriers to opportunity exist.
For example, in the Government’s apprenticeship matching scheme there are three times more applicants than there are places on offer, so it is no wonder that at the age of 18 a third of our young people are getting no education or training. This is a shocking state of affairs. Let me break it down. There is the 14% who are NEET—not in education, employment or training—that we often talk about, but I think just as bad is the 20% who are in jobs without training and heading for a lifetime of low pay. It is this lack of training that I consider one of the biggest problems facing our country: the people who are getting nothing beyond the age of 17. It is completely extraordinary.
That is why I am encouraged that the Government are offering young people up to the age of 21 a Youth Guarantee of education, training, or help with finding work. That is good, but it is not nearly enough. What we need for these young people is, in addition, inside the Youth Guarantee, a guarantee of training if that is what they want and are qualified for, and I hope the Government can modify the Youth Guarantee in that way.
In 2009, the previous Labour Government passed an apprenticeships Act which obliged the Government to ensure that every young person who was qualified for a level 2 or level 3 apprenticeship could expect to receive an offer. That was repealed a year later. The guaranteed offer is, of course, what we do for people going down the academic route to university. They are pretty much guaranteed a place—not necessarily what they want but a place. We have never applied it to the other 50%, and that is why we have low productivity, low pay and inequality in our country.
To apply this guarantee principle would require a major administrative effort at the centre, working through local authorities, and, if necessary, an extra element of subsidy. I suggest that every local authority would be required to assess the number of young people likely to want an apprenticeship and it would then do its best to persuade local employers to provide these opportunities. The research shows that employers like the idea of an apprenticeship guarantee. They are not averse to it. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 85% of those surveyed supported the idea and 60% of them said that, if it was introduced, they would provide more places than they currently do.
This guarantee would be only fair to that cohort of young people, but also it is a very good investment, because, according to our calculations, within 12 years it would recoup enough in extra taxes and reduce benefits to repay the cost of the apprenticeship to the Treasury. The total cost of such a guarantee would in fact be no more than 40% of the growth and skills levy, so my proposal is that 40% of the growth and skills levy be ring-fenced for young people aged up to 21 taking an apprenticeship up to levels 2 and 3. These are mostly young people without A-levels and I think we have a prime responsibility, if we are looking for change, to focus above all on that group. Their claims must come before the claims of people doing levels 4, 5 and 6, who have already been helped through their A-levels and are now eligible for student loans.
The future of the levy is a crucial early issue for Skills England. I hope it will be interested in some of the arguments that I have put forward, but whether or not it accepts the idea of a guarantee and some ring-fencing of the levy, it is crucial that Skills England not only looks at what employers and the jobs of the future suggest but includes a serious study of the number of young people who are needed to acquire a skill—that is a crucial point. I hope we can continue to discuss that additional focus for Skills England in the later stages of the Bill. It is a vital dimension, because in the end the economy is for people and not people for the economy.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on an excellent maiden speech, which was both informative and entertaining, and I thank the Minister for her exposition of the rationale for this Bill. While I applaud the ambitions for Skills England—our country must obviously have the right skills to meet the challenges of modernity— I wish to provide some gentle warnings of the risks that I fear will inevitably arise with the Government’s approach.
First, I readily accept that, despite the previous Government’s best efforts, skills shortages remain a challenge for the UK, as for most developed economies. Despite record participation rates in higher education, a generously funded apprenticeship scheme and soaring levels of net migration, skills shortages remain. I sympathise entirely with the Government’s desire to act to shore up skills gaps.
The last Government had considerable success with their reforms to apprenticeships, and the Institute for Apprentices and Technical Education—IFATE—was set up as part of those reforms. Its purpose was to be independent of Government and to represent employers in setting standards for technical qualifications. It succeeded through instilling confidence in the integrity of apprenticeship standards. Employers are fundamental to the input of the qualifications they need in the workplace.
I pay tribute to the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, and her team for the work of IfATE. It has, among other successes, created and maintained around 690 apprenticeships, which supported around 750,000 people on apprenticeships last year. It created 21 T-levels and 174 higher technical qualifications, and enabled 120 employer leaders to set strategic direction for skills in their sector. Perhaps the best assessment of IfATE comes from apprentices themselves. A national survey found a 90% satisfaction rate with IfATE from apprentices who had completed their apprenticeships—what other part of government can report a 90% satisfaction rate?
Established in statute, IfATE has an independent chair and a board that afford a certain distance from the Department for Education. The chair of IfATE is independent of the department, while ultimately remaining accountable to the Secretary of State. This governance arrangement has been key to instilling confidence among employers and being able to galvanise others in support of the standards that IfATE sets. However, Skills England is to be an executive agency of the Department for Education. Under the Government’s proposals, Skills England will report to a senior official in the DfE. In my view, this change in status is both critical and presents significant risks.
In all so-called arm’s-length bodies, there is a hand at the end of the arm. This hand exercises a certain amount of control depending on how the body is set up. The Bill will place far greater control in the hands of officials, rather than employers, in setting and ensuring the rigour of future standards.
This concern is borne out in Clause 4, which gives the Secretary of State, or the officials reporting directly to her, the power to prepare apprenticeship standards herself or to commission others to do so. David Kernohan, in a recent article, highlighted the issue thus:
“This tweak makes it technically possible for an apprenticeship standard to be prepared without the input of employers, providers, industry groups or indeed anyone. The Secretary of State could knock out an apprenticeship standard while bored on a train provided she is ‘satisfied that it would be more appropriate for the standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons’”.
Such wide-ranging powers lead to genuine concerns that the Bill could decrease the standards of technical qualifications.
Clause 6 removes the IfATE requirement that reviews of approved technical qualifications should happen at regular intervals. The reason given in the Explanatory Notes is that this is
“to enable flexibility to review standards according to priorities and employers’ needs”.
Can the Minister explain why a statutory requirement for regular reviews of the suitability of qualifications is to be replaced by such a broad discretion? Would she also be able to provide some clarity on who will decide these priorities and how the decision-maker will determine “employers’ needs”?
As my noble friend Lord Effingham highlighted, the new skills foundation will give increased influence to trade unions, with Sue Ferns, senior deputy general secretary of the union Prospect, arguing that:
“Skills England … won’t achieve its objectives without engaging and involving trade unions at every level”.
Although trade unions play an important part in the workplace, they should not be allowed to push out employers and exercise a disproportionate influence on the standards and formation of qualifications. There is a very real danger that a successful organisation such as IfATE could be subsumed in a new Skills England and become merely a convening body for interested parties.
On the levy, Ms Ferns has called for flexibility and argued that it
“must extend beyond a demand-led model”.
While I appreciate that she does not speak for the Government, I wish to express my alarm that anything other than a demand-led model is appropriate for solving a skills shortage. Such an approach would imply that Skills England is at risk of taking on the role of a central planner for skills—an approach that Governments long ago experimented with and which I hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history.
I close by acknowledging the scale of the challenge facing the Government. Skills shortages arise in almost every advanced economy and there is a wide variety of tools by which government can contribute to meeting this unmet demand for skilled workers. My fear is that Skills England assumes, philosophically, that the state knows best. One need look only at the alarming number of skilled vacancies within the National Health Service and the startling paucity of specialist skills within the Civil Service to recognise that the Government are not best placed to fill skills shortages among those they directly employ, let alone those they do not.
IfATE may not be perfect, but it has gone a long way towards remedying many of the underlying problems. I urge the Minister to give careful thought to whether a governance arrangement that places so much discretion in the hands of civil servants is one that is likely to best meet the needs of our economy.
Baroness McGregor-Smith (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on his excellent maiden speech. I declare my interests as set out in the register in a number of businesses that would benefit from a strong economy.
My background is business and I am passionate about business and economic growth in the UK, but today it is a pleasure to speak to your Lordships in my capacity as chair of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, known as IfATE. I recently met with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in her role as Minister of Skills in the Department for Education, and we agreed that the progress and achievements made by IfATE offer firm foundations for Skills England to build on, and that they support the Government’s ambitions on growth and opportunity across our economy.
I am proud of all that IfATE has achieved. No arms-length body is perfect, but it has done some fantastic things to begin the reform of the skills system that is so desperately needed. The baton will now pass to Skills England, an organisation whose remit will be much broader and wider. What matters now is keeping employers’ voices at the heart of the skills system. This has been central to the successes that IfATE has had and should form part of Skills England’s DNA. Growth will be underpinned by employers getting the skills that they need.
I will take the opportunity to outline to this House some of the achievements that IfATE, and the thousands of employers who have worked with it, have had since 2017. Apprenticeships and technical qualifications in the UK are all now based on IfATE’s occupational standards, which have been created using expert input from employers across the economy, covering everything from nursing to aerospace engineering. These standards capture the essential knowledge, skills and behaviours that employers want within their businesses, increasingly including more and more technology and AI. They form a spine within our skills system, from which apprenticeships and technical qualifications can grow.
I am proud of the breadth and range of standards that we have, which demonstrates how employers from every sector have engaged in the development of the skills system. I am also proud of the recent prototype, the skills compass, which IfATE has been developing in collaboration with the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and Innovate UK. It will use labour market insights and AI to update rapidly these standards and capture changing skills needs. This is what we need in a responsive and flexible skills system.
IfATE has worked with employers to develop and approve over 700 apprenticeships, and 750,000 people participated in an apprenticeship in England last year. The estimated annual gain for employers from apprenticeships is between £2,500 and £18,000 per apprentice during their training, and many apprentices will remain loyal to their apprenticeship employers long-term. I am sure the many noble Lords who have met apprentices will know that they are so passionate and committed to what they do. I have been a big employer of them and am hugely proud of so many of their continuing achievements.
IfATE has set out occupational maps of career paths using apprenticeships and technical qualifications. They show everyone, from school leavers to employers, how you can progress in technical and professional careers. I am pleased to say that seven out of 10 of the mayoral combined authorities now use these maps and the back-office digital interface developed by IfATE to support their own careers guidance offerings. These maps are a real asset that can be transferred to Skills England as a result of this Bill.
IfATE has made great strides in working with employers to identify where existing occupations and apprenticeships can become greener, supporting sustainable growth and our net-zero targets for the UK. We have also supported the Government’s ambitions on T-levels. As we know, T-levels offer routes to professional careers, such as construction, nursing, agriculture and digital, with students able to progress to high-quality apprenticeships. They also offer an alternative route to university education, and 97% of T-level students who applied this year were offered a university place.
IfATE has approved over 230 technical qualifications at levels 4 and 5, providing a quality mark showing alignment to employer-led occupational standards, enabling learners to enter their chosen profession or progress to higher education. This is about expanding the opportunities that learners have to develop their careers and for businesses to get the high-quality skills that they need.
The list goes on. I wanted to share this picture to assure everyone that Skills England will inherit a skills system with the foundations in place. It still needs to be developed, but we are ready to realise the Government’s ambitions to reshape the economy and unlock growth. However, there is a lot more to do.
As well as translating the existing duties that IfATE has into powers for the Secretary of State, the Bill seeks to introduce flexibilities which will help to increase the pace at which we can deliver the skills that are needed by employers and learners. For example, the Bill sets out that groups of persons, currently in the form of employer groups known as trailblazers, may not always be required in the development of occupational standards and apprenticeships as is the case now. This provides the flexibility to make standards based on labour market data and information, and could avoid delays in revising and improving standards.
My view is that, while this flexibility is a sensible tool for the Secretary of State, we should still seek for the norm to be to combine this type of data-led insight with the views of groups of employers and other experts. This matters because it provides them with a direct stake and role in the shaping of the skills system. I would encourage the Secretary of State to make clear and publish her rationale for any exceptions where a group is not used in the development or updating of standards.
I also note that the Bill, in abolishing IfATE, removes the general duties that IfATE has with regard to the needs of learners and employers in exercising its functions. These are not replicated in the transfer of powers to the Secretary of State. I would welcome clarification from the Government on how they envisage Skills England will continue to ensure that those interests are considered under the system. In due course, strategic guidance to Skills England from the Secretary of State may be one helpful way of ensuring that these priorities are protected.
Before I finish, I want to thank my fellow IfATE board members, who represent many of the largest employers in the UK, and all the IfATE employees for all the outstanding work that has been done since 2017. I also thank Jennifer Coupland, the chief executive of IfATE, whom I really admire for her passion, expertise and leadership of the organisation.
In conclusion, I urge the Government not to lose momentum on the work that IfATE has done since 2017—there is too much at stake for everyone involved in the skills system—and to always keep the employer voice central to the development of apprenticeships, qualifications and flexible skills training. We should not forget that, as our workplaces are changed beyond recognition by further advances in technology and AI, we have to ensure that the entire country’s workforce still has the opportunity, under any new system, to constantly reskill.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, this looks such an innocuous little Bill, but there is so much more to it than meets the eye. It is a precursor to the arrival of Skills England, which we all hope will bring together the myriad of agencies operating in FE and skills to ensure quality and accessible education and skills for 100% of the population, as the Association of Colleges so heartily wishes, along with all of us who really care about technical and vocational skills and the well-being of the further education sector.
However, the Bill does something that those of us on these Benches will always be wary of, as my noble friend Lord Addington has set out and other noble Lords have alluded to. It transfers powers from IfATE, a body made up of professional people who know and care about apprenticeships and vocational education, to the Secretary of State. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, who has chaired the board of IfATE so successfully. I add my congratulations, too, to Jennifer Coupland, the chief executive, and the other key members who have shown knowledge of, and dedication to, the further education sector and work-based qualifications.
Alas, they are to be replaced by a here today, gone tomorrow Minister, almost certainly university-educated, with little direct knowledge of, and, sadly perhaps, even less interest in further education colleges and the work-related training and qualifications which they so brilliantly deliver. In a democracy, we should never aspire for unlimited power to be given to politicians. The Minister may argue that this is an interim stage, but it appears that Skills England, when it comes, will not have a statutory basis—as many other noble Lords have pointed out—and will be at the whim of the Secretary of State, who could fundamentally change it.
Skills England will legally be part of the Department for Education, so not as notionally independent as IfATE was. The Education and Skills Funding Agency is also an executive agency, and as such could be easily abolished without parliamentary debate. So what will happen to IfATE’s “employers first” approach to developing policy and qualifications, which could well be at risk if the Education Secretary of the day prescribes a different policy?
It was hoped that Skills England would be able to work across departments, have recourse to employers and be flexible enough to be responsive and approve standards to ensure that work-based qualifications were always employer-led. As I know from my days at City & Guilds, work-based qualifications have always been employer-led. This was by no means true at first with T-levels, which were always billed as different because they were employer-led. Will that be the case when it is set up?
As we have heard, the impact assessment states that there will be a drop in apprenticeship starts while functions are transferred from IfATE, which will disproportionately impact adult apprentices and disadvantaged learners and regions. What will the Government be doing to minimise this? We know that the numbers of young people starting apprenticeships are already disappointing. If these changes make the position worse, what steps will the Government take? What steps are being taken to ensure that apprenticeships under the growth and skills levy will be available to learners of all ages and at all levels, and how will the growth and skills levy do a better job than the apprenticeship levy?
Lifelong learning matters now more than ever. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to incentivise flexible lifelong learning? What assessment has been made of the lifelong learning entitlement and its introduction from 2026? It is crucial to improving the UK’s economic growth. Supporting and encouraging adults to upskill and reskill will help with increasing productivity and filling skills shortages in growth areas of the economy. Flexible study is also essential in allowing people to fit their studies around busy work and family lives and in allowing people to access higher-level skills in the local area where they live, even if there is limited face-to-face provision. However, over the last 15 years, the number of adults aged 21 and over accessing higher-level skills courses has fallen dramatically. Policy and funding interventions are now long overdue for flexible higher education provision.
This little Bill could hide a very damaging move to overpowerful politicians overriding experts in the field. We shall monitor this with great care as this Bill and the Skills England Bill proceed. Of course, we all hope for the best, because this is a vital area, but we shall be watching carefully for the independence of Skills England if it really is to fulfil its ambition.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Beamish on an excellent maiden speech. It is clear that he is going to be a real asset to your Lordships’ House.
It is probably not unfair to say that there have been few more uncontroversial Bills presented to your Lordships’ House than the one we are discussing this evening. That is not at all to denigrate this Bill, which is an important cog in the wheel that will power the development of the skills needed to drive the economy in the uncertain years ahead.
There is little that I want to say about the Bill itself, other than perhaps to ask my noble friend to say a little more about the additional powers being given to Ofqual around accrediting technical qualifications for the first time. The Secretary of State will have the power to ask Ofqual to do so, and it would be helpful to have some clarity as to when that power might be exercised. There is another issue that I want to raise, which I will speak to later.
Skills England is not mentioned in the Bill, but I follow other noble Lords in using this as a convenient means of welcoming the formation of a new body and considering what role it might play in a future likely to be dominated by AI. I envisage Skills England being key in developing a new post-16 skills strategy, co-ordinating engagement across government with key agencies and devolved bodies.
I must say that it is a pleasure to be on this side of the Chamber for a change when debating skills provision. Several noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who is here today, were involved three years ago when the skills Bill was making its way through your Lordships’ House, demonstrating to the then Government that we felt their plans lacked the breadth and depth needed to address the shortfall in providing for training and skills development.
At that time, local skills improvement plans were identified as the means of achieving the spreading of opportunity more evenly across the regions. Many noble Lords, including some on the then Government Benches, submitted amendments to the skills Bill. They highlighted that, with a disproportionate role given to employers, existing structures were being ignored, such as metro mayors, combined authorities—many with democratic accountability for local skills and economic regeneration —local enterprise partnerships, trade unions, universities, FE colleges and training providers. All were originally excluded, and only university and training providers were eventually allowed a meaningful say. It is refreshing that the current Government appreciate the contribution to be made by a wide range of bodies and are willing to empower them to coproduce local plans in recognition of their unique feel for priorities and skills development in their areas.
I like the description given to Skills England by the Association of Colleges in its briefing to noble Lords for this debate. It describes it as a “new social partnership body” bringing together business, FE colleges, training providers and unions with national and local government to ensure we have the highly trained workforce needed to deliver the industrial strategy announced last month.
On the subject of FE colleges, if they are to be able to play their full role in delivering the Government’s missions and in helping to ensure that Skills England is a success, it is vital that the long-term underfunding of the sector compared to schools and higher education is addressed. With that in mind, I was one of a number of Labour peers who wrote recently to the Chancellor emphasising that point and asking that greater funding for the FE sector be a feature of the Budget.
Following the UK’s departure from the EU, skills shortages are a major problem. Indeed, one third of all job vacancies are due to the lack of people suitably skilled to fill them. That is an indictment, surely, of the previous Government’s record, and it is not acceptable simply to cite the pandemic or exiting the EU as reasons.
Skills England has not allowed the grass to grow beneath its feet. The organisation had been in existence for just two months when it published its first report. Its title, Driving growth and widening opportunities, is certainly relevant and it included an index, ranking the demand for each occupation across the UK labour market.
I studied economics, but I had never come across something called an SSVD—a skills shortage vacancy density. Worryingly, the report revealed that the sectors with the highest vacancy density are construction, information and communications, and manufacturing, with health and social work and education not far behind. All those sectors are pillars of any economy, essential in achieving the growth everyone is searching for.
That report noted that much of the UK economy is dependent on skills gained in higher education. Future job projections suggest that occupations requiring higher education are expected to see the most employment growth over the next decade. Addressing shortages in higher-level skills is therefore essential to achieving government missions to drive growth and widen opportunity, making universities critical delivery partners to Skills England. What role does the Minister envisage for universities in the development of Skills England?
Also critical to the effectiveness of Skills England will be the re-shaped growth and skills levy. I echo the point my noble friend Lord Blunkett made about the money that goes back to the Treasury from the existing apprenticeship levy. A means has to be found to use money that has not been spent in whatever the period is—currently two years—so that it stays within the training budget and is not just returned to the Treasury, where it will be spent on anything the Treasury deems then appropriate.
Since the introduction of the levy, there has been a steep decline in apprenticeship starts for young people and a shift in starts from the most deprived parts of England to London and the south-east, as well as a decline in starts in sectors where skills challenges are most acute. Added to that is a growth in management and leadership courses and a decline in starts for those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It is to be hoped that Skills England will address the effects of those trends by bringing greater transparency, especially in how the growth and skills levy is spent.
Apprenticeships are essential for ensuring that young people from a diverse range of backgrounds can access high-quality training. They can also tackle skills gaps, particularly in the public sector. Across the apprenticeships landscape, almost two thirds of those who started a degree apprenticeship in the health, public services and care sector in 2022-23 were aged 25 and over, including 93% on the social worker programme and a large number of those on the nursing programme. Apprenticeships must be available to learners of all ages and at all levels to enable them to upskill and reskill, which I know is the Government’s aim.
Open University students tend to be older compared to the rest of the sector, and that is a good example of flexible lifelong learning, which is crucial to improving economic growth. Can the Minister say what steps are being planned to incentivise flexible lifelong learning? Linked to that, of course, is the lifelong learning entitlement. Can she also reveal what assessment has been made of it and its introduction, we understand, from 2026?
I turn to my final issue today as the only Scot taking part in this debate. I have given notice to my noble friend that I would raise questions relating to the assumption that, as education and skills are devolved matters, the Bill applies only to England and Wales. However, as set out in Clause 10, that is not the case. That is because the remit and responsibilities of Skills England will feed into UK-wide policy and funding agendas, resulting in both direct and indirect implications for the post-16 skills landscape and higher education in Scotland.
Both the Skills England report to which I referred earlier and the Government’s industrial strategy are UK-wide in scope. Skills England is responsible for identifying where skill gaps exist and, as my noble friend said in her opening remarks, is expected to work with the Migration Advisory Committee to address them. The MAC is, of course, UK-wide in scope.
The same applies to the growth and skills levy. The apprenticeship levy is collected at UK level by HMRC, and Scotland receives a proportion via the Barnett funding formula. The Scottish Government then have discretion as to how the levy is distributed north of the border. Without going into detail, I will just say that they do it differently.
Can the Minister say what engagement the UK Government have had with the Scottish Government on the creation of Skills England? What mechanisms are the Government considering in order to ensure strong connectivity between Skills England and the Scottish Government—indeed, all the devolved Administrations —where the work of Skills England feeds into UK-wide agendas such as the industrial strategy and the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee?
Ensuring that the country has a sound base of the skills needed for the demands of a fast-evolving economy should not be seen as a cost. It is clearly an investment in the future and an essential part of driving economic growth. I welcome the establishment of Skills England as a decisive step in that direction.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis, the chair of Midlands Nuclear and president of the Sustainable Energy Association.
I deal with skills challenges on the ground every day. I work in business and my industry, the nuclear industry, is undergoing a significant period of growth. We currently have around 83,000 people in the sector but, to meet growing demand and replace people leaving, we need to fill around 40,000 new jobs by 2030. My business in Derby has some really specialised technical skills that are difficult to find on the market, which is acting as a brake on our ability to grow our business and contribute to the Government’s economic growth goals, as well as the national goals of clean power and the defence of the realm. For example, software engineers, electrical, control and instrumentation engineers, and process engineers are very difficult to find. The Minister will be aware of the Nuclear Skills Taskforce and the resulting nuclear strategic plan for skills, which are a great first step in meeting these opportunities.
In that vein, I welcome the intent of the Bill in taking a more integrated and joined-up approach to skills across the country, particularly in better considering regional needs. I will concentrate my remarks on how Skills England will work from a regional perspective.
First, local skills improvement plans—LSIPs—were set up as part of the previous Act, to which noble Lords have referred. I was grateful to the Minister for speaking at a recent Cross-Bench meeting where I raised this issue. Overall, LSIPs have been a welcome development in helping to set out plans to meet local skills needs and provide better join-up between local businesses and skills providers, but we have sometimes found limited join-up nationally. This can result in them being fairly generic or overlapping, in some cases. Can the Minister provide more detail on how Skills England will help set the strategic direction for LSIPs and other potential reforms to these plans?
Secondly, on regional partnerships, in the Midlands where I live, we are now blessed with two combined authorities. We have the East Midlands Combined County Authority and the West Midlands Combined Authority, but these cover only a relatively small part of the region. How will Skills England operate regionally and deliver for those areas not covered by combined authorities?
For me, part of the answer is in the regional partnerships—for example, the Midlands Engine and the northern powerhouse. I am currently chairing an energy security task force for the Midlands Engine that is all about how the region can seize the opportunity of the energy transition. One of our offers to the Government is to work right across the region to collaborate, test and scale a skills-hub approach to address the technical gap in the region’s clean energy and manufacturing sectors, intervening where the markets currently cannot. In fact, following a meeting earlier this year with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we are setting up a regional nuclear skills hub, which will start to reap some of those benefits. Such hubs could provide specialised training and school-level engagement, foster innovation, support workforce transition, and encourage collaboration between academia, industry and local communities, leveraging the region’s wealth of universities and colleges. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how Skills England might work at a broader regional level to ensure that the overall skills picture and demand is being considered.
Finally, following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on better linking up schools’ under 16 education with regional opportunities, there is a real opportunity here for the Government, and that is something else that we in the Midlands region are considering carefully. There are lots of successful opportunities, such as the Science Summer School of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and Professor Brian Cox. In many regions across the UK, it is doing a great job of linking up schools with broader opportunities. As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said in his excellent maiden speech, this all feeds in to raising aspiration in many areas across the country and getting young people excited and enthused about contributing to the national goals that the Government are pushing. I very much look forward to working with the Minister and her team on this important Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the Good Schools Guide and as a member of the council of City & Guilds.
It is good to see a skills Bill here so early on and being tackled with such impetus—it gives me great hope for what this Government might achieve—although I celebrate IfATE’s achievements and our own achievements, and I join the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, and my noble friend Lord Effingham in what they have said about that. But this Government clearly think we must do better—a phrase I recognise from my school reports.
I hope that the Government will start by taking the advice of their own excellent Science Advisory Council and the Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Viner, and establish from the outset of this change a set of metrics that will enable them to know how well they are doing and assemble the evidence of what works, understand where the gaps in that evidence are and what they are going to do about it, and fundamentally evaluate the process that they are setting out on, from the start, so that whatever happens we end up with a really good body of knowledge as to how to improve the skills system in this country.
I hope that the Government will work back through the conclusions they arrive at on skills in their schools policy. I have been gently disturbed recently by some of the cuts made in science spending in schools. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the thought that there are some basic skills that we are not teaching in schools at the moment which are pretty fundamental to the subsequent skills agenda. At a time when we are reforming the Civil Service—the future fast stream will be 50% STEM rather than 10%, as it is at the moment—we need to look right back into our school system to see where these skills are going to be coming from. I hope too that the Government will take a critical look at our qualifications landscape. I like T-levels, but we need BTECs alongside them because we are not providing for anything but the brightest students if we insist on T-levels.
I hope we will look at university courses that say they are teaching skills. If you go back a few years, the Next Gen. report showed that 80% of the courses at universities which said that they were something to do with the computer games industry were rubbish and just using that in their titles as a way of seducing students. The same situation pertains. If you are looking—as doubtless many noble Lords have—to help your children choose a university course, the titles are there but there is no information as to what children go on to do afterwards. Is this a good course for getting into the industry that it says it is about? Is it actually teaching what those industries want? The information is not there. Given how much students are investing in their education, we really owe them better information on which to make those decisions.
At the other end of the scale, I hope the Government will pay attention to the developing world of micro- credentials. The idea that you can pick up someone, give them a relatively short bit of training and have them ready to go and be useful is the structure of training in a lot of industries—it certainly is in IT and a lot of the creative industries. We need to work out how to work with that. What IfATE has done to help bring the bigger qualifications up to speed more quickly is admirable, but the world is changing so fast—for instance, in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity—and we need to understand how to move at that pace and how to offer pastoral support to people whose careers start to be made up of an accumulation of bits and pieces that there happens to be a demand for at the time.
To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, I hope that we will see an emphasis on local skills, but somewhere in my town of Eastbourne there is a nuclear engineer, and that will never be picked up by a local skills policy. We need to understand the needs and talents of children and young people and not just the needs of the local industry, and make sure that we are offering the education that our children need, rather than just the education that their employers are after.
I turn to the abolition of IfATE. I very much support all that the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, said about it. I saw the previous Government on several occasions do the exact opposite, but it is hugely important to preserve the network of relationships that has been built up by an institution which is being supplanted. It takes a long time for these personal relationships to subsist; they exist at not only the senior level but the junior level. Those relationships need to be preserved; you do not want to have to rebuild them from the base up. We also need to build a structure—which is not easy in the Civil Service—where such relationships can be maintained. We cannot have endlessly rotating civil servants responsible for maintaining long-term relationships with industry. A sense of career and institutional memory has to be built into this.
A last question for the Government is this: how does the Careers & Enterprise Company fit into this?
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak at the Second Reading of this Bill. It gives me the first opportunity to welcome my noble friend the Minister to her place. I should have had that opportunity last week, in Thursday’s Questions, but unfortunately illness prevented me attending the House. I thank my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie for asking the Question on my behalf. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish on an excellent maiden speech and an introduction to the open-air museum which brings the history of north-east England to life. I note that we have an excellent open-air museum in south Wales, St Fagans, and I highly recommend it to your Lordships.
I am sure that many noble Lords will be familiar, after my time spent in debates such as this, with the fact that education is at the heart of my lifetime’s experience: I served as a teacher for almost 35 years. I know that education is at the centre of Labour’s mission to spread and expand opportunity. From our earliest years through to learning or retraining as adults, gaining knowledge, skills, qualifications and exploring our interests and abilities, it enables us to build the lives that we want and the society that we wish to share.
Labour will track progress on its education mission through three stages of education. These are: to boost child development, with 500,000 more children hitting the early learning goals by 2030; to see a sustained rise in young people’s school outcomes; and to build young people’s life skills, with an expansion of high-quality education, employment and training routes so that more people than ever are on pathways.
The ONS, which is based in my home city of Newport, released updated data this summer. The percentage of all young people not in education, employment or training in April to June 2024 was estimated at 12.2%, up 0.9 percentage points on the year. It is clear evidence that over 14 years the former Tory Government did not develop the appropriate apprenticeships and skills pathways that allow youngsters to develop, coupled with an inability for adults to reskill and upskill throughout their lives. The result is that we have too few people with the skills we need for growth.
The former Government’s levy saw millions of pounds that should have been used for skills training going unspent, even as businesses reported growing skills shortages. Labour’s plans, giving businesses flexibility, would ensure that money could be best spent on a greater range of training courses, including basic English, maths and digital skills, so that businesses can fill those gaps and people can gain new skills. The Bill’s technical changes set out what is needed to begin to redress this serious imbalance in our opportunities for growth in the economy. The transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State will enable closer integration of employer input with broader government strategies and policies.
Skills England has been tasked with driving forward a national ambition to meet the skills needs of the next decade. This will be driven by pushing power and decisions on skills spending out from Westminster to local communities, so that those communities can better match up skills training with their local business needs and grow local and regional economies. It will transform the skills system to make it truly world-leading. It will help to build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that is matched to employers’ needs, and ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, can access the opportunities they need to thrive, and deliver change by bringing together formerly disparate functions into a single organisation, with a single feedback loop into government.
It will be an executive agency. It will be legally part of the Department for Education and will have a role in convening education providers, employers, unions and regional and national Governments, which is the sort of social partnership approach that sector bodies have been pushing for over many years. It also changes the overly prescriptive functions, and the DfE believes it can make the skills system more responsive. It is about speeding up the amendment or introduction of standards and assessment plans, bypassing what can be an arduous exercise of lengthy reviews involving employers, awarding organisations and multiple layers of officials. We cannot afford to continue to let overly complex bureaucracy stand in the way of growth and opportunity. I draw on my previous experience as a senior A-level examiner when developing new specifications. I remember the level of detail and delay that went into such changes. A minimal tweak could delay the introduction by a whole academic year.
People are ambitious for their futures. They want to learn new skills to get new jobs. We will reverse the trend of the past 14 years and give businesses the flexibility they need to train people up with new skills, from digital technologies to the green skills needed to tackle climate change. Understandably, there are always concerns in the sector when any changes are proposed, but the department has noted that any possible temporary disruptions affecting learners and apprenticeships during the transition would be limited and has promised to address the impact. From digital skills and green skills to childcare and social care—this Labour Government will harness the talents and abilities of the British people so that we can strengthen our economy and break down barriers to opportunity.
I was extremely pleased to read last month’s first report on Skills England and to note that Richard Pennycook, the interim chair, said that while it is called Skills England, the UK skills needs do not change or stop at Chepstow or Carlisle. Skills England intends to work closely with colleagues in the devolved nations to ensure that students and employers have a seamless experience across the UK. Indeed, the whole relationship between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, in terms of engagement, has been transformed in the last three months, notwithstanding the establishment and successful first meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions just two weeks ago.
Let us harness the changes needed in the education system by changing those persistent skill mismatches. Let us change the high proportion of the working-age population who lack essential skills for work and redress the undersupply of highly technical training.
This Government will provide more training opportunities so that people can gain new skills, access better jobs and grow our economy. That is the difference we will make, and the technical changes in the Bill begin an important and necessary part of the journey.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank all the organisations that sent excellent briefings. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on his maiden speech. I was fascinated by his final comment about traditional skills, which we often forget. I know that Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral is desperate for masons to repair the sandstone blocks. When I drive round Cumbria, I always wonder where we are going to get the skills to repair those dry walls.
The Minister kicked off this Second Reading by referring to harnessing opportunities for our young people. I thought we would all be agreeing with each other and was quite surprised that that was not the case. However, on reflection, we did in our own ways agree with each other, albeit from different angles. My noble friend Lord Addington talked about what to do when things go wrong and how to make sure that they are put right. The buck will stop with the department that takes all these powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to things being rather cosy, with Skills England, the director-general and the Civil Service, which does not have any public profile and operates behind closed doors. Where is the grit in this figurative oyster? That was also picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds talked about apprenticeship levies and how it was difficult to navigate around them. I shall come back to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was very sure that Skills England needed the independence, the force and the fundamental clout to make things happen, although there are two powerful Ministers in charge of delivery—a Minister in this House and a Secretary of State.
I am always fascinated when the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talks, with his knowledge of state education. He went off-script a little bit and rightly asked where we were going to get these 1,000 new teachers from. My mantra has always been that one thing that is holding back the creative industries has been the wretched EBacc. We were promised that T-levels would be a practical opportunity for some young people, and perhaps they are too technical.
I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith. Perhaps the title IfATE, given what its fate was to be, was a bit ironic. She talked about apprentices being passionate about what they do, but foundations are being put in place there that are going to be hugely important to the future and where we go.
My noble friend Lady Garden was, as usual, in her own inimitable style, very direct. She talked about the potential power of Ministers in this regard, and rightly raised the issue of lifelong learning, which matters now more than ever, and what will happen to lifelong learning entitlements.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, started off by saying that, like me, he thought this was one of those few uncontroversial Bills, and like me he was quite surprised by the tenor of some of the comments made. I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue of Scotland and Wales. I scratched my head about that and thought, “Is this yet again a purely English thing?” But I did not know about Clause 10 of the Bill—so I thank him for raising that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about the jobs that we need. Not just in his sector but in all sorts of sectors across the UK, there is a huge skills shortage and jobs shortage. He wanted to know how Skills England would operate at a regional level.
I was absolutely fascinated by the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made that the Government need to set up metrics for how well we are doing so that we can evaluate progress. I want to come to that at the end of my contribution. I hope that, if they do that, that metrics or evaluation will be published on a regular basis.
As a nation, we develop and prosper by nurturing, educating and training our young people. We have been very successful at developing those young people of an academic disposition but less so for those young people who want or need to follow a vocational route. At a time when we need people with particular skills and have skill gaps in many industries and businesses, we seem constantly to wrestle with the problem, slow in identifying the skills needed and even slower in providing the training and opportunities for those skills.
I am still scarred by Objective 1 in Merseyside in the 1970s. Merseyside was one of the poorest regions in Europe, measured by its GDP, and as a result it received literally millions of pounds from the EU. But in terms of training, Objective 1 money was spent on hairdressing and beauty courses. Why? Because those courses could easily attract and enrol students and give a much-needed income stream to the FE college. The college that needed the revenue did not have the financial security to develop courses that would provide the skills for the developing industries. That is, I hope, a lesson that we have now learned. I relate that historic situation because it shows that FE needs to have resources, finance and flexibility to provide skills not just for today but also for tomorrow.
We are probably not aware of the skills that are required for the future. We were not aware of AI five or 10 years ago. We probably thought that it was a Geordie expression, “Wey aye, man”. That did not go down well—I shall refrain from doing jokes; it is not my forte. We are not opposed to the Bill, but we have concerns and we would like reassurances. We also have ambitions that could be picked up by this Bill.
Currently the institute is responsible for bringing employers together to develop the apprenticeship standard and what apprentices need to learn—in short, the apprenticeship plan. They are good at this and the employer input is very important to ensure that consistency in training, assessment and outcomes. I ask the Minister: who will set the apprenticeship standard and who will regulate assessment plans developed by awarding bodies?
We need to avoid inconsistencies of outcome. We need to be reassured that Skills England develops a partnership with business skills bodies to secure that quality and consistency of apprenticeships and that there is a partnership involving employees, giving industry skills bodies a formal role in the skills system, to set standards and assessment requirements.
We were getting to the position of seeing the regions working with FE, understanding the needs of industry and understanding SMEs. We have to be sure that the new arrangements do not lead to unintended consequences and that the progress and working relationships that are beginning to be successful are not lost.
The Government need to invest in skills and training. Any business will tell you that the apprenticeship levy does not work. They often cannot get the funding they need to train staff and the ridiculous situation whereby hundreds of millions of pounds of training funding goes back to the Treasury at the end of the year if it is not spent is absolutely crazy.
We also believe that the lower minimum wage for apprentices should be scrapped and that they should be paid the same minimum wage as those other employees of their age. Apprenticeships are critical for social mobility and ensuring that people from a diverse range of backgrounds can access high-quality training. They can tackle skills gaps and help learners of all ages to upskill and reskill. The Open University, interestingly, carried out a survey that found that 72% of apprentices received a pay rise on completion, and 71% gained promotion.
When the apprenticeship scheme was conceived— I think it was by the coalition Government—it was aimed very much at 16 to 18 year-olds. But, over the years, the number of 16 to 18 year-old apprentices dropped dramatically, and they are often the ones in the most vulnerable situations. I hope that the new Government will try to ensure that there are plenty of opportunities for that age group.
To go back to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, at the end of his contribution he made the point that if the Government got this right and delivered what they said, it could be one of the major successes of this Government, which will be lauded for generations to come. We want this to be successful. We are not here hoping that this will not work, we want it to be successful and, never mind turning around the health service, it would be absolutely amazing if they could turn around the skills sector and the skills shortages. It would be something that would be remembered for years to come.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as I rise to speak at Second Reading, I say first how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. I look forward to the insights he will bring to your Lordships’ House.
The goal of improving our skills system and meeting skills gaps is not a new one. Indeed, today, as my noble friend Lady Finn said, it is an international one. Under successive Governments, we have seen work to simplify the system, achieve parity of esteem with academic qualifications, place employers at the heart of the system and improve the quality of skills-based qualifications. In their manifesto, His Majesty’s Government committed to establishing a new body, Skills England, to deliver their skills strategy, but unfortunately this Bill merely abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State; in effect, absorbing them into the Department for Education. We have no details on the plans for Skills England itself, nor on how the Government’s proposed changes to the funding of skills-based qualifications will work in practice.
On these Benches, we have three main concerns. First, we do not believe that the proposed machinery of government changes are likely to make the difference that the Government hope they will. In the last 50 years, there have been no fewer than 12 skills agencies, or 13 including Skills England. If the creation of a new body was alone enough to address our challenges in this area, surely one of the earlier iterations would have been the answer. Secondly, as we have heard across the House, we believe that the powers of the Secretary of State created by this Bill are too wide-ranging, have little accountability and will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications. Thirdly, we have real concerns that these changes will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues in skills development that the Government face and have set out.
Given that all noble Lords want the most effective approach to developing our skills system, it is important to recognise the achievements of the last Government and the key challenges that remain so that the new Government benefit from the institutional memory of this House and avoid repeating any past mistakes. The last Government delivered on a major simplification of the system in relation to T-levels, higher technical qualifications and apprenticeship standards. We raised the value of skills-based qualifications in the minds of students and employers, particularly in relation to apprenticeships, which we put on a statutory footing for the first time.
The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, spoke eloquently about the importance and effectiveness of putting employers at the heart of the system, which IfATE brought as well as the creation of local skills improvement plans, which linked employers and providers for the first time. We improved the quality of qualifications across the board, including for the missing middle which your Lordships have referred to, and we laid the foundations for lifelong learning through the skills Act and the lifelong learning Act of 2023 so that options for training and retraining were available at every stage of a person’s career. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will not discard the progress of the past 14 years but build on it and focus on the key challenges of the future.
If we look at the challenges of improving our skills system, I am genuinely baffled as to why one would start by creating a new agency within the DfE and abolish IfATE. I am not sure how this helps build demand for newer and less well-established qualifications such as T-levels and HTQs. I am not sure how it addresses the workforce pressures in further education or the decline in investment in training by employers or how it will help the Government realise the potential of the lifelong learning Act. How does it quickly set out the plans for the new growth and skills levy which the Government promised in their manifesto, so that we avoid a hiatus in skills development and investment, as alluded to in their impact assessment? Can the Minister explain why the Government could not have achieved their goals of co-ordination with the industrial strategy council and the Migration Advisory Committee through IfATE rather than placing Skills England within the DfE, with all the time, cost and reorganisation that would have avoided?
If we had a blank sheet of paper—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, perhaps a sheet of paper that was nimble, agile and other good adjectives—and had to choose between an independent, employer-led body and an internal team within a government department to create the best skills system, I am pretty sure that most people would naturally assume that the former would be more effective. It would help if the Minister could give the House examples of where such centralisation of power has actually delivered on the Government’s aspirations.
We are also really concerned about the powers of the Secretary of State and expect to come back to these in Committee. In the King’s Speech, the Government committed to creating a new body, Skills England, but as noble Lords have noted, the Bill does not do that. Far from simply replacing the institute, the Bill abolishes it, leaving the Secretary of State in control. We now understand that Skills England will not be on a statutory footing and therefore will unquestionably be less independent than IfATE.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to prepare apprenticeship standards and plans, either personally or by commissioning others. Clauses 4 and 5 make it possible for the Secretary of State to bypass industry groups and employers entirely. In her opening speech, the Minister helpfully set out some examples to reassure the House about some of the limitations on how those powers might be used, but can she explain what the barrier is to putting them in the Bill if the Government are clear on what those limits are?
Secondly, we should be concerned about the potential impact on the quality of technical qualifications. Clause 6 removes the requirement for reviews of technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans to be published at regular intervals. What will the arrangements be to do this in future, and why has the duty to publish been removed? This flexibility is supposedly to align qualifications with employers’ needs, but we know that without rigorous and independent oversight, standards can slip. Can the Minister tell the House how she plans to ensure that we have standards that are recognisable and high, without that regular independent review?
There is the further risk of dilution of quality via Clause 7, which removes the requirement to have a third-party examination of a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan before approval, leaving the power for the Secretary of State to appoint one if she sees fit. What should we expect from this? How often does the Minister expect this power to be used and under what circumstances? It would also help if the Minister could clarify under what circumstances the Secretary of State would use her powers set out in Clause 8 in relation to Ofqual.
Clause 9 is also of concern, as my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park pointed out, quoting the Attorney-General. Through regulation made by statutory instrument, it allows for the Secretary of State to make provision that is consequential on other provisions in the Bill. This is a very broad Henry VIII power, applying to existing and future legislation passed in this Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister could give an example of how Clause 9 would be used. Perhaps she could commit to listing the existing legislation where Clause 9 will apply.
The assumption of power by the Secretary of State reverses the reforms of the Enterprise Act 2016 and risks severely eroding the parity of esteem between academic and technical qualifications. Imagine the outcry if A-level standards were directly controlled by the Education Secretary—I hope your Lordships see the point I am making. Yet the Bill gives ministerial control over all technical qualifications, which risks undermining their credibility and status.
Leaving the specifics of the Bill, we are genuinely concerned that Skills England will not achieve its goals. The Government are actually creating not one but three new bodies with an interest in skills: Skills England in the DfE, the Labour Market Advisory Board in the DWP and the new Industrial Strategy Advisory Council. How will these three—or four, if we include the Migration Advisory Committee—potentially competing bodies work together?
This approach raises so many questions. Can the Minister reassure the House about the level of seniority the head of Skills England will have? How will Skills England, sitting in a corner of Sanctuary Buildings, have the authority to influence other government departments? How will it work with the devolved Administrations and the mayoral combined authorities? How will it interact with the Office for Students? It is of great concern and regret that the objectives and limits of the new body are not clearly set out in statute, and we will seek to gain as much clarity as possible on these points during the passage of the Bill. I ask the Minister again: where is the evidence that such an approach has ever worked in this country before and will be successful now?
My belief is that, if His Majesty’s Government were serious about progressing quickly with the urgent strategic issues around skills reform, they would build on the success of IfATE, rather than dismantling it. The real risks here are, first, that the Government will unwittingly create confusion, lower standards and erode trust in technical qualifications; and, secondly, that the time and cost involved in creating yet another overcentralised agency in the DfE delays addressing the big opportunities and challenges that need to be grasped in this area and leaves us with an unwieldy, unaccountable and ineffective approach.
The Bill threatens to undo much of the progress made under successive Conservative Governments in building a world-class apprenticeship and technical education system. I have no doubt that the Minister wants the best for our skills system and those who learn and work in it, but I have grave doubts that this Bill will deliver the system that the country needs and that she wants. I hope very much that the Minister will listen to these concerns and act to address them when the Bill reaches Committee.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and acknowledge the many passionate and informed speeches that we have heard and the expert knowledge that this Chamber has brought to the debate.
I particularly welcome and give a special mention to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Beamish. He and I served together in the other place. I remember the breakfast meetings that he used to have in the tea room—particularly when I was Chief Whip, because no Chief Whip likes to know that there is plotting going on in the tea room. My noble friend was a steadfast colleague and a strong supporter of the Government. As he outlined in his maiden speech, he used his real enthusiasm to challenge the Government on issues relating to defence and to protect those affected by the Post Office scandal. Based on his maiden speech and what I know about his history, I know that he will certainly play a very important role in this House, and I am very pleased to welcome him.
The Government’s first mission is to grow the economy. To succeed, we need to harness the talents of our people. A skills system fit for the future can enable people to learn the skills that they need to seize opportunity and businesses to access the skills in the workforce that they need to grow. I join the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, in celebrating both those who are taking part in apprenticeships and those who are delivering them. There is excellent work going on across the country, which I often have the opportunity to celebrate, where providers and employers are providing a splendid apprenticeship opportunity.
The noble Earl asked me, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to celebrate the last Government, but I have to point out that apprenticeship starts peaked in 2015-16 at 509,360 and in the most recent year were at only 337,140—in other words, a 34% reduction on the levels seen in 2015-16—so I do not think it is enough for us simply to rest on what the previous Government have done. In fact, we need a fundamental change in our skills system if we are going to ensure the potential of our people and our economy.
On the specifics of the debate, I will start with the number of contributors who have asked questions about how we maintain an employer-led approach to the skills system. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked questions about that. I reassure noble Lords that employers will continue to play a central role in the design and delivery of apprenticeships and technical education. Indeed, it is crucial that apprenticeships and technical qualifications reflect the needs of employers and that employers have confidence in them. That is why, through Skills England, we will ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access, all of which will be informed by what employers and other partners tell us that they need.
The default will be that employers will set standards and assessment plans—I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is not the case that this legislation enables the Secretary of State to rewrite a standard on a train, even if she were to have the time to do that. Employers remain fundamental. In fact, regarding standards and assessment plans, the legislation states that the Secretary of State will be able to prepare these only where she is satisfied that it would be more appropriate than using a group of persons. Each time the Secretary of State does this, she will need to make such a consideration and she will not be able to proceed without doing so. That approach will be taken in only a minority of circumstances where there is a clear rationale for doing so, some of which I outlined in my opening speech and all of which I will be very happy to go into more detail on in Committee. I think the important point was made by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, who, using her experience, identified some very good examples of the need for flexibility in the system, as was also recognised by others in the debate.
My noble friend Lord Watson asked about the Ofqual amendment. This amendment will ensure that, should the Secretary of State wish to in the future, she could grant an exception so that Ofqual can consider whether it is appropriate to accredit certain types of technical education qualifications. It will therefore reintroduce in a managed way the potential for Ofqual to exercise its accreditation power for technical education qualifications. Where the Secretary of State deems it necessary to maximise the quality of and confidence in technical education qualifications, it will become possible for the full suite of regulatory options to be applied to them, helping to put them on an even footing with other academic and vocational qualifications.
On the specific point about Clause 9 raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Finn, these are not sweeping powers. This is not an undermining of the correct exhortations made by the Attorney-General on the use of delegated powers. Clause 9, in introducing Schedules 2 and 3, details the primary legislation that we are amending simply to remove references to IfATE as a result of its abolition. We have attempted to identify all the primary legislation that will need to be amended as a result of the Bill and the Henry VIII power that is included in the Bill exists solely in case we uncover any other Acts in need of consequential amendment after the passage of the Bill, so there is no way that this could be called a sweeping use of delegated powers.
To return to the nature of Skills England, at its heart will be the role of employers, alongside an important partnership to ensure that we are developing the most effective skills system. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, questioned whether trade unions should play an important role in that, but my noble friend Lord Blunkett rightly identified the enormously important contribution that trade unions have made to the development of skills for their members, citing in particular the important work done by the Union Learning Fund. We make no apology for including trade unions in our work to improve the jobs and skills that their members will get. It is also a feature of high-performing systems across the world that trade unions are involved.
My noble friend Lord Watson talked about the role of higher education. We certainly believe that it has a very important role to play in this partnership with Skills England.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about regional flexibility and the excellent work that he identified. Skills England will collaborate with combined authorities as well as with equivalent bodies in places which have devolution deals but where there is no combined authority present, and it will also work with a wide range of regional organisations as well as other local and regional partners, such as employer representative bodies. It will support them to construct skills systems which reflect and feed into both local and national priorities. That is the partnership that Skills England will bring together to deliver the impact we need to see in our skills system.
I turn to the charge made by several speakers in the debate that, somehow or another, as an executive agency Skills England will not have the independence or, frankly, the oomph that it will need. That is wholly wrong. As an executive agency, Skills England will have operational independence from the department. A permanent chair and board members will be recruited to oversee Skills England. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Blunkett recognised the status, experience and impact that the current chair, Richard Pennycook, is already having in this role, and I can tell noble Lords that we have had several hundreds of applicants for the board of Skills England—clearly, people understand the significance of that role and the impact that it will have.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, did not mean to suggest that I was a “here today, gone tomorrow” politician with no clue about what I was doing, despite the fact that that is what she said.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
I assure the Minister that it was not personal.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Okay. I do not note any other Ministers in the Chamber—but anyway, in that case I will not take it personally.
The important point here is that, once in place, it will not be Ministers who decide the day-to-day activity of Skills England; the board will provide scrutiny that Skills England is operating effectively within the agreed framework and will provide assurance functions as well as leadership and direction.
However, while operationally independent, it is critical that Skills England, for many of the arguments made in the debate, has sufficient proximity to government to directly influence and inform policy decisions, as many have argued for. This will allow Skills England to use its insights to influence skills policies and funding decisions. It is important that they are retained by the Secretary of State, but Skills England will have a crucial role in informing them.
For further reassurance, I say that we do anticipate the relationship between the Department for Education and Skills England will be set out in a publicly available format and updated periodically. I expect us to talk about this more in Committee. People have argued that we know little about Skills England and its functions —the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans and Lady Barran, for example—but having been set up only in July, Skills England has already produced a report which, as others have mentioned, outlines its functions and ways of working. That is how we expect Skills England to operate in the future.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, for the excellent work she has done in leading IfATE. I echo her thanks to the board and the chief executive for that work. In talking about how employers will remain at the heart of Skills England, I hope to learn from the way in which IfATE has done that. However, bringing the functions currently held by IfATE into Skills England is essential to address complexity and fragmentation in the skills system. The majority of IfATE’s functions will be transferred to the Secretary of State but will be exercised by Skills England unchanged, so we will be able to ensure continuity of skills delivery through the transition process. My officials are working very closely on this with IfATE’s senior leadership team. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, has been very clear about this, as she was when we met. She has been very engaged in ensuring that there is a transition plan which will ensure minimal disruption to learners, employers, providers and IfATE staff, and which will safeguard the good elements of the work that IfATE has already done, which she outlined.
It is absolutely not our intention to allow the transfer to cause a delay or drop in apprenticeship numbers. We will mitigate the risk of that through the transition plan I have talked about. On the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, any approvals by IfATE will transition and will not have to be redone as a result of this legislation. These decisions will continue to stand until such time as the occupational standard, apprenticeship or technical qualification in question is reviewed under successor arrangements and a new decision is taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also raised points about the sharing and transferring of IfATE’s functions. We have been clear that we expect the functions of Skills England to include broad continuation of the core work IfATE does with employers. I will be very happy to talk more about that in Committee. My noble friend Lord Watson asked about the engagement between Skills England and Scotland on UK-wide organisations such as the Migration Advisory Committee and the Industrial Strategy Council. We have had close collaboration with devolved Governments, as was recognised by my noble friend Lady Wilcox. This is critical to ensuring that there is an effective skill system regardless of where in the UK you live, work and train. We have had regular meetings with senior officials from all four nations to share best practice and approaches and their long-term strategic goals. These relationships will be important to Skills England’s success, as has already been set out by Richard Pennycook in his role as the chair.
My noble friend Lord Layard and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds rightly talked about the significance of young people and how we can ensure that we improve our skills system for them. This is where our commitment to developing a youth guarantee is very significant, and my noble friend Lord Layard once again made his strong call for the apprenticeship guarantee, which I have discussed with him on numerous occasions. He is pushing us further as a Government than we are able to go at this time, but he continues to make a strong case and I will continue to listen to him.
However, we have of course already started to think about how we reform the apprenticeship system to ensure it better serves young people, who have particularly seen the numbers of apprenticeships fall off. That is why we recently announced that we would develop foundation apprenticeships to provide a route into apprenticeships for young people who have not been able to benefit from apprenticeships up to this point.
We have also heard calls with respect to the growth and skills levy. Our reformed growth and skills levy will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, including through shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in targeted sectors. We will want Skills England and the employers it engages with to have a crucial role in determining how that skills levy is spent. I also recognise the significance of the role of further education, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Watson and others in the discussion, and I can assure him that we will continue to do more than perhaps has been the case for FE previously to raise the status and significance of that sector, because it is so important for young people. We will include more about our overall role in the post-16 strategy, which we are currently working on.
The role of schools is really important, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare, Lord Hampton and Lord Lucas, outlined. I can assure noble Lords that the curriculum and assessment review will look at the significance of digital skills, creativity and how enterprise can be developed in our schools.
If we are to meet the skills gaps that persist in our economy, we must address the fragmentation in our skills system. To respond to the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I do not believe we can do that by simply building on IfATE. We need, with Skills England, to make sure that we do more than the excellent work that IfATE has done. We have to make and maintain an authoritative assessment of national and regional skills needs in the economy, now and in the future, combining the best possible insights from employers and other key stakeholders.
This legislation will enable Skills England to build on IfATE’s work but will also enable us to build that broader partnership and assessment that will help us to transform our skills system. This Bill is an important milestone in the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to establish Skills England. I look forward to further discussion through the passage of this legislation.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that the bill be considered in the following order: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 13, Title.