House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This is likely to be the last time that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), is up against me at the Dispatch Box. We have had the privilege of these exchanges for just over two years now, and I have a huge amount of respect for him. He steered our country through a very difficult time after the mini-Budget, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do next.
If UK living standards, as measured by real household disposable income per capita, had grown by the same amount between 2010 and 2023 as they did between 1997 and 2010, the amount would have been over £4,000 higher in 2023. We are committed to boosting economic growth to turn that around. Although it will have been welcome news for millions of families that inflation is now below 2%, there is still more to do. Earlier this month, we delivered our first international investment summit, announcing over £60 billion of investment and unlocking nearly 38,000 jobs in the UK, all focused on creating and spreading opportunities to lift living standard.
Joe Morris
The Conservatives oversaw a living standards disaster. In places such as Hexham, Prudhoe and Throckley in my constituency, people saw hardly any improvements to their incomes in over 14 years. Surely the clearest sign of whether government is working is whether working people feel better off. Does the Chancellor agree that papering over Tory failure is not enough, and that in tomorrow’s Budget we must reset the foundations of our economy?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right: the previous Parliament was the worst ever recorded for living standards. Tomorrow’s Budget is an opportunity to fix that and turn the page so that we can start delivering for families in Hexham and all around the country.
Ms Rimmer
The bottom 50% of the population owned less than 5% of wealth in 2021, while the top 10% stacked up 57% of it—up from 52.5% in 1995. In our communities, the less well-off are struggling with energy prices and other costs. What will the Government do to ensure that the gap closes?
Rachel Reeves
We have already announced the child poverty taskforce, which is working to publish a comprehensive strategy to tackle child poverty. We will publish that strategy in spring next year. We have also provided £500 million, including the Barnett impact, to extend the household support fund in England until the end of March next year, which will help the most vulnerable households to cover the costs of essentials such as food, energy and water.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Shamefully, under the last Conservative Government, the need for food banks soared to levels even higher than during the pandemic. Recent research shows that in my Bathgate and Linlithgow constituency, the number of food parcels distributed has risen by 77% over the past five years, and that in 2022-23, 27% of children were living in poverty after housing costs. What steps are the Government taking to reduce the need for food banks in the context of child poverty?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and congratulate her on her great work on the Co-op’s food justice policy. As she knows, we are right behind her in our commitment to raise living standards across the country. We made a manifesto commitment to update the remit of the Low Pay Commission so that, for the first time ever, it will take into account the cost of living when making recommendations about the minimum wage.
Ms Billington
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, coastal communities such as mine struggle with a low-pay, low-skill economy. Does she acknowledge the importance of the minimum wage in tackling this problem and supporting our communities and local economies?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is why we will ensure that the Low Pay Commission takes into account the cost of living, and why we will close the gap between the youth rate of minimum wage and the overall rate, so that all adults can be paid a fair wage for their work.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The living standards of a 90-year-old pensioner on a £13,500 income are falling sharply this winter as a result of the Chancellor’s decision to take away the winter fuel allowance. Tomorrow, she has the chance to increase the threshold. Will she take it?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Lady knows, because of our commitment to the triple lock, the basic state pension and the new state pension will continue to rise. This winter, the new state pension is worth £900 more than it was a year ago, and it is likely to rise by a further £450 next April. Indeed, during the course of this Parliament, because of the triple lock, the new state pension is likely to be worth £1,700 more—much more than the value of the winter fuel payment.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am sure that the Treasury was pleased to receive £1.5 billion in a windfall tax from Octopus Energy. Would the Chancellor consider using that money to reinstate the winter fuel allowance for one year until the Treasury has had the opportunity to find a better system of means-testing, so that my vulnerable residents and pensioners in Chichester are not falling off a cliff edge this winter?
Rachel Reeves
I can understand the hon. Member’s concern, but of course, that £1.5 billion was already baked into the forecast—it is not new money to spend on initiatives. As she knows, we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances; we will set out the detail of that at the Budget tomorrow, but because of that, we have had to make very difficult choices. Even in those difficult circumstances, though, we have protected the winter fuel payment for the most vulnerable pensioners who are on pension credit. We have also boosted the uptake of pension credit, so that people get the support they are entitled to.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Residents of Joseph Rowntree’s St Ellens Court all gathered recently to tell me about the devastating impact that the cut in the winter fuel payment will have on their living standards, and people in Withernsea gathered Saturday last to demonstrate against it. Tomorrow, the Chancellor can do the right thing; will she?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman told them about the £22 billion gap in the public finances that his Government left, which has required the difficult decisions this Government have had to make to clean up the mess left by the Conservative party.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
With the promised £300 cut in energy bills not materialising, the winter fuel payment scrapped for pensioners, and now the bus cap lifted for working people—whatever definition of that term the Chancellor is using today—can she honestly say that living standards will improve for everybody under this Government?
Rachel Reeves
On the bus price cap specifically, the hon. Member will know that the previous Government put no money in to extend that cap. We have put money in to ensure that the bus price cap remains at an affordable level for people, unlike the previous Government, who just had short-term gimmicks.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Department for Work and Pensions has deployed 500 additional staff to process pension credit applications as quickly as possible, and I encourage all pensioners who might be eligible to apply by 21 December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that benefit can be backdated by three months, and can passport pensioners to other benefits.
Dr Evans
I am very grateful for the Minister’s answer. I put in a written question to find out how long this would take, and almost one in four people who apply for pension credit are waiting longer than 50 working days for their application to be picked up, which takes us past Christmas and into the new year. That is before the 150% increase in applications referred to in the data released by the Government, so although I am pleased to hear that there are 500 more staff, could we hear how much extra funding is going in immediately to make sure those applications are processed this side of Christmas? Otherwise, pensioners are really going to struggle.
Emma Reynolds
I am very pleased to say that there has been a 152% increase in the number of pensioners who are applying for pension credit. That is good news, and is a result of the pension credit awareness campaign that we have been running since early September. We are putting in place all the resources we can to process claims as quickly as possible.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
We on the Conservative Benches are deeply concerned about all those who will lose their winter fuel payments under Labour. Some pensioners will keep the winter fuel payment if they claim pension credit, but we know that some will not apply or will have difficulty applying. Can the Minister confirm how many people the Treasury assumes are eligible for pension credit but will not claim it, therefore losing their winter fuel payment, and what is the Treasury doing to close that gap?
Emma Reynolds
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the estimates of how many people might be eligible for pension credit are an imperfect science—they are based on a survey. Means-testing what is a very complex benefit, as all means-tested benefits are, requires an assessment of not only people’s income but their savings; it is about pensioner household units, too, so it is a complex set of procedures. All I can say is that I am glad we are targeting support at those most in need, something that was outlined in the 2017 Conservative party manifesto, which stated:
“we will means-test Winter Fuel Payments, focusing assistance on the least well-off pensioners, who are most at risk of fuel poverty.”
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
As the newly appointed Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, this is my first opportunity to welcome the Chancellor and Ministers to their places. Notwithstanding that, on the winter fuel payment, the Government need to think again. I recently spoke with representatives of Citizens Advice in St Albans, who are deeply concerned that letters from the Department for Work and Pensions will be sent out only in December to people that it believes are eligible, meaning that many people may lose out. We have urged the Government to either reverse the cut and make it taxable or look at, for example, raising the pension credit limit. Could the Government confirm whether they are going to look again at any of the measures that we have suggested?
Emma Reynolds
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I reassure her that we are writing to all pensioners—I do not know where she got that misinformation from—about the change in policy. For the first time, we are also writing to all pensioners in receipt of housing benefit to encourage them to claim for pension credit.
We have also made a steadfast commitment to the triple lock, which will mean that the new full state pension will be worth around £1,700 more over this Parliament. We have extended the household support fund, which local authorities can use to help people who are on low incomes and struggling with their fuel bills. We have also ensured that the warm home discount scheme will provide £150 for low-income households, including pensioners.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government’s growth mission will counteract 14 years of sluggish economic growth, kick-starting a decade of national renewal. We have wasted no time in getting to work: we have already launched the national wealth fund, introduced reforms to the planning system, and hosted the international investment summit, securing more than £63 billion of investments across the United Kingdom. Work continues, and I look forward to updating the House on our next steps for growth in tomorrow’s Budget.
Josh Simons
As co-chair of the Labour Growth Group, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to unleash a revolution in investment in Britain, but the capital we must invest in is not just physical but digital. For years, Conservative Members cut capital investment in technology, depressing productivity and leaving workers with less money in their pocket. What steps is the Chancellor taking to boost long-term investment, especially in digital and technology?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent work as co-chair of the Labour Growth Group. I know that he is passionate about how we can use data to boost productivity and improve public services, and he is working with Wigan council and his local NHS trust to build data-driven tools to better deliver preventive healthcare.
The Government recognise that attracting private investment into digital and technology is crucial for driving growth, which is why we have already prioritised them in the modern industrial strategy to ensure that we are creating the right conditions for investment. Since the Government took office, we have been pleased to welcome more than £25 billion of investment into UK data centres, helping to create thousands of jobs and meet the growing demand for data, artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Ms Minns
Does the Chancellor agree that a modern NHS that is fit for the future is essential to our country’s economic growth? Will she find time to visit the new Pears Cumbria School of Medicine when it opens in Carlisle next year?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I absolutely recognise the important role of the NHS and the health of our nation in getting people back to work and in boosting the economy. That is why in tomorrow’s Budget we will set out further detail of how we will increase the number of elective appointments per week, delivering one of the Government’s first steps in office to reduce waiting times in the NHS.
I was delighted to meet Professor Hugh Brady from Imperial College London at the international investment summit. He shared the detail of important plans to partner with the University of Cumbria to help the next generation of medical professionals in my hon. Friend’s constituency and to address staffing shortfalls and healthcare needs in the area. I commend her work in this important area.
Dave Robertson
High streets in Lichfield and Burntwood in my constituency were let down as, for 14 years, the Conservative party fiddled while our high street economies burned. Can the Chancellor assure me that regenerating high streets, as the physical manifestation of how well our economy is doing, is a priority for this Treasury?
Rachel Reeves
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and he is doing a great job for the people of Lichfield. This Government are committed to delivering a decade of national renewal and ensuring that growth and prosperity are felt everywhere in our country. We will work in partnership with businesses and local communities to rejuvenate our high streets, which are the lifeblood of our local communities, including those in Lichfield and Burntwood. As part of this, we plan to introduce new powers to help fill vacant properties through high street rental auctions. We know that this is such an important issue for so many of our constituencies.
Ben Coleman
Thousands of my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham come from European Union countries, and they are all passionate about the UK economy doing well. Does the Chancellor agree that, for the UK to achieve its full economic growth potential, we need to deepen our trading links with the European Union? If she does, will can she say how the Treasury is working with other Government Departments to achieve this?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Since taking office, this Government have been working to reset our relationship with our European friends and neighbours. The Prime Minister recently met the President of the European Commission and agreed to strengthen the UK-EU relationship to address global challenges such as the economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices. Improving our relationships will be good for business and good for consumers.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I am not going to ask the Chancellor to pre-empt tomorrow’s Budget, although I might actually have some luck if I did, based on current form. Instead, can she confirm to me that she fully appreciates how important agricultural property relief and business property relief are to the farmers and family businesses that do so much to grow local economies across the country?
Rachel Reeves
I recognise the importance of being able to pass on to the next generation the assets people have built up, and we will be setting out more details on all of our tax policies in the Budget tomorrow.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Shared prosperity funding has been used by local authorities such as Fife council to drive economic growth, particularly through support for small businesses. That funding is due to end in April 2025. Can we get a commitment from the Government that funding for these kinds of schemes will continue?
Rachel Reeves
We will set out more details in the Budget tomorrow, including the consequentials that will go to the Scottish Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Investment requires a measure of optimism, not the collapse in business confidence that the Chancellor has engineered. She would have done better to stress some of the positives that she inherited, wouldn’t she?
Rachel Reeves
It is good to have an explanation of how to do my job from one of the Conservative Members who crashed our economy. Some £63.5 billion of investment into the UK was announced at our international investment summit—investment in life sciences, investment in data centres and digital, investment in clean energy—because businesses have confidence that this Government are bringing stability back to our economy and working with businesses to seize the opportunities. I am really excited about doing that in all parts of our country and working with business to do so.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Can the Chancellor tell us, to the nearest £10 billion, how much extra would be available for long-term investment were it not for the fire sale of UK Government bonds by the Bank of England, costing the taxpayer dearly?
Rachel Reeves
I started my career as an economist at the Bank of England, and unlike Conservative Members, I think it is incredibly important to recognise the independence of our economic institutions, including the Bank of England and, indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Small businesses are the engine of our economy, but many of them are penalised for investing in their businesses because of the broken business rates system. Will the Chancellor ensure that investment is exempted from business rates, and will she ensure that the Budget tomorrow is the final Budget in which business rates are a permanent feature?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I too welcome her to her place.
Small businesses and high street businesses are the lifeblood of all of our communities, including hers in St Albans, and it is important that we support them. In our manifesto, we committed to reform of our business rates system. I will be setting out more details in the Budget yesterday tomorrow, as well as a business tax road map, which will give businesses certainty about the tax environment they will be working with for the next five years.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
Investment—[Interruption.] I am delighted to be welcomed by those on the Opposition Benches, and am pleased to see them in their place as well. Investment is a key part of the Government’s growth mission, alongside stability and reform. By ensuring adherence to robust fiscal rules and respect for our economic institutions, we are building the confidence needed to deliver greater investment across the country.
Mr Morrison
I thank the Minister for that response. A key part of the northern powerhouse agenda was investment in our rail infrastructure, and residents in my constituency were excited that Cheadle train station finally got planning approval recently. However, recent talk of cuts to infrastructure investment has caused concern. Can the Minister assure us that Cheadle train station is safe and will go ahead?
Darren Jones
The Government are fully committed to ensuring that investment in all parts of the UK, including the north of England, creates growth and impact for working people. The north of England is home to crucial levers to achieve this, as evidenced by our recent announcements on Teesside and Merseyside, which will create thousands of jobs and secure long-term futures. The detail of individual projects will be confirmed in due course.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The creation of the national wealth fund, and the record success of the £63 billion of investment announced at the investment summit, comes on top of investments that Ministers have just announced in carbon capture in the north-west. Those are examples of the success—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very good Member who has been here a long time. Please try to look at me occasionally; it would be helpful.
Bill Esterson
The successful investments announced are a great example of this Government delivering jobs and economic growth, in the north of England and across the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is in stark contrast to the abysmal record of the Conservative party in its 14 years in government?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend rightly points out that this country faces a choice: investment or decline. As we saw at the general election, it chose investment, and that is what the Government will deliver.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
Increasing economic productivity is a key mission in the Labour Government’s growth agenda. After 14 years of weak productivity, depressed living standards and unfunded spending commitments, we are adamant about bringing our country into an upward trajectory, using the national wealth fund and the significant planning reforms that we are bringing together to ensure a decade of national renewal for our country.
Kevin Bonavia
Across the UK, the hospitality sector generates £93 billion per year. In my constituency, there are many examples of local entrepreneurs, including on the old town’s High Street and in our neighbourhood centres, who provide an excellent service for residents and visitors alike. What can my hon. Friend do to help our hospitality services grow in Stevenage and across the UK?
Tulip Siddiq
I am fully aware of the assets of my hon. Friend’s constituency, including the neighbourhood centres that he mentions, and the surrounding villages, which host amazing music festivals. I recognise the contribution of the hospitality sector in Stevenage to the UK economy, and I know he is a great champion of the borough business club. I am confident that our Government’s growth mission will ensure that hospitality businesses in Stevenage continue to grow. The Government look forward to working with organisations such as UKHospitality to facilitate that.
Sonia Kumar
“Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy” identifies advanced manufacturing as a growth-driving sector. Manufacturing in Dudley accounts for 40.4% of jobs; that is double the national average. What steps are the Government taking to support and revitalise the manufacturing sector in Dudley, given its historical significance to the local economy, and its potential contribution to the UK’s overall industrial strategy?
Tulip Siddiq
As my hon. Friend rightly says, we identified advanced manufacturing as a growth-driving sector in the recently published industrial strategy Green Paper. I know how important manufacturing centres such as the Very Light Rail National Innovation Centre are to Dudley and the UK economy. We are committed to supporting advanced manufacturing through the industrial strategy, which, alongside sector plans, will be developed in partnership with businesses and stakeholders ahead of publication in spring 2025. I hope that she will contribute to that. Jobs will be at the heart of our industrial strategy, backed by employment rights that are fit for a modern economy.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Investing in transport infrastructure will boost productivity, so is the Chancellor listening to Members from across the east of England and across the House, and will she back the Ely junction rail upgrade, which delivers benefits of £5 for every £1 invested?
Tulip Siddiq
As the hon. Member will know, the Chancellor listens carefully to everything that is said in the Chamber, and I am sure that she has noted what he has said.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We in Northern Ireland were told that, as a result of having dual access to the EU market and the United Kingdom market, we would see an increase in inward investment and economic productivity. Recently, Invest NI has had to admit that there has been no uptick in investment, because access to the EU market is counteracted by barriers from the GB market—that is clear. Do the Government now recognise that that was a mis-sold proposition?
Tulip Siddiq
I think we were mis-sold a lot of things by the previous Government, if that is what the hon. Member is talking about. I remind him that we had the investment summit recently, where we secured £63 billion of private investment, creating more than 38,000 jobs. That is more than double what the previous Government secured in 2023.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Household energy bills have fallen by 30% since their peak, and are now around £800 lower for a typical household. This Government are committed to improving the quality and sustainability of our housing stock through our warm home plan, further details of which will be set out through the spending review. That will be vital in making sure that the UK is more energy-resilient, in lowering household bills and in meeting our 2050 net zero commitment.
Mr Forster
Given that many constituents of mine in Woking and across the country live in fuel poverty and are fearful of losing their winter fuel allowance, does the Minister or the Chancellor agree that targeted support for low-income families and households should be included in tomorrow’s Budget or in the warm home plan, so that no one has to decide between eating and heating this winter?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman can see our commitment to supporting vulnerable households with the cost of energy and food in our extension of the household support fund, at a cost of half a billion pounds, from the end of September to the end of March. That will allow local authorities to help low-income families with the cost of essentials, such as food and energy.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
This nation experienced the highest rise in energy bills of all G7 countries after Putin invaded Ukraine, because the Conservatives left us dependent on natural gas and with the worst-insulated homes in western Europe. Can the Minister assure me that we will invest in the clean energy and home insulation that we need to lower energy bills for good?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that while it is essential that we tackle high energy bills now, it is also essential that we invest for the future to bring energy bills down for good. Critical to that is investing in our housing stock, as I have mentioned, but also, through GB Energy, in sustainable energy sources to make sure we improve our energy security and bring bills down for families across the country.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
In July, a Treasury assessment of public spending showed that this Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. I took immediate action—[Interruption.] Those on the Opposition Benches may not like it, but it is true. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the Chancellor, and I will hear the Chancellor.
Rachel Reeves
There are not many Conservative Members, but they still make quite a lot of noise.
I took immediate action by identifying savings and making reforms to the spending and fiscal framework to ensure that never again can a Government be allowed to make unfunded commitments, and to leave their successors with a massive black hole, as the Leader of the Opposition and the previous Chancellor did. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said to the House yesterday, the Budget will confirm the detail of the robust fiscal rules—this was set out in our manifesto—and will set out tax and spending plans, alongside an updated forecast from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
John Grady
Does my right hon. Friend agree that being honest and transparent about the state of public finances is the right thing to do, and that having a long-term plan to fix the foundations of our economy and the public finances is preferable to the short-term, chaotic approach taken by the SNP in Scotland, which has led to three consecutive years of emergency in-year budget cuts?
Rachel Reeves
This Government are committed to sustainable public finances, unlike two of the Opposition parties. A stable economy built on stable public finances is a key foundation for growth, which is why Labour is on the Government Benches, and the SNP and the Tories are on the Opposition Benches. The robust fiscal rules set out in our manifesto will put the public finances on a sustainable path, so that we can move the budget into balance, with day-to-day costs being met by revenues, and get debt falling as a share of our economy. Given our challenging inheritance, that will require difficult choices, but this Government will make them to fix the foundations of our economy.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The last Government left Eastbourne borough council in a position in which it spends 49p in every pound it collects in council tax on temporary accommodation. We need a solution, because that is not sustainable for councils or families. Will the Chancellor commit to supporting councils with the cost of temporary accommodation, and to investing in preventing homelessness in the first place?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Member is absolutely right: the number of people housed in temporary accommodation is a scandal, and the amount that costs taxpayers in Eastbourne and around the country is a double scandal. We made a commitment in our manifesto to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. Conservative Members oppose that, but we are determined to do it, because that is the way to bring down the cost of temporary accommodation and ensure that all families have a safe and secure roof over their heads.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is right about the challenge it will be for the Government to balance the public finances. A stiff target of 2% in-year efficiency savings has been set for Departments. What is she doing to make sure that the target is robustly applied, and that Departments do not game it by putting off decisions, which will end up costing more?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Chair of the Treasury Committee for that question. She is absolutely right that in our July statement, we set a 2% productivity target, not just for the Department of Health and Social Care, as the previous Government did, but for all Departments. Ministers are absolutely determined to deliver against those targets, because that is the way to ensure that we have resources for the frontline public services—our schools, hospitals and police—that we all rely on.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Under the last Government, the Chancellor said that interest rates and gilt yields were driven by Government policy. Will the Chancellor guarantee that neither will rise higher than they did under the Conservatives?
Rachel Reeves
The last Government crashed the economy with a mini-Budget and sent interest rates and mortgage rates soaring, putting huge pressure on the costs borne by families and businesses. We will set out our Budget tomorrow, including robust fiscal rules on paying for day-to-day spending through tax receipts and borrowing only to invest, whereas the previous Government borrowed for day-to-day spending, which is why we are in the mess we are in today.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Last Wednesday, in Washington, the Chancellor announced changes to the debt rules to allow Labour to borrow more. However, published Treasury advice says that increasing borrowing risks interest rates staying higher for longer. Does the Chancellor agree with her Treasury civil servants?
Rachel Reeves
Last week, when I was in Washington, I was very pleased to hear the International Monetary Fund say how important it is that countries, including the UK, borrow to invest in their capital infrastructure. Under the plans we inherited from the previous Government, capital spending as a share of GDP is due to fall from 2.6% to 1.7%. If those decisions were to go forward, it would mean plans delayed and cancelled. We will set out our plans tomorrow in the Budget, but it is crucial that we have rules ensuring that we pay for day-to-day spending through tax receipts, and that we borrow only to invest, unlike the previous Government.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Conservative party oversaw years of chaos, which cost not only families but businesses. The Government are committed to delivering the economic stability needed for investor confidence. Our commitment to a credible Budget, strong institutions and robust fiscal rules are at the heart of that plan. Earlier this month, we announced a record-breaking £63.5 billion of investment at our international investment summit. That shows that the UK can attract investment from around the world, to boost jobs and growth here in Britain, through serious, stable Government policy.
Tim Roca
When does the Chancellor think that the Conservative party lost its fiscal credibility? Was it with the Liz Truss mini-Budget? [Interruption.] Was it when national debt rose from 65% to nearly 100% of GDP? Or was it when they made the farcical promise to abolish national insurance?
Mr Speaker
Order. Who wants to go for that cup of tea? Normally this happens at Prime Minister’s questions; I do not want it starting in Treasury questions.
Rachel Reeves
All of the above. That is why my hon. Friend is in his place and Conservative Members are on the Opposition Benches.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If the Chancellor wants to increase investor confidence, the thing to do is help small and medium-sized enterprises. Tomorrow she will have the opportunity to do that. What will be done to help them? In Northern Ireland, 85% of businesses employ 10 or fewer employees. If she helps the SMEs in Northern Ireland, that will increase employment.
Rachel Reeves
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a proud supporter of businesses big and small in his constituency and across Northern Ireland. I will set out more detail in tomorrow’s Budget, including on business rates, but I recognise how important it is for us to support small businesses, so that they can grow and create jobs right across the United Kingdom.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
Clearly, the Chancellor is desperately trying to raise old ghosts, along with debt and taxes, but her own broken promises are coming back to haunt her and are frightening investors. It does not have to be Halloween for socialists to spook British business. Why does she think that business confidence has fallen faster in the past three months than at any point since the pandemic?
Rachel Reeves
I would judge this Government on their record: we secured £63.5 billion of investment right across the United Kingdom, creating nearly 40,000 jobs in constituencies up and down our country—good jobs that pay decent wages. That is more than twice the investment that the previous Government secured at their international investment summit. That shows how important it is to return stability to economy and work in partnership with businesses—something that the Conservative party might want to learn a lesson from.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
More than 12 million pensioners will be protected by this Government’s commitment to the triple lock, with the new full state pension expected to increase by around £1,700 over the course of this Parliament. Pensioners also benefit from free eye test, free NHS prescriptions and free bus passes.
Luke Taylor
We know that no impact assessment was carried out prior to the decision to cut the winter fuel payment, but was any consideration given to the burden that the daunting application form places on the elderly, and the extra burden on charities such as Age UK, which advise them on completing it? Evidence of that daunting burden is the 60% limit to uptake over the past decade. Will she work with her colleagues to simplify the application process, ease the burden on those who are losing the winter fuel payment, and help them receive the broad benefits that pension credit provides?
Mr Speaker
I think the Minister got it in the first two minutes, never mind the last three.
Emma Reynolds
The Government did an equality analysis on the change, which was published in September. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman take a look at it. It was such a long question that I have forgotten what he asked. On application forms—
Mr Speaker
Order. What is the hon. Gentleman standing for? I hope he is not. I call Blake Stephenson.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
As hon. Members know, any changes to tax policy will be set out in tomorrow’s Budget. Members will also know that our approach to fixing the foundations of the economy will be one that protects working people. This Labour Government will honour our commitment to protect working people by not increasing national insurance, basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT.
Blake Stephenson
The Government have got into an absolute pickle over the definition of working people. People deserve certainty. In Mid Bedfordshire, we are proud of the hard work of the owners of nearly 5,000 small businesses. They are working people creating jobs and growing our economy, and all while providing for their families. They are lying awake at night worrying about yet higher taxes. Will the Chancellor give them a peaceful night’s sleep ahead of tomorrow’s Budget and confirm that she will honour her manifesto commitment not to raise taxes on them?
James Murray
I do not think I am pre-empting anything tomorrow by confirming that the Chancellor will absolutely stick to our commitment not to raise taxes on working people through national insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT. And I might add that what people and businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency might want is stability in the economy, a Government who support investment in the economy, and a Government who will get the economy growing and make people across Britain better off.
Mr Frith
In Bury North, child poverty rates are at 43%, densely populated in three of our nine wards: Bury East, Redvales and Moorside. Does the Minister agree with me that minimising tax rises for working people is just the starting point, and that tackling the crippling level of impoverishment for those in work requires a laser focus and intervention from this mission-driven Government?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, while keeping taxes on working people as low as possible is crucial, the way to make people better off in the long run is through boosting public and private investment, and delivering sustained economic growth. That is the focus of this Labour Government, and that will guide the choices we make.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
During the election campaign, I held a press conference at which I outlined the glaring funding gaps in Labour’s plans and the taxes they might raise to pay for them. One of those taxes was employer national insurance contributions. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—now Chief Secretary to the Treasury—responded at the time by arguing that this was a list of things that “Labour isn’t doing.” Is it correct that raising employer national insurance contributions is something Labour isn’t doing?
James Murray
The right hon. Member will have to wait for the Budget tomorrow. She was a Minister not that long ago, so she might still remember that the Budget is the time when such announcements are made. Let me restate our commitment, so it is crystal clear, that we will protect working people by not increasing national insurance, income tax or VAT. Might I add, very briefly, that I note the Conservatives suddenly have a new-found interest in the livelihoods of working people? It is a shame, frankly, that they never prioritised that during their 14 years in office, during which, time and again, they made working people pay for their mistakes.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Government have launched a multi-year spending review to set out our long-term plans for public spending and to ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent effectively. The first phase of the spending review is due to report this week, alongside the Budget, and phase 2 will begin shortly after the Budget.
Anna Dixon
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Recent National Audit Office reports have revealed the extent of the Tories’ economic mismanagement over the past 14 years. That has put capital projects such as Bingley pool in my constituency at risk. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I will ensure that taxpayers’ money delivers value. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that tomorrow’s Budget will be based on an honest assessment of the public finances, so that this Government can deliver on their promises?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I can confirm that the Budget tomorrow will be an honest assessment of the mess left to this country by the Conservative party, but crucially our plans for clearing up the mess and then delivering the change we promised.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Given that, I assume, everyone in the Chamber has eaten at some point today, do we think that backing Britain’s farmers is a good use of public money, and given that there is a £2.4 billion budget for British farming, which the last Government underspent foolishly, recklessly and carelessly, will the Chief Secretary guarantee that at the very least the farming budget will be protected so that our farmers can carry on looking after our nature and feeding us?
Darren Jones
Actually, I did not have breakfast today, so I am looking forward to lunch, and I therefore welcome that short question from the hon. Member. This Government are committed to farming and rural affairs, and to the production of the food that they provide for us, which is important for security of supply as well as, in due course, for my lunch.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Tomorrow I will present my first Budget. It will be a Budget that fixes the foundations of our economy and delivers on the promise of change. It will turn the page on low growth and will be the start of a new chapter towards making Britain better off. It will mean more pounds in people’s pockets, an NHS that is there when they need it, and businesses creating wealth and opportunity for all.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I commend the Chancellor for recently outlining investment in social housing, but in the interim the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has stated that the previous Government’s decision to freeze local housing allowance rates will push 80,000 private renters on housing benefit, including 30,000 children, into deep poverty during this Parliament. Will the Chancellor now consider unfreezing the allowance and relinking it to the actual cost of local rents, so that those families can keep their heads above water?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I think is familiar to all of us in our communities, about the cost of housing outstretching people’s incomes. In our manifesto we committed to building 1.5 million new homes, including social housing, which is so important and can give security to people who would otherwise be left in insecure housing in the private rented sector.
Mr Speaker
As this is his farewell question time, let us now come to the shadow Chancellor.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
This are indeed our final exchanges in the House, so before tomorrow’s fireworks I wish the Chancellor well for the future in her role. There has been a lot of common ground between us. For example, before the election she said that raising employers’ national insurance was a jobs tax that would take money out of people’s pockets. I very much agree with her on that; does she agree with herself?
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman knows better than almost anyone else that there a was £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That will require difficult decisions, but even in those circumstances we will do everything in our power to protect the incomes of ordinary working people, so we are committed to ensuring that no working people will see higher taxes in their payslips after the Budget.
Jeremy Hunt
We all know why the Chancellor is inventing this fictitious black hole. Thirty times this year, before the election, she promised not to raise tax, and now she is planning to present the biggest tax-raising Budget in history. More consensually, however, as this is our final exchange, I welcome her announcement last week of a £2.3 billion loan for Ukraine. Does she agree that the strongest signal of resolve that we can send to Putin is a commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and does she understand why so many people are worried by the fact that she has yet to do so?
Rachel Reeves
I have always respected the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it is important for us not to deny the seriousness of the situation that we face with the black hole in the public finances. Combined with the lashing out at independent economic institutions, it suggests that he has more in common with Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng than perhaps we thought. I watched my party lurch towards an ideological extreme and deny reality, and we spent years in opposition as a result. The shadow Chancellor risks taking his party down the same path.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I know that Newcastle-under-Lyme and, indeed, the whole county of Staffordshire have a proud brewing tradition, and my hon. Friend will be an excellent champion of breweries in his constituency. Supporting pubs and breweries is very important for me as a Minister. Indeed, on my first day in the Treasury’s Darlington economic campus, I visited Durham brewery—it was a work visit—where I heard from the Society of Independent Brewers and associates about the huge contribution that breweries make to British society. Further details will be set out by the Chancellor tomorrow.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I went to school in the ’80s and ’90s, and I was taught in portacabins because there was not enough room in my school. I know how important it is that children are taught in proper facilities. We will set out more details of our capital investments at the Budget tomorrow.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
My hon. Friend is right to point out the opportunities for improvement. As the Chancellor set out in her July statement, prevention will be at the heart of this Government’s new approach to public service reform. That will be set out in the spending review in the coming months.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Rachel Reeves
Building the homes that our country needs is a top priority for this Government. In our manifesto, we committed to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, including social housing, so that people have access to secure and affordable accommodation and that every family have a roof over their heads. We will set out more details on all of this in the Budget tomorrow.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Darren Jones
The Government recognise the significant pressures that all councils are facing. We are looking at consolidating funding streams for local authorities into the local government finance settlement, and we will work towards implementing our commitment to a multi-year financial settlement.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. This is an issue that resonates right across the House, with so many of us hearing terrible stories at our surgeries about the lack of support for some of the most vulnerable children in society. I know that it is a priority for the Education Secretary too, and we will set out more detail on departmental settlements in the Budget tomorrow.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right to say that pubs make an enormous contribution to our society and economy. The current alcohol duty system supports pubs through draught relief, which ensures that eligible products served on draught are charged less duty. The Government are committed to delivering a fairer business rates system for high streets, including hospitality. Any decisions on future tax policy will be announced by the Chancellor at a fiscal event, the next of which is tomorrow.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Eighty-two per cent of those who have seen Labour take away their winter fuel payment are either below the poverty line or within £55 a week of it. How can the Government justify this, when they are not even allowing a freedom of information request from the Financial Times to be responded to? They are hiding the figures from the people.
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
We are not hiding the figures. If I had had the chance, I would have said that 455,000 pensioners are paying the higher rate of tax and that 39,300 are paying the additional rate. Many wealthy pensioners have said to me that they do not need the winter fuel payment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that, but there are a number of—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Minister has answered the question. I call Emma Foody.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the disastrous impacts of the Conservative mini-Budget just over two years ago, which is still having an impact on people’s lives as they pay higher mortgage bills. This Government have committed to return sustainability to the economy and to working with business to reform our planning system, our pensions system and our skills system. We have already brought in £63.5 billion of private sector investment to grow our economy in all parts of the country and deliver the jobs and better wages that constituents in Cramlington and right across the country need to see.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Small business owners are working people, and they are some of the hardest-working people that I know. The Labour party struggled to define them over the weekend, but does the Chancellor agree that any rise in fuel duty, which the Conservatives froze or cut for 14 years, would be a tax on those hard-working people or those hard-working small business owners?
Rachel Reeves
The previous Government factored into their forecasts an increase in fuel duty this year. I will set out our plans in the Budget tomorrow.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Emma Reynolds
The Chancellor launched the landmark pensions review in July, which I am leading and which is looking at measures to drive more UK pension investment into the UK economy, boosting growth but also improving pension savers’ outcomes. I know that there is interest in this agenda across the House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Countryside Alliance research shows that rural households spend up to £800 a year more on fuel than urban households, so further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), will the Chancellor protect rural communities in the Budget tomorrow?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman is urging me to comment on the Budget, but he will have to wait until tomorrow.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
This Government have inherited a Britain that is now the most unequal country in the G7 bar America. The UK’s 50 richest families own 50% of the country’s wealth, and our tax system exacerbates this inequality with unfair loopholes that benefit those who have wealth rather than those who go to work. What steps—
Mr Speaker
Order—[Interruption.] No, these are topical questions and I decide.
James Murray
My hon. Friend will have to wait for the Budget tomorrow, but he will know that we have committed to closing some loopholes, including VAT on private schools, the non-dom loophole and cracking down on tax avoidance.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In South Devon, the average house price is now 14 times the average salary, at £425,000. What measures is the Chancellor taking to ensure that rural and coastal areas, such as the South Hams, which face huge digital and transport connectivity problems, will be included in measures to boost economic growth?
Rachel Reeves
Our commitment to build 1.5 million homes is about ensuring that all our constituents get the chance to have a roof over their head, including in rural areas, with more social housing as well so that people can have a secure tenancy. The hon. Lady is also right to raise the issue of digital connectivity, and we will be setting out more details on infrastructure investment in the Budget tomorrow.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
“Buy now, pay later” is attractive to young people who are trying to survive on zero-hours contracts with irregular hours. What assurances can the Chancellor give me that the coming regulations will protect this group from problematic debt?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
The proposed regulations will drive high standards of conduct among “buy now, pay later” firms, ensuring that consumers receive clear information and have access to strong protections. Our proposals will also allow the Financial Conduct Authority to require “buy now, pay later” firms to carry out affordability checks, ensuring that firms lend only to borrowers who can afford to repay.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
During the last election campaign, Labour candidates across Somerset said that a Labour Government would cut energy bills by £300. Will the Chancellor set out the timescale for fulfilling that promise?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I note the number of Labour MPs we now have in Somerset and across the south-west of England. We will set out more detail in the Budget tomorrow, but our commitment to investing in home-grown energy will boost our energy security, create good jobs here in Britain and begin to reduce people’s bills, as will our programme to better insulate homes, which the previous Government failed to do.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
A hundred councils in England have come together to call for five key changes to unlock much-needed investment in new council homes. They will welcome the news of £500 million of additional grant and changes to the right-to-buy rules, but one issue they also raise is housing revenue account debt and finance. Will Treasury Ministers look specifically at debt allocations and how HRA debt is accounted for, to unlock much-needed investment in council homes?
Darren Jones
Councils’ housing revenue accounts are a significant part of local authority finances, and it is therefore not right to exclude them from our fiscal rules, but I reassure my hon. Friend that this Government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million new homes will be delivered.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
However “working people” is defined, does the Chancellor not accept that people on low incomes and part-time employees who earn up to £300 a week should be exempt from paying income tax?
Rachel Reeves
We will set out details of our tax policy in the Budget tomorrow, but this Government have made a commitment to working people that we will not increase their income tax, their national insurance or the value added tax they pay.
Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I have noted the media reporting an assertion from Downing Street that the pre-announcement of Budget measures is entirely routine. For the avoidance of doubt, I am always happy for Ministers to come to the House to make announcements in the run-up to a Budget. This discourtesy arises when those announcements are made elsewhere.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on whether Ministers disclosing policies to the media before the Budget are in contravention of the ministerial code’s statement that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Mr Speaker, I reassure you that what you said yesterday, and indeed what you said a moment ago, has been heard not just by me but across Government.
The Government take their obligations to this House very seriously. Yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House on the fiscal rules, in which he made it clear that details will be announced to the House in the Chancellor’s Budget statement tomorrow, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Treasury Ministers have also answered questions in the House this morning.
The Chancellor will come before the House tomorrow to set out in detail the Government’s Budget to fix the foundations of our economy, and the House will then have a further four days of debate on the measures announced in that Budget. Throughout it all, Members of this House will see a Government who are committed to fixing the foundations to deliver the change our country so desperately needs. This Labour Government will invest in Britain’s future so that we can rebuild the national health service and our country, while ensuring that working people do not face higher taxes in their payslips.
Laura Trott
The response from No. 10 yesterday, and Labour’s whole argument, seems to be, “We did it because you guys did it.” But I am old enough to remember a fresh-faced Prime Minister coming into Downing Street and promising change. Labour justifying its actions based on things that the Conservatives have done does not seem like the change we were promised, does it? We are learning the lessons of why we lost the election, but this Government seem to be taking lessons from the worst bits of our record. And not just ours—from the last Labour Government, too. It is like the greatest hits of Government mistakes being replayed in just 100 days.
Cronyism? Is it Blair? No, it is the fresh-faced Labour Government giving civil service jobs to donors. A gross betrayal of pensioners? Is it Brown? No, it is the new Chancellor deciding that those on £13,000 are rich and do not need their winter fuel payments. Rampant politicisation of our institutions? Was this not something Labour accused Boris Johnson of? No, it is the Chancellor again, who said this weekend that the ex-Prime Minister and ex-Chancellor will have to answer to the Office for Budget Responsibility, despite the OBR saying that the report has nothing to do with previous Ministers and led The Times to argue that the OBR has been reduced
“to the provisional wing of the Treasury press office.”
Disrespectful statements emanating from No.10 about your decisions, Mr Speaker? Not the Conservative party, but the No. 10 press office, just yesterday. And potentially breaching the ministerial code with abandon about Budget leaks? Right again, it is this Government.
This Government’s false piety has been breached comprehensively by the Downing Street passes scandal and crony appointments to the civil service, and their hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see. Yet still they bleat on about the Tories like some broken spell they mutter over and over again in an attempt to conjure up the old magic, but it is not going to work. Labour is so obsessed with playing political games that its Members find themselves going over the Budget, simultaneously claiming that the Conservatives spent too much, but also spent too little. It is nonsense.
The question that I want to ask the Government today is who is going to take responsibility for the Budget leaks? What assessment have the Government made of whether this is a breach of the ministerial code?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I have said, I have the deepest respect for this House and its Members. The coming days will be very important to debate the Budget in full. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I have a degree of cynicism about the Conservative party’s new-found passion for parliamentary conventions, given the number of times it failed in its 14 years in office to update the House ahead of major announcements.
The truth is that Conservative Members are desperate to speak about anything other than the appalling mess in which they left our national finances. There are many groups of people who I would listen to on budget management, but certainly not Members of the party that crashed the economy. We would think they might have learned some lessons from attacking independent financial institutions, but they have not. The shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury are attacking the Office for Budget Responsibility once again.
Families in my constituency and across the country are still paying higher rents and mortgage costs because of the mini-Budget two years ago that created and wreaked such havoc on our economy. Unlike the Conservative party, this Government will never play fast and loose with the nation’s finances. Tomorrow we will see a Budget focused on investment, to get the economy moving again. This Government will take the long-term decisions needed to rebuild Britain and fix our schools, hospitals and our broken roads. The Conservatives have not changed. All they offer is decline and more austerity, with working people paying the price.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
In Bury North, rents and mortgages are still sky high as a direct consequence of the economic legacy of the last Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is no surprise that the Conservatives want to talk about anything other than their economic record?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I certainly do agree. I am sure it will come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members that one of the Conservative’s former Chancellors decided to comment on the September 2022 fiasco. What did Kwasi Kwarteng say the other day? “Okay, my Budget wasn’t perfect”—the master of understatement.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a sad state of affairs when the run-up to the Budget of this new Government so closely resembles that of the previous Government, with consistent leaks and briefings to the media rather than announcements being made where they should be—in this House—so that Members can scrutinise them on behalf of their constituents. The previous Conservative Government did so much damage to trust in politics, including by consistently undermining the ministerial code. Will the Minister put things right and toughen up the status of the code by enshrining it in law?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We have already said that the Prime Minister will publish an updated ministerial code shortly. There is a stark difference between this and the previous Administration. The approach of the previous one is probably best characterised as, “If you break the rules, try and change the rulebook,” but we on the Labour Benches take the ministerial code seriously. That is why we want to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects of all who have the privilege of serving in his Government.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will welcome the constructive response from the Minister today. Will he confirm that the former Conservative Treasury Front-Bench team had to have paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code drawn to their attention twice this year—in both April and May? It is do as they say, not do as they did.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Frankly, when I heard Conservative Members talk about ethics and standards in Government, I thought that irony had died.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can we take it that the Government did not think that the Chancellor’s announcement in America last week was important? I think most people in this House felt that it was. Therefore, if it was important, did the Chancellor break the ministerial code?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House yesterday. The entire Treasury team has been here answering questions today. The Chancellor will deliver a Budget tomorrow and we will have four days of debate on it. I doubt that the House has seen so much of the Treasury team since the Tories were forced to deliver two emergency Budgets in September 2022.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
My constituents in North East Derbyshire are still paying the price of the mini-Budget, with rises in their mortgages and rents. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives should be talking about that and holding themselves to account rather than throwing out chaff to distract everyone?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the contribution of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, one word was noticeably missing: sorry.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
As Chair of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament, I made a point of making sure that when Ministers had breached the rules, it was clear to them that both the Committee and others were very unhappy. Will the Minister confirm that he will make sure that the revised ministerial code makes it clear that announcements need to be made to this place first, as has always been the case?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, she will not have long to wait for the ministerial code. In my opening remarks to Mr Speaker, I indicated my respect for this House in regard to the matter that she is talking about.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The chutzpah from Conservative Members is quite incredible. Does the Minister agree that although they make a point today about process, they totally ignored the Office for Budget Responsibility ahead of the disastrous mini-Budget, which is still causing immense pain to my constituents?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. It is no surprise that we have a Conservative party that wants to talk about process, but it will not take responsibility for the £22 billion black hole that it left in our finances.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you made the strongest statement of condemnation on a subject of this sort that I have heard from the Chair in 27 years in this House. The Minister is a decent chap and, for all I know, he may be a skilled cricketer, but he must admit that he is batting on a sticky wicket today. Does he understand that if his defence is just to say, “We did it because the previous party did it,” nobody will ever break this cycle? His party has a big majority. It could just say sorry and resolve to do better in future.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a cricketer, as it happens, so I cannot comment on the condition of the wicket. With regard to Mr Speaker, I did initially set out in my remarks today my respect for what he said both yesterday and today, and my respect for Members of this House.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I think we all understand that Conservative Members are desperate to talk about anything other than their record of 14 years of failure in government. We hear from hon. Friends and Opposition Members how those failures are affecting constituents every single day. My question is, what next? How will the Conservatives distract us next?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is entirely right about the Conservative party’s desire to distract from its record, whether it is the lockdown parties or the PPE VIP lane for contracts. This Government are appointing a covid corruption commissioner to get the public’s money back.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Those of us who have been in this place for some time will remember the outraged indignation of the now Government, when they were in opposition, every time the now Opposition pulled a stunt like this. The only constant is you, Mr Speaker, and your efforts to have whichever of them is in power treat this House and its Members with respect. Can the Minister not see that the Government displaying such arrogant contempt for the rules only feeds the public perception that one is as bad as the other? Rather than delivering the change it promised, the Labour party is really saying, “It’s our turn now.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be saying that there is any comparison with breaching the rules during the covid pandemic. He really cannot; that is not a serious proposition. Nor is it a serious proposition to suggest that this is comparable with the money that was lost in the PPE VIP lane—it really is not.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Despite the rumours being spread, including by the Conservative party, can my right hon. Friend confirm that not a single change to taxation has yet been announced, and that they will in fact be announced at the Budget tomorrow?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As my hon. Friend says, the measures will be announced at tomorrow’s Budget in the normal way, with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal forecast. The Conservative party may denigrate the Office for Budget Responsibility, but this Government respect our financial institutions.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Can the Paymaster General confirm that the Chancellor receiving £7,500-worth of free clothes and declaring them as office support is a breach of the ministerial code?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I must say, the Conservatives have learned absolutely nothing. They trashed ministerial standards and standards in this House when in government. [Interruption.]
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Conservatives trashed standards in government. My suggestion to them is to reflect on the past 14 years.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I am very grateful to several Conservative Members for admitting to quite a lot of the mistakes that they made in government. People in my constituency are still paying the price, in their mortgages and rents, for the disastrous Conservative economic record. Is it any wonder that the Conservatives are so desperate to speak about anything other than their disastrous record?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservatives will talk about anything but their own record. Is it any wonder that they did not conduct a spending review before they called a general election? The reality is that they made unfunded spending commitments and then ran away.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
A remit of the new Modernisation Committee is to enhance the ability of Members of this House to hold the Government to account. In the light of the failure that has been exhibited over recent days, would the Minister be in favour of referring this issue to the Modernisation Committee?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I was not aware that financial mismanagement by the Conservative party was a matter for the Modernisation Committee, but it should certainly be referred to something.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Like others, I am surprised to hear that Conservative Members recently rediscovered their moral compass—the one that they lost perhaps when the former Prime Minister sent out the “bring your own bottle” invite to Downing Street, when he spent taxpayers’ money jetting his girlfriend around the world, or when they unlawfully suspended this place. Perhaps the Minister agrees that there might be another motivation. Does the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) want to keep her job next week?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Of course, we wish the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) well for the reshuffle next week. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very persuasive point. The Conservatives will talk about anything apart from their record.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
At 10 pm last night, the Government announced a £70 million increase in funding for radiotherapy. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy, I very much welcome that, but would it not have been better and right for the Government to make a statement to the House so that the policy could be properly scrutinised? That £70 million equals about 30 linear accelerators, but it will take 70 linear accelerators just to replace those that are going out of date this year. It will not meet the needs of people living in rural communities such as mine. We desperately need a satellite radiotherapy unit in Kendal so that people can get to treatment quickly. Will the Paymaster General put that lack of scrutiny right by arranging for a Health Minister to meet me and the rest of the all-party group, so that we can work closely to take forward those plans together?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will certainly pass on that request to the relevant Health Minister. Putting aside the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about scrutiny, I am sure that he joins us in welcoming the focus on radiotherapy, and there will be a real desire to work on it with him across party lines.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I was elected to keep the promises that we made in our manifesto. The Conservative party broke nearly every promise that it made in its 14 years in government. Does the Minister agree that it is only right for this Government to confirm that we will honour the pledges we made at the election?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that trust was one of the many things that the Conservative Government destroyed over 14 years, and this Government are determined to rebuild it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Chancellor, the Education Secretary, the Health Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary have all made significant announcements to the media and not to the House. Will those breaches of the ministerial code be investigated? Why has the Prime Minister not yet published an updated version of the ministerial code—are the Government still working out whether it is right to accept suits and glasses?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We have already said that the Prime Minister will update the ministerial code and publish it shortly to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole, as I have said, and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
We hear a lot about “14 years of failure”, but it seems to me that this Government have had 14 years to learn how the ministerial code works. In reality, the announcement made by the Chancellor last week moved the markets: bond yields went up, which means that mortgages and people’s bills have gone up. The right thing for the Government to do is to apologise.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, we will see the impact of what the Chancellor announces tomorrow and in the days afterwards. The ministerial code will be published shortly. That stands in stark contrast to what the previous Government did. I watched from the Opposition Benches as they tried to tear up the entire rulebook to protect one of their friends—that is not something that we will do.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
After your statement yesterday, Mr Speaker, I think you will have been as disappointed as I was that when the Chancellor came to the Chamber for Treasury questions this morning, she failed to apologise for the serious and important announcements that she had made outside the House. Without deflecting any further by talking about the previous Government’s record, will the Minister promise now that the ministerial code, and the Speaker of this House, who represents us all, will be respected by the Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Of course this Government respect both Mr Speaker and the ministerial code, but I make no apology whatsoever for holding the Conservative party to account for its record.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Conservative Members, in their faux outrage, have complete amnesia about their series of egregious failures in government, for which people in my constituency are still paying the price. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to consider the future that this Government can bring to the people of Central Ayrshire?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In recent weeks, we have had the investment summit, where this Government—an active Government —got pledges of £63 billion of investment into our economy. That is already a much better record than that of the Conservative Government, under whom investment was in decline.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and a family member of mine has a shareholding in a health company. Yesterday, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether he would commit to urgent funding for the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I was told very politely to wait for Wednesday’s Budget. Does the Minister agree that there is a democratic deficit when elected MPs cannot get an answer on issues that affect their constituents, but details of the Budget are, at the same time, being briefed to the press?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There are a range of ways in which the hon. Gentleman can get answers for his constituents, from written parliamentary questions to securing a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate. He does not have long to wait for the Budget, and he will have four days of debate afterwards to raise that point.
Jim Shannon
I say this very gently to the Minister, but it must be said: throughout his term, Mr Speaker has been painfully clear that there is a procedure for this House that we must all follow. Does the Minister not agree that this Government, who have come to power on a mandate to do things the right way, must pay respect to that convention? It is not in place simply due to tradition but to ensure that policy changes are heard and debated in this Chamber first, which is the purpose of this House, rather than heard and debated in TV studios throughout the country with a simple nod in the direction of the discourse of democracy.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have huge respect for this House, to which the hon. Gentleman is a frequent contributor. The Government’s respect for the ministerial code, for Mr Speaker and for Members of this House is absolute.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Over the past few days, we have had multiple leaked definitions of what working people are. Will the Government place in the House of Commons Library a definition ready for tomorrow’s Budget, so we can all understand who they are talking about?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can tell the hon. Gentleman about working people. Working people are the people who have been so appallingly let down by the Conservative party. They are the people who are paying extra costs in their mortgages and their rents every month; they are the people hit by the cost of living; they are the people left on record waiting lists by the Conservative party; and they are the people who this Government are determined to deliver for.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—there I was ready to defend your honour, Sir. Even after your ruling yesterday, the Government made more announcements on the BBC this morning concerning health services, so has the Paymaster General asked his advisers at the Cabinet Office whether they think the Chancellor or any other Minister has broken the ministerial code? If he has not asked for that advice, why not?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Come on. The Conservative party, which showed zero respect for the ministerial code in office, trying to put questions like that is appalling—it is double standards. [Interruption.]
Sudan
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sudan.
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for bringing this urgent question before the House and ensuring that we discuss the appalling situation that we currently see in Sudan. Since conflict erupted between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces in April last year, Sudan has witnessed one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. Humanitarian access continues to be deliberately blocked, and atrocities are being committed on a horrific scale.
The UK is at the forefront of responding to this crisis. Yesterday at the UN Security Council, the UK condemned the horrific escalation in violence in Al Jazirah state over recent days, with the Rapid Support Forces reportedly shooting indiscriminately at civilians and committing heinous acts of sexual violence. In September, as world leaders gathered for the UN General Assembly, the UK convened an event with partners to draw international attention to conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan. That followed my visit to South Sudan, where I spoke with some of those who have been impacted by this horrific violence. On 12 October, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh also visited the Chad-Sudan border to witness the impacts of the conflict in Sudan on women and girls and shine a light on the deteriorating situation.
On 9 October, as co-leader of the UN Human Rights Council’s core group on Sudan, the UK led efforts to extend the mandate of the independent fact-finding mission on Sudan. That mission is vital for documenting human rights abuses. Most recently, on 18 October, the UK led a joint statement with 10 other donors condemning the obstruction of aid and calling on the warring parties to comply with obligations under international humanitarian law. I also want to underline that this year, the UK has provided £113.5 million in aid to support those who are fleeing violence in Sudan and those who have fled to neighbouring Chad, South Sudan and Libya.
Mr Mitchell
The war in Sudan represents the largest humanitarian crisis, hunger crisis and displacement crisis in the world, but it has been almost entirely neglected because of the crises in the middle east and Ukraine. In the 18 months since hostilities erupted, tens of thousands have been killed and more than 10 million people have been displaced. Horrifically, 13 million face death by starvation this winter. We are witnessing a continuation of what the Janjaweed, the murderous militia now restyled as the RSF, started in Darfur 20 years ago. This is a deliberate strategy to destroy a population based on their identity—a crime against humanity. More than 1 million people in El Fasher in north Darfur are at immediate risk.
As a member of the troika and through many other actions, Britain has been active, but as the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council and with our deep historical connections to Sudan, the UK has a special responsibility to accelerate international efforts to find a solution. Events are not moving far enough or fast enough. Where is the responsibility to protect—a policy endorsed by the whole United Nations—in this dreadful catastrophe? What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure the international community lives up to its obligation under the responsibility to protect framework?
We have seen how contentious issues on the global stage often spill over into domestic discourse, but the debate on Sudan has been muted: there are no protests in the streets and no mass public social media campaigns, and news coverage has been sporadic. Yesterday, the Government announced that they will be match-funding the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east appeal. Can the Minister confirm today that she will do everything she can to support the launch of a DEC appeal on Sudan as soon as possible? The British public are one of the most generous, and I am certain that with greater awareness, many will dig deep to help, both in humanitarian terms and in calling for urgent international action. As Christmas approaches, from the comfort of our homes, we are going to witness the hideous spectre of mass starvation in a world of plenty. “Urgent” is an understatement: we must do more and act now.
Anneliese Dodds
The new Government are absolutely determined to not neglect this crisis. The right hon. Member has just used the word “hideous”; that truly is the case. I have spoken with some of those who came back into South Sudan from Sudan, including children—children who had effectively had to fend for themselves for many days, wading through flooded water, and were barely alive by the time they got to South Sudan. I heard from them about the need to ensure that the UK Government do all they can to stop this horrific conflict, in which the two sides are ultimately out for themselves and most definitely not for the people of Sudan, who are being held to ransom.
The right hon. Member rightly drew attention to the situation in El Fasher. He will know that keeping the Adré border crossing open is absolutely imperative. We should no longer see any restrictions on aid: that border must be kept open, and additional impediments should not be placed there. He talked about our special responsibility, which is certainly one that the new UK Government feel very strongly. We are doing all we can within the UN, as well as bilaterally, to ensure that the UK is providing leadership on this horrendous situation. The Foreign Secretary has raised it repeatedly in a whole range of different contexts, as have I, including bilaterally and multilaterally.
The right hon. Member referred to the links that the people of the UK have with Sudan. Although he rightly said that there have not been protests on the streets, there are Brits up and down our country who are working extraordinarily hard to support those in Sudan, particularly through mutual aid groups. Those are some of the bravest people I have ever spoken with: I have spoken to them online since I came into post, and also spoke with some of them in Addis Ababa. They really are incredible, providing support for their communities at a time of such need.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the DEC appeal for the middle east that we have worked with broadcasters on and matched to £10 million. Of course, any DEC appeal is determined by broadcasters, but we will certainly do all we can to ensure that the support that the people of Sudan need is delivered in a far greater volume than currently.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend says that she is doing all she can at the UN and bilaterally, but this horrendous situation is unfolding day by day, with 10 million people displaced, 20,000 people killed and 33,000 people injured—and it is getting worse. Can she say exactly what she is doing and how she is deploying the UN General Assembly, particularly as we are the penholder, to bring this horrendous situation to a close?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking for more specific details. She is right to emphasise the magnitude of the crisis: it is the world’s largest displacement crisis and now disturbingly, as we see, the world’s largest crisis of food insecurity.
Specifically on the UN General Assembly, which my hon. Friend asked about, we ensured that the UK convened an event with partners to draw attention to conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan. I also worked with partners to hold a meeting on the Sudanese humanitarian situation, which we are rightly working on across our ministerial teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Some 25 million people urgently need assistance in Sudan and more than 10 million have been displaced from their homes. Will the Minister affirm that attaining a ceasefire in Sudan is a diplomatic priority for the UK?
The UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council and assumes the presidency of the council from Friday. Last night, I met the former civilian Prime Minister of Sudan, Dr Abdalla Hamdok, who is president of the broad civilian front Tagadum. He is pushing for safe zones for civilians. Will the UK sponsor a new Security Council resolution to designate no-fly areas for aircraft and Iranian drones, and to uphold responsibilities under resolution 2417? Will the Government increase the capacity of their mission in Sudan as a practical means of support? Will they also further increase UK humanitarian assistance, including support for the UN appeal for Sudan, which has received only half its target funding?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the incredibly important point. She is right to underline that we must see an end to the hostilities. As I mentioned in response to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the two warring parties both appear to believe that they can win the war, so they are continuing hostilities. The impact of that on the civilian population is extreme: as we mentioned, there is the highest level of displacement and of food insecurity anywhere in the world. There must be an end to hostilities and the UK Government are doing all we can to advocate for that.
I am pleased to hear that the hon. Lady met the former leader of Sudan, Hamdok, from the transitional Government. I also met representatives of Tagadum, which is an important civil society organisation, when I was in Addis Ababa. Their voice must be heard, especially when it comes to the protection of refugees. We have seen so many attacks on refugees, internally displaced people in Sudan, and civilians. We will continue to argue against that.
The hon. Lady asked about our activity in Sudan. Richard Crowder is the newly appointed head of British Office Sudan and the UK special representative to Sudan. He is working incredibly hard on that, as are all the Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as I mentioned.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for updating us on her work. The violence continues in part because the warring parties have their sponsors in the region, including Iran and the Gulf. What efforts are the Government making to work with those regional sponsors to encourage de-escalation and secure a ceasefire?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that; she has considerable experience in the area of humanitarian need. We were extremely concerned by the situation that was revealed, for example, in the panel of experts’ report in January 2024 about external engagement. I have said from the Dispatch Box before, and I will say again, that the only reason for another country to be engaged in Sudan is to help to provide humanitarian support. That is the only reason for external engagement, and we will continue to make that argument very strongly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Both Front Benchers seem united in their passionate concern about this terrible conflict. Does the Minister agree that if this situation were happening in a conflict on the continent of Europe or in the middle east, it would be on our national news night after night? Why does she think our broadcasters give a second-order priority to such a terrible conflict?
Anneliese Dodds
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and one that I have been struggling with too. Without dwelling on it, hearing from those who have been directly impacted by the crisis about the horrendous time that they have spent trying to escape the violence leads one to the conclusion that there must be more of a focus on the situation. The most appalling outcome would be if, some years hence, people were to look back and say, “Why did the international community not do more?” The Government are determined to use every lever—multilateral and bilateral—to try to force change and make sure that the people of Sudan are protected.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
A UN investigation found today that rape is widespread in Sudan. The accounts are horrific, yet as we have heard, the conflict is the world’s forgotten war. How will the UK use its presidency of the UN Security Council in November to ensure that the crisis is no longer forgotten and that the world acts, including on sexual violence in conflict?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important issue; again, I know that she has experience in this area. The UK Government have repeatedly condemned atrocities and called out human rights violations, especially conflict-related sexual violence committed by parties to the conflict. We have called that out in the UN Human Rights Council and the Security Council. We are also supporting fact-finding missions. I was pleased to secure the support of even more countries for the important UN fact-finding mission, because the voices of women, girls and indeed boys who are being subjected to sexual violence must be heard and there cannot be impunity for that.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The brutality of violence in Sudan, and the disruption of agricultural systems and trade routes, have led to the extreme food insecurity that we have seen. Does the Minister share my admiration for the local emergency room organisations that are doing what they can to support local people? What will she do to ensure that international aid can get through to those actors on the ground? In the absence of international agencies or international forces, they are all that is there. What will she do to ensure that aid can continue to get across the border from Chad?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for referring to the emergency response rooms; I had a meeting with a number of people involved with those mechanisms. We are talking about ordinary Sudanese people who have taken extremely brave steps to make sure that they are supporting their local communities with desperately needed humanitarian aid—food, water and other supplies that they need right now. As a Co-operative party MP, I believe that they have shown the best of mutual aid, and incredible courage at the same time. The UK is working with the UN on that, because we need to make sure that those individuals are supported in their incredibly important work. On the subject of aid from Chad, we will continue to push to make sure that the Adré border crossing is kept open and that there are no bureaucratic and administrative obstacles to aid getting through from there.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
What discussions have the Government had with regional actors to bring to bear pressure on the RSF and the SAF to make sure that humanitarian access to the country is allowed to prevent the severe starvation that is ongoing?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. We have had discussions with a number of bilateral partners both in the region and outside it. In fact, I discussed this with the USAID administrator last week when I was at the World Bank annuals, but we have of course had a number of discussions with regional actors as well—particularly countries in the Gulf, but beyond that as well. We know that many of them have relationships with individuals in Sudan, and we are really pushing for those to be used so that we see the aid delivery that is so desperately needed.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The UN Secretary-General warned yesterday that
“outside powers are fuelling the fire”,
and intensifying the nightmare of hunger and disease for millions of people in Sudan. The Minister has previously stated:
“The UK could not be clearer in our language.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 166.]
She has said that those engaged in this conflict and enabling a proxy situation are exacerbating a humanitarian crisis. What precise actions are the UK Government taking to prevent this involvement and to stop arms reaching the conflict zones?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being of the same mind on how we need to see an end to external engagement and to see the warring parties coming to the negotiating table. There have been a number of efforts to achieve that, but sadly, we have not seen both parties engaging to the extent they should have done. They must engage, and we must also see civil society engaging. We need to make sure that every single country is pushing towards that end, which is ultimately the only thing that will prevent the suffering of the Sudanese people.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
What are the Government doing to ensure that the real picture of the impact on civilians in the region is well known, or better known, both domestically and in the international community?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, because it really is important that we get as accurate a picture as possible of what is taking place, including of human rights violations. We are supporting the Centre for Information Resilience, a research body that is gathering open-source evidence about the ongoing fighting in Sudan. As I have mentioned, we have also pushed very hard to ensure there is support for the UN’s fact-finding mission. I was very pleased to see African nations backing that—a number of different countries backed it—and we need to make sure that the neutral information-gathering approach is really intensified so that we get an accurate picture.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her response. It is clear to the House that the Minister is doing her best to try to find solutions to the questions we are asking. On the escalating violence in Sudan’s Gezira state, recent attacks by the Rapid Support Forces have reportedly led to some 124 civilian deaths and widespread atrocities, including the targeting of ethnic and religious communities. In the light of the events that have led to the displacement of some 11 million people in Sudan, how are the Government working with international partners to safeguard the freedom of religious belief of those fleeing the religiously and ethnically motivated violence, and what immediate actions have been taken to ensure access to safe passage, humanitarian aid and protection for Sudanese civilians facing persecution, especially those from vulnerable religious communities?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this incredibly important issue. One of the many tragic developments we see in Sudan at the moment is that, under the previous transitional Government to whom we referred a few moments ago, there was considerable progress on freedom of religion and belief. For example, apostasy was decriminalised and Christmas was made a national holiday for those who wish to celebrate it, so there was a lot of progress. We have not so far seen a significant increase in the specific targeting of or discrimination against any religious minorities for their beliefs, but we will keep that under very close review, and we are aware that the broader human rights situation has clearly been deteriorating very disturbingly.
Israel: UNRWA Ban
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what assessment he has made of legislation approved by the Israeli Knesset to ban UNRWA.
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this critically important issue. Let me be clear: jeopardising the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and, in turn, its ability to carry out lifesaving work is unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated clearly in this House yesterday, it is also “wholly counterproductive for Israel”. Removing UNRWA from the equation would make an already unacceptable humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories far worse. It would also, of course, undermine the work of the United Nations more widely.
We are working closely with our international partners to urge the Israeli Government to step back from the brink and ensure that the legislation passed yesterday in the Knesset does not stop UNRWA being able to carry out its vital role in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. UNRWA is indispensable in the provision of aid for Palestinians. No other agency can get aid into Gaza at the scale needed. All humanitarian actors depend on UNRWA’s distribution network to get aid to those who need it most. That is why we restored funding to UNRWA as soon as possible, providing £21 million of funding. This is helping to provide emergency food, shelter and other support for 3 million people, as well as supporting UNRWA’s wider work assisting 6 million Palestinian refugees across the region. Some £1 million of the UK’s funding is helping the implementation of Catherine Colonna’s reforms.
We expect UNRWA to uphold the highest standards of neutrality. As I have said, we are providing funding and support for its reform process to enable that. The Secretary-General and the commissioner-general of UNRWA took the allegations seriously, and acted decisively. They cannot now be used to justify cutting ties with UNRWA. That is why we and our international partners voiced our concern at the weekend about the legislation that the Knesset has now passed, and called on the Government of Israel to make sure that UNRWA’s work can continue. The Prime Minister has been clear that the world
“will not tolerate any more excuses on humanitarian assistance”.
Israel must enable more aid to enter Gaza now and protect civilians. There can be no justification for denying civilians access to essential supplies. It is unacceptable that UK-funded humanitarian supplies have been unable to reach those in desperate need. Winter is coming, and the Palestinian people cannot wait. Israel’s Foreign Minister Katz reassured the Foreign Secretary over the weekend that aid will get in, and we will continue to press Israel to meet those commitments.
Finally, the Foreign Secretary reported to this House yesterday that Foreign Minister Katz had told us that the Knesset passing the Bill did not necessarily mean it had to be implemented. We will continue to use every lever we have to put pressure on the Israeli Government not to implement the legislation. It is not in their own interests, and it is certainly not in the interests of the Palestinian people, or indeed of humanity.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the Minister for that response, and I also welcome the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary yesterday. However, our statements of concern will do nothing to help the lives of innocent Palestinians, who will be further devastated by this decision.
The Minister will know that the decision yesterday was backed by 90% of the Knesset. It will see UNRWA evicted from the premises it has held for over 70 years, and it will severely block its ability to provide essential services such as healthcare and education to millions of Palestinian refugees and others. It is a reckless move, and one that threatens to dismantle the backbone of the international humanitarian operation in Gaza, worsening an already catastrophic crisis. It will also deprive them of essential food, water, medical aid, education and protection, which is already being obstructed.
The decision will also have catastrophic consequences for millions of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, where essential humanitarian aid is crucial both for the refugees and for the host communities. It is clear that these actions are part of a wider strategy to delegitimise UNRWA and to undermine the international legal framework protecting their rights—specifically, the right of return for Palestinian refugees who have been languishing in surrounding countries.
Does the Minister agree that the real intent is in part to undermine UNRWA’s efforts to promote the status of Palestinian refugees, and to obstruct future political solutions? Can I also remind the Minister that the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take all measures in its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article 2 of the genocide convention? By banning UNRWA’s operation, Israel is disregarding the ICJ’s provisional measure to ensure the delivery of lifesaving aid to Gaza.
My final question is this: we have seen the decimation that has taken place; is it not time to fulfil part 2 of the Balfour agreement? We have the state of Israel; should we not have now a state of Palestine?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I am aware that she has considerable direct experience of the importance of UN organisations from before she became a Member in this House. I agree that we must not see the undermining of UNRWA. It has a specific, long-standing role, provided within a clear framework that countries signed up to. It has a role not just in Gaza but in the west bank and the broader region. She is of course right that UNRWA is critical for the delivery of aid through the operations of other organisations as well. As Members would expect, I have discussed this not just with Commissioner-General Lazzarini and others under his leadership in UNRWA, including when I was in Jordan, but with other organisations that are active in Gaza. They are very clear that we should not see the undermining of UNRWA, and that ultimately it is critical for the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
We are following developments in the Knesset carefully. We Conservative Members want more aid to reach innocent civilians in Gaza because the situation there is desperate, but we also recognise that UNRWA must rebuild the trust and confidence that it lost, following the deeply troubling allegations that staff were involved in the appalling 7 October attacks and the outcome of the subsequent investigation. Catherine Colonna’s reforms need to be implemented in full, because we recognise that UNRWA has a good, indeed often critical, distribution network. Can the Minister update the House on the progress that UNRWA has made in implementing the Colonna reforms, and what measures have the Government put in place, since restoring funding to UNRWA, to monitor its neutrality?
More broadly, during our time in government, Israel made commitments that would increase the amount of aid reaching Gaza—for example, a commitment to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid through Ashdod and Erez, extend the opening hours of Kerem Shalom, increase the total number of aid trucks and allow more types of aid in. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on what discussions she has had with her Israeli colleagues about fulfilling those commitments, and indeed on what credible alternative plan Israel has developed.
Despite the pause in future funding to UNRWA implemented by the last Government, we remained absolutely committed to getting on with aid delivery. Among other measures that we took, we assisted over 5,800 children with severe malnourishment, and 853,000 children, adolescents and carers with the provision of wider emergency services. We also sent in many airdrops, and funded a field hospital that is treating thousands of patients. Will the Minister confirm that there are other ways to deliver aid without UNRWA, and that the UK stands ready to help in every way possible, with its extensive expertise, so that we reach the most vulnerable?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. She raised a number of critical issues. I was pleased to see cross-party agreement on the desperate need for more aid to enter Gaza. Also, we agree, of course, that the Colonna reforms need to be implemented, and the new UK Government have been very clear that we will do what we can to ensure that. Indeed, £1 million of the support we provided to UNRWA is dedicated to ensuring that those reforms are implemented. We continue to monitor the situation actively. As the hon. Lady would expect, I have discussed this directly with the leadership of UNRWA, and I believe they are putting those measures in place. They have put many in place, including many that they had wished to put in place for a long time, but were unable to, for lack of funds. This is critically important.
The hon. Lady referred to comments made previously by Israel. Of course the Government of Israel stated that they would flood Gaza with aid; concerningly, however, October might be the month with the lowest levels of aid going into Gaza since the start of the conflict. There really does need to be action to change that. There has been a very strong message on that from right across Government—of course from me, but also from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. We need to see a change here.
However, I would perhaps question some of the hon. Lady’s final comments. All the organisations with which I have discussed these matters, with a wide range of perspectives on the delivery of aid, have stressed the critical role that UNRWA plays. It has an unrivalled ability to distribute the support that is so desperately needed, and is, if anything, even more important as we approach winter, which could be very difficult indeed for the people of Gaza unless we act.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
UNRWA staff are expected to uphold neutrality, and receive compulsory training on humanitarian principles. It shares staff names and ID numbers with host countries. It has its 1,300 buildings inspected quarterly, and it commissioned a report from a group led by a former Foreign Secretary of France, who concluded that UNRWA upholds the principle of humanitarian neutrality. While of course there are changes that can be made, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recommendations are relatively peripheral, and fundamentally UNRWA does deserve the trust of the international community?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments, and all the work that her Select Committee is undertaking on these issues. We should state, as a new UK Government, that we were appalled by the allegations that those involved in the 7 October attacks on Israel might have included UNRWA staff. It was absolutely right that investigations took place within UNRWA to determine what happened, and that there was decisive action. That was fundamental, actually; it was incredibly important.
My right hon. Friend referred to Catherine Colonna’s report. It underlines the need for neutrality, and I mentioned previously that the UK Government are determined to play our part in ensuring that the Colonna report is implemented, including by allocating £1 million to that end. We are very clear that the kind of change that we could see around the position on UNRWA recently cannot be linked to discussions around the Colonna report. Decisive action, which the UK Government supported, has been taken, and UNRWA is needed to support humanitarian aid right now in Gaza.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
We are deeply concerned about the Knesset vote to ban UNRWA. This comes at a time that could not be more desperate. One of the UN’s most senior humanitarian officials warns:
“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying.”
We welcome the Government’s continued support to UNRWA, including on implementing the recommendations of the Colonna report as quickly as possible. Can the Minister say what confidence she has in the assurance that the Foreign Secretary received from Foreign Minister Katz that the Israeli Government were not obliged to implement the Knesset decision? What precisely are the Government doing to achieve immediate access for humanitarian aid, and does the Minister agree that as well as words of condemnation, the UK must set out the consequences for breaching international law? Will she consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for inciting illegal settlers in the west bank to violence against Palestinians?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I believe we are of the same mind on the passing of the UNRWA Bills by Israel’s Knesset. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the UK is gravely concerned about this. We believe the passing of those Bills risks making UNRWA’s essential work for Palestinians impossible. It risks jeopardising the entire international humanitarian response in Gaza and the delivery of essential health and education services in the west bank, and we have joined with allies in making that very clear over the weekend and into the beginning of this weekend. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that included the Foreign Secretary reiterating his deep concern to Israel’s Foreign Minister Katz on 27 October; he made the UK’s concerns on this very clear.
The hon. Member asked what immediate action we were taking on access to aid. We are using every lever we can identify to try to progress that access. I have mentioned our deep concern about the situation; we see far too few trucks entering Gaza with desperately needed supplies. That is particularly important now, in the run-up to winter. We will continue to work multilaterally and bilaterally to push forward on that.
Finally, the hon. Member mentioned the important subject of international humanitarian law. The new UK Government are resolutely committed to international humanitarian law. We keep our sanctions regime continuously under review. I will not comment on the specifics of it now, for reasons that he will understand. We have been clear that the actions of those engaged in promoting illegal settlements and violence towards Palestinians on the west bank are completely unacceptable. We have stated that many times and have made that clear. Finally, on whether there are implications from this position, I refer him to discussions we have had in the House on the arms export licensing control regime.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend said that we are at an end now, when it comes to Israeli excuses about why aid does not get in, but this is beyond excuses; this is potentially an act of deliberate policy to destroy the most effective aid route into Gaza. What are we actually going to do about it, if Israel continues to ignore our requests and pleas to it? I come back to the issue of sanctions. If Israeli Ministers decide to implement the Bill, are they not effectively engaging in an act of warfare by starvation? That is a breach of humanitarian law. Will we use sanctions against those Israeli Ministers who get involved in promoting this policy?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend raises important points. There is no doubt that there will be severe consequences if the work of UNRWA is obstructed. We have already talked about this issue. It is clear that only UNRWA has the reach required to get the aid needed to those in desperate need in Gaza. We do not believe that there is any justification for the position that has been taken. The UK Government have been clear about that, and we have articulated that not only bilaterally, but with our partners, immediately, over the weekend. The UK Government’s position is clear. He will understand that no UK Government announce exactly what they are doing around sanctions. That is appropriate and correct. We will always keep our sanctions policies under review, as this House would expect.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Whether or not UNRWA is compromised, the fact remains that the Knesset, and quite possibly the Israeli Government, believe that it is, and without Israel, no aid gets through. What measures therefore need to be taken to improve aid resilience—in this conflict and others—so that we are not overly reliant on one agency? What plan B is the Minister working on to ensure that UK aid is channelled through alternative agencies?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have been clear that UNRWA has a clearly mandated role in relation to not just Gaza, but the west bank and the broader region. It has had that role for many years. That has been clear in the international community. The role of the UN in general is incredibly important and internationally supported. It is critical that UNRWA’s role is not undermined when it plays such an important part constitutionally, if I may say that, and internationally, as well as in the delivery of aid. We will do all we can to ensure that support reaches those who need it, but ultimately UNRWA is the body with the greatest reach, and that is needed now, given the extent of humanitarian need.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Israeli Government’s banning of UNRWA shows blatant and cruel disregard for human life. Without access to necessities that only UNRWA can provide, such as food and medicine, thousands of innocent Palestinians are facing malnourishment, disease and death. Given that Netanyahu has shown no interest in supporting legitimate human rights organisations, no interest in a ceasefire and no interest in a two-state solution, I am grateful that our Government have given a clear commitment to recognising the state of Palestine. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect recognition of the state of Palestine and a pathway to getting to that point?
Anneliese Dodds
Briefly, this recent decision was taken by the Knesset, so it is a parliamentary decision, rather than one by the Israeli Government. We are concerned about its consequences, as we have been discussing. The UK Government believe that we must see a ceasefire. We need to see the release of hostages. We need to see the immediate delivery of aid and access to it throughout Gaza. That is incredibly important. We continue to believe and to advocate strongly for the two-state solution that is so desperately needed. That will provide the security and stability that is needed, both for Israelis and for Palestinians.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Israel is once again choosing to block aid to a civilian population that it is bombing. It is sinister and it is collective punishment. Can the Minister outline a single red line that Israel can cross that would lead her to question its status as an ally of the United Kingdom?
Anneliese Dodds
The new UK Government have been absolutely clear, as I have stated previously, that international humanitarian law must be upheld. I am sure that the right hon. Member was in the House when we had those debates that talked, for example, about the fact that we need to ensure that the International Criminal Court’s mandate is respected and that the role of the International Court of Justice is respected. He will, I am sure, have been present for debates on the UK Government’s position on arms exports, where we believe it is important that international law is held to, and this Government has been delivering on that.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The situation in northern Gaza is dire. I welcome the leading role that the Government have played in providing essential humanitarian aid for Gaza, including through the support packages for UNRWA, UNICEF, UK-Med, the World Health Organisation and the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. Does the Minister agree that the ongoing Israeli restrictions on the flow of essential aid are completely unacceptable and should be lifted immediately?
Anneliese Dodds
We believe that any restriction on aid is unacceptable. It is incredibly important that we see access to the water and sanitation services that are desperately needed, as well as to food and shelter, which are particularly important as winter approaches. My hon. Friend is right to mention the situation in northern Gaza, which is particularly concerning. The UK Government will continue to do all that we can to advocate for more aid getting into Gaza.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
With 90% of the Knesset voting for the Bill yesterday, it is surely naive to suggest that it will not be enacted. Therefore, other preparations need to be made. Despite the strong urgings of the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU and others, the Israeli Parliament voted for the Bill, knowing full well the collective international view of that proposal. Do the Government now realise that the Israeli Government, and indeed Parliament, is effectively diplomatically flying solo when it comes to these issues? If, as we all believe, no other agency can step in at pace and at scale to deliver the aid that is clearly needed, then, as was said by the leader of the SNP—an unlikely bedfellow for me—the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), is this not now verging on the definition of collective punishment? The Government can no longer just either wring their hands or urge.
Anneliese Dodds
We are very clear that UNRWA has an essential role, not only because of its reach and depth, but because it has that clear UN mandate in Gaza, the west bank and the wider region—indeed, I have discussed this issue with counterparts from Lebanon too. It is important that we do not see UNRWA undermined; that is critical for the UK Government. As the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, we have joined allies in expressing our deep concern. We will continue to push hard on this issue because we understand what the consequences will be if UNRWA does not have the continued ability to operate. We know what the impact will be on not only those in humanitarian need but the UN’s role more broadly, and that message could not come across more clearly from the Government.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Under international law, Palestinian refugees retain their right to return. By seeking to dismantle UNRWA, Israel could, as part of a wider plan, be pressurising Palestinian refugees to relinquish that right to return. Despite our Foreign Secretary and Governments of many other countries raising concerns and pleading with Israel, the Knesset went ahead with this vote. What additional pressure will the UK Government apply to Israel, which continues to violate international law and breach the UN charter?
Anneliese Dodds
I am not going to speculate about the reasons behind a decision made by another Parliament, as I do not believe that would be appropriate. What we must be clear about, however, is the UK Government’s response, which has been very clear. As we have discussed already, we do not accept this decision, which we believe is the wrong one. Only UNRWA can deliver the aid that is desperately needed, and we will continue to advocate for that very clearly. That aid is critically needed, given the extent of the displacement taking place in Gaza, with large numbers of people having been moved not just once or twice, but nine or 10 times. The Government will continue to push very strongly on these issues.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If the Knesset Bill is an indication of how Israel now sees international treaties and international law, there is surely no point in further negotiations on a free trade agreement with Israel? Should we not just end those negotiations now?
Anneliese Dodds
As I have stated, I will not speculate on the activities of another Parliament. However, I will be very clear about the UK Government’s response, particularly when it comes to the potential humanitarian impact. Others may wish to discuss trade issues, but for me, as Development Minister, the most important thing is how we ensure access to aid for those who are so desperately in need in Gaza. That is what I will continue to focus on.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
With winter on its way, as the Minister said, it is vital that we are clear about the importance of aid and of challenging all who obstruct it. The Israeli Finance Minister said that the starvation of 2 million people in Gaza might be “justified and moral” in order to free the hostages. Let us be clear: the hostage families do not think that. The Israeli National Security Minister backed the protests against aid convoys reaching Gaza. I understand why the Minister says that she will not give a running commentary on sanctions, but if we do not have sanctions now, what else is open to us to send the clear message that aid must get to Gaza immediately?
Anneliese Dodds
I most definitely share the deep concern at, and the rejection of, the truly appalling comments to which my hon. Friend has just referred. We are very clear that they were completely unacceptable; we could not have been clearer. Some in the Opposition have suggested that the sanctions regime should be in opposition to taking action on the legal regime on arms exportation, but the Government believe that we need to keep all these issues under review, as the House would expect us to in fulfilling our legal requirements. That is why we announced the changes to arms export licences a few months ago.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The run-up to the vote in the Knesset was that UNRWA confirmed last Thursday that its employee Muhammad Abu Attawi actually led the attack on Kibbutz Re’im, where British national Aner Shapira was brutally murdered—after throwing seven grenades back at those attacking him, he was killed by the eighth. Given those circumstances, what assessment have the Government made of UNRWA employees’ direct involvement in the 7 October attack? Until the individuals involved are rooted out, there will of course be mistrust in UNRWA delivering the aid we all want to see going in. Will the Minister take action on that issue?
Anneliese Dodds
The Government have been very clear that UNRWA must meet the highest standards of neutrality, as was of course laid out in Catherine Colonna’s report. As I mentioned, the Government have provided financial support to the tune of £1 million to ensure that UNRWA is taking the necessary actions. I have discussed the issue in detail with Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini and other members of UNRWA’s leadership. I know that they are taking action on this issue, and rightly so.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I utterly condemn this decision by the Israeli Parliament. Tens of thousands of people have died as a result of Israeli firepower, and now thousands more will die as a result of an Israeli-induced famine unless the world acts. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if this decision is put into effect, it will be a breach of international humanitarian law? A track record of honouring international law is required if we are to keep arms export licences open.
Anneliese Dodds
We have been very clear about UNRWA’s role. As I have mentioned, UNRWA has a critical role, which is provided for via the UN, in relation to not just Gaza but many refugees in the rest of the region—it is incredibly important, and it is internationally recognised. This Government have already taken action to ensure that we fulfil our responsibilities on international humanitarian law. Again, I refer my right hon. Friend to the decisions we have taken on arms export licences.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In effect, the Knesset yesterday legislated for extraterritorial decisions over Gaza, the west bank and refugee camps, and decided that UNRWA is an illegal organisation within Israel. What sanctions will the UK Government take against Israel for that? The one thing Israel will understand is if we suspend arms supplies to it, because those are being used to create the humanitarian catastrophe that exists in Gaza and that is beginning to exist in the west bank as well. If we do not do that, British arms and American arms that come through Britain will be complicit in the destruction of life of the Palestinian people.
Anneliese Dodds
We will continue working with our international partners and through the UN to press Israel to ensure that UNRWA can continue its vital operations; we know how important its role is. I do not want to bore the House, because I have already responded to questions about sanctions, but we continue to keep sanctions under review. However, the right hon. Member will surely be aware that the Government have already acted to suspend arms licences—30 of them—where it was clear that there could be a risk to international humanitarian law and where they could be used for lethal reasons in Gaza. We have already put those measures in place, because we take that responsibility to humanitarian law very seriously.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific and catastrophic, and the Israeli Knesset has actually voted to make it worse. Without UNRWA, millions of Palestinians will lose life-saving food, medical treatment, housing and much more. I am grateful that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have condemned the Knesset decision, but does she agree that the fact that 90% of the Knesset voted to ban UNRWA is an indictment of the Knesset, as well as an insight into the value that Israeli parliamentarians place on Palestinian lives and therefore on human life?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that the UK Government have been clear on this. We do not agree with the Knesset’s decision. We believe it is wrong. We believe that UNRWA has a clear, mandated international role in the region, which is particularly important right now in Gaza given the extreme humanitarian need. As she intimated, we are very concerned about the potential impact of any harm to UNRWA’s operations on the provision of food, services, education or healthcare—the support that people in Gaza so desperately need.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Further to the very serious point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about UNRWA staff’s involvement in the evil attack on 7 October, terror infrastructure has been found in 32 UNRWA facilities in Gaza; we have seen a 3,000-strong Telegram group of UNRWA teachers openly celebrating the 7 October attack; Israeli intelligence shows that up to 10% of UNRWA staff have affiliations to terror organisations; and a Palestinian eyewitness has borne witness to the fact that he saw an UNRWA school director selling food meant for civilians at $100 a carton. It is clear that UNRWA is deeply infiltrated by Hamas. Will the Minister work with Israel and other allies to find another way to work with organisations that can be trusted to deliver aid into the hands of civilians, not terrorists?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have been crystal clear that we expect robust processes to continue to be followed. UNRWA must meet the highest standards of neutrality, as is laid out in Catherine Colonna’s report, including it comes to staff vetting and acting swiftly when concerns arise. We have seen that in UNRWA’s leadership. As I have mentioned, the UK has allocated £1 million to support UNRWA in implementing the Colonna report’s recommendations.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
Another day, another outrage from an Israeli Government, who are treating the international community, international law, the UK Government and, above all, Palestinian lives with utter contempt. Words are not enough; actions are needed to force the Israeli Government to end the war crimes and the violations of international law. When will the UK Government impose on Israel the scale of sanctions that they have imposed on Russia?
Anneliese Dodds
I refer my hon. Friend to the comment that I made earlier: this was a decision of a Parliament—the Knesset—rather than of the Israeli Government. The UK Government have been very clear about our position on this. We believe that UNRWA has a critical role to play in Gaza and that international humanitarian law is incredibly important, and we have acted on that basis. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the new UK Government have been very clear that there is a definite mandate for the ICC and the ICJ, and we will continue to keep our sanctions regime under review.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Government have to accept that the far-right Government of Israel are laughing behind their hands at us at the moment. They know that they are operating under the comfort blanket of a UK Government who say that they stand with Israel and that Israel has a right to defend itself. But when has murdering children in their hospital beds been tantamount to defence? In what way is the cold-blooded slaughter of 11,000 children tantamount to defence? Rather than the use of words to condemn the actions of Israel, why does the Minister not follow suggestions of many Members in the House today and start taking action to make the Israeli Government sit up?
Anneliese Dodds
The new UK Government have been absolutely clear that the kind of comments that we have seen from some Israeli Government Ministers are totally unacceptable. The views that have been expressed towards Palestinians both in Gaza and in the west bank from some members of the Government are unacceptable. We could not have been clearer on that, both in opposition and now in government. The hon. Member talks about action, but we have been acting time and again on the humanitarian situation, and we will continue to do that. We have also been acting to make sure that we uphold our responsibilities under international humanitarian law. As I mentioned, that has been very clear in the decisions that have been taken around the arms export licence regime.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This month we have seen just 28 trucks a day entering Gaza, with none in the north, leading to a catastrophic humanitarian situation. In 90 days, we may have no infrastructure left in Gaza to distribute that aid. Does the Minister believe that this is a deliberate and systematic destruction of a nation, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy it in whole or in part? Will she enlist the international courts to test that?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have been very clear that we are extremely concerned about the situation in northern Gaza that my hon. Friend referred to. It is unacceptable that this month will potentially see the lowest level of aid delivered since the beginning of the crisis, yet the need is even more intense now than at any point. People’s resilience is completely destroyed in many cases, so we are very clear about the need to provide aid. We will also continue being absolutely clear about our adherence as a Government to international humanitarian law.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Knesset’s decision to brand UNRWA a terror group was very well signposted, so the question now is: what leverage are the Government prepared to use to prevent this decision from being enacted? I think we can all agree that another round of hand-wringing, head-shaking and soft, whispered words of disapproval will be as successful as they have ever been in the past. Perhaps it is time to summon the Israeli ambassador and tell them in no uncertain terms that if this goes ahead, the UK will have no choice but to immediately end all arms sales to Israel, specifically the F-35 components on which its military campaign relies so heavily.
Anneliese Dodds
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I find the description of the UK Government’s communication of their views as soft whispering very surprising. He surely cannot have failed to have seen the very clear concern expressed by the Foreign Secretary, by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer) and by me. That has been expressed not only through international deliberations and the fact that we have worked clearly and strongly with allies on this, with the joint statement produced over the weekend, but bilaterally as well. It is well known that the Foreign Secretary took this up directly with his Israeli counterpart. The new UK Government are determined to ensure that we are upholding international humanitarian law, which is why we acted on the legal requirements of the arms export regime, as I described.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), my right hon. Friend suggested that it was difficult to explore the motivations behind the Knesset’s decision. But we have to be clear that UNRWA is being targeted because of its mandate with Palestinian refugees. The Knesset’s vote will likely be devastating for lifesaving aid operations. It is also a unilateral attempt to impact the right of return and make a two-state solution even harder. Does she agree that this is unacceptable?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being crystal clear, as the UK Government have been, that UNRWA has a clear mandate—one that is obviously part of the UN framework not just in Gaza but in the west bank and the wider region. We have stated that numerous times, and we are in concert with our international partners to make that crystal clear. We will continue to make that clear. As I mentioned, with winter approaching it is critical that UNRWA can continue to operate without impediment.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
These are the words of the United Nations humanitarian chief, Joyce Msuya:
“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying”.
If someone so high up in the United Nations is making statements of that nature, we can safely make the assertion that the onslaught on Gaza is genocidal in nature—the measure being intent, and not, as the Foreign Secretary alluded to yesterday, the volume of counted deaths. Will the Government alter their position on this matter? What will they do, by way of resolute action, to ensure that this crime against humanity is halted immediately? Words are not enough; action is needed.
Anneliese Dodds
I agree that words are not enough. One of the reasons I met Joyce Msuya when I was at the UN General Assembly was to ensure we are working in concert with UN bodies on the humanitarian crisis and catastrophe within Gaza. We need to ensure that UNRWA is able to continue its lifesaving work. We need to see that other lifesaving measures are adopted, too. It was the UK Government who pushed so hard to ensure leadership on the polio vaccination campaign. We continue to push to ensure that the measures that are so vital for those in Gaza continue and that far more aid goes into Gaza than we are seeing at the moment.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
If I have the Government’s argument correct, it is that there is a window of opportunity now between the decision by the Israeli Parliament and the implementation of the measure by the Israeli Government. Yesterday, I think it was the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) who raised the question of what the consequence would be for the Israeli Government if they went ahead to implementation.
The message today—I say this with regret to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect because we have worked with each other over the years—is that: on sanctions, there will be no additional sanctions, we are just reviewing them; on arms, we will continue to supply the parts for the F-35; on trade, which was raised, the trade negotiations will just continue; and on diplomacy, we will allow to remain in this country without any consequence the Israeli ambassador, who is an advocate of a greater Israel and therefore opposed to the UN position on a Palestinian state and a two-state solution.
Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the message to the Netanyahu Government will be that nothing will happen during the window of opportunity and that they will be able to act with impunity still? Will she go back and consult her colleagues, and come forward with a series of actions that will have some effect in saving lives in Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
I would say to my right hon. Friend that the message from the UK Government to the Israeli Government is actually extremely clear. It has been articulated by our Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and all members of the Government who have spoken on this issue. The world will not tolerate further excuses from Israel on humanitarian assistance. I stated that in my speech and deliberately so. That is a very strong message and it must be heeded.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The fact is that Hamas are deeply integrated in the civilian and humanitarian infrastructure of Gaza, whether hiding their soldiers in hospitals—we saw this week 100 terror suspects captured by the IDF in a hospital in northern Gaza—or being deeply integrated in UNRWA. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned a senior Hamas commander who was working for UNRWA. The fact is that Israel is not going to facilitate the work of UNRWA in Gaza, so the question is: what is the Government’s policy? Is it simply to lament this decision and to criticise Israel, and to threaten as yet unspecified consequences which are clearly not satisfying this House? Or is it to do something practical to get aid in to the Palestinians, working with Israel and other partners to develop an alternative supply route that will get aid in, accepting that UNRWA will not be that mechanism?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have actually stated time and again that we expect robust processes to continue to be followed by UNRWA. Not only did we state that, as the Opposition did previously, but we have done something about it. We have ensured that some of our support to UNRWA is going towards ensuring that the recommendations of the Colonna report are implemented. We have seen UNRWA take decisive and swift action when allegations have been made, and rightly so. That is right and proper. It would be for any UN agency, especially including this one, given its vital role.
The hon. Gentleman talked about practical measures. On practicalities, we believe that to suggest there is an alternative to UNRWA, given its depth of reach and the scale at which it operates, is incorrect. It is the only body that can currently provide the infrastructure that is needed, and it is already mandated by the UN and the international community to do so.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The former Israeli Defence Minister, the late Moshe Dayan, famously once said:
“Our American friends offer us money, arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.”
Regrettably, the same could now be said of Britain. I have every reason to believe that the Foreign Secretary is making a strong case for peace, but it seems to me and millions of others that the relationship with the Israeli Government is entirely one way. When will the Government start using robust leverage above and beyond what has already been done to ensure that Israel acts on British advice, as well as the advice of other international partners?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have not been intimating advice. We have been providing very clear injunctions, especially when it comes to UNRWA and the need for its continued operation. We have always acted in line with our responsibilities around international humanitarian law and we will continue to do so.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Last week, I joined constituents from my constituency United Nations Association in Newbury Market Place to celebrate the ideals of the UN. Yesterday, I was shocked and appalled to see a fellow member state’s Parliament start the process of banning a UN-mandated body. Given that the UK Government will take over the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council this coming Friday, what will the Government do via that vehicle to demand that the banning of UNRWA is immediately undone?
Anneliese Dodds
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents for their support of multilateralism, which is surely now more important than ever. The pact for the future came out of the UN General Assembly. To me, that is a demonstration of the power of multilateral action, even in these deeply challenging times. We will use our role in the UN Security Council to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld and that, as the UK, we play our part in leading responses to humanitarian crises like the one we have been discussing today.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) said, on Sunday the UN’s top humanitarian official warned:
“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying.”
I spoke to the United Nations special rapporteur in person last week. He was in absolute despair about the lack of action from the world against what is happening in Gaza. I implore the Minister to give him and the House some reassurance that the Government are actively reviewing how the sanctions are working and what else they can do to force Israel to begin to work under humanitarian law.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for meeting the UN representative. I know that many Members have been seeking to engage with the multilateral organisations involved in this situation. The UK Government have, of course, engaged repeatedly with all the UN agencies involved: the World Food Programme, UNICEF, with which I have directly discussed the situation, and UNRWA itself. I pay tribute to all those who are engaged in that manner, as well as to all the charities and other bodies so engaged, including UK-Med, which is doing an incredibly important job. The new UK Government will continue to do all we can to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld here, as well as in every other context.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Of the 12,000 UNRWA employees, about one in five are members of Hamas, and almost 500 of them are members of Hamas’s military wing. When I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he could guarantee that UK taxpayers’ money would not go via UNRWA if there were any links with Hamas, he did not answer my question, so I ask the same question today. Is the Minister able to give UK taxpayers a guaranteed assurance that Hamas has no links with UNRWA in aid delivery in Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
When it comes to the views of the UK public and UK taxpayers, it is critical for us to reflect on what has taken place over the last few days, when we have seen a great many Brits stepping up to support the DEC humanitarian appeal for the middle east. This is clearly of great concern. Of course it is important that whenever there are allegations of activity that is not neutral—particularly some of the appalling allegations relating to the 7 October attacks—they are fully investigated. When it has been provided with that evidence, UNRWA has investigated and taken swift action, and we will continue to do all that we can, as the UK Government, to ensure that that remains the case. As I said earlier, that has included providing funding to ensure that the neutrality reforms that UNRWA itself has wanted to implement for some time are indeed being implemented and followed.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Last night, I spoke to constituents who support the provision of medical aid directly into Gaza and the west bank. They were angry and heartbroken, because after each of the conversations I have had with them in the past year, the bombing and destruction have increased. I welcome the statements from the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend about the situation, but the vote in the Knesset risks making things worse—for aid, for the release of the hostages, for a two-state solution, and for the recognition of Palestine. What hope can right my hon. Friend give my constituents, the Palestinian people and the world community that this time it will be different?
Anneliese Dodds
I thank the constituents to whom my hon. Friend has referred. I mentioned earlier the many Brits who are deeply concerned about the situation, and I pay tribute to all the UK medical staff who are directly engaged in Gaza. I have had the incredible honour of meeting some of them, and their work is truly lifesaving in extremely difficult circumstances—perhaps the most difficult that we can imagine. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Knesset’s decision is deeply counterproductive for Israel itself, as well as being very harmful to UNRWA, to the delivery of humanitarian aid and, indeed, to the UN system.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Like many other Members, I was appalled at yesterday’s decision by the Knesset. This is a humanitarian crisis. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are displaced: they are now without homes, without water, without food and without healthcare. If UNRWA is banned, what practical steps can the Government take to ensure that aid gets into Gaza and, more importantly, that the people who need it receive it?
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the situation. We need to ensure that lifesaving supplies of water, sanitation, food and shelter do reach those who are in need in Gaza, and other Members have expressed particular concern about the situation in northern Gaza during these exchanges. The Government have made it very clear that UNRWA plays a critical role that cannot be replaced by other organisations, and we will continue to make it very clear that its mandate must be supported and it must be able to continue to operate.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The vote in the Israeli Knesset is deeply worrying, and will result in further suffering, starvation and deaths in Gaza. What urgent steps are the Government taking, alongside international partners, to get more aid into Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that very important question. We do need to see more aid entering Gaza, because it really is needed. As many Members have pointed out, winter is coming, but we have not seen enough aid entering even over recent months and, as I said earlier, it seems likely that October will turn out to be the month during which we have seen the lowest level of aid actually entering Gaza since the conflict began. We are very clear that any restrictions on aid are unacceptable, and we have been working with international partners in that regard. My hon. Friend will have seen the joint statement that we released over the weekend; it was part of a series of actions that we have taken with partners, bilaterally and in multilateral organisations, to ensure that we are playing our part and that the UK is offering leadership.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
A few weeks ago, I sought assurances from the Foreign Secretary in respect of children being killed after being given the polio vaccinations that the Minister has mentioned. Those vaccinations were undoubtedly given by staff members working with UNRWA. Close to 1,000 civilians have been killed since I sought that assurance from the Foreign Secretary. We will all recall that young teenager burning alive in a tent with an intravenous drip. Given the current state of affairs, does the Minister agree that all our talk of diplomatic and political levers is falling on deaf ears, and that the only real thing that this Government can do is put words into action, namely sanctions—including trade sanctions—embargoes on all licences, and the unconditional recognition of Palestinian statehood?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government’s position is very clear. We have advocated—in the Foreign Secretary’s case, since the first hours that he was in office—for the ceasefire that is so desperately needed, for the release of hostages and for the provision of aid in Gaza that is so clearly required. There is no question about that position, on which we have been crystal clear.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the impact of the conflict on healthcare staff. Let me draw his attention to the fact that we have seen more humanitarian workers killed in this conflict than in any of the other conflicts that we are seeing around the world. We have taken action, and we do believe that the UK must fulfil its responsibilities to international humanitarian law. I believe that the hon. Gentleman can see that very clearly, for example in the decisions that have been taken about the arms export licence regime.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Given the humanitarian collapse in Gaza and the risk of mass starvation, the Knesset vote is obviously deeply dangerous for the Palestinians, but does it not also send a deeply dangerous signal internationally to civilians in conflict zones, in that other states that have been accused of violating international humanitarian law may take succour from this vote and target UN agencies providing lifesaving aid?
Anneliese Dodds
As has been discussed this afternoon, the UK and our partners have made it clear that the Israeli Government cannot continue to restrict aid—nor, indeed, should that be done by any other Government or any other warring parties internationally—but unfortunately we do see a number of violations of international humanitarian law. Earlier today, we discussed the situation in Sudan, where we have also seen restrictions on aid. Those are unacceptable. Civilians must be protected in war, and the UK Government will continue to advocate strongly for that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers and for her clarity, which is much appreciated. Does she accept that Israel did not take this decision lightly, but based it on intelligence gathering which indicated an infiltration of Hamas within UNRWA? Does she agree that we must work to find a solution to ensure that charitable foundations are free to supply the aid that is so desperately needed? While the UN has a role to play, will she liaise with Israel to determine how we can get help on the ground to those who need it throughout Gaza and Israel?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions and, as ever, for his sincerity in discussing these issues. The UK Government will continue to work with charitable foundations and organisations. A number of them, including many based in the UK, provide incredibly important support for the people of Gaza. However, we are clear that when it comes to the delivery of aid and services, there is no other organisation that can fulfil the role that UNRWA performs because of the need for scaled and deep support, and also because of its critical mandate from the UN.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I join the Government in condemning the decision by the Israeli Parliament. Does the Minister agree that cutting ties and undermining UNRWA leaves us aghast at a time when we need institutions to work effectively, independently and without prejudice to build any prospect of peace and a future after a ceasefire and the return of the hostages? Worst of all, the ban further compounds the misery for the Palestinians and for those of us who still hope for a two-state solution.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a long-term perspective on these critical questions. Given the humanitarian catastrophe, we agree that this decision, if implemented, will be deeply harmful not just currently, but in the future. As we just discussed, we will continue to work towards the ceasefire that is so desperately needed. When that ceasefire is achieved and we see a cessation of hostilities, it will be incredibly important that the reconstruction continues. We will need to see UNRWA and other UN agencies, as well as other countries in the region, involved in that process. A number of different partners will need to be engaged in the very important effort of rebuilding, which the UK Government have discussed with many partners.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Minister seen the latest letter from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA? It states unequivocally:
“Today, even as we look into the faces of children in Gaza, some of whom we know will die tomorrow, the rules-based international order is crumbling in a repetition of the horrors that led to the establishment of the United Nations”.
Does she agree with him that the implementation of the UN mandate
“may become impossible without decisive intervention by the General Assembly”
and UN Security Council members?
Anneliese Dodds
I have discussed these issues directly with Commissioner-General Lazzarini and other members of the UNRWA leadership, as my hon. Friend would expect. I agree that we all need to do what we can to preserve the rules-based international order. On the possibility of the UN General Assembly taking action on this issue, I spoke for the UK when the matter was discussed at the UN General Assembly in New York about three weeks ago.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is incredibly concerning that the Knesset is pursuing legislation to restrict UNRWA’s work. Does the Minister agree that the international community needs to put in place mechanisms to fully monitor and incentivise the implementation of the Colonna reforms in order to assure and give comfort to Israelis and Jewish communities in the UK that UNRWA’s staff will never again be able to participate in terrorism?
Anneliese Dodds
I appreciate the considered question that my hon. Friend has just asked. The Colonna report itself, and the work that has been undertaken since, has focused on how we can ensure that the reforms—particularly those relating to neutrality—are implemented but then continuously reviewed, so that we know that neutrality is carried out throughout the organisation. The UK Government have supported this endeavour financially with a £1 million contribution. We believe that it is important, and we will continue to discuss this issue with UNRWA and, indeed, other multilateral bodies and bilateral partners in the future.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the way to stop this conflict is to get the hostages released? Can she explain to the House what connections have been made through diplomatic channels with those who are holding the hostages so that we can get them released, which I believe would end the fighting?
Anneliese Dodds
I very much agree that we must see the hostages released. I know that many of us have been thinking about the immense pain of the families and friends of the hostages, who have now been in captivity for such a long period; it is an incredibly concerning situation. As one would expect, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have met a number of the hostages’ families, as have I. We will continue to do all that we can to make it clear that the hostages must be released. We will continuously advocate for that, for the ceasefire that is so desperately needed, and for the aid that is so desperately required in Gaza.
Bills Presented
Children’s Hospices (Funding) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ian Byrne presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the funding of hospices specialising in the care of children and to publish proposals for measures to guarantee access to hospices for all children who require palliative care; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November 2024, and to be printed (Bill 115).
Registration of Death (Religion) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Preet Kaur Gill presented a Bill to make provision about the collection of religious information of the deceased where the death has been registered; to make provision for religious data to be provided on a voluntary basis; 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 116).
Firearms (3D Printing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Preet Kaur Gill presented a Bill to create an offence of possessing a blueprint for the production of a firearm by 3D printing; to create an offence of possessing part of a firearm produced by 3D printing; 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 117).
Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines)
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Microplastic filters (washing machines) Bill 2024-26 View all Microplastic filters (washing machines) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require manufacturers to fit microplastic-catching filters to new domestic and commercial washing machines; to make provision about the promotion of the use of microplastic-catching filters in washing machines and raising awareness about the consequences of microplastics from washing machines for pollution in rivers and seas; and for connected purposes.
Two years ago, I presented this ten-minute rule Bill to the House, and I am grateful to the many colleagues who have since approached me to express support and encourage me to present it to the House again. I thank colleagues who have co-sponsored my Bill this time round, and I am pleased to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it has cross-party support, with co-sponsors from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, the DUP and the Conservatives.
Microfibre plastic pollution is one of the most pervasive and preventable forms of microplastic pollution; in fact, around half a million tonnes of microfibres from synthetic textiles are released into the oceans each year due to washing clothes. I am introducing this Bill to encourage the Government to collaborate with washing machine manufacturers and set standards to ensure that all new domestic and commercial washing machines are fitted with cost-effective microfibre-catching filters.
Microfibres, which are shed during the wash cycle, are too small to be captured by existing washing machine filters. They make their way into wastewater systems, where they either end up as sewage sludge, which is later spread on our agricultural land, or escape treatment entirely, ending up in rivers and seas. Research now indicates that these fibres, once released, not only contaminate aquatic environments but travel up the food chain, making their way into an alarming amount of the fish that we all eat.
The growing body of scientific literature on microplastics is truly alarming. We are not only eating and drinking these particles, but the latest research from the University of New Mexico shows that they have now, sadly, crossed into our blood, into human placentas, into breast milk and even into our brains. Our bodies are now contaminated by microplastics. We should all be concerned that in lab studies conducted by Hull York Medical School, microplastics have been shown to damage human cells, and while the full impact on our health is still unknown, the evidence is mounting that numerous adverse health effects—including endocrine disruption, respiratory disorders, autoimmune issues and certain cancers, to name but a few—are caused or exacerbated by microplastics in our bodies. Researchers have even found microplastics in human testicles, and this may be a major factor in the dramatic drop in sperm count over the last 40 years.
I hope the Government are convinced that microplastics pollution is a now major problem to our environment and our health, but how effective can microplastics filters in washing machines be in addressing microplastics pollution at source? There are two factors that should persuade the Government. First, they may be surprised to learn that a 2017 study revealed that 35% of all microplastics released into the environment are shed from our own clothing. That means that over a third of environmental microplastics are coming from a single source, which we know how to reduce. Secondly, evidence shows that washing machine filters can reduce the release of microfibres by 78% in every wash cycle, with some manufacturers now claiming that their new products are able to take up 90% of these offending plastic pollutants.
Countries such as France have already taken legislative steps to require microfibre filters in all new washing machines from next year, and Australia has an industry-led goal of introducing these filters in six years’ time, so the UK can and should do its part. The United States Senate introduced the Fighting Fibers Act earlier this year. This is a promising federal initiative, which, although still in its early stages, is a mandate for filters in washing machines. The world is starting to wake up to this problem, and the UK has an opportunity to show leadership by introducing legislation that could make a substantial difference. This is not just about setting an example; it is about honouring our commitment to the environment and the health of the British people.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, I have worked alongside numerous stakeholders including the obvious ones such as environmental groups, but also with industry leaders, washing machine manufacturers, academics and, in particular, the Women’s Institute, which first brought this to my attention seven years ago when it was here lobbying MPs. They have all helped to identify viable solutions. Together, we believe that fitting microfibre filters on washing machines is a cost-effective, achievable, near-term solution that would have a significant impact on reducing plastic pollution and its effect on our health.
British companies are already leading in the design and manufacturing of these filters, showcasing the innovation and capability needed to support this measure. I urge the Government to work with these businesses to position the UK as a global leader in the fight against plastic pollution. My Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill is a low-cost, practical approach to a serious problem, and it aligns with the UK’s ambition to build a sustainable and environmentally conscious society. Microfibre pollution is an urgent environmental issue, and this Bill represents a clear, immediate and simple step we can take to address it, with the backing of washing machine manufacturers. I urge my colleagues in Government to support the Bill and to work with white goods manufacturers to enact a solution that has virtually no cost to the consumer and that provides the safeguards that we need for our environment and our health.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alberto Costa, supported by Sarah Champion, Jim Shannon, Sir Julian Lewis, Ellie Chowns, Ruth Jones, Peter Dowd, Siân Berry, Carla Denyer and Mr Alistair Carmichael, present the Bill.
Alberto Costa accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 114).
Great British Energy Bill
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
17:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 96 / Noes: 353 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 124 / Noes: 361 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 115 / Noes: 361 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 361 / Noes: 111 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Nature Recovery Duty—
“(1) In exercising its functions, Great British Energy must take all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of targets set under sections 1–3 of the Environment Act 2021.
(2) Under the duty set under subsection (1), Great British Energy must consider opportunities to incorporate nature-based solutions in—
(a) the design and maintenance of any assets in its ownership, and
(b) its investment decisions.”
This new clause would give Great British Energy a new duty, requiring it to contribute to the achievement of Environment Act targets. The duty specifies the incorporation of nature-based solutions (including nature friendly design and building measures) in all assets owned by and invested in by Great British Energy.
New clause 3—Prohibition of investments which would increase greenhouse gas emissions—
“(1) Prior to making any investment, Great British Energy must publish an assessment of the impact of the investment decision on—
(a) greenhouse gas emissions and
(b) the production or combustion of fossil fuels.
(2) Where the assessment carried out under subsection (1) showed that the investment was expected to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, Great British Energy must not make that investment.”
This new clause would require Great British Energy to publish an assessment of potential investments on greenhouse gas emissions and the production or combustion of fossil fuels. Any investment which the assessment showed was expected to increase greenhouse gas emissions would be prohibited.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and
(f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”
This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to reduce household energy bills by at least £300 in real terms.”
Amendment 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to advance the production of clean energy from schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.”
This new section would require the statement of strategic priorities to make specific regard to facilitate community-based clean energy schemes.
Amendment 6, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.”
Amendment 8, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the creation of 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 2030 resulting directly or indirectly from Great British Energy’s pursuit of its objectives under section 3.”
Amendment 11, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to allocate 3% of Great British Energy’s budget to marine energy projects.”
This amendment would require 3% of Great British Energy’s budget to be allocated for marine energy projects.
Amendment 12, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to work with Great British Nuclear on the development of nuclear energy projects.”
This amendment would require Great British Energy to work with Great British Nuclear on developing nuclear energy projects.
Amendment 13, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to require any renewable energy development located in Wales that Great British Energy owns or invests into offer a minimum of 10% community and 10% local ownership for each project.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that all renewable energy projects in Wales which are owned or invested in by Great British Energy would be required to offer a 10% stake in community ownership i.e. for individuals and households, and a 10% stake of local ownership, i.e. any Wales-based organisation.
Amendment 15, page 3 line 16, leave out “consult” and insert “receive the consent of”.
This amendment would require that the Secretary of State receives consent from Welsh ministers before including in the strategic priorities and plans any matter concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, if contained in an Act of the Senedd.
Amendment 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of reducing household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.
(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must include a projection of how Great British Energy’s activities are likely to affect consumer energy bills over the following five years.
(1C) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.
(1D) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”
Amendment 9, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of creating 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 2030.
(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.
(1C) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”
Amendment 10, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) Great British Energy’s in-year return on investment, and
(b) A forecast of the following year’s expected return on investment.
(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.
(1C) The Secretary of State must lay a report under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”
Amendment 14, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must, in particular, direct Great British Energy that any revenues generated from activities of Great British Energy in relation to resources located in Wales must be invested back into projects located in Wales.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that all revenue generated by Great British Energy from resources in Wales are invested back into energy projects in Wales.
Claire Coutinho
It is nice to be back discussing Great British Energy, and on the day before the Budget, too. I am sure that Labour Members are worrying about what kind of horrors they will be forced to defend next. They will have had a miserable summer trying to explain to their constituents why they are scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners in poverty, just weeks after a general election in which no mention was made of that. They will have spent the last few weeks explaining that the term “working people”—the people they promised to protect in their manifesto—does not include small business owners, or employees with savings, and that their use of the term “national insurance” does not prevent a national insurance rise for employers. They will be getting a bashing from companies, who were told that Labour would be pro-business, yet have been clobbered by post-election announcements of tax rises and trade union charters, and who have a Prime Minister with an optimism about Britain that puts him on the charts somewhere between Eeyore and Victor Meldrew. And tomorrow Labour Members will have to explain why the Chancellor who said before the election that any change to the fiscal rules would amount to fiddling the figures is now changing them to open the door to billions of pounds of borrowing.
This is a timely return to the Great British Energy Bill. Our amendments today will give Labour Members an opportunity, which I am sure they will welcome, to hold their leadership to account for at least some of the promises that they were told to go out and sell. Let us take a look at a few of the promises that Labour Members made during the election. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) wrote on her website:
“We will set up Great British Energy…cutting energy bills by an average of £300 a year.”
The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) posted on Facebook:
“Why am I backing Labour’s plan to set up Great British Energy? It will save £300 off average household energy bills in the South East by 2030.”
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said on Facebook:
“everyone in the east of England will get £300 off their energy bills…no ifs, no buts, no maybes, these will be measurable and you will be able to check our progress at the end of the next Parliament.”
At least 50 MPs made similar claims.
Why were Labour candidates up and down the country saying these things? Perhaps they were simply listening to the Cabinet. The Science Secretary said on “Good Morning Britain”:
“I can tell you directly…by the end of this Parliament that…energy bills will fall by up to £300.”
The Work and Pensions Secretary said:
“Great British Energy will get people’s bills £300 a year lower.”
This is my personal favourite: the Chancellor—the woman of the hour—said,
“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.”
These were not one-off promises; it was the party line, as dictated by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. These promises are still up in writing. In fact, the Labour party website still says that its energy plans will cut bills by £300 on average. Oddly, Ministers now do not seem so keen on that pledge. We have asked them about it in this House, as have the media, but the number seems to have vanished. They have even taken down the Great British Energy website, and the newly appointed chair even said in Committee that cutting bills is
“not the scope of Great British Energy.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2024; c. 6, Q5.]
This is not trivial; these are promises that people care about. Every single Labour Member will have had constituents vote for them because they believed that Labour’s promise of £300 off their energy bills would make a meaningful difference to their lives. Amendments 6 and 7 in my name will hold the Government to account on their election promise to cut bills.
Our amendments would give Great British Energy a strategic priority to cut people’s energy bills by £300 by 2030, and would require Great British Energy to produce an annual report on progress towards meeting that target. Surely all Labour Members who made these promises and kept them up on their social media accounts will want to track the Government’s progress on this important issue for their constituents. Well, tonight is their chance.
But £300 off bills was not the Secretary of State’s only promise at the election. He also claimed that Great British Energy would create 650,000 new jobs, but he did not mention that figure on Second Reading, and the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), did not mention it in Committee. It does not appear in Great British Energy’s founding statement, nor does it appear in the Government’s explanatory notes on the Bill.
The only detail we have heard about the number of jobs to be created by Great British Energy came from the Secretary of State’s hand-picked chair of that body, who said that “hundreds” of people will be employed at its Aberdeen headquarters. We have since found out that the chair himself will be based in Manchester. It is a funny kind of headquarters if the head will not be based there, but that is the kind of sophistry that the public are starting to expect from this Labour Government.
More importantly, those few hundred people will hardly make up for the 200,000 jobs this Government are putting at risk through their plans to shut down the North sea, or the missed opportunities for jobs thanks to their go-slow on nuclear. On the Secretary of State’s watch, we have already seen thousands of jobs in industry lost.
The Secretary of State can talk about skills passports and Government transition projects all he likes, but the truth is that they do not pay the bills. He likes to say that we need to cut carbon at an extreme pace, faster than any other major economy, in order to show climate leadership and save the planet, but if our gas production, steelmaking or energy-intensive manufacturing moves to Asia, which is still powered by coal, he will be adding to emissions. That would mean more carbon in the atmosphere, and would be devastating for the hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their livelihoods here in Britain. I say that as someone who, before entering Parliament, worked on regenerating some of our most deprived communities once the jobs were gone.
As with our amendments on the Government’s £300 pledge, amendments 8 and 9 in my name would give Great British Energy a strategic priority of creating 650,000 new jobs by 2030, and would require an annual report to Parliament on progress towards this aim. That is important, because even the trade unions that normally support Labour have warned the Secretary of State and his team that his plans will lead to the mass deindustrialisation of Britain. The general secretary of the GMB has said that the Secretary of State’s plans are
“hollowing out working class communities”,
and will amount to “decarbonisation through deindustrialisation.” He said that importing more from China is
“bad for communities, not great for national security and it makes no sense in terms of the environment.”
He also said, and I hope the ministerial team are listening closely to this one:
“Our message to Ed Miliband is very clear: We are worried about a lot of promises that are not being delivered on jobs.”
Those Labour MPs who are members of the GMB, including the Energy Minister, have the opportunity tonight to hold the Government to account by voting for annual reporting on the jobs being created. The question is, will they listen to the general secretary’s concerns?
The next promise was that Great British Energy would turn a profit for the taxpayer. The Secretary of State admittedly got himself into a mess on this one. He has never had to make commercial investment decisions, and neither has any of his ministerial team, which is why they have been caught out promising the British public that they can turn a tidy profit, while at the same time telling multimillion-pound energy companies that they will take the least attractive parts of their investments off their hands. That is important, because the Secretary of State has written this Bill to give himself powers of direction. That was not the case for the UK Infrastructure Bank, and there was a recurring question in Committee about how much independence the supposedly independent Great British Energy will have.
This is my proposal: if the Secretary of State wants the power to meddle, he should be duty-bound to report the results of that meddling—its profits and losses—to this House. Amendment 10 in my name would require Great British Energy to produce an annual report on the performance of its investments, including its in-year return on investment and a forecast of the following year’s expected return. That is the bare minimum we can expect, so that British taxpayers can see what he is doing with £8 billion of their money.
I tabled clause 1 because it is crucial that we have proper oversight of the wider activities of Great British Energy. New clause 1 would require the appointment of an independent reviewer to assess Great British Energy’s effectiveness in achieving its objectives and strategic priorities. In Committee, the Energy Minister said that the Government want Great British Energy to be
“accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2024; c. 168.]
I agree, and that seems a perfectly good reason to support new clause 1.
As I have said previously, Great British Energy is pretty much a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, backed by £22 billion. No Minister has been able to tell us the real difference between Great British Energy and the UK Infrastructure Bank, or why the taxpayer has to pay for two headquarters, two chief executives and so on. The one difference appears to be that Great British Energy will mean additional powers for the Secretary of State.
If Labour Members are so intent on handing this Secretary of State billions of pounds to gamble with, I expect they will also want to replicate the independent review enacted by the United Kingdom Infrastructure Bank Act 2023. New clause 1 would provide that scrutiny and, although I intend to withdraw it this evening, if the Minister would like to table a similar amendment in the other place to follow the precedent set by the Act, I assure him of our backing.
The Secretary of State and his ministerial team have made big promises. It is crucial that this House can hold them accountable, as the consequences could not be more important for people’s energy bills, people’s jobs and businesses’ ability to succeed. As the respected energy and climate economist Dieter Helm has said, the risk is that this Government will head towards a 2029 election with industries lost and bills higher—exactly the opposite of what the electorate has been promised.
The Government’s refusal to publish evidence for their claims, to set out the details of their plans or to engage in any meaningful policy discussion outside their normal slogans and mantras means that their policies are more likely to fail. For example, the Secretary of State has said that this Bill and Great British Energy are part of his plan to ramp up renewables at breakneck speed because every wind turbine and every solar panel constructed will lead to cheaper energy and greater security, but that is simply not true. First, it depends on the price we pay for them. Expert analysis by Cornwall Insight found that the contracts for difference round that the Secretary of State bumped up, and that he now boasts about, will actually increase people’s bills by £5. Moreover, he has advertised to the multimillion-pound energy companies that he will buy whatever they sell, no matter the cost, up to 2030. People do not need a business background to work out what that will do to prices.
Secondly, if we are building renewables faster than we can connect them to the grid, the constraint payments needed by 2030 could add hundreds of pounds to people’s bills. Then there are the network costs, the green levies and the cost of dispatchable power. If the Secretary of State wants to replace gas, which is our main form of dispatchable power, he should set out the cost of what will replace it.
The options in this country are coal, which I assume Labour Members do not want, biomass, carbon-capture gas or unproven technologies, none of which will make our system cheaper. All the signs are that, far from making energy cheaper and more secure, this Secretary of State and his ministerial team will send people’s bills through the roof, and more and more people are sounding the alarm about whether he can even keep the lights on. Perhaps that is why he never commissioned an accurate assessment of his plans. Labour Members had 14 years in opposition, 14 years hankering for the jobs and the responsibilities they now have, but when we asked for the full-system cost of the Secretary of State’s approach, he could only say that it will be published “in due course.”
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I am enjoying the right hon. Member’s lecture on energy security, but where was that argument during the last Government, when they left our country reliant on Putin and volatile fossil fuels, and when we saw energy bills soar? This Government are cleaning up 14 years of mess that the right hon. Member’s Government left behind.
Claire Coutinho
I suggest the hon. Gentleman does some homework. We do not get our oil and gas from Putin. Instead, some 50% of our domestic gas supply comes from the North sea, which the party in government is trying to shut down. If he wants to talk about energy markets, he should do some reading about how they work. On that note, I commend our amendments to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Natalie Fleet to make her maiden speech.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
It is the honour of my life to be in this Chamber as the Member for Bolsover, a seat made famous by the legend that is Dennis Skinner. From Calow to Pilsley, they tell me stories of him singing to them on the phone, and they remind me of his witty one-liners. He showed the very best of politics: what can be achieved when we send one of our own here to fight for us. I accepted a long time ago that I will not fill his shoes, but when I feel like I do not belong here, I remember that I am following in the footsteps of a “beast”, whose legacy is that kids like me can be here against the odds.
Dennis famously praised half the Members on the Conservative Benches for not being crooks, and I like to think that he would have included his successor, Mark Fletcher, in that group. Mark saw that kids in Bolsover were 10% less likely than those in the rest of England and Wales to get higher education qualifications, and he fought to change that. He worked so hard to get us our own sixth form within Bolsover. I am also passionate about smashing down barriers to opportunity, so that is a fight that I am delighted to take up. Mark made the most of his time here. He appreciated the privilege of serving and continues to show that there is more that unites us than divides us. I wish him so very well.
In his maiden speech, Dennis spoke about the more than 10,000 working miners he represented. I do not have that pleasure. Born at the start of the strike, I grew up seeing our pits go. I had to stop visiting the canteen that my Dar took me to on the way to race the pigeons, because it closed. My community grieved, and I grew up seeing more kids like me go to prison than to university.
In place of industry, mine is a story of the state—stepping in, once again, to pick up the pieces and make sure that every child can reach their potential. I was really lucky to have a Government that prioritised my education, and that gave teachers like Mrs Gregory the opportunity to nurture me, as she did. When my home was dangerous, there were police to keep us safe. When I did not have a home at all, the state stepped in. When I was pregnant at 15, I had a Government that wrapped their arms around me in the form of Sure Start. Better still, they implemented a long-term strategy that meant that when I visit schools in Bolsover now, fewer children are facing parenthood. That is really cool.
I always felt like the exception, but I am seeing more families struggle than ever before. That is why it has been so heartbreaking to see the state ripped back again. A care home in Shirebrook and a day centre in Bolsover face closure. Kids in South Normanton are waiting years for special educational needs support. Some 52% of children in Carr Vale live in poverty although their parents work hard to earn. It is not just our most vulnerable who are struggling. Professionals in Cresswell are accessing food banks that used not to exist. There is more antisocial behaviour in Whitwell because there are fewer police. Mortgages are up in Barlborough. The amount that people can buy with their money in Tibshelf has gone down.
The reason I am here—the reason I leave my family every week to do this—is because I feel so deeply about the difference that politics can make. Things have been better before, and they will be again. That change has begun. I am here to make sure that this powerful state has the most positive impact on lives in Bolsover.
This Great British Energy Bill will mean that fewer children in Pleasely have their lights switch off as they are doing their homework. Kids in Holmewood can start the day with full tummies because they will have free breakfast clubs. Children in Glapwell will not have to feel the shame of asking their parents to pay for their school trips, because those parents will have good jobs, and great terms and conditions. Families in Clowne will get access to dentists, and entrepreneurs can succeed in Wessington, with global companies investing in Markham Vale. My daughter can start her own family in Pinxton, making me the world’s proudest Nana, knowing that this Government will make getting childcare that much easier.
For my daughters and my soon-to-be granddaughter, and for your daughters and granddaughters, I stand here proudly as the first woman MP for Bolsover. It is a privilege to be a part of the most diverse Government in our country’s history, because representation matters. I stand on the shoulders of the women who came before me, and who raised, supported, educated and mentored me. They threw that ladder down and would not take it up until I had grabbed it.
They were women like Gloria De Piero, who showed me that we are not all the same, and who proved to me that we can carry the scars of poverty and still belong in this House; Bess of Hardwick, who never took no for an answer, built the best of Tudor England and put her initials on the top of her house for us all to see; Margaret Cavendish, who was not mad but a difficult woman ahead of her time; and Arkwright’s Norma Dolby, who kept her community together during the strike, faced police intimidation and made sure the miners’ families were fed.
Being the first woman to stand in this post is a huge privilege, but it comes with a greater responsibility. It is my duty to speak up for the women in my constituency whose stories are not being told, even when it is difficult to do so, and even when I wish they were stories that they did not have—like those women who have been raped and are having to wait years for trial; attempting suicide as they fear that nobody will believe them. I have a moral obligation to speak on behalf of the women who have been hurt in the worst possible way and then told that it is their own fault.
So, to the women in my constituency, who I represent, who will be raped today, raped tomorrow and raped every day of this Parliament, I say: “I do not know where you are, I cannot find you, but you can find me. I will believe you, I will support you, and I will fight to make sure that we can all tell our truth, backed by a Government who will make it easier for us to get justice, determined to make sure that our daughters grow up safer.” Being able to speak your truth until you can—that is privilege.
So, to the people of Bolsover, I say that I am thrilled to be here, for my family and for yours. I will not let you down.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who showed real courage in talking with emotion, pride and passion, which is not always easy in this place.
Today we are debating a number of amendments related to the strategic priorities of Great British Energy, and that will be the focus of my remarks today. I rise to ask the Government to assure the House that, given that this is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, they understand that one of the biggest challenges we face when it comes to decarbonisation is in relation to heating, and to make that a strategic priority. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes, and another 1.9 million buildings, offices, hospitals, shops, warehouses and more, the majority of which are heated by gas boilers, which also provide hot water. Nearly one fifth of all the UK’s emissions come from these buildings. The Climate Change Committee considers decarbonising heat to be one of the greatest challenges we face in getting to net zero, but that is not specified in the Bill.
Getting to net zero by 2050 will require us to pull every possible lever available. GB Energy needs to encompass the full thermodynamic meaning of the term energy, rather than focusing just on electricity. Although there is much to be said for the current plan to use air source and ground source heat pumps alongside other methods of using electric to heat buildings, attempting to convert our entire housing stock to this approach will place enormous strain on our electricity grid and supply chains.
When we consider this issue, there is one stand-out technology that will help us: geothermal energy, both shallow and deep. I am pleased to tell the House that there is cross-party consensus on this topic, and I have been able to work with a number of Members across the House, including the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and others to form the deep geothermal all-party parliamentary group. Although I have mentioned shallow geothermal, which includes technology such as coal mine water, promoted by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), my remarks will focus on deep geothermal.
When I was first introduced to deep geothermal technology, my reaction was that it must be too good to be true: an environmentally friendly, dependable and cost-effective source of heat and power that can be found right under out feet—surely not. But over the past few years I have been pleasantly surprised to learn that deep geothermal is, in fact, just as good as it sounds. This technology uses the heat from naturally occurring sources of hot water deep underground to generate a large amount of usable heat and energy. In the UK, heat, rather than electricity, is the key benefit of deep geothermal, as that best matches the resources in counties such as East Sussex. This naturally occurring heat is a real resource—just as wind and sunlight are for other technologies, but unlike them it is there all year round whatever the weather.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
May I applaud my hon. Friend for really championing this innovative source of energy? May I officially log my support for Hampshire as well, because in our previous conversation we have spoken about the potential for parts of my county to exploit this energy source? Does he agree that, whether Labour says that it will not raise taxes on working people, or that GB Energy will reduce energy bills by £300, its promises are falling apart and the real way to lower energy costs is not by setting up quangos that cost the taxpayer billions of pounds, but by investing in innovative energy forms such as geothermal and other forms such as North sea oil and gas, which the previous Government did.
Dr Mullan
My right hon. Friend is right that the Government have made some big claims in this House, but the detail of the work and how to get us over the line in an affordable, cost-effective way is 10 times more challenging than that, and that reality is fast catching up with them.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who has proved by her passion and ability that she will soon emerge from the shadow of the beast and make the constituency her own.
I welcome the Report stage of the Bill, which will be the first to pass into law in this Parliament. Labour is delivering change within weeks of coming into office. The Bill has the potential to transform not just the way in which we produce power in this country and the impact that we have on our burning planet, but the way we live our lives. It could also have a transformative effect on the communities we serve. I commend the work of the Secretary of State and, in particular, of the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who has seized the agenda and grasped the potential of that transformation, which could be huge. It will match the scale and ambition of Tom Johnson, the legendary Labour Secretary of State for Scotland who brought power to the glens through the creation of the hydroelectric dam schemes that are now part of the highland landscape.
Moving to renewables and transitioning away from carbon must involve balancing and maintaining jobs in the North sea, which are such a vital element not just of our economic and energy mix, but of the incomes of many families in Na h-Eileanan an lar. That is why I welcome the move to introduce a skills passport to help workers transition from one industry to the other, and why I welcome the co-operation this week between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in reviewing the outdated bureaucratic processes building new infrastructure and creating large energy projects. Untangling that regulatory framework and rewiring the national grid is a hugely complicated exercise. The Bill will achieve that by setting up a company, GB Energy, which will itself be the vehicle for reducing bills, involving communities and transforming the way we produce energy.
If the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is looking for £300 off energy bills, she can accompany me to the village of Tolsta in my constituency, where one community-owned turbine has just distributed, as it happens, £300 per household to help people with their household bills and energy needs. Community energy will be a large part of what GB Energy does. We heard in evidence from Juergen Maier, who will chair GB Energy, that he and the Labour Government are committed to community energy as part of that mix.
Some of the amendments will seek to make community energy a part of the founding structure of the Bill. It will be part of the company, as set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill, but there is no necessity—[Interruption.] It is not necessary—
Torcuil Crichton
I could have said it in Gaelic. [Laughter.] It is not necessary for that to be part of the Bill or the company.
Communities must be at the heart of what GB Energy does, and community energy is at the heart of much of the wind production in my constituency—although there are commercial plans, too. Scotland’s community-owned wind farms provide, on average, 34 times more benefit payments to local communities. I have given the example of just one village with one turbine, so imagine what three estates with nine turbines could do in terms of community benefit. Let us be in no doubt, the transformative move towards wind-farming—onshore and offshore—will be mean an extremely profitable, multibillion-pound industry. Communities that host such infrastructure, or which have serious infrastructure passing through their areas, must benefit as well. People will not mind the pylons going past as long as some of the profit comes to them. That will be a critical part of the contract between GB Energy, developers and communities. Communities settling and making deals should not be left to chance.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the hon. Member seriously think that people in my constituency and across Lincolnshire and the east of England will be happy with thousands and thousands of huge pylons going through their area, damaging the value of their properties and businesses?
Torcuil Crichton
I remind the hon. Member that to switch on one lightbulb in Lincoln from a turbine on the Isle of Lewis will require a link and a chain of dominos to fall in order, on a scale that we have only ever seen in the Guinness record books. For each of those dominos to stay in place, the communities along that line must be involved and rewarded locally, or nationally with a sovereign wealth fund, to ensure that they play a part and have a sense of ownership in the transformation. The only way for this to succeed is if we all benefit. The wealth of wind is owned by no one man, and we should all share in the transformation. That is what I think GB Energy will deliver, and it is why I support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I start by thanking the Minister for how constructively he has worked with me, and by thanking the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for his words just now. I also thank all the colleagues who have sat on the Great British Energy Bill Committee. It is encouraging that this legislation has been given a prime spot at the beginning of this Parliament, and I thank the Clerks and the Speaker’s Office for their diligent work in administering the Bill thus far, as well as all the Members who have taken the opportunity to represent their constituents’ aspirations and concerns regarding the Bill. As many Members know, this is my first Bill as spokesperson for energy security and net zero, and I have appreciated all the support I have been given.
I also acknowledge colleagues from across the House who have lent their support to the amendments to which I am going to speak, and have also tabled their own. In particular, I recognise the contribution made by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), whose amendment promotes a nature recovery duty. He will know that nature recovery is close to my heart, and that I raised that topic in Committee. Last week, I had the privilege of attending the UN conference on biodiversity in Cali, Colombia—a poignant reminder of how it is impossible to address climate change and energy security without tackling the nature emergency. National energy infrastructure must therefore be nature-positive and aligned with the obligations in the Environment Act 2021.
As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill in principle, because we want a nationwide energy system that will bring down energy bills and provide clean, green energy. Amendment 3, which stands in my name, would guarantee that Great British Energy is established within six months of the Bill becoming law. We all know that as a result of the Conservative Government’s delay and dither, we are not on track to meet our ambitious targets.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I echo that. Torbay has an oven-ready solar scheme that would power our hospital and our council, yet because the national grid is not fit for purpose, that scheme has remained a blueprint. Does my hon. Friend agree that building capacity in the national grid is absolutely essential if this Bill is to be successful?
Pippa Heylings
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. National grid capacity is critical if we are to unblock all of these projects, which are so critical to powering our community services, our public services and the national economy. That is why we need to ensure there is no delay, and that is what amendment 3 speaks to.
Amendment 4, which also stands in my name, would ensure that Great British Energy has an explicit duty to help deliver energy efficiency through
“an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes”,
as well as the expansion of renewables. This Bill has the power to transform lives, but also to protect lives. Warm hubs are becoming too familiar in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire: Comberton, Duxford, Melbourn, Meldreth and Toft are just a few of the village hubs run by amazing volunteers in the local community that provide warmth to those who have to make the heartbreaking choice between heating and eating. It is frankly astonishing that this is now a reality for so many in the UK in 2024, and is a damning indictment of the last Government’s record on prioritising home insulation. Insulated homes mean warmer homes, which in turn means safer homes. The NHS spends an estimated £1.4 billion annually on treating illnesses associated with people living in cold and damp housing, and amendment 4 would seek to address this.
Amendment 4 also seeks to capitalise on our unique opportunity to be world-leading in renewable energy, which the Lib Dems know from our own track record. We must ensure that Great British Energy is duty-bound to support those activities. If renewable energy and home insulation can be rolled out at speed so that we can meet those vital climate targets, that will reduce energy demand, bring down energy bills and provide green, future-proofed, well-paid jobs for the UK.
I turn to amendment 5 on community energy. At every stage of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats have raised our concerns, and those of many MPs from other parties and of the many community energy groups and communities that we represent, that as it stands, the Bill is missing a vital limb. It lists four objects for Great British Energy, but nowhere does it mention supporting the growth of community energy.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She mentions community energy and I wonder if she recognises, as I do, the value of projects such as Stockport Hydro in Romiley in my constituency, which since 2012 has been using its two Archimedes screws, Thunder and Lightning, to power around 60 homes, thereby saving more than 100 tonnes of CO2 a year. Is that the sort of project that she thinks the Bill should do more to support and encourage, so that we can tackle climate change and ensure that communities benefit from community energy projects?
Pippa Heylings
I thank my hon. Friend for that fantastic example from her constituency, which is exactly the kind of project we are talking about. We know that
“Local power generation is an essential part of the energy mix, ensuring communities own and benefit from clean power projects, and reducing pressures on the transmission grid.”
In fact, those words are taken from the Government’s founding statement for Great British Energy, and the Minister said in this Chamber that
“Great British Energy will deliver a step change in investment in local and community energy projects, putting local authorities and communities at the heart of the energy transition.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 530.]
Yet the community energy sector was brought almost to a standstill by the former Conservative Government, and barriers still exist in selling directly to customers and in the cost of connecting to the grid, so welcome words are not enough.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I would like to clarify what she said about there not being anything in the Bill about community energy. It is in the founding statement of GB Energy, because we know the importance of locally delivered community energy in facilitating this transformation. I want to correct that for the record, because the suggestion that community energy is not one of the aims of this legislation is a misunderstanding.
Pippa Heylings
I appreciate that, which is why I quoted from the founding statement. The problem is that those words are not enshrined in the Bill itself, which is why we are surprised that the Government continue to vote down amendments that would put communities at the heart of the Bill. We will continue to push on that.
I thank the 58 Members from different parties who have supported amendment 5, which requires that the statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy has specific regard to community-based clean energy schemes. I would also like to give recognition to my colleagues who are leading the way in promoting the benefits of community energy, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), as we have just heard.
Torcuil Crichton
Does the hon. Lady recall the evidence of Juergen Maier, EDF, SSE and the Minister to the Committee? They all gave commitments to community energy and to the local power plan being almost an eighth—almost £1 billion-worth—of GB Energy’s plans.
Pippa Heylings
In fact, I said at the beginning of my contribution that I welcomed the constructive debate in Committee.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
If the Government have bought into the idea of community energy, does my hon. Friend not think it odd that they are so afraid to put it in the Bill?
Pippa Heylings
I could not have put it better myself. I thank my hon. Friend for leading the fight for the Liberal Democrats as the former spokesperson on energy security and net zero. That question goes to the crux of the matter.
We have fantastic examples from many communities of how important community energy is. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) led the recent Westminster Hall debate, in which there were fantastic examples from rural communities of how they feel about community benefits. There are also the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) in supporting the Aikengall community wind farm, which provides a direct benefit of an amazing £120,000 for the community.
Community energy is not just for Scotland. In my own county of Cambridgeshire, there is the Swaffham Prior community heat network, and the village is the first of its kind to switch to reliable zero-carbon heating. It was started by the Swaffham Prior Community Land Trust, and it addresses fuel poverty and the village’s reliance on oil heating. The Liberal Democrats will continue to promote those who have pioneered community energy schemes, proving their worth and championing their critical importance to our energy future.
While the Government have not previously backed our amendments, which is incomprehensible to us, I am grateful to the Minister for the conversations we have had recently and the assurances he has given us that the Government really do want to make provisions in the Bill for community energy in the Lords. I look forward to supporting our colleagues in the other place in this endeavour, but the interventions from Labour Members—saying that this will be in the founding statement and the strategic priorities, but not in the Bill—are causing us to doubt that commitment. I therefore urge the Government to make good on their promises. We know their commitment to community energy, so let that be understood clearly and let us put it in the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Adam Thompson to make his maiden speech.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind invitation to present my first speech. May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on her deeply moving and powerful speech this afternoon, alongside the many Members who have spoken for the first time in this House in recent days and weeks? If the high bar set by the newest Members of this House is indicative of the quality of debate to follow in the coming Parliament, I am very confident about the future of our nation.
In my own first speech, I will lay out why I stood to represent my home of Erewash, my plans for my time in Parliament and why I love the area it is now my honour to represent. By the way, before I start in earnest, for the information of all Members present, the constituency is pronounced “Eh-ruh-wash” or occasionally “Eh-ree-wash”, but never under any circumstances “Ear-wash”. I look forward to seeing how that is recorded in Hansard.
I begin my speech by thanking my predecessor, Maggie Throup, for her efforts in serving the people of Erewash over the past nine years. Maggie worked diligently for our community, consistently lobbying for funding to support our towns and villages. Given her background in the health sector, Maggie regularly contributed to health policy throughout her tenure, and she served the nation admirably through the latter stages of covid-19 as Vaccines Minister. While Maggie and I rarely saw eye to eye on policy, our relationship across the political divide has always been courteous and collegiate, and I wish her the very best for the future.
I would also like to pay tribute to my colleague Liz Blackman, who served Erewash as our Member of Parliament throughout the last Labour Government. Liz’s guidance during my campaign to become the MP for Erewash was invaluable, and I am sure I will continue to seek her advice throughout my tenure.
In my first months in Parliament, as I have met colleagues from across the country, the question I have most frequently been asked is: “What even is an Erewash, anyway?” Named for the river and the canal, we comprise two towns—Ilkeston and Long Eaton—the five villages of Breaston, Draycott, Risley, Sandiacre and Stanton-by-Dale, and other communities in Sawley, Kirk Hallam and Cotmanhay. More often, though, I find it easiest to answer, with a reference to our geography, simply, “We’re junction 25 of the M1.”
Like many towns that operate as a binary star, Ilkeston and Long Eaton exist in a delicate balance, with residents of Ilkeston—or “Ilson”, as we call it—regularly declaring, “Long Eaton gets everything.” It is probably no surprise then, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if you spent 10 minutes talking to someone in Long Eaton, you would similarly and resoundingly hear the mantra, “Ilkeston gets everything.” I should note that I have sanitised these statements somewhat; references to the other town in my constituency are often a little more colourful.
In truth, both of our towns have been hard done by in the past 14 years. Despite the hard work of incredible and passionate teaching and support staff, for example, many of our schools struggle with underfunding—something I witnessed at first hand when I trained as a secondary physics teacher. Both high streets have declined, and while towns funding is helping to support Long Eaton’s regeneration, the underlying problems remain: antisocial behaviour, crime, shopkeepers forced out by online giants, and a general malaise and the feeling that nothing will fix the foundations.
Despite the difficulties we face, I would like to explain why Erewash is a fantastic place by paying tribute to the people and the groups in our towns who are doing everything they can to lift the area up by its bootstraps—people like Joe Cahill, who, by liaising with shopkeepers and landlords through a local Facebook group focused on incredible independent shops, has empowered our community and begun restoring Ilkeston as a thriving market town. Similarly, I commend the work of Paul Opiah and others in building the new Friends of Ilkeston Town Centre, providing grassroots regeneration to our town. The efforts of Joe and Paul have been fantastic and I want to provide them with more support. Joe recently noted that he had done as much as he could without changing the law to bring the remaining, rotting shop units back into service—units that are currently held hostage by absentee landlords. I am therefore excited about the Government’s proposals to revive our town centres, and I will do everything in my power to support local people in their efforts.
In Long Eaton, I pay tribute to Scott Clayton and his team, who have created a beautiful new community focused on supporting mental health through the joy of song, where men of all abilities can come together to sing and discuss their issues. It was a pleasure during my campaign to become a Member of Parliament to join Scott and the Bluetonic community and to dive head first out of my comfort zone to sing with new friends.
I also pay tribute to Chris and Jackie Brookes, along with the team at Long Eaton rugby football club. The club serves Long Eaton so well, providing access to sport in our local park for children and adults, and supporting local charities and the armed forces community. After growing substantially over the past decade in the men’s game, in the women’s game and now with its new minis side, Long Eaton RFC has become a pillar of our community.
Then there is Lindsay Rice and her team, who have built a food bank and a lunch club, and are on their way to creating a brand-new Ilkeston carnival through their Every One Eats institute, alongside the collective churches in Long Eaton that have similarly supported those in our community struggling through poverty. Lindsay recently asked me, “Adam, as a food bank, when are you going to shut us down?” I responded, “As soon as possible, Lindsay, as soon as possible.”
Erewash has a thriving veteran community, and as a member of the Royal British Legion, I am very proud that our current mayor, Councillor Kate Fennelly, is a Royal Air Force veteran. I recently met the local charitable trust, Forces Veterans Afloat, which does incredible work housing veterans for whom bricks and mortar are not the answer on narrowboats. As a cadet warrant officer in 1344 (Cardiff) Squadron ATC for much of my childhood, I have long supported our forces and veterans; without 1344 and the citizenship, leadership and community spirit instilled in me by the wider cadet movement, I would not be standing here as a Member of Parliament.
Erewash is the birthplace of many national stars, from Douglas Houghton, Baron Houghton of Sowerby, who served our country in the first world war and in Harold Wilson’s Government as the last British Cabinet Minister born in the 19th century, through to Robert Lindsay, who has played countless parts, including the infamous Wolfie in “Citizen Smith” and the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We also have Bru-C, who today is putting Long Eaton on the map in the grime scene. Our towns, villages, and people are fantastic, but they have been let down by the previous Government, by politicians and by their country.
So what do I bring to this place, and what do I hope to do for Erewash? My background is in academia and education. In my previous day job, I taught engineering apprentices at the University of Nottingham. I worked there for a decade, specialising in metrology research and training the next generation of world-leading manufacturers. I believe I am the first metrologist elected to this place, metrology being the science of measurement and definitely not meteorology—as I said in the opening quote to my PhD thesis, it has nothing to do with clouds.
Erewash, and the wider east midlands, has long been the engine of our nation’s manufacturing base, producing everything from drain covers—look down on nearly every street in the country to see the logo of the famous Stanton Iron Works—to the fine lace worn by the Princess of Wales on her wedding day, produced by Cluny Lace in Ilkeston, to tunnels for HS2 made by Sateba UK, and composite motorsport and aerospace components from Atlas Composite. I want to see an expansion of our manufacturing base through an industrial strategy and reform of the apprenticeship levy, so that we can cement Erewash’s position as a centre for advanced manufacturing.
We also need new infrastructure to build the new homes to support our local economic growth, which I am glad to see the Government commit to. As the Stanton industrial regeneration site grows, I will fight every day for infrastructure works. We need a new junction on the M1 to support the growing industry in the area and to reduce the impact on residents in Sandiacre and Ilkeston, who currently endure a huge volume of heavy goods vehicles passing through the towns.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I am pleased to speak in this debate, and the Green group of MPs is pleased to back this Bill. I will be speaking in support of new clauses 2 and 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which are designed to make the Bill even stronger. The new clauses would create a new nature recovery duty for Great British Energy and prevent investments that increase climate emissions.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her statement of support for my hon. Friend’s work and for making the Bill better for nature recovery. I also thank her for her proposals on insulation and community energy, which we support. All those things are vital for the Bill’s success.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
If nature recovery is to be important in the Government’s present drive, does the hon. Member accept that renewable energy has been destructive of nature? Some 17 million trees have been cut down in Scotland to facilitate windmills. Now, there are studies indicating that offshore wind is leading to dead porpoises, dead dolphins and dead whales being washed up on beaches because of the effects of drilling.
Siân Berry
I do not agree with all the assertions that the right hon. Member makes, but the duty is intended precisely to ensure that every single project would have a positive impact on nature. Under new clause 3, they would all be renewable projects.
The nature recovery duty under new clause 2 would help GB Energy invest only in projects that deliver significant biodiversity benefits and meet targets under the Environment Act 2021, by building nature-friendly design features into renewable energy projects and creating and restoring habitats on development sites in and around clean energy infrastructure.
The Bill Committee heard from Shaun Spiers of Green Alliance, who made a strong case for a nature recovery duty being created for GB Energy. The ensuing discussion saw the Crown Estate used as an example for how a public body could deliver for nature without having a statutory duty to do so. However, the Crown Estate is a highly relevant case study that demonstrates why non-statutory duties are not enough. The Crown Estate’s lack of a statutory duty to consider nature in its own decision making has led to its involvement in a number of environmentally damaging schemes.
For example, let us consider mining proposals in the Sperrin mountains area of outstanding natural beauty in Northern Ireland. The Crown Estate entered into an initial mineral extraction agreement with a mining company there in 2016, leading to proposals for goldmining. That has provoked significant environmental concern about harmful chemicals and waste from mining operations polluting nearby rivers and degrading the surrounding AONB. An application was submitted in 2017 and is now subject to a public inquiry, following nearly 40,000 objections from local people. So an abundance of warm words about protecting and conserving the environment, and about the Crown Estate’s status as a public body, did not inhibit it from playing a role in a project that threatens nature.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland and particularly the Sperrin mountains, which is an area of great natural beauty. It has many features, including wildlife and wild uplands, but it has been industrialised. I took a motorbike journey around the area three weeks ago, and there are hundreds of huge wind turbines. The peat has been dug up, the landscape has been destroyed and thousands of birds are killed every year. What has happened in the Sperrin mountains is hardly a good example of renewable energy being nature-friendly.
Siân Berry
I am sure we can have those debates in the context of a statutory duty. These are important questions to consider.
I want to give some other examples of public bodies damaging nature, because they abound—from the granting of new oil and gas licences in marine protected areas by the North Sea Transition Authority, to Highways England pursuing damaging road construction projects on the edges of national parks. Without legal backing, nature considerations can be and are brushed aside.
There is no reason to think that Great British Energy, without a duty to consider nature recovery, will be any different. A statutory duty to deliver for nature’s recovery would be complementary to GB Energy’s other objectives around clean energy, energy efficiency and energy security. It would also reflect the Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle the interconnected nature and climate crises together. I hope the Government will carefully consider those arguments.
New clause 3, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley, is vital to guarantee that our energy investments are not only financially responsible but aligned with the legal requirement to reach net zero by 2050. As legislators, we have a duty to hold GB Energy accountable, preventing investments that will lock us into high-carbon energy pathways and undermine our net zero commitments. The new clause mandates environmental impact assessments before any investments are made, ensuring that each decision is grounded in evidence. It forces us to ask, “Will this investment push us at speed towards, or risk pulling us away from, our climate goals?” Publishing those assessments opens the process to public scrutiny—an essential principle in democracy. The public deserve to know exactly how their tax money is being used, particularly when it comes to funding projects that may exacerbate the climate crisis.
The new clause would also bar public money from being spent on fossil fuel and unsustainable high-carbon projects such as biomass. We cannot ignore the facts: Drax, the largest biomass-burning plant in the UK, emitted over 11 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023. Worse still, it receives nearly £900 million in Government subsidies a year. If we allow investments in projects such as Drax or new fossil fuel infrastructure, we risk undermining the very goals we are trying to achieve. The new clause would close the door on such contradictions.
When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not the only danger. Methane is a greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming potential of CO2 over a 20-year period. Methane emissions, often associated with fossil fuel extraction and agriculture, must be tightly controlled to ensure that the UK meets its climate commitments. The new clause would ensure that all climate emissions, including methane, are thoroughly assessed before any public investment is made. If we do not account for methane and other greenhouse gases, we risk underestimating the climate impact of certain energy projects, and particularly those related to natural gas production and transport.
Fossil fuel infrastructure does not just burn carbon; it locks us into long-term dependence on dirty energy. Every pound spent on high-carbon infrastructure makes it harder and more expensive to transition away from fossil fuels in the time that we have. This amendment ensures that we avoid that trap, by making it impossible for Great British Energy to invest in projects that would limit our ability to end our reliance on carbon-emitting technologies.
Great British Energy should also be a true trailblazer in the global transition to clean energy. The amendment strengthens that mission by making clear that only projects contributing to emissions reductions should receive investment. With countries around the world watching, we have a unique opportunity to lead by example. A failure to act boldly now will leave us behind in the global race for climate leadership.
We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by further locking ourselves into harmful high-carbon infrastructure. These amendments reflect that. The stakes could not be higher. These decisions are about securing a liveable planet for future generations. I hope the Government will listen.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) on his maiden speech. I am delighted that he gave us a lesson on how to say his constituency name. How can I say “Erewash” to further confuse Hansard? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who is no longer in her place, but I think everyone in this House felt the passion in her speech. I look forward to hearing more from her on a number of issues.
I will focus my remarks on how to ensure that GB Energy delivers effectively for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. To do that, it must generate investment that delivers tangible results and brings jobs and economic growth, along with the energy security that we all want. In Committee, witnesses said that one of the challenges for GB Energy will be finding a balance between accelerating renewable energy delivery and ensuring a return on investment, while supporting less mature technologies. I agree that it will be a difficult balance to strike, but we are more likely to succeed in our investments if they are encouraged in areas where there is likely to be a warm welcome and strong understanding of electricity generation, and where the foundational skills and engineering heritage already exist. They include former coalfields across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, including in west Fife in my constituency.
Although the mines closed decades ago, the heritage of electricity generation lived on in the Longannet power station near Kincardine, on the banks of the River Forth. Constructed in the 1960s, Longannet was once Europe’s biggest coal-fired power station and one of the largest carbon emitters on the continent, before shutting down in 2016. Having represented that community as a councillor, I know that people across west Fife accept that coal had to go and things had to move on, but they want something to replace it. Like so much of our past energy infrastructure, and like in so many industries, Longannet was closed down with little or no consideration for what might replace it or how the thousands of jobs lost could be replaced and the skills maintained, particularly in the rural villages of west Fife, where losing even a few families or employees can put their whole sustainability at risk.
I believe that GB Energy and the investment opportunities that it presents is a chance to change that. The site is currently being safely demolished by ScottishPower, but there are still no clear plans for the future of the site. Longannet is perfectly situated to play its part once again in helping to provide electricity for our country and leverage some of the £60 billion possible investment that could be available via GB Energy. The site is designated for major employment, and due to its location right on the coast it is likely to be suitable for major industrial use only. It has the potential to bring jobs and investment to the coalfield villages of west Fife and the whole of central Scotland, securing opportunities for those communities to fulfil the aspirations of the people living there.
Despite being listed as a strategic priority site by the Scottish Government, they have had no plans for it, and from what is available in the public domain, it seems they have not prioritised any action at all in recent years. Promises made of train manufacturing being brought to the site came to nothing, and the decision by that company to withdraw from an agreement came to light only because of a freedom of information request I made back in 2022. Nothing was discussed publicly at all. Indeed, some people in that community still talk about when the train manufacturer is coming. Similarly, both Fife council and Scottish Enterprise have struggled to engage with ScottishPower about the future of the site, although I have a meeting with ScottishPower this week, and I hope to gain more clarity after that. Will the Minister, in winding up, agree to meet me and other stakeholders to ensure that sites such as Longannet, once a symbol of Scottish and UK electricity generation and the skills that come with it, are priorities for GB Energy? How will it work with the industry to create the right plans to bring investment to the area?
We know the wreckage that the Conservative party made of UK and Scottish industry over the past decades: change without a plan. GB Energy offers an opportunity not only to have a plan for our low-carbon secure energy future, but to fix yet another part of the mess left for us by the deliberate actions of the Conservatives and the incompetence of the SNP in Scotland. The Bill is a huge opportunity for Scotland. We must ensure that it is passed today, so it can get on with its work as quickly as possible.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I pay tribute to the two excellent maiden speeches that we have heard so far in this debate, from the hon. Members for Erewash (Adam Thompson) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). I hope that people from former mining communities are listening to this debate, because I am sure they will have some choice words to say about a Conservative talking about de-industrialisation. In Wales, we will never forget what the Conservatives did to our industries, and the jobs and futures they took away from people.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore appreciate why Conservatives are so concerned that the plans coming forward from the Labour Government will do exactly the same to north-east Scotland if this is not handled properly?
David Chadwick
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. De-industrialisation has been happening for a very long time across the United Kingdom, and we are yet to see a real industrial strategy that would restore the wealth, prosperity and jobs that used to exist across our industrial areas in the entire United Kingdom.
Wales stands ready to play its part in powering the United Kingdom once again, but this time Wales would like to experience the tangible benefits from these projects. In my constituency, Llangattock Green Valleys has the ambition to develop plans for a large, community-owned renewable energy scheme to supply premises in the Crickhowell region. The scheme will have a mix of technologies, such as solar, hydro, wind and storage, to give a year-round supply of energy. It will be developed from the start in consultation with the community. It will be managed by the community and the profits will benefit the community itself.
We Liberal Democrats are firm believers that this is exactly the model of community ownership that will provide communities with security and prosperity well into the future. It is for this reason that I urge all Members to support amendment 5 and ensure that the Bill puts the principle of community ownership at the very front and centre of what the Government are trying to achieve.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, which brings us one step closer to establishing this much-needed, publicly owned energy company. To quote the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), at the UN General Assembly, this is a Government who are
“willing to tell the truth”
and “show international leadership” when it comes to climate change. In that spirit, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the importance of upholding human rights and the principles of a just transition in our renewable energy supply chains.
I am heartened by the determination of our Front Bench to see human rights protected across our energy transition. When questioned on forced labour in the solar industry, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), stated that he
“would expect and demand there to be no modern slavery in any part of the supply chain”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 418.]
In a similar vein, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), recently spoke about
“galvanising just energy transition partnerships, to making sure that everyone feels the benefits of green innovation”.
While GB Energy must ensure that everyone benefits from green innovation, it must also guarantee that no one suffers from it. However, I have grave concerns that if we charge ahead with our net zero transition without safeguards in place, we will knowingly be doing that on the backs of those in slavery. Let me outline why.
Wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and battery storage all require large quantities of critical minerals. There is conclusive evidence of human rights abuses associated with critical minerals. The abuse is most severe and systemic in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of China, where the Chinese Government are systematically persecuting millions of Uyghur, Turkic and Muslim majority peoples on the basis of their religion and ethnicity. It is well documented that the lower tiers of our solar supply chains are concentrated there, and have a sinister dependency on state-imposed Uyghur forced-labour programmes. Those programmes have bolstered China’s global market share, which exceeds 80% across the whole solar PV supply chain. I raise these concerns not to undermine our business relationship with China, but because through the purchasing power of GB Energy, we can protect human rights around the world.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend says that she does not want to undermine our commercial relationship with China. I do. China is carrying out genocide of the Uyghurs. It is an appalling country—or, rather, it has an appalling leadership, to be precise. It is trying to monopolise crucial supply chains around the world in order to oppress people. Surely we should be reducing our relationship and making ourselves independent.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has put that on the record. I think that what we need to be doing is reducing our dependency—some might say “stranglehold”—on China for some of our most critical resources.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend about China. Does she agree with me that we should be looking at domestic production of critical minerals such as tin, lithium, tungsten and manganese? In Cornwall we have plenty, and we are very hopeful that the Bill will support the opportunities that they offer.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and that, to my mind, is what GB Energy should be doing. It is using its purchasing power around the world to increase human rights and improve working conditions, for example, but it also needs to be supporting British-based businesses, because our businesses need that support more than ever before. What we need to be doing is applying pressure on all our trading partners around the world, not just China, to improve standards. There are allegations of child labour in cobalt mining for EV batteries in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and there is evidence of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia.
With those examples in mind, I ask the House a simple question: do we turn a blind eye to modern slavery in our energy supply chains, or do we lead the way with a just transition? As the Chancellor outlined in her conference speech, this Government are
“Calling time on the days when government stood back…and turned a blind eye to where things are made and who makes them.”
It is vital that we follow up her words with real, meaningful action, because, as things currently stand, we are a global outlier. In 2021 the United States enacted the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, banning the importation of products from the Uyghur region, including shipments of solar panels with connections to Xinjiang. That has been highly effective, with the market responding with new, ethical supply chains. Canada and Mexico have followed suit with similar regulations, and this year the European Union passed the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, which will ensure that companies prevent and address the adverse human rights impacts of their actions.
Ms Billington
We should bear in mind that the regulations established by those other countries apply to all companies. It seems to me that we should be going in that direction, rather than simply saying that we will focus on one company, GB Energy. Given our high ethical standards, this is the kind of sectoral approach that we should be able to create ourselves, as an international leader.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend pre-empts me. This will work only if we do it across the whole of Government and in all sectors, and I want my Government to be leading the way on that. We have a hugely important role to play internationally, as well as in our own industries.
The UK’s failure to keep pace with our partners has resulted in the global supply chain splitting. Slave-made renewable products are being redirected to countries with weaker regulations, such as the UK. As the other place’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee recently recognised, without forced labour import bans, the UK risks becoming a dumping ground for tainted products. Current legislation, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, cannot meet the scale of the problem, especially while human rights due diligence remains optional for companies.
I appreciate that the Department is looking into these issues through the solar taskforce’s upcoming solar road map, which I really welcome. However, the solar taskforce, made up mostly of industry voices, needs to have civil society and trade unions on the team for its work to be truly credible. That is especially the case given my concerns about Solar Energy UK’s solar stewardship initiative, or SSI, as I am doubtful that an industry-led solution can meet the scale of the challenges I have outlined today.
A just transition is not only about international workers’ rights; it is also about securing UK jobs and industry. Our energy strategy must prioritise green jobs and wealth creation here, and avoid fuelling growth in economies known for cutting corners. Following my discussions with the industry and unions, it is clear that the UK’s inadequate response to these issues is creating a competitive disadvantage for businesses here and an uneven playing field internationally. If GB Energy allows exposure to state-imposed forced labour, it creates a distinct risk for investors and businesses here in the UK.
The arguments I have laid out today have the support of unions, businesses and human rights advocates alike. They echo the sentiments of our Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Business Secretary and Energy Secretary. For too many years, tackling modern slavery has received a siloed, disjointed response from Government. We now have an opportunity to change that and to embrace cross-departmental, collaborative working. Renewable energy has a key role to play in our transformation to a low-carbon economy, but without placing human rights at its centre, our green transition will come at a grave cost.
This Bill is aptly named the Great British Energy Bill. It simply cannot live up to its name if it depends on modern slavery to achieve its aims.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I invite hon. Members to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her commitment to our essential amendments, both in Committee and here today. I also thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who has been incredibly supportive of our ambition for communities to benefit from renewable energy. I have one little correction: Tom Johnston, who invented the hydro boards, and the Labour Government did not actually put in place a proper system whereby local communities could benefit. They supplied a lot of power to the south and the cities, but it was of very little benefit to those of us living in the highlands, even then.
The Government have argued that nothing in this Bill limits community ownership. That is almost certainly true, but as my colleagues and I have emphasised, amendment 5 would not restrict GB Energy; it would simply clarify that community-led energy is a priority.
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), recently experienced a powerful story of community-driven energy on his visit to the island of Eigg. Just 25 years ago, Eigg’s residents, frustrated by years of poor management and a lack of investment, took matters into their hands and purchased their island. The Eigg buy-out succeeded in 1997, sparking what is now a beacon of self-sustained energy. Since then, Eigg has moved away from fossil fuels, becoming the world’s first island to generate 24-hour electricity from a variety of different renewables. This small community of just 110 people demonstrates the innovation and resilience that flourish when communities are empowered.
Eigg’s journey is a true example of prioritising community ownership and how that drives forward sustainability and local resilience. To paraphrase the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), community involvement is critical, not a mere “nice to have”. If we are to build the infrastructure of the future, we must ensure that communities benefit directly. Community-driven projects are key to making that a reality, so let us follow Eigg’s lead and put the Government’s own words into action.
The current Government have an opportunity here to show their commitment to cross-party collaboration by embracing community energy. We are all aligned on the goals, so let us not get bogged down by technicalities or party politics. The Minister knows of the huge cross-party support for community energy ownership. If this goes to a vote, do this Government really want to vote against community energy ownership? Let us show the people of Britain that this Bill truly supports the right to own and benefit from our natural resources through Great British Energy.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is an honour to welcome this Bill as it is moving forward, and I want to commend the leadership of the Secretary of State and the Energy Minister. To show such leadership so early on in the Parliament on such an important topic is really commended in my community.
My community of Bournemouth, and Britain, have suffered the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, driven by the energy shock that followed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This cost of living crisis has been a disaster for businesses. Typical energy bills have nearly doubled in the space of a year. It has been a disaster for family finances, with millions struggling with fuel poverty and many still facing enormous debts. It has been a disaster for public finances because the Government that we replaced left our country so unprepared. They were forced to spend an eye-watering £94 billion to support households with the cost of living—almost as much as our entire defence budget over the entire period. Because energy costs underpin economic performance, inflation soared, growth sputtered and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent inflation in the UK to over 10%, with a full third of that directly due to rising gas prices as a direct result of our vulnerability over the last 14 years.
We risk paying an even heavier price if we stay exposed to fossil fuels. We still depend on gas to generate more than a third of our electricity and to heat more than four out of five of our homes. No more. We must make sure that we are energy secure, and we must be able to bring down our bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned about our exposure to surges in energy prices, and the potential costs to bill payers, taxpayers, consumers and businesses alike. The OBR now estimates that another fossil fuel price shock would cost the economy 2% to 3% of our GDP in the 2030s.
The crisis is not over. It still casts a long shadow and we cannot go on like this. We must learn the lessons, and the fastest way to reduce our vulnerability is to end our dependence on volatile global fossil fuels. The cheapest way to meet our energy needs is to enhance our home-grown renewables and British-based nuclear. I was intrigued to hear the Conservative spokesperson, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), saying that this Government want to go slow on nuclear, so I have to ask: what nuclear projects were built over the last 14 years of the Conservative Government and five Prime Ministers? What small modular reactors actually moved ahead? What did those Prime Ministers do with the investment and the work that developers wanted to bring forward? Nothing. Our nuclear industry has been starved of funding and attention, but no more. When the energy is produced here and consumed here, Britain is protected against the volatile international markets that send our bills soaring.
The Climate Change Committee’s report, published two weeks after the Labour Government came into office, laid bare the true reality of energy policy under the last Conservative Government. It states:
“Last year…the previous Government signalled a slowing of pace and reversed or delayed key policies”.
We did not hear about that from the right hon. Member for East Surrey. It also stated that
“announcements were given with the justification that they will make the transition more affordable for people, but with no evidence backing this claim”.
We did not hear anything about that. The assessment of the committee was that
“only a third of the emissions reductions required…are currently covered by credible plans”
by the previous Government. We did not hear anything about that. That is this Labour Government’s inheritance, for a target that has to be achieved in just five years’ time. Britain is way off track to hit our 2030 international target of a 68% reduction in emissions. That is why the Government are in a hurry, and it is why they introduced the Bill so early in this Parliament.
In the five years ahead, our big challenges will be building an energy system at speed and supporting people through the energy transition. We need to demonstrate the benefits of the infrastructure we are building and make sure that host communities benefit in return. When we ask our communities to host this infrastructure, I am confident that they will say yes. They will do so on behalf of our nation. They will do so for cheaper bills in the long run, for good jobs that pay well and to benefit our communities.
National Grid estimates that five times as many pylons and underground lines will need to be constructed by 2030 than in the past 30 years. Underground cables cost six to 10 times more than overground cables. If part of our challenge is to cut bills and to reduce overall costs in a time of scarcity, we must be willing to invest in our infrastructure.
The faster we go, the more secure we become. Every wind turbine we erect, every solar panel we install and every piece of grid we construct will help our families and protect them from future energy shocks. Conversely, every wind turbine blocked, every solar farm rejected and every piece of grid left unbuilt will make us less secure and more exposed.
The faster we go, the better our economy will work for working people by creating a new generation of good jobs that finally pay decent wages in our industrial heartlands. Labour Members do not seek deindustrialisation; we seek decarbonisation. And decarbonisation will be achieved through reindustrialisation and the creation of good green jobs. The faster we go, the more we will be early movers and lead the world in new technologies. Why should these jobs be created in Pennsylvania or Shanghai? Let us create them in Bournemouth and across our country. And the faster we go, the more we can tackle our climate challenge. This is no longer a future threat. It is right here, right now, and we need to be able to tackle it.
Over the past few years, the race for jobs and the industries of the future has accelerated across the world. For too long, our country has been opted out of that race against our will. We have lost out, and our communities have fallen behind. Pay has not kept pace, and jobs have not been created on the scale needed. Why did the previous Government allow other countries to lead in these industries and clean jobs? Why did they not bet on our country and our potential?
I am delighted to see this Bill make progress. I commend Ministers for introducing it, and I look forward to seeing true investment in our green industries and the jobs of the future.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I rise to support amendment 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), to require a statement of strategic priorities on the facilitation of community-based clean energy schemes.
Energy supply is the second largest contributor to UK domestic greenhouse gas emissions, making up 20% of carbon emissions in 2022. Community energy should play a key role in reducing this and in helping the UK to meet its net zero targets. Community energy projects have positive impacts on equality, social cohesion and economic opportunity. We must therefore encourage local communities to take ownership of energy production. This way, we can ensure that decisions are taken in the best interests of local communities, and in collaboration with them, to better meet their needs.
The local economic benefits are clear, with community energy businesses in 2021 raising £21.5 million of investment for new projects and spending £15 million of community energy income to boost local economies. Community energy schemes currently produce just 0.5% of UK electricity but, according to studies by the Environmental Audit Committee, this could grow twentyfold over the next 10 years.
My constituency has seen the benefit of community energy schemes, with Avalon Community Energy in Street and South Somerset Community Energy in Wincanton providing services to the local area. Avalon is currently focused on delivering the clean energy project as one of the projects that make up the Glastonbury town deal. The £2 million project will develop renewable energy and carbon saving for the community. It is currently estimated that the project will save around 1,000 tonnes of carbon per year, and there will be an annual revenue surplus of over £100,000, some of which will be used for ongoing local community benefits. South Somerset Community Energy has installed three solar panels on the roof of Stanchester academy in Stoke-sub-Hamdon. Those solar panels produce around 100,000 kWh of energy per year, at least 70% of which is used by the academy.
The Liberal Democrats want to support the expansion of community energy schemes by requiring large energy suppliers to work with community schemes to sell the power they generate to local customers. If the Government want to drive a clean energy revolution, community energy has to be part of that. Community energy schemes have the potential to power 2.2 million homes, to save 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year and to create over 30,000 jobs. The Government have sadly neglected community energy provisions in the original Bill, as many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues have and will outline. That is a major missed opportunity.
Engagement and consultation with local communities is crucial if GB Energy is to be a success. GB Energy should also provide communities who host renewable energy infrastructure with the ability to realise community benefits from that. I have spoken on this point at length over recent weeks, because it is crucial if we are to boost the much-needed roll-out of renewable energy, particularly in areas like Glastonbury and Somerton. Communities must be part of the process. They have a critical role to play and a voice that must be heard. Through engagement, we can deliver clean energy, increase social cohesion and allow communities to invest in their place.
For the reasons I have laid out, I will be supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, and I urge the House to do the same.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Before I make my contribution, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for failing to mention during the Employment Rights Bill debate last week the financial donations made to me by Unite the Union of £7,500, and by the Communication Workers Union of £3,500. I appreciate that being a first time MP is no excuse, and I extend my sincere apologies to you and to the House. On that note, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where it also says that I am a member of Unite the Union, which I will refer to later in my remarks.
There is so much to like in the GB Energy Bill: a publicly owned clean energy company, the creation of skilled jobs, reindustrialising communities and cutting household bills. It is a transformative and bold idea, which is to be applauded and to be proud of. Since coming to this place, I have heard it said—indeed, I have said—that a nation’s energy security is linked to its national security. GB Energy should eventually help with both those things and create thousands of skilled jobs. That is excellent.
However, what about the jobs of the Grangemouth refinery workers, the same workers who are right now crucial to Scotland’s energy security, and therefore to Scotland’s national security? Those workers are nearing the end of their 45-day consultation process, during which the focus should be on how jobs can be saved and maintained for those workers. Recent comments include, “These workers will be okay and it will all be fine because they’ll get employment elsewhere.” If the workers have to leave, that will not help my community. Stopping refining does not help Scotland’s fuel or national security.
There can be no doubt that my constituency will be much weaker for losing the refinery—job losses will run into the thousands. There can also be no doubt that Scotland will be weaker for losing the refinery. After all, Scottish Enterprise has reported that the economic contribution of the Grangemouth refinery is north of £400 million.
Mark my words, stopping refining at Grangemouth and closing Finnart will have monumental consequences for all of Scotland. It will not take long for the pumps on forecourts all over the country to be impacted, and so too the public. Although this is not a problem of this Government’s making—the previous UK Tory Government and the current SNP Scottish Government have long since turned their backs on the refinery, and it was previous UK Ministers and Scottish Cabinet Secretaries who got us into this mess—make no mistake, it is our mess to clean up now.
Harriet Cross
There are few areas of the country that are as reliant on, and therefore as vulnerable to, the energy industry as my constituency of Gordon and Buchan and wider north-east Scotland. It is because of this that I want the Government’s energy strategy to be a success. Indeed, my constituents need it to be a success. However, that is why I have severe reservations about the Bill and why I believe that we must view the Great British Energy Bill not in isolation, but alongside the Government’s wider energy strategy.
I begin by considering the public money involved—the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money going into Great British Energy. Labour has cited international examples, such as France’s EDF, as inspiration for Great British Energy, but let us examine EDF’s recent history, which reads like a cautionary tale of state intervention gone wrong. In 2022, the French Government were forced to fully nationalise EDF, costing €9.7 billion, and in 2023, they had to inject another €13 billion. That huge expenditure of taxpayer money did not even solve EDF’s problems; the company now faces debts exceeding €64 billion. Therefore, is £8.3 billion of investment into Great British Energy realistic?
Let us move on to Labour’s wider energy strategy—perhaps there are assurances there that can help mitigate the apparent inadequate funding. Let us not forget that the UK will be using oil and gas for years to come, which is not disputed. The expectation that we should get this from our domestic oil and gas supplies should not be controversial, yet our energy security is being put at risk through the Government’s actions and words. Jobs and investment in Gordon and Buchan and across north-east Scotland are being lost, and a home-grown energy transition is being made ever more difficult. It is incoherent to pump public money into the energy sector, while at the same time scaring away private investment from the very companies that will be vital to the energy transition, whether by announcing that there will be no new North sea licences, extending and increasing the windfall tax or removing investment allowances.
Offshore Energies UK has warned that expected tax changes could see investments in UK projects by oil and gas producers fall by about £12 billion by 2029. Last week, Reuters reported that a North sea producer is looking to sell stakes in its North sea assets and relist on the US stock exchange. The same article quoted the chief executive officer of TotalEnergies, who said that his team had halted exploration in the basin, and that:
“With this political landscape, even if you find something you’re not sure you can develop it… The situation in the UK is very problematic.”
The CEO of Deltic Energy also announced plans to cut spending, telling Reuters:
“The clear message from key investors was ‘do not invest in the UK’.”
That is just a snapshot, but it puts the Government’s £8.3 billion into context, alongside the other decisions that they are making.
Torcuil Crichton
Does the hon. Member accept that my constituents and hers have earned energy security for this country for the last two generations, and will do so in the North sea for another two generations?
Harriet Cross
I certainly hope that we will have the opportunity to do so, but as I am setting out, the Government’s proposals for the North sea in respect of taxation and cutting down on licences do not guarantee that. As much as I and the hon. Member want and need for that to be the case for our constituents, we cannot guarantee it. That is why it is so important that we get the transition right.
The Bill must include consideration of the impact on the public. Communities such as Leylodge and Kintore in my constituency face unprecedented infrastructure pressures. Those communities have seen a 3 GW hydrogen plant, an expanded substation, multiple battery facilities and new pylons. What are their statutory protections? What assurances are there in the Bill that certain communities will not be over-saturated with an unsustainable amount of infrastructure?
Before the election, the Labour party claimed that GB Energy would reduce household bills by £300. Since then, Ministers have not repeated the promise and have not explained when or how it will be achieved. I am sure that the Labour Government would not want us to think that that promise was simply a headline-grabbing figure before an election, so I look forward to their clarifying that commitment and voting for our amendments on that figure.
Let me move on to the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. We hear that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs—apparently, 69,000 of them will be in Scotland, which, if delivered, would be welcome—but as is the running theme in this Bill, we do not have sufficient detail to offer even a grain of certainty to comfort those whose jobs are on the line now. Existing oil and gas and supply chain businesses in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east need a timeline so that they can plan their business and workforce. How, when and where will jobs be created? What kind of jobs and skills will be required?
Of course, we now have certainty that one job will not be coming to Scotland, as we hear that the CEO will be based in Manchester. Is Aberdeen a headquarters in name but not in nature? We already know that there will be satellite sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Which other executive management jobs will not be based in Aberdeen? We in north-east Scotland are not buttoned up the back, so will the Minister confirm today that Aberdeen is still the headquarters for GB Energy—and I mean that in no other way than the meaning that the general public would understand?
The funding may not be sufficient, the overall energy strategy is incoherent and there is no clarity on the delivery of jobs or any mention of £300 energy bill savings, but surely the Bill offers certainty to the very industry that will deliver the energy transition. That brings me to the strategic statement. One thing that we know for sure is that we do not know all we need to know about what GB Energy will do. As a result, the uncertainty will continue. For communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan, and for businesses, supply chains and those working in the existing energy industry, that is profound. We need to know how those communities will be brought with us in the transition—if it is, indeed, to be a just transition.
GB Energy will not generate energy, but it cannot instead generate mass redundancies across north-east Scotland. As has been mentioned, the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive power to dictate what is in the strategic statement, and he has given himself the huge responsibility of ensuring that GB Energy delivers its aims. The work of the existing energy industry, and of communities such as Gordon and Buchan, must be taken into account. If it is not, the transition to cleaner, greener energies will be less efficient, less affordable and less possible. As such, I sincerely ask that the Secretary of State prepares the strategic priorities in a timely manner, taking account of stakeholders in the industry, the impacted communities, the current jobs and skills, and the existing businesses that are the bedrock of our future energy generation.
Because the Bill gives us all but no clarity on what is going to happen, the strategic statement—which we are all waiting for—is going to be the key document in dictating whether it will or will not be a success. As I said at the start of my speech, I want it to be a success; I want the UK to be a clean energy superpower, just as we are, and always were, an oil and gas superpower. If we get this right, that superpower status will drive the economy and jobs of the future. We cannot allow investment to be lost, because that means that investment in new technologies will be lost.
If we lose the expertise, the supply chains and the private investment because of the way this Bill is handled and how GB Energy is handled—there is no guarantee that private investment will stay in the UK just because GB Energy has been created—we will look back at this time and wish we had done things differently. I really do not want to be in that situation, because it is my communities in Gordon and Buchan and in north-east Scotland who will suffer the most.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In a debate like this, it is important for Members to ensure that they link their contributions to the amendments we are addressing. I call Polly Billington.
Ms Billington
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak specifically to the amendments on community energy, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Back in 2016, I founded UK100, a network of local government leaders who are ambitious about shifting their communities and their economies to net zero. It is because of that experience, working with local leaders of all political persuasions across the country, that I would like to highlight the importance of a local-led approach to reaching our net zero targets. GB Energy will be able to play a crucial role in doing so by facilitating and encouraging local authorities to meet the ambitious net zero targets that have been set across the country. People will be familiar with the ambitions of big cities such as Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol and Brighton—to name but a few—but towns and villages in rural and coastal communities have also made those commitments. That is why community energy is so vital, and why it is so much a part of this Government’s overall project and of this Bill.
Through the local power plan, GB Energy will be able to work with local and combined authorities to deliver hundreds of millions of pounds of funding to small and medium-scale clean energy projects, helping to turn those ambitious targets into reality. GB Energy will also be able to work with communities across the country to help deliver that local-led approach. I have seen some great real-world examples of community-led climate projects. For example, Green Meadows is a community climate action project in Nottingham, funded by the National Lottery’s climate action fund, that aims to deliver home insulation, clean energy generation for local homes, planting projects and workshops to give residents the tools and skills they need to install their own energy upgrades.
With no disrespect to the National Lottery’s fund, we need a more strategic approach to the local delivery of clean, home-grown, secure energy. That is the role of the GB Energy company. By working with communities and local people, GB Energy will be able to play a crucial role in building consent and support for clean energy projects, in order to reach our ambitious targets and avoid a backlash to net zero—we have already seen that backlash, particularly driven by some of the attitudes of the Conservative party. We have to bring people along with us and show them how they can tangibly benefit from the transition.
Net zero must not be something we do to people; it must be something we do with people. If we do not work with communities, we will face resistance across the country, but not because people are against tackling climate change. By involving people and showing them how they can tangibly benefit, we will face less resistance and deliver much quicker deployment of the energy projects we need to build. Swaffham Prior, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), is indeed a valuable project, but we cannot leave the transition to projects of that scale. To support community projects at scale, we need a transformative approach that is about transforming the rules of the market as much as it is about establishing GB Energy. Lastly, de-risking those projects—both at scale and community assets—will be a vital role of GB Energy.
Reaching net zero will be a partnership between the state, the private sector and the community. Government investment to help “crowd in” that private sector and community investment will be crucial. In that context, we often talk about new and developing technologies, but it is crucial not to forget existing, proven technologies.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendment 5 alongside my hon. Friends. I welcome the fact that the Government are keen to increase the amount of energy produced by renewables—we have certainly waited far too long in this country for the priority and urgency needed to try to shift electricity production away from fossil fuels definitively. Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), I look forward to the day when I can turn my lights on knowing that the electricity has been produced by the sun or wind.
I will acknowledge four excellent projects in my constituency, which are brilliant examples—or potential future examples—of community energy. South Brent Community Energy Society runs a community energy fund with the surplus from the operation of the wind turbine and solar panels that have been erected in the village. The fund is directed to new energy saving measures and renewable energy generation projects for the benefit of the community. Charities, schools and community groups have all benefited from the surplus energy that it produces, and it is a brilliant example of what can be done in a village environment with a community energy project.
Totnes Renewable Energy Society has solar panels on the roof of the civic hall that I can see from my bedroom window, and that power the electricity in my house, along with others. We also have a turbine in the river, which sadly does not have a name such as Thunder or Lightning like the ones in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), but does power the local high school. I also give a shout-out to Sustainable Blackawton, which is keen to find a site for a wind turbine, and to the Bigbury Fan Club, which is setting out on a long journey to try to get a turbine there.
I have spoken to many constituents who are excited by the prospect of creating new solar or wind projects on community or municipal buildings, or wind turbines in a village, but they are struggling. It is complicated to get planning permission, it is difficult to get funding, and it is virtually impossible to connect new projects to the national grid. We must make it easier, simpler and faster to connect up community energy projects, not only so that we can transfer to clean energy, but so that communities across the country, like the brilliant example from Eigg in Scotland, can connect to renewable energy in that way.
In the early 2010s, we had the Green Investment Bank—what a shame that we lost it in 2014, and with it 10 years of potential investment in green projects. We need to catch up for the lost decade since the Liberal Democrats did so much to grow offshore wind when we were in office. We will support the Government’s ambitions to transform our energy network, but community energy must be at the heart of it and baked into the Bill, so that every village that agrees to a wind turbine can benefit from it, knowing that they are using their own clean, locally produced energy for the benefit of their community, for lower bills and for cleaner energy.
We are calling for larger energy suppliers to work with community schemes across the country so that we can sell power to local customers at a discounted rate and provide community benefits.
Ms Billington
I would like further clarification about this interesting proposition from the Liberal Democrats about community energy groups working with the big energy companies. What plans do the Liberal Democrats have for the concept of securing ownership at community level? My concern about the model being suggested is that, rather than there being a community energy ownership model, it would instead be one of big companies investing in small communities.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. The model would involve part ownership by the community and part ownership by large energy suppliers—
Caroline Voaden
And community energy groups—but, yes, I will hand over to my hon. Friend, if I am allowed to do so.
Pippa Heylings
I think I will intervene, if that is okay with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We welcome that question from the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington). In fact, there are multiple ownership models, so it is quite right to get clarification. Some of these will need investments from other companies, but others will—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Please be seated. We have a speech mid-flow. Is that correct?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Then please continue. If you wish to respond to that intervention, you may do so, and I will go to another speaker afterwards.
Caroline Voaden
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To guarantee that local communities receive a fair share of the wealth generated from community energy projects, it is crucial that these are at the heart of the Bill, so I would welcome the Government’s support for amendment 5.
Luke Murphy
I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Report stage of the Great British Energy Bill. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who gave such eloquent and powerful maiden speeches earlier in the debate. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who showed such leadership on this issue prior to her being elected to this House. As well as commenting on the overall thrust of the Bill, I want to comment on new clause 1 and amendments 6, 8 and 5.
It is somewhat surprising and, indeed, interesting to hear Conservative Members calling for a review of the effective delivery of energy policy, for legislation to reduce energy bills by £300 and for the creation of jobs as a result, not least because a review of energy policy and the trajectory of bills and jobs created under the previous Government would reveal some stark facts. Every family and business in Britain paid the price of 14 years of Conservative failure through rocketing energy bills. Indeed, Britain faced a worse cost of living crisis than other countries, because the Tories left us exposed to international fossil fuel markets controlled by dictators such as Putin.
When I said in my intervention on the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who has since vacated the Opposition Front Bench, that we were reliant on Putin, she responded that I did not understand energy markets. I am afraid that just shows that she does not understand energy markets, because the truth is that we are at the mercy of international markets of which Russia is a part. The previous Government did absolutely nothing to reduce our reliance on volatile fossil fuels, and as a result of their failure to invest in clean energy, they left us with a legacy of high energy bills, energy insecurity and a lack of clean energy jobs. With our plans for Great British Energy and clean power by 2030, the new Labour Government are determined to change that.
I am somewhat surprised by amendment 8, which calls for legislating the creation of 650,000 jobs, not least because we create these jobs not through legislation but by having a meaningful industrial strategy, which was lacking under the previous Government. Figures from the Institute for Public Policy Research—which, I must admit, is my former employer—show that around 4% of our GDP is made up of green goods and services compared with the European average of 6%. If we had had an industrial strategy and created jobs from offshore wind at the same rate as Denmark did from its offshore sector, we could have green goods and services making up 11.5% of the economy and we could have created 100,000 more jobs. So although I admire the chutzpah of Opposition Members calling for price reductions, and the creation of 650,000 jobs, through legislation, I welcome instead our approach of creating a publicly owned energy generation company—the first in 75 years.
Andrew Bowie
All we are asking through our amendments is for the Government to put on the face of the Bill what they promised the British people, in their manifesto and many election campaign commitments, that Great British Energy would achieve. Why will the hon. Gentleman not challenge his Ministers to put on the face of this Bill the very things on which he stood for election, such as the creation of 650,000 jobs and the reduction of bills by £300?
Luke Murphy
I have to say that, whoever is the winner of the Conservative party leadership contest, I am not sure legislating for the creation of 650,000 jobs is the direction in which they will be heading. I do not believe we can legislate our way to job creation; I believe that is done by introducing an industrial strategy, something that was so lacking in the last 14 years.
Harriet Cross
Does the hon. Member appreciate that the issue is not legislating for jobs but the lack of accountability in the Bill?
Luke Murphy
We have set out our industrial strategy, along with this Bill on GB Energy, and a few weeks ago, with the investment summit, the investment that will be coming in. I am confident that the best way of creating jobs is through the industrial strategy and the creation of GB Energy. Yes, we made those commitments and I am confident that by 2030 we will have met our clean power target, reduced bills and created jobs and revived the industry across the country.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman is so confident in the policies of his Front Bench, will he take this moment to use the words that were used before the election by the Energy Secretary? He can repeat after me if it makes it easier: “We will cut bills by £300.”
Luke Murphy
I will take absolutely no lectures from Conservative Members about the need to reduce energy bills after they soared under the previous Government. Great British Energy’s core focus will be to drive clean energy deployments to create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure British taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy. I am also surprised by the Conservatives’ opposition to a publicly owned clean energy company, not least because 50% of our offshore wind capacity is already publicly owned but by foreign states. I am surprised that Conservative Members are so happy with that scenario.
On amendment 5, I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for community energy, but as my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet commented, it is in the founding statement. Labour Members are absolutely committed to community energy. It does not need to be on the face of the Bill, but it is important that it is part of the founding statement of GB Energy. Opposition Members can be reassured that we will champion community energy. In Basingstoke, we have Basingstoke Energy Services Co-op, which is a wonderful champion for this issue. I look forward to seeing what GB Energy will deliver for such community organisations.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 1, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), and amendment 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
I am supportive of the Bill in the abstract, and I am certainly supportive of its headline ambitions, like many Members, but I trust that the Minister is hearing what the House is saying today about the substantive lack of information and detail, and the troubling direction of travel, which will place significant executive authority in the hands of the Secretary of State in discharging GB Energy’s responsibilities.
It is a pity, too, that the attrition to the original budget of £28 billion has nearly quartered it to £8 billion. I hope that the jobs associated with this implied investment do not go the same way as the budget, before they get the chance to take root in the north-east of Scotland and support my constituents and many others in that part of the country. It is a shame that the only person appointed to GB Energy is not working in Scotland at all. I am not sure that was on the script going into the election, but it seems to be what has happened afterwards.
Amendment 1 from the SNP asks the Labour Government to deliver upon what they said they would do ahead of the election. That does not strike me as particularly unreasonable. I do not think our amendment will be selected for separate decision, so I think we will be forced to vote with amendment 6 in the name of the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), which asks for basically the same thing. [Interruption.] The Minister is getting very excited. Of course, we would not have had to table an amendment if the Labour party had just put the measure in the Bill. It was in the leaflets, so I do not know why it was not in the Bill. It is also no longer £300 that we need to see reduced from hard-pressed working people’s bills. Since Labour made that claim, bills have gone up by £149, so the Government will need to get £449 off people’s bills before they can get back to where they started, certainly in terms of them having any credibility.
The Liberal Democrats have a well-worded and noble ambition on community energy, and the SNP would have been pleased to support it. One of the things missing from GB Energy is a statutory responsibility to develop and accelerate community energy at pace in a measured fashion. Referring back to my opening remarks, I am supportive of the Bill’s outline ambitions, but I am worried about the lack of detail. The more we discuss and debate the Bill, the more I am concerned that GB Energy will end up doing lots of things that nobody particularly needed it to do, because they were all done by a department within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
What we do not have is what people want GB Energy to do. We do want it to generate energy independently and to have an effect on the energy market in the United Kingdom. We do want it to sell energy to the retail market. We do want it to buy community energy from community energy generators and to introduce it into the market. And we do want it to enable community energy and to lower bills.
Ms Billington
All the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are exactly what GB Energy will do. There is literally no reason why he cannot go through the Lobby with Labour Members this evening, because the Great British Energy Bill will do all the things he has asked for it to do. It is nothing to do with sucking up the energy of the civil servants doing policy; that is a completely different role, and they will continue their work.
Dave Doogan
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I politely disagree. No amount of emphasis on her part will change the detail in the Bill, and that is what MPs are concerned about.
Dave Doogan
No, I am going to make progress.
The Minister has advised us that GB Energy will not seek to displace foreign-owned energy companies but will instead crowd in investment. In reference to the previously mentioned £300 bill reduction, he has also said that GB Energy will play a role in lowering bills but that that will not happen immediately. When he sums up, perhaps he can tell us when that will be, because it is not unreasonable for people to hear that ambition and to want to see a timeline attached to it. I also mentioned the attrition in GB Energy’s funding. Given its now drastically reduced funding, will the Minister advise us what challenges he sees GB Energy facing?
When the Secretary of State was in opposition, he often made big play of the fact that there is a nationalised energy industry in the United Kingdom but that none of it is owned by the United Kingdom—it is all foreign. It seems a little odd that there is not the ambition, now that he is actually in power, to deliver that ownership.
Luke Murphy
Could the hon. Member update the House on the progress of the SNP Government’s commitment in 2017 to create a publicly owned energy company by 2021?
Dave Doogan
He can indeed. The hon. Member may think he is being terribly smart—he is a self-professed expert in the energy market—but he will know how difficult it is for someone to penetrate the UK energy market unless they happen to be a large plc or a multinational. When the Scottish Government took forward that noble ambition, they found precisely the same barriers to entry as community energy companies and trusts. If the hon. Member wants to get excited about that situation, I suggest he takes it up with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Mr Angus MacDonald
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the SNP Government have left community benefit at the same £5,000 level it was in 2014, even though prices have gone through the roof? Their advisory information could have been changed. They have been pressed on the issue many times because it has severely damaged the income of rural communities.
Dave Doogan
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but if he wants to get in touch with me after the debate, I will be happy to discuss it further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We are debating the amendments to the Bill, not SNP policy.
Dave Doogan
Well, indeed.
Will the Minister advise us whether we are talking about GB electricity or GB energy? I would be keen to know what investments and ambition this supposedly state-owned company—I have to grit my teeth when I say that, because it is actually little more than a trading fund—will be involved in? Will it be involved in carbon capture, utilisation and storage? Will it be involved in attenuated hydro? Will it be involved in pumped storage, geothermal or hydrogen? What are the limits of GB Energy? That is not in the Bill, and we do not understand what it will deliver. As other hon. Members have asked, what is the Government’s ambition on GB Energy when it comes to Grangemouth? Is it just limited to the common or garden production of electricity?
I will not vote with the Government on the Bill. I do not want to condemn it as an election prop that is now desperately looking for some sort of function—I hope it amounts to more than that—but I will vote for the amendments, and so will my colleagues, to try to make some sense of the Bill.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill’s job is to set up a new and unique public energy company, to work within the clear objects set out in clause 3(2)—not simply as an investment bank, but as part of a developing strategy for renewables across the UK.
Cornwall, where I am from, is set to benefit hugely from the investment from GB Energy into unblocking floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, which will create jobs. Cornwall was post-industrial a long time ago, and we need the kind of investment that GB Energy can bring. We also have a strong local area energy plan, which is an integral part of Cornwall’s renewable energy offer. It has co-operative, community and local authority energy as part of that plan, and as a Co-operative MP I support the local power plan that the Government are proposing, which will be part of GB Energy. We could have partnerships for deep geothermal energy on council land, which would bring potential for partnerships with local authorities and others. In Cornwall we have had numerous community energy schemes, such as the one in Ladock at the end of last Labour Government, before the Conservatives cut the schemes and the feed-in tariffs. We could invest in infrastructure with GB Energy, in partnership with the Crown Estate, for the cables, the grid and, potentially, even the ports.
The Bill offers a huge opportunity. There is so much that GB Energy can do in future as part of a developing strategy to secure clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it says in the Bill. As its ambitions and horizons expand, in partnership with the Crown Estate and others, so too must its object and its strategy be able to expand.
Sammy Wilson
I rise to support amendments 6 and 8. The Bill was promised in order to do a number of things. First, it was to reduce the cost of energy to consumers—during the election, the Government gave a specific promise that the reduction this year would be £300 per household. As others have said, and as the Government have accepted, that will not be delivered. That is not a great start. Secondly, it was going to deliver a certain number of jobs. Thirdly, it was going to deliver sustainable and clean energy, and energy security. The Government could argue that these things are in the Bill’s strategic objectives and priorities, but they are not. I do not believe that any of those things can be achieved, given the net zero strategy that we are pursuing.
Let us take the first claim: that costs for consumers would come down. We know that they will not come down this year, and given what needs to be done to deliver the strategy, huge costs will be imposed on consumers. We will turn our backs on a lot of the hard plans we already have in place, even though they are not defunct. We are going to build new power sources. Whether they are built by the state or by power companies, capital expenditure will be involved, and there will be a return on that capital. Who will give the return on that capital to the companies? It will be the consumers. We are going to build many of these power sources away from where people live, because the open areas for wind or solar are not beside centres of population.
We already know that putting in a totally new network will require a huge expenditure of billions—indeed, some have mentioned it here today. That will be costly and controversial. I have listened to Members today saying, “Oh, to ensure the lights are turned on and there is a supply of energy, my constituents will be quite happy to have huge pylons erected in their back gardens or down beside their houses.” Of course they won’t; it will be controversial. That is why the Government will have to change the planning system, too.
Graham Stringer
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this debate would be much easier if the Committee on Climate Change had produced a year-by-year estimate of the costs of getting to net zero by 2050? The previous Government always promised to do a proper impact assessment on costs, but they never did. I believe that this Government should do that, so we can have an objective and evidence-based debate. Does he agree?
Sammy Wilson
I do agree. There have been variations on the cost, from £3 trillion to £10 trillion by 2050. Those Monopoly money figures mean nothing to people. Setting out the cost on a year-to-year basis, where people understand and Members who vote in this House understand what they are putting in front of their constituents by way of bills, would at least be honest. It would also mean there could be a proper debate.
I support amendment 6, which includes the price commitment. The second commitment was on jobs. We are told there will be 650,000 jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) who said that we cannot legislate for jobs. That is quite right. But if a promise is made about the job implications of a policy, there should be no fear of sticking it in the Bill. Not that the Government are going to produce those jobs; the companies are going to produce them. We could then measure that. If the Government cannot legislate for jobs, they should not promise that they are going to create 650,000 jobs, especially at a time when we know that jobs are being lost as a result of commitments relating to North sea oil and energy-efficient industries. The emissions trading scheme means that there is little or no investment in Grangemouth, for instance, and the place is going to close.
Luke Murphy
Successive Governments have made commitments on jobs, but can the right hon. Gentleman name any Government who have legislated for a jobs target? Can he specify a single Bill that has contained such a measure?
Sammy Wilson
As I have just said, it cannot be done. What I have said is that a Government should not make a promise if they believe that when the Bill in question is scrutinised, that promise will not be fulfilled—especially here, when it is known that the policy will cost jobs, and unions have already made that point.
I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) in respect of the impacts on nature. I come from one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom—the Antrim coast is famous for tourism—and I am already seeing the impact of net zero policies on the landscape and the flora and fauna of the Antrim plateau. When I look out of my window in the morning, there is the wind farm that has been erected on top of the plateau, which involved stripping off 3 metres of peat and destroying a bird habitat; every year these windmills chew up birds and bats. I have already mentioned the admission that 17 million trees had been cut down in Scottish forests, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was unfortunate to mention the Sperrins, another beautiful part of Northern Ireland of which I have some knowledge and which has been totally despoiled by hundreds of windmills.
Let us not pretend, then, that the policy of renewables is a green, clean policy, because it is not. Let us be honest: any energy production will require the extraction of fuels and materials from the earth, and that in itself will be destructive, so let us not describe it as nature-friendly or green. Let us just accept that what we need if we are to bring about economic growth and reduce the cost of living for our constituents is the cheapest, most available fuel that we can have. That will drive economic growth and decrease the cost of living, and that is the kind of energy policy that the Government ought to be following.
Perran Moon
The Conservatives are generally adamant that there very are few Labour Members with any business experience, so having spent more than 30 years in business—latterly in electric vehicle charging infrastructure—I was reassured to learn while listening to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) that there is at least one Conservative who is not a renewable-energy Luddite, and I am glad to see him back in his place. I wish that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) would spend a bit of time understanding a little more about geothermal energy, which does not require the wind to blow or the sun to shine.
I was honoured to be part of the Committee considering the Great British Energy Bill, a core plank of this Government’s policy programme whose benefits will be felt in every corner of the UK, including my own constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), for their diligent work on and defence of this transformational Bill. Let me also put on record my thanks not just to my right hon. and hon. Friends who sat on the Committee, but to other Members on both sides of the House who contributed to it.
I will refer to the amendments. In Committee we heard from experts and stakeholders, and we extensively debated the issues, from oversight to community benefit. Opposition Members who were on the Committee know that, because they were there. As I said when I made my maiden speech on Second Reading, my focus will be on using the opportunities of this Bill to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.
Renewable energy—onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, tidal and solar—and critical minerals such as tin, lithium, tungsten and manganese are fundamental for our transition away from fossil fuels. There is no silver bullet; we need a mix of renewable energy, which will form part of our policy going forward. That is what GB Energy will give us the opportunity to do.
There are few areas of the UK where there is a greater distillation of renewable energy and critical mineral opportunities than in Cornwall. I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about human rights and the opportunity to produce domestically an awful lot of the energy and the critical minerals that we currently import from places such as China, Indonesia, Australia and South America. As a result, there are extremely high expectations in Cornwall for local jobs in industries that support community initiatives and domestic supply chains in one of the most deprived areas of northern Europe.
Given the distillation of raw materials and natural resources in Cornwall, the fact that the new Centre for Critical Minerals, which will accelerate the move towards a green economy, opened very recently in Cornwall, and the fact that Exeter University, which has a campus in Penryn, has the largest number of top-100 climate scientists in the world, it will not come as a surprise to the Minister that I ask him to consider opening a satellite office for Great British Energy in Cornwall. They may not want it in Aberdeen, but we want it in Cornwall.
I support the Bill as it is. We discussed the amendments in Committee, and I look forward to the opportunities that this Bill will bring to the people of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To ensure that I can call everybody in the time remaining, Back-Bench speeches will be limited to three minutes, after a maiden speech by Iqbal Mohamed.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Erewash (Adam Thompson) on their excellent maiden speeches. They have set a high bar that I will struggle to match.
I thank the people of Dewsbury and Batley for the trust they have placed in me. I am honoured and humbled to be their representative and a voice for all residents. Dewsbury and Batley is a newly formed constituency, so I thank my two predecessors. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her service as the MP for Batley and Spen. She helped secure funding for the town centre, and became an MBE for helping to promote social cohesion and tackling loneliness. I wish her well as the new Member for Spen Valley.
Secondly, I thank Mark Eastwood for his service as the MP for Dewsbury. He was a man of great perseverance and helped secure over £40 million in funding for the town. I am honoured to follow Mark as the second locally born and bred MP for Dewsbury.
I stand here as the eldest of six children born to Gujarati Indian immigrants who came here in the ’60s. I am an immensely proud, passionate and no-nonsense British Indian Muslim Yorkshireman who grew up on a council estate in Dewsbury Moor on free school meals and uniforms. My late father, Gulam Ahmed, and my mother, Noorjhan Fatima, gave us love, put food in our bellies and taught us proper British and Islamic values, such as honesty, integrity, hard work, friendship, compassion and wanting the best for others.
My political journey started when I was around nine or 10 years old. I remember standing in front of my parents’ wardrobe mirror and asking God to make me one of two things when I grew up. I asked to be either a “Blue Peter” presenter, because a job that paid you to travel the world, do amazing activities and be on TV was surely the best gig in town, or—and I did not know why at the time—I asked God to make me a parliamentarian. I remember looking down at the colour of my skin and thinking that that might be difficult, but here I am today in the most diverse Parliament in history, where I look forward to breaking down barriers, making friends, doing good and preventing harm. If a “Blue Peter” producer is watching, however, I am still available for a guest appearance or a Christmas special.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Energy is at the heart of our economy. It powers our homes, our schools, our workplaces and even our democracy. Most importantly, it is at the heart of our communities. This Bill must ensure that it brings those communities and community energy projects with it, which is why I am speaking wholeheartedly in support of amendment 5.
Local to Harpenden and Berkhamsted is the Grand Union Community Energy benefit society, which runs several community energy fund schemes, including solar canopies, and is investigating heating from aquifers. As a not-for-profit, it aims to use its proceeds to help householders, especially the most vulnerable, to reduce their energy bills and energy use. It also supports other community organisations that do not have a regular income. In Berkhamsted, it has worked with Sunnyside Rural Trust to review the energy strategy of its Northchurch site. I have spoken to passionate members, such as Sarah, Paul and John, about why they are making it work and the difficulties they face.
If we are to reach net zero, community energy is needed to fill a gap between individuals, businesses and councils. It was John who reminded me that if community energy is supported, there is a significant resource of people ready and waiting to put their voluntary efforts into getting schemes off the ground. By their very nature, they are embedded in their communities, and we must bring our communities with us if we are to make the change that is needed.
However, our community energy projects need support. Community energy projects face insurmountable costs when trying to sell the power they generate to local consumers. Grand Union Community Energy is nervous about taking on the delivery of projects, as there is uncertainty about how electricity prices may change in the future. Community energy needs stability too. As it stands, community energy schemes find it nigh impossible to sell their power directly to local consumers, which leaves pricing and some projects financially unviable without further support.
Previously, feed-in tariffs helped to provide pricing stability, but when that scheme ended in 2019, many planned community projects were scrapped and the number of new projects slowed significantly. Current access to funding has been vague, erratic and uncertain, especially since the rural community energy scheme ended, and I know many people have not bothered to apply for funding because they find it so difficult.
We must unlock the potential of our community energy projects, and that is why I support amendment 5. There are many ownership models. The Liberal Democrats are calling for large energy suppliers, when they work with community energy projects, to work with them to sell the power they generate to local customers at a discounted rate and provide community benefits. Overall, we must ensure that these projects are financially viable and supported with technical, commercial and legal advice, and we must seize this opportunity to bring our communities with us.
Wera Hobhouse
I welcome that the Government are taking renewable energy investment seriously and creating a mechanism for it. In common with many Liberal Democrat Members, I will focus on amendment 5, which would specifically require Great British Energy to support community energy projects as part of its strategic priorities.
Labour Front Benchers have supported community energy for a long time, and cross-party support was clearly displayed on Second Reading, as it is by the large number of Members’ signatures on amendment 5. The same was true of my amendment 2, which was sadly defeated in Committee. To their credit, the previous Government introduced the community energy fund, which made a difference, but more needs to be done to support community energy. Despite strong cross-party support for community energy, the Great British Energy Bill makes no mention of it. Liberal Democrat Members believe that it should be on the face of the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister said that including community energy in the Bill was not appropriate. I understand that GB Energy is not precluded from supporting community energy by the Bill, just as I understand the Government’s argument that if the new company is to be able to work flexibly, it should not be hampered by too many provisions in the Bill. However, our concern remains that unless something concrete is included in the Bill, future Ministers, Governments or chief executives of Great British Energy may decide not to support community energy and the full benefits of local energy may not be realised. Amendment 5 would strengthen the Bill in line with the clear parliamentary consensus in support of growth in this highly promising clean energy sector.
The community energy sector has seen minimal growth in recent years. It has suffered from damaging policies, such as the end of the feed-in tariffs that helped fuel growth. Since 2010, there has been no growth in the sector. Regulatory changes are required to ensure that communities receive the benefits they deserve for hosting clean energy infrastructure. All of these arguments are well understood and the benefits of community energy have been well researched. The new Government have said time and again that they support community energy and that it is a shared aim.
I welcome the conversation and the open debate on this issue. I understand that the Government take issue with putting the term “priority” on the face of the Bill. The passage of the Bill has not reached its final stages, and there is room for further debate. I very much hope that the Government recognise how strongly colleagues across the House feel about including specific support for community energy, and that such an inclusion will create cross-party support for the Bill as a whole.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
First, let me congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) on his passionate maiden speech.
I rise to speak to amendments 11 and 12, tabled in my name, which seek to provide certainty to particular energy sectors that they will be prioritised by GB Energy. I must declare an interest as an officer of the marine energy all-party parliamentary group, of which the UK Marine Energy Council is the secretariat.
Nick Timothy
I shall speak briefly about amendment 6 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho).
In this debate, we have heard much from Government Members about cleaner and cheaper energy, not much of which has been connected to reality. This has been exposed by Labour’s campaigning before the election, promising £300 off bills, only to drop that commitment as soon as the party entered government. That disconnect, as I have said, has been present throughout the debate.
Blind faith in renewable technology without the acceptance of the intermittency challenges and costs of wind and solar will lead to less security of supply and higher costs for industry and households. We cannot allow policy to run faster than technology without risking a crisis in the grid and, therefore, in our economy. We need baseload power, which means nuclear—where the Secretary of State is going slow—and oil and gas, where the Secretary of State is refusing new licences. To pursue the ideological objectives of the Secretary of State, we see giant solar farms forced on communities like mine, against expert advice by examining authorities, contrary to the quasi-judicial responsibilities of the Secretary of State and dependent on solar panels made by slaves in Xinjiang. I say enough of the nonsense about fossil fuels and the dependence on dictators.
Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce her intention to borrow to invest. We know that the borrowing will not just be for investment, but what investment there is will be dominated by energy schemes that will cost more to do less. We do have an underinvested economy, but net zero zealotry will make the problem worse, not better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I thank all Members who have made contributions to the debate, and I am grateful for all the points raised in Committee. I thank the witnesses who gave their time to the Committee, as well as the Clerks, House staff and civil servants, who put so much work into legislation such as this. I apologise to the House in advance both for the speed of my speaking and the speed with which I will have to go through the amendments—there is not a huge amount of time left.
First, I want to highlight the three maiden speeches that we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) gave an incredibly emotional speech, and spoke passionately about the importance of the state having an impact on people’s lives. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) for telling us, apart from anything else, how to pronounce his constituency, and to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who I am sure will at least receive a Blue Peter badge in the post for his speech.
Great British Energy is at the heart of our clean power mission, and the Bill provides the statutory basis for it, enabling the Government to deliver on the ambitions that we set out during the election and that the country voted for so resoundingly just a few months ago. Let me turn to the amendments. New clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), would create additional reporting mechanisms for Great British Energy. I agree with her that Great British Energy should be accountable, transparent and open in all its dealings and in how it delivers a return on investment. That is why we have made provision in the Bill to ensure that regular updates are given in the form of annual reports and accounts, which will be laid before Parliament for all Members to review. Of course, as a company, it will undergo external audit in the usual manner. As I outlined in Committee, my view remains that adding additional requirements at such frequent intervals is disproportionate and will stop the company from getting on with delivering its mission.
On amendments 6 and 7 in the name of the right hon. Member for East Surrey, and amendment 1 in the name of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), every family and business in this country has paid the price for our dependence on fossil fuels during the cost of living crisis. Speeding up the roll-out of clean energy is the only way to get our country off the rollercoaster of volatile international gas markets and to protect families from future energy shocks. That is the argument that the Conservative party used to support but that it seems increasingly to distance itself from, as it has with so many principled positions.
Michael Shanks
I do not have time, I am afraid.
We are unapologetic that Great British Energy is a long-term project for this country, as part of a sustainable, long-term plan to protect bill payers for good. I stand by that commitment today. However, I also say, as we have said about so much of the mess that we have to clean up, that we cannot simply flick a switch and turn everything around, which is why these amendments are inappropriate. Conservative Members would never have made such amendments to a Bill when they were in government.
Let me turn to the amendments on jobs and industrial strategy. The Government are clear that clean energy is the economic and industrial opportunity of our time. Around the world, a race for jobs and industries of the future is speeding up, but for too long Britain has opted out and lost out. Great British Energy is at the heart of our plan to change that. It will help to rebuild the UK’s industrial heartlands through its investments across every part of the UK, and locating Great British Energy’s headquarters in Aberdeen will tap into the high-quality talent pool of Aberdeen and Scotland as a whole. We will use every tool at our disposal to win jobs for Britain. We have established the office for clean energy jobs, and are focused on developing the skills of the future, so that we have a workforce that can deliver what we need in future. Crucially, it is why the Government are, as many hon. Members have said, committed to a proper industrial strategy.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) relate to the timeline for establishing Great British Energy, to energy efficiency and to community energy. Although I welcome and, frankly, share the hon. Member’s eagerness to get Great British Energy up and running as quickly as possible, we will not be supporting amendment 3. The Government have already shown themselves to be committed to setting up Great British Energy as quickly as possible, and there will be no further delays in doing so. Indeed, of all the things that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could be accused of, not moving quickly is not one of them.
Michael Shanks
I do not have time—I have a minute in which to finish.
I hope the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will recognise that there is really no need to put an amendment such as this one on the face of the Bill. Turning to her amendment on the topic of community energy, she will know, however, that I am passionate about community energy, as are the Government. It will form an integral part of Great British Energy’s local power plan, which will put communities at the heart of the energy transition, giving them a stake in the shift to net zero. As a member of not just the Labour party but the Co-operative party, that is at the heart of my politics and that of many of my hon. Friends. We have been advocating for community energy for decades—this is not a new idea for us—and empowering communities is critical. The hon. Lady and I share that passion and a commitment to community energy.
I can assure the House that the Department is looking to take a cross-government approach—not just through Great British Energy but, crucially, on a number of the points that have been made—to ensuring that community energy projects can be delivered, with all the changes to planning and governance that are required to make that happen. I always want to work with Members across this House, and have done so throughout the passage of the Bill. We continue to engage with the Liberal Democrats and other interested parties on this important issue, exploring options to ensure the Bill has the effects they are seeking. I look forward to further such discussions in the weeks and months ahead. I hope all who have tabled or spoken to amendments today will feel reassured by what I have outlined—albeit considerably more briefly than I was expecting—and will perhaps feel able to withdraw, or not move, their amendments.
This is a truly historic Bill, delivering on the Government’s promise to establish a new national, publicly owned energy champion for our country. It has been a privilege to take it through Committee, and I repeat my sincere thanks to everyone involved in that process. Great British Energy is the right idea for energy security, for bills, for jobs, and for delivering the climate leadership that the people of this country demand of their Government. It is the right idea for our time, hugely supported by the British public, and I urge all Members of the House to support it this evening.
Claire Coutinho
I also thank the Minister for his work in Committee, but I am afraid we are not reassured. Labour Members have a clear opportunity to prove to their constituents that they will stick to the promises they made just a few months ago. They promised to cut energy bills by £300 and to create 650,000 jobs; if Labour Members do not vote for amendments 6 and 8 this evening, we will know that they never had any intention of delivering on those promises. With the leave of the House, I will seek to withdraw new clause 1, which stands in my name, but we look forward to dividing the House on amendments 6 and 8.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
Objects
Amendment proposed: 4, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and
(f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”—(Pippa Heylings.)
This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a privilege to open the Third Reading debate—another milestone in setting up Great British Energy. In less than four months, this Government have incorporated GBE as a company, appointed Juergen Maier as its start-up chair, and launched its first partnership with the Crown Estate. Next will be the national wealth fund. Earlier this month, we announced GBE’s partnership with key public bodies in Scotland. We have also announced its headquarters in Aberdeen. We are acting on our mandate from the British people.
I want to thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage: the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who has done an incredible job steering the Bill through Committee; Members across the House who have scrutinised the Bill in Committee; all the parliamentary staff who have worked on the Bill; and the fantastic officials in my Department who have moved at such speed over the last four months.
I also want to thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee, all of whom were in support of establishing Great British Energy. I am sure that the House will be interested in the list. They include SSE, EDF, Energy UK, RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Nesta, the Green Alliance, the Net Zero Technology Centre, the TUC, Prospect and the GMB. And they are not the only ones. I can inform the House that they join a growing list of supporters, including the CBI, the Aldersgate Group, Octopus Energy, E.ON, the Hydrogen Energy Association, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Port of Aberdeen, the University of Aberdeen and, of course, the British people themselves, who overwhelmingly backed Great British Energy at the general election. Sadly, the only people you can find to oppose Great British Energy are the faction of a sect of a once-great party sitting on the Opposition Benches.
The reason for such support—this will be the argument behind politics for the next few years—is that this country recognises it is time to invest in Britain’s future and put an end to the decline of the last 14 years. That is the choice of this Bill and the choice of the coming years in British politics, and we should relish it: invest or decline.
Sarah Champion
I am fully supportive of GB Energy, but what assurances can my right hon. Friend give to the House that it will be a just transition, that it will be adopted across Government, and that the broadest sector will buy into it?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has made really important interventions on this point. We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain, and we will be working with colleagues across Government to tackle the issue of the Uyghur forced labour in supply chains that she has raised during the passage of the Bill. As part of that, we have relaunched the solar taskforce and we will work with industry, trade unions and others to take forward the actions needed to develop supply chains that are resilient, sustainable and free from forced labour.
Great British Energy is the national champion that our country needs, for three reasons. First, it is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Every family and business has paid the price for our country’s exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets over the last two and a half years. A sprint to clean energy is the way to increase our energy independence and protect families and businesses. We need to invest in wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, hydrogen, carbon capture and more—geothermal too.
Secondly, Great British Energy will help to generate the jobs the UK needs, not just the power. Here’s the thing: our European neighbours recognise that a publicly owned national champion is a critical tool in industrial policy, and the good news is that after 14 years of industrial policy being a dirty, taboo phrase, it is back at the heart of policy making in this Government. Great British Energy is part of our plan to ensure that the future is made and built in Britain.
Thirdly, Great British Energy will ensure that the British people reap the benefits of our natural energy resources, generating profits that can be returned to bill payers, taxpayers and communities across the country. I know that many Members of the House are passionate about the issue of local power, so let me reassure them that the Government are committed to delivering the biggest expansion of support for community-owned energy in history.
Great British Energy is the right idea for our time and has in a short time won huge support. I am sorry that the Opposition have chosen to wallow in their minority status and stand out against it, but let me tell them: their vote tonight will have consequences. For every project that Great British Energy announces in constituencies around Britain, every job that it creates, every local solar project it initiates and every wind project it invests in, we will tell their constituents that they opposed it. They are the anti-jobs, pro-energy-insecurity party, and we will hang their opposition to GBE round their necks from here till the next general election. Invest or decline: that is the choice, and GBE is the right choice for energy security, bills and jobs. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Claire Coutinho
When we said that we could not support the Bill in its original form, it was because we had no detail to justify giving this Secretary of State a blank cheque for £8 billion of taxpayers’ money. In the intervening two months, I am afraid that we have not learned anything to give us confidence. We have not seen a business plan, a framework agreement or an explanation of how this is different from the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to do exactly the same thing.
We know that there will be a headquarters in Aberdeen, with a head who will be based 360 miles away in Manchester. We know that that same head does not think that the scope of Great British Energy includes reducing bills. I remind the Secretary of State that, in an interview in June, he said not only that he was ready to launch Great British Energy within days—so he should have this information—but that it would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. Now he has completed the embarrassment of the bright-eyed MPs behind him by forcing them to vote against their own election promises.
Tonight, Labour Members have voted against holding Great British Energy accountable for cutting people’s energy bills by £300 and for creating 650,000 jobs. The Secretary of State talks about hanging things around people’s necks. Well, he made his colleagues repeat those promises over and over again during the election, and we will see what the electorate remember. These are not trivial matters. This is about people’s energy bills, people’s jobs and businesses’ ability to succeed in this country. The risk is that this Government are heading towards a 2029 election in which industries have been lost and bills have gone up—exactly the opposite of what the electorate have been promised. That is not just my argument; it is the argument of the respected energy and climate economist Dieter Helm.
The Secretary of State, whether he is talking about Great British Energy or his plan for a zero-carbon grid by 2030, likes to talk in slogans and political mantras, but he does not deal in detail or fact. He knows that Great British Energy does not have the power to reduce household bills, which is why he has refused our attempts to hold him accountable for his own promises.
The Secretary of State argues that ramping up renewables at breakneck speed will lead to cheaper energy and greater security—I believe he just said that—but the latest renewable auction, which he bumped up, will increase people’s bills by £5. He has advertised to multimillion-pound energy companies that he will be buying whatever they are selling, no matter the cost, until 2030—he even named a few and said that they welcome his approach. I can understand why! I know that he does not have a business background, but he does not need one to understand what kind of signals he is sending.
The Secretary of State has not modelled the cost of constraint payments, network costs or green levies. He has deprioritised exciting new technologies such as small and advanced modular reactors, which will come online after 2030, and he refuses to address the question of dispatchable power. If not gas, what is he arguing for in its place and how much will it cost? Far from making energy cheaper and more secure, he will send people’s bills through the roof. And more and more people are sounding the alarm about whether he will even be able to keep the lights on, which we were able to do even during the height of an energy crisis.
Tonight, Labour Members have shown their true colours by voting against making their own energy company accountable. If the Secretary of State cannot even back up his own election promises, why should we back him on this Bill?
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
Ilkley Lido parking charges
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The future of our iconic Ilkley lido, a crown jewel of my constituency since 1935, is under threat. Despite that, Bradford council’s latest act has been to introduce parking charges at the site for the first time ever, without public consultation and at odds with every other pool in the district. This petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, and the wider Bradford district, notes these concerns, recognises the undue financial burden this will cause residents and local clubs who utilise the car park, including the Olicanian cricket club, which has no option but to use the Ilkley lido car park, and further notes that the Ilkley district is being treated unfairly by Bradford council compared with rest of the Bradford districts.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley,
Declares that for years, visitors have relied on free parking at Denton Road Car Park to make use of the Ilkley lido and other facilities; notes concern that Bradford Council have proposed parking charges at the popular site for the first time, which will impose an undue financial burden on residents and local clubs who utilise the car park, including Olicanian Cricket Club; and further notes that Ilkley is being treated unfairly compared to other pools and leisure facilities across the Bradford District, and that there has been a lack of consultation with the community.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Bradford Council to honour its previous commitment to ensure that parking charges at Denton Road Car Park do not adversely affect Ilkley Lido users and Olicanian Cricket Club, staff, players and members.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003017]
World Stroke Day
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I am grateful to have this opportunity to address the House on World Stroke Day. Stroke is the UK’s fourth biggest killer and the single largest cause of complex disability in the UK. On our current trajectory, the number of stroke survivors will increase by 60% over the next decade, which will swallow up nearly half the current NHS budget. By that time, one in three people in Glastonbury and Somerton will be 65 or older, so we will disproportionately feel the impact of the increase in strokes over the next decade.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She mentioned the age of 65, which is really important; in Northern Ireland, there are some 2,800 new strokes every year. While the majority of strokes affect people who are over the age of 65, they can strike at any age. Some 25% of people who have strokes are under the age of 65, so does the hon. Lady agree that we must get away from the notion that stroke awareness is only for older people, and that we must be very aware of the FAST signs—face, arms, speech and time—that can make the difference between death and recovery? It can happen to young people as well.
Sarah Dyke
The hon. Member makes a really important point. Although we often assume that it is older people who suffer with strokes, so many young people suffer in the same way.
Unless there are major improvements, Somerset’s poor ambulance response times and poor life-after-stroke care will mean that a disproportionate number of the 42,000 people who will die from stroke in 2035 will be from my constituency.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Further to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made, although I fully accept that we have to do more in terms of stroke care, does my hon. Friend agree that the population of this country is generally unaware of the early warning signs of stroke to look for? When it actually happens, we recognise the symptoms, but we have no awareness of the long-term warning signs. We need to invest in teaching people what to look for and how to care for themselves to avoid a stroke.
Sarah Dyke
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. I think we have progressed in our understanding of stroke awareness, but there is so much more yet to do.
Neither strokes nor the grim predictions I have made are inevitable. Stroke is preventable, it is treatable, and it is recoverable.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady allow me to place on record my thanks to the innovative team at the stroke unit in Crosshouse hospital, whose new treatment, thrombolysis, means that—as the hon. Lady said—there is a way for many people to recover following strokes? I would like to thank charge nurse Elizabeth, consultants Martin and Sundeep, and Julie and Debbie in the hospital management team for saving my former teacher, Christine Stewart, when she self-diagnosed with FAST.
Sarah Dyke
The hon. Member makes a very good point, and I also celebrate those people, who do such hard work within their communities.
The UK knows how to deliver world-class stroke care, and some parts of England are doing that as I speak. Stroke is one of the few conditions that takes patients through the entirety of the health and social care system, from emergency services and acute care to social care, specialist rehabilitation support and end-of-life care.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. Time is everything with regards to a stroke, particularly around diagnosis, but also if treatment such as thrombectomy is needed. Does she agree that we should be looking at ambulance response times in particular, and perhaps at recategorising stroke as a category 1 call-out?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and for all the work she has done in this area. I will come to the issue of ambulance response times a little later in my speech.
Delays in urgent care are currently leading to high mortality rates, and post-stroke services that provide crucial emotional, practical and social support are often treated as optional, rather than essential.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She rightly talks about the need for stroke patients to receive urgent medical treatment. Last month, I attended a thrombectomy awareness event at which my constituent, Mark Paterson, was speaking as a stroke survivor. Mark’s remarkable recovery was thanks to the emergency thrombectomy procedure he received. Sadly, many others are not so lucky, with too many people dying or suffering disability due to the previous Government’s postcode lottery in care. About this time last year, the Stroke Association said that about 9.8% of patients receive that treatment in London, compared with 0.4% in the east of England. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to see an increase in the proportion of patients receiving thrombectomies across the country?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. He makes a strong point.
Our health and social care services are likely failing the 14,159 registered stroke survivors in Somerset at some stage in the system, but there is reason to be optimistic. If the Government put stroke at the heart of our health and social care system, each and every part of the system will be stronger and deliver better outcomes for everyone—not just stroke survivors.
Leaving aside the human cost, there is also an economic cost, as strokes lead to an avoidable £1.6 billion annual loss of productivity. I recently spoke to Garry, who works in Somerset and had a stroke in his 30s. He told me that he could have been back to work after nine months if he had had access to life-after-stroke care. Instead, he spent five years recovering, during which time he had to rely on the benefits system. At the start of the debate, I said that stroke is preventable, treatable and recoverable. If that is true—I know that it is—why are people like Garry forced to waste years in the prime of their life learning how to recover from strokes themselves?
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an important point. Our clinical profession does an incredible job of saving many people who suffer from a stroke, but the rehabilitation work that follows surviving a stroke—the ability to get back into work, build emotional confidence and rebuild relationships—is so important. As she was detailing, too many people who survive strokes have to wait for years to get on with their lives, including their work, friendships and relationships.
Sarah Dyke
I wholeheartedly agree, and that is exactly the point that I was making.
Research from the Stroke Association shows that the NHS faces £1,300 of additional pressure for each person like Garry who does not receive life-after-stroke care, due to avoidable secondary strokes and other health complications. It is an injustice for stroke survivors who are suffering longer than they need to, for the taxpayer who could be paying less, and for the friends and families who often have no choice but to become unpaid carers to support stroke survivors, as my mum did for my dad after he suffered a stroke.
Unpaid carers currently bear 62% of the cost of prevalent strokes, with the NHS and social care bearing only a distant 9% and 22% respectively. Unpaid carers do a remarkable, important and often invisible job, and the Government must ensure they have access to the support that they need, including paid carer’s leave and a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks.
There are not many easy answers when it comes to stroke. Constituents across Glastonbury and Somerton have written to me almost every month since my re-election because they are concerned about the closure of Yeovil district hospital hyper-acute services. It is right that steps are being taken to address the fact that 60% of people who arrive at hospitals do not get into a stroke unit quickly enough, so services are being reconfigured to provide patients with cutting-edge care in Dorchester or Taunton.
By concentrating hyper-acute services, wards can process patients more quickly, which is so important when caring for patients suffering from a stroke. After critical care has been provided, patients will be moved back to services closer to their home, such as Yeovil, so that family and friends will be able to visit their loved ones there rather than in critical care further away. I can understand why people are scared of potentially having to travel further in an emergency when response times are so poor. In fact, with an average response time of 42 minutes and 50 seconds, people in Somerset wait longer for an ambulance than anywhere else in England. For every minute a stroke is left untreated, nearly 2 million brain cells die, so fast ambulance response times are necessary for getting stroke patients lifesaving, disability-reducing treatments in time.
This is especially important for those living in rural locations, such as Glastonbury and Somerton, who may need to travel further for treatment. Liberal Democrat analysis has revealed that waits for life-threatening calls are 45% longer in rural areas than in urban ones. The average handover time for a category 2 ambulance call in Somerset has risen to over an hour, despite the ongoing 18-minute target, which results in ambulance crew being able to see only two or three patients per shift. The Government could lower these ambulance response times by increasing the number of staffed hospital beds, and ensuring our social care system is resourced well enough to allow people to recover outside hospital. We know that a matter of minutes can make all the difference in emergencies, so it is heartbreaking that ambulance delays are worsening and stroke victims are being left for hours for help to arrive.
I am inspired by the stroke quality improvement for rehabilitation project, which has helped over half the stroke survivors who were previously being failed by services in Somerset. The pilot has ensured that survivors have access to personalised and face-to-face support to help them with behavioural changes and re-entering work. Despite its success in preventing secondary strokes, and thus saving the health and social care system a great deal of money, the pilot is unlikely to receive funding from April next year, and 250 patients in Somerset face the prospect of losing access to good-quality life-after-stroke support.
I am particularly worried about stroke survivors in Glastonbury and Somerton, and elsewhere in Somerset, who will instead have to rely on Yeovil district hospital if this happens, as Yeovil district hospital provides only the minimum level of occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech and language therapy a week to less than half as many patients as the national average. There is a future where we no longer need to have a World Stroke Day, and that is what I am looking for—a future without a World Stroke Day.
Innovations such as the use of artificial intelligence in diagnosis could revolutionise recovery prospects for stroke patients, and preventive programmes could limit the impact stroke has on working-age people. We saw stroke mortality halved in just 10 years when stroke was prioritised in 2000, so progress can be made. If we are to reach that future, though, we must start by ringfencing budgets to enable the NHS to adopt innovative digital tools, invest in new technologies and develop a digital strategy.
This Government have already begun to make some progress with the Darzi report, which showed that the NHS is on its knees after years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, but we must ensure that stroke remains a top priority in their health mission.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I would just like to share my experience. On my first day here in the Commons, my husband suffered a stroke. This is a timely debate, so I thank the hon. Member for securing it. I am pleased to say that my husband is doing much better now, and he is here in the Gallery of the Chamber, as are those from the Stroke Association, who have been absolutely invaluable to our family and many stroke survivors across the country.
I would like to pick up a point that the hon. Member made about stroke. One in four strokes happens to people of working age, and one in three in this group will have to give up their jobs. It is very clear that, although the NHS has given excellent care to my husband and to families such as mine, there is much more to be done. The Darzi report revealed the scale of the challenges that our health service faces, especially with stroke services, and the severe impact of the underfunding of the last Conservative Government.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Lady, and it is so good to hear that her husband is making such a full and quick recovery.
World Stroke Day is a pertinent reminder that stroke must be well represented in the new 10-year health plan and that the Government must engage with patients, carers, and health and social care professionals, so that their lived experiences can help inform policy decisions.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing a debate on this vitally important issue. It is important not only for her constituents but for her personally, I think, given her family circumstances; I know she really spoke from the heart and we appreciate that.
Good health should be fundamental to all of our lives, but sadly that is not the case for too many people. Over 100,000 people have a stroke in the UK every year—one person every five minutes. One third of them will be left with some form of long-term disability. As the fourth largest cause of death for adults, stroke has a devastating impact on individuals, their families and wider communities across our country.
For decades the NHS has served us well, and it is one of the proudest achievements of the Labour party that we were at the foundation of our NHS. Our staff have tremendous expertise and dedication; they are working hard every day to make a difference. But we have to face up to the reality that we have had 14 years of neglect and incompetence on the part of the Conservative party. We are now facing a very significant set of challenges in looking to get our health and care system back on its feet and fit for the future. That is the important context for this debate.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton for giving me the opportunity to inform her and the House of the work that the Government have been doing since we came into office on 4 July, and particularly as today is World Stroke Day. The House will have seen that we have set out the three transformative shifts that we want to deliver in health and care, moving from care in hospitals to care at home, prioritising prevention over treatment, and advancing from analogue to digital solutions. These three strategic shifts will be the building blocks of our health mission, reducing time spent in poor health, tackling health inequalities and reducing lives lost from the biggest killers, which include cardiovascular disease.
We have to change the NHS so that it is no longer just a sickness service but a prevention service too. Prevention is always better and cheaper than cure. So we have to take preventive public health measures to tackle the biggest killers and support people to live longer, healthier lives. That is why in our health mission to build an NHS that is fit for the future, we have committed to reducing deaths from heart disease and strokes by one quarter within 10 years. The NHS health check, England’s flagship cardiovascular disease prevention programme, aims to prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, kidney disease and some forms of dementia. Each year the programme engages over 1.3 million people and, through behavioural and clinical interventions, prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes.
To improve access to and engagement with this life-saving programme, we are developing a new digital NHS health check, which will be ready for testing in early 2025. It will enable people to undertake a check at home. We are also trialling more than 130,000 life-saving heart health checks in the workplace. These checks can be completed quickly and easily by people at work so that they can understand and act on their cardiovascular risk and reduce their future risk of a stroke.
Around 50% of heart attacks and strokes are associated with high blood pressure. Community pharmacies are providing a free blood pressure check service for anyone over the age of 40. In cases where this results in a high reading, pharmacists can make sure people receive the right NHS support to reduce their blood pressure. We know that there is more to do to prevent the causes of stroke, and the Department and NHS England are working together to tackle this issue.
I am also pleased to announce that on Monday 4 November NHS England is launching a new Act FAST campaign to increase knowledge of the main signs of a stroke and to encourage people to dial 999 immediately in response to any sign. The new campaign builds on the success of the previous Act FAST campaign and uses a revised call to action:
“Face or arm or speech, at the first sign, it’s time to call 999”.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I pay tribute to a young man who lived in Shepton Mallet named Will. He spotted what was happening to his father. He is a young man with some difficulties himself, but he recognised FAST. He had seen it on television, and it is testament to the power of television and radio campaigns in making sure that those messages get through, because that young man has difficulties in communicating and moving, but he managed to get the rest of his family to realise what was happening to his father sitting there across the breakfast table. I just wanted to mark that.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Lady for that telling intervention. She is absolutely right: so much of the challenge and the opportunity before us is about how we use traditional media, social media, all forms of communication and awareness-raising campaigns and techniques. By definition, we are dealing with a situation in which speed is of the essence. It is truly a public health challenge, because it is only the public who can do what Will did in that circumstance. I certainly pay tribute to Will for acting so quickly and to the Act FAST campaign. I am sure Members will welcome that we are looking to build on the success of Act FAST and to replicate and renew it.
That campaign will run in England across TV, radio, social media, national press and ethnic minority TV and radio stations. The campaign includes specific communications for multicultural and disabled audiences. A higher reduction in mortality rates over the next 10 years will require a focus on NHS England stroke priorities, including rapid diagnosis and increasing access to time-dependent specialist acute stroke care. We know that so many deadly diseases can be avoided if we seek help in enough time. That is why we are working to improve access to treatments. Current targets include increasing thrombectomy rates to 10% and thrombolysis rates to 20% through facilitating ambulance service use of pre-hospital video triage and use of AI decision support tools for brain imaging in comprehensive stroke centres. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) has a keen interest in that issue.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), does the Minister agree that stroke patients should have the highest priority for ambulance call-outs—as high as cardiac arrest, for example?
Stephen Kinnock
I am a little wary of generalising too much, because I know that so many decisions have to be made in real time by our skilled ambulance drivers and paramedics and the many others involved, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point. In a general sense, he is absolutely right that stroke needs to take priority. The red thread going through this entire debate is the need for speed. It is all about prioritising and acting quickly; he is absolutely right about that.
In the past year, we have seen a 30% increase in the number of thrombectomies delivered in England. Alongside that, our 20 integrated stroke delivery networks are looking to optimise care pathways. The General Medical Council is addressing critical workforce gaps through its thrombectomy credentialling programme, and our national optimal stroke imaging pathway is improving information sharing.
I am aware of the reconfiguration in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton. NHS Somerset integrated care board has decided to close the hyper-acute stroke unit at Yeovil hospital and to establish a single hyper-acute stroke unit at Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton to provide 24/7 emergency treatment. All service changes should be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better outcomes for patients. A high bar is set out in guidance for intervening in contested reconfiguration cases, and the reconfiguration of services should be a matter for the local NHS. I would expect all avenues of local resolution to have been exhausted before a call-in request is made. The Department has received a formal request to call in NHS Somerset ICB’s decision, and Ministers will make a decision on whether to use their call-in powers in due course.
Unfortunately, there is still significant variation across the country in access and outcomes in relation to stroke. For example, the percentage of suspected stroke patients who received the necessary brain scan within an hour of arrival at hospital varies from 80% in Kent to only around 40% in Shropshire. That variation needs to change, and we need to bring the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. That will be one of the central challenges for the Government going forward.
The Government have a profound ambition to improve the lives and health outcomes of people who survive a stroke. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and to the man in the Public Gallery for what they have been through and for their fortitude. It was certainly not easy for my hon. Friend to come to this place and to have to go through the extremely difficult situation that she did. I also pay tribute to all the key partners and stakeholders who worked with her and her family to get through it. That really is a tribute to the immensely important work they do.
Rachael Maskell
As well as looking at acute triage to rapidly diagnose people who have had a stroke, it is important to invest in rehabilitation—something I did for 20 years in the NHS. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how he proposes to have integrated rehabilitation teams that not only see people through the immediate aftercare, but continue to provide a top-up for them so that they do not backslide in their rehabilitation.
Stephen Kinnock
I can say a word about our national service model for an integrated community stroke service, which involves a number of specific projects aimed at improving delivery of psychological rehabilitation. The ICSS model is vital to support psychological recovery, return to work and improved quality of life, and I would be more than happy to discuss it further with my hon. Friend.
Before I close, I want to recognise the remarkable work of the charities that help people across the country to rebuild their lives after a stroke. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton for this important debate, and I encourage every Member of the House to go to change.nhs.uk and to get involved in the biggest conversation about our health and care service since its foundation in 1948.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The purpose of this statutory instrument is to introduce an alternative route for renewal of the driver certificate of professional competence, or DCPC, that will be recognised across all four nations of the United Kingdom and will offer more flexible courses than the current system, with an accelerated pathway for drivers to return to the profession. The existing process for demonstrating competence, which is recognised across Europe, will remain for drivers who operate within the European Union, and indeed Switzerland and the European economic area, and will remain valid when driving in the UK.
We are amending the existing Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. The regulations transposed EU directive 2003/59/EC and were last amended in 2020. We are amending the regulations to increase the choice and flexibility available to drivers when they renew.
Members may remember that, back in 2021, there was an acute shortage of lorry, bus and coach drivers, which caused significant disruption to critical supply chains. As part of its response, in 2021 the Department launched a review of DCPC that involved the industry, seeking views on ways to improve processes to increase recruitment and retention. Many felt that the current renewal process is inflexible and unnecessarily burdensome —in particular, the time and cost burdens of the periodic training required for the renewal of qualifications. Drivers must currently do 35 hours of training under a rigid structure, with courses being a minimum of seven hours and most being trainer led. It was identified that that contributed to drivers leaving the profession. In the 2021 review, drivers and former drivers stated that the burden of renewing the certificate of professional competence acted as a barrier to those considering joining or looking to renew their qualification, leading to people leaving the sector.
A public consultation was launched in early 2023, suggesting options for possible changes to the ways of demonstrating professional competence. That consultation, along with regular industry engagement, has informed the reforms we are proposing today to give drivers more options and greater flexibility during the renewal process, and to assist the industry in retaining and recruiting drivers. As I said, drivers currently renew their DCPC every five years in order to drive in the UK or the EU by doing 35 hours of training through a rigid system of courses, each of which is a minimum of seven hours long, with little option for e-learning. We are introducing a national qualification to sit alongside the existing international qualification. The national qualification, which will be valid across the UK, will still require 35 hours of training every five years, but courses can be shorter, with a minimum of three and a half hours, and there will be more e-learning available, with the introduction of new stand-alone e-learning courses. This flexibility was requested by many in the industry, particularly by drivers.
We are also introducing an accelerated pathway to allow drivers to return to the workforce. If a driver’s DCPC has lapsed by more than 60 days but less than two years, the driver can take a seven-hour bespoke return to driving course to gain a one-year national DCPC. That window of time was chosen to avoid drivers deliberately allowing their DCPC to lapse in order to take the accelerated return pathway, and to avoid drivers who have been out of the profession for a prolonged time from rejoining without adequate retraining. Within the 12-month validity period of their national DCPC, the driver can then do the remaining 28 hours of training to gain a full five-year national or international DCPC.
I am aware that some in the industry would have liked to abolish the DCPC entirely, and although I have some sympathy with drivers who see it as a burden based on time and cost to renew, I do believe that it is necessary for road safety and driver professionalism; overall, that was supported in the consultation. Additionally, due to the requirements of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, and other international obligations, the DCPC must be kept for most commercial international road transport.
The reforms will make renewing or regaining a DCPC much easier and more flexible for operators, particularly drivers, easing the impact on work-life balance while not reducing the quality of the education drivers receive to ensure we maintain a safe and highly professional workforce in the road freight and passenger transport sectors.
The draft regulations will make changes to the driver certificate professional competence regulations by making the renewal process more flexible for drivers operating solely in the UK, and they may help to reduce the chances of future driver shortages. We listened to stakeholders in all four nations while developing the amendments, and we expect these regulations to support the industry while ensuring a professional and safe workforce throughout the UK and beyond. To help the industry understand the more flexible training route, the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency in Great Britain and the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland will issue guidance to the industry.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
Although the draft regulations may be touted as innovative legislation, I am sure the Minister will be the first to accept that they were in fact the product of successive Conservative Governments, who, following our exit from the European Union, took the decision to simplify regulations for our hard-working hauliers by asking the industry what it needed to thrive, while of course ensuring the high standards of vehicle and driver safety that have always been upheld and enhanced. The draft regulations are a culmination of that process. Indeed, the previous Minister, Guy Opperman, is listed in the explanatory memorandum as having signed the declaration on the draft regulations. Therefore, as the previous Government would have laid this instrument anyway, the official Opposition will clearly not divide the Committee today.
The regulations deliver is the long sought-after flexibility that the industry needs to ensure that safety standards remain among the best in the world—all thanks to the work of the previous Government over the last few years. Hauliers will welcome options made available by the split between UK and international training programmes, and the means through which training is delivered—above all, the option to complete a course over a series of half days rather than full days.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us why one critical element—the incentive for hauliers to push the international training programme as a viable option for drivers—has been omitted from the regulations, risking the available pool of drivers for overseas work by essentially making that training an opt-in part of the job. Combined with the rumoured end to the previous Government’s fuel duty freeze, which has been critical to hauliers since its introduction by the Conservatives in 2011—if the rise goes ahead, hauliers estimate it could cost their businesses over £185 million a year—we must ask: who is really standing up for our hauliers and championing the vital role that they play in our economy?
I will simply end by saying that it is only because of our exit from the European Union that any of this is possible in the first place. While the Labour party in opposition sat on their hands without making any real contribution to the haulage sector, blaming Brexit for every challenge the sector has faced in recent years, it was Conservatives in government who took steps—including drafting the very regulations before us today—to support hauliers on terms that were right for the United Kingdom, not for the European Union. Although we welcome the regulations, I gently ask the Minister: what are the Government offering the haulage sector that is new?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
With brevity in mind, I will just say that the Liberal Democrats support this measure to make training more convenient for drivers and small businesses. However, given the transition to e-learning, it is imperative that the quality of training is not compromised, and we urge the Minister to monitor closely the outcomes of the changes to ensure that there is no negative impact on road safety.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire—and the hon. Member for West Dorset for their thoughtful contributions, and I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for the regulations.
As I set out in my opening comments, the Department conducted a review that ended in 2022; there is no question that this instrument continues work that started under the previous Government. If one wished to play political games, I suppose one might query why it has taken such a long time for the regulations to appear in front of a Committee—it is this Government who have ensured that they have been considered in in good time.
We continue to work closely with the haulage sector, which we are determined to support. We have already recognised the importance of freight and logistics, with new wording in the draft national planning policy framework that recognises the importance of the industry. The shadow Minister may have missed it, but in recent weeks I have also announced further funding to support improved heavy goods vehicle parking and driver welfare, and further support for the freight transport sector through the freight innovation fund. However, I am straying off the point of today’s debate.
Let me answer the question about the quality of e-learning. I am pleased that Liberal Democrats colleagues have welcomed the flexibilities introduced by this legislation. I reassure them that the Department considers 3.5 hours for stand-alone e-learning courses to be the right balance, providing increased flexibility for drivers taking their training while ensuring that the course is long enough to be meaningful. There will be an audit process and the DVSA will still approve all courses to make sure that they are of suitable quality. I raised particular concerns about how we will ensure that people are participating fully in the e-learning; I am reassured that there will be a start and end time, so drivers will not be able to scoot through the courses quickly, and that courses may include quizzes to ensure engagement and test that learning has taken place, although there are no mandatory course assessments. All courses are audited by the DVSA to check records and we will make sure that they deliver the safe standards that we want to see.
The shadow Minister asked who will undertake the international DCPC. As I am sure he will be aware, a majority of freight drivers—possibly as many as 90%—operate only within the UK, so they may well choose to do the national DCPC. Many hauliers, though, also drive across the European Union, as those routes are very important for our supply chains and for getting exports out to Europe, including the EEA and Switzerland; of course, those drivers will want to continue to do the international DCPC. Flexibility exists within the courses, so if a driver completes a seven-hour course, it will count towards either the national or international DCPC—they can easily upgrade their national DCPC to an international DCPC depending on the courses they choose to undertake to make up the 35 hours. I hope that provides the hon. Member with reassurance that this provision will continue to be available for British drivers who need to operate internationally.
These reforms to the way in which professional drivers renew their driver certificate of professional competence will provide increased flexibility to those in the sector while maintaining the original purpose of the qualification: to improve road safety and driver professionalism. To abolish the qualification would be counter to those aims, although I am interested that no one has mentioned doing so today. We did consider that possibility but decided to keep the 35 hours of training because 60% of consultation respondents supported keeping the process as it is or reforming it—and it is really important for road safety and maintaining professional skills and standards in the industry.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It was the great Mancunian Daniel Adamson who in the 1860s envisaged a northern region from the Mersey estuary to the Humber estuary, hence the Manchester ship canal; I hope that one day a Government of some ilk will finish his work and join up the northern region properly from Merseyside to the Humber estuary.
The Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Order 2023, which implemented the zero emission vehicle mandate, came into force in January this year. It sets targets for the registration of new zero emission cars and vans as a proportion of total new car and van sales. The draft order will amend the 2023 order for the purpose of facilitating the Northern Ireland Assembly’s decision that Northern Ireland should join the scheme, as well as making some technical updates. This amendment will bring Northern Ireland into alignment with the rest of the UK. It represents an important milestone on the pathway for the United Kingdom to achieve 100% zero emission new cars and vans by 2035 and net zero by 2050.
When the 2023 order was made, the Northern Ireland Assembly was not sitting. Owing to the requirements of the primary powers used to create the mandate, Northern Ireland was unable to join at the scheme’s commencement; instead, it retained a scaled version of the assimilated European regulations that had previously applied in the UK following Brexit. I am pleased to report that following the Assembly’s return, it has chosen to support joining the ZEV mandate: it approved this legislation on 14 October, thereby approving Northern Ireland’s joining the mandate. I pay tribute to the Minister for Infrastructure, John O’Dowd, and to his officials in the Department for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive for their hard work in achieving this milestone. I also thank Ministers in the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government for their support.
Once Northern Ireland has joined the ZEV mandate, the ZEV targets and carbon dioxide targets will be applied as a UK-wide average. That means that Northern Ireland’s vehicle market will not, by itself, be required to meet the headline ZEV target in 2025; instead, it will be a part of a UK-wide calculation. It also means that instead of there being two separate emissions regulations to engage with in the UK—one for Great Britain and one for Northern Ireland—there will now be a single framework for new cars and vans. The measure is accordingly supported by vehicle manufacturers, because it will reduce the administrative complexity of engaging with the UK market. It is also supported by the charging industry, as it will give investors the certainty that they need to invest in Northern Ireland as they have in the rest of the UK, where £6 billion of private investment has been committed to the end of the decade. The regulation, as it applies across the UK, is the single largest carbon-saving measure in government and is of singular importance if we are to meet our climate commitments.
The draft order will bring the whole of the UK into alignment, not just in terms of regulation but in terms of ambition for zero emission mobility. It will give investors the confidence to invest in the transition across every part of our great nations and will ensure that nowhere is left behind as our technology and economy evolve.
I am grateful to all Committee members for their attendance. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The draft order, as the Minister rightly says, is very technical in nature and will make few changes to the 2023 order. For the most part, it will simply bring the whole of our country under one set of rules by correcting the understandable omission of Northern Ireland from the original order. In the silo in which they are presented, the changes being made are broadly uncontroversial. The official Opposition will therefore not seek to divide the Committee today.
What is slightly more controversial, however, is the limit of the order and the wider questions that it poses about the Government’s approach to the ZEV mandate, our domestic automotive sector and the transition to de-fossilised and decarbonised forms of private transport. The Labour party had previously been clear that it wished to reverse the Conservative Government’s practical, pragmatic and sensible delay from 2030 to 2035 of the banning of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, yet the draft order will do no such thing: it leaves the 2035 date intact. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are leaving the 2035 date in place, which would be sensible, or whether we are set to see more orders coming forward? If so, will they come with a wider debate in the main Chamber?
What of hybrids? There is much talk in the media, but little actual legislation or rule making is coming forward. I gently ask the Minister to give the Committee and the wider House clarity in that regard.
Certainty is important for consumers and manufacturers alike, but the draft order will give neither any confidence about the detail of the Government’s intended direction of travel. That uncertainty is playing out in the real world: in real sales numbers, in real demand, particularly for battery electric vehicles, and in uncertainty for our great innovators at home and overseas, where they are pioneering technologies around other forms of fuel, hydrogen and synthetics.
It is a reality that consumers are turning their backs on battery electric vehicles. Taking fleet sales out of the picture, EVs are just not selling. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that year-to-date private battery electric vehicle demand remains down 6.3%. Robert Forrester, chief executive of Vertu Motors, has observed that manufacturers are delaying deliveries of cars until next year, fearing that immediate deliveries would cause them to exceed the Government’s set quotas. In July, Stellantis announced that it would review its manufacturing footprint in the United Kingdom.
Can the Minister explain why the draft order does so little? It is just tinkering at the edges, with no practical steps to solve the real-world problems that we face. Can he confirm what the Government’s actual plans are to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel internal combustion engine cars? Is there even a plan? What confidence can he give to motorists and car manufacturers alike that the Government value—in a de-fossilised, decarbonised way—the freedom to drive?
Mike Kane
I say to the shadow Minister that little has been learned since the defeat 16 weeks ago. The last Secretary of State indulged in a culture war around vehicles and 15-minute cities, spreading conspiracy theories at the Conservatives’ party conference. They messed about with vehicle emissions targets. They criticised the Mayor of London for the ultra low emission zone and for the attempts to produce clean air across our capital city. It was a complete culture war, and they lost out, because the British public were not fooled by the attempts to divide people, from car and van owners to pedestrians and cyclists, instead of improving the general environment in our city.
On the shadow Minister’s substantive point about commitments, let me say that the Government are committed to phasing out new cars that rely solely on combustion engines by 2030. That means that pure petrol and diesel cars will be phased out by 2035, and all new cars and vans will need to be 100% zero emission. That is still our clear commitment.
The shadow Minister said that we were tinkering around the edges of the ZEV mandate. The reality, which counters what he says, is that with the ZEV mandate, the UK mandate is growing faster than any comparable European market as we speak. The number of electric vehicles in the UK market has grown by 13.2% on 2023, which is faster growth than Germany, France, Italy and the EU as a whole. That is not to say that there are not challenges, but this Government will face the challenges through our mission for both growth and decarbonisation. I am proud that we were elected on that mission.
The draft order is technical in nature, as the shadow Minister says, but it represents a shared ambition for the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and now the Northern Ireland Executive to decarbonise our road transport as we make progress to net zero. By bringing Northern Ireland into the ZEV mandate, we can ensure that every part of this country benefits from zero emission mobility and that no community is left behind as we transition to a greener, cleaner future.
I trust that the Committee has found this debate informative and that it will join me, alongside colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, in supporting this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have some rules to announce. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 29 October Until no later than 10.00 am Figen Murray; Brendan Cox Until no later than 10.20 am Andy Burnham Until no later than 10.50 am National Association of Local Councils; Society of Local Council Clerks Until no later than 11.25 am Ambassador Theatre Group; The Royal Ballet and Opera Until no later than 2.20 pm Metropolitan Police Service Until no later than 2.50 pm Federation of Small Businesses; The Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange (CTBIE) Until no later than 3.10 pm Sport and Recreation Alliance Until no later than 3.40 pm UKHospitality; The Night Time Industries Association Until no later than 4.10 pm The Concert Promoters Association; LIVE (Live Industry Venues & Entertainment Ltd) Until no later than 4.30 pm The Association of University Chief Security Officers Until no later than 4.50 pm Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Until no later than 5.10 pm Home Office
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 29 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 31 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 November;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 November;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 November;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 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 and 2; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 3 to 12; Schedule 3; Clauses 13 to 34; Schedule 4; Clauses 35 to 38; 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 19 November.
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I look forward to detailed discussion of the provisions in the Bill with my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches and with the right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. On Second Reading, there was extensive agreement across the House about the merits of the Bill, not least among hon. Members who are now serving in Committee. I welcome that and trust that we will continue in that constructive spirit. I believe that the resolution before us will provide the Committee with enough time to scrutinise this important Bill and I invite the Committee to agree it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Dan Jarvis.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
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.—(Dan Jarvis.)
The Committee deliberated in private.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? None do, so we will begin to hear oral evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Figen Murray OBE and Brendan Cox gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome our first witnesses this morning. The Committee and I are delighted that you are our first witnesses and I congratulate you on all your efforts in relation to the Bill. I will be grateful if you could introduce yourselves.
Figen Murray: My name is Figen Murray. I am the mother of Martyn Hett.
Brendan Cox: My name is Brendan Cox. I am one of the co-founders of Survivors Against Terror and have worked with Figen on Martyn’s law.
The Chair
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. This panel will have until 10 am, and I call the Minister to ask the first questions.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Figen Murray: I have taken the liberty of writing something down that I would like to read out, please, if that is okay. I hope that will address some of that.
I begin by thanking absolutely every person who has had any involvement in bringing Martyn’s law to this point. It has been a long five and a half years since the campaign started, and the kindness and support people have extended to us have been quite incredible.
As I sat in Parliament on 14 October for Second Reading, I realised that the relatively long journey that still lies ahead—given all the different steps the legislation must still undergo—will not be an easy one. On Second Reading, my name was mentioned many times and many lovely words were said, but I need people to understand that I would not have progressed much without my co-campaigners, the campaign team, and the incredible support of my husband and my remaining children.
Seven and a half years ago, our life as a family was destroyed forever. I want you to note the word “forever”, as there is no coming back from this. As a family, we are damaged goods. The day Martyn died, something died inside all of us. Do not get me wrong: as a family, we are very close. Individually, however, we all carry our separate emotional scars that are now an integral part of each of us. That will be the case for every family anywhere in the world who has been hit hard by terrorism. Our numbers are growing, sadly. Outwardly, I function at a high level day in, day out, but make no mistake that my heart is in shreds—yet it is my broken heart that drives me to try to stop others from ever having to feel this way.
Coming back to Second Reading, I was buoyed that every party said that they supported the Bill. If security cannot unite us, what can? I welcome the all-party support. On Second Reading, I also heard some concerns about getting the balance right and keeping the Bill proportionate. I agree with that. Right from the start, we said that one size does not fit all, and that the Bill needs to be proportionate. It has never been intended to be burdensome.
My worry is that the increase in the capacity threshold from 100 in the draft Bill to 200 now risks getting the balance wrong. It excludes too many venues. The cost to businesses for Martyn’s law is a drop in the ocean compared with the €43 billion that the Rand Corporation estimated that terrorism cost the UK between 2004 and 2016, or even the £100,000 lost by Mr Fred Foster, a market trader at Borough market, during the attack in 2017.
However, we need to be clear that the risk from terrorism is real. Our terrorism threat level stands at “substantial”, meaning that an attack is likely. Although there have not been any successful terror attacks, it is easy to let complacency creep in. We must not forget that attack methodologies have now changed. People get radicalised and go out an use vehicles, knives, and home-made IEDs—improvised explosive devices—to kill others.
There are currently about 800 active investigations and about 2,500 subjects of interest who are being watched by the authorities as they are linked to terrorism investigations—the aforementioned 800—but there are a further 30,000 individuals who have expressed extreme views that could lead to them committing acts of terrorism. Those figures have not changed over recent years. The geopolitical situation, sadly, also means that extremists exploit the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza to recruit more people to follow their ideology. There is no sign of those figures reducing in the near future.
The director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, has also recently spoken about 43 near misses since 2017. Those are 43 planned attacks that were stopped just in time. Everyone in this room surely must appreciate that sooner or later an attack will not be stopped in time and people will yet again die or be injured or traumatised. There is no room for complacency. The threat is out there and it is real. Terrorists do not care who they kill. They aim to kill, shock and gain notoriety.
We have had attacks such as a planned knife attack on an LGBT community in Cumbria, a knife attack against an MP inside a church hall in Essex, a bomb outside Liverpool women’s hospital, another bomb at a hospital in Leeds, a knife attack in a park in Reading, a knife attack at a conference in London, a knife attack at a high street in London, a firebomb attack at an immigration centre in Dover, a letter bomb delivered to a Scottish university, a knife attack at a railway station in Manchester, and a vehicle attack at a mosque in London. If anyone thinks that where they live is too small or too rural to be targeted, they are wrong. Our experience in this country and around the world shows us that terrorists can strike anywhere.
A lot of venues are already busy preparing and implementing as much as they can. Manchester has trained over 2,500 people in free-of-charge face-to-face ACT training, and businesses and venues across Manchester are implementing the legislation as best as they can. Venues in Manchester are doing that voluntarily because the city was badly hit. People in Manchester understand the risk as they were directly affected, but we need this legislation on the statute books; without it, people will simply not take security seriously.
Security is often seen as low priority as people do not believe their venue is at risk from terrorism. A recent tabletop exercise in Manchester for the standard-tier venues resulted in most venues saying that the cost of implementing measures is either negligible or very low cost or effort, and that it enhanced customer experience as people felt safer.
At Second Reading, a few people worried about liability and the responsibility given to volunteers. Anybody who already has any responsibility for organising or managing community spaces and events already has liabilities under civil law. Martyn’s law will not create additional liabilities—they exist already. What Martyn’s law is more likely to do is to help communities know that they are discharging those responsibilities properly. Volunteers in various venues across the country already voluntarily take on responsibility for fire safety or health and safety, and this would be simply a small add-on. Martyn’s law is asking people at the standard tier to understand how to lock down, how to evacuate, how to invacuate or how to communicate with others. It is as simple as that on the standard tier.
Another concern was around churches and schools. Our children have the right to be protected from harm. Most schools already had lockdown procedures in place, anyway, long before Martyn’s law became a topic. Places of worship are places where people of all faiths should be able to worship freely and without fear. They need to be protected. We have seen attacks on places of worship in countries such as Sri Lanka, New Zealand—in Christchurch—and France. Since the Gaza conflict a lot of synagogues are currently on high alert as the threat is understood.
To sum up, Martyn’s law will save lives. Terrorism is here to stay. The public have a right to be kept as safe as possible when they are out and about enjoying the freedom our country offers. Martyn, Saffie, Nell, Sorrell, Eilidh, Megan, Olivia, Georgina, Courtney, Philip, Kelly, Elaine, Alison, Lisa, Michelle, Wendy, Jane, John, Angelika and Marcin, Chloe and Liam were all out enjoying a great evening that night and had every right to make it safely back home. I absolutely believe that had Martyn’s law been firmly established, they would still be alive now. Please consider what is the right thing to do. I will finish by saying once again that it is time to get this done. Thank you for listening.
Brendan Cox: I would add a couple of things to that; Figen has set it out incredibly powerfully.
As I mentioned in my introduction, I am part of something called Survivors Against Terror, which is a network of about 300 survivors of terror attacks: people that have been bereaved like myself and Figen and people who have themselves been injured in attacks. What draws that network together is a desire to reduce the likelihood of future terror attacks and to reduce the harm that they do. We do that by campaigning for the rights of families to things such as mental health support and compensation, by educating the public on the role they can play in the fight against terrorism, and by campaigning for effective laws that make terror attacks less likely in the future. That is how Figen and I first started working together, right at the start of this campaign.
I got involved for two reasons. First, frankly, I was inspired by Figen and her determination to make something good come out of something that was absolutely horrific, and to make sure that no other family unnecessarily goes through what her and her family have, but also, fundamentally, because the methodology of terrorism has changed, as Figen mentioned. The age of very complex attacks, often directed by people from outside the country and involving the need to assemble a device or to work out how detonators work, gave our security services lots of opportunities to intervene and disrupt terrorism plots. We are now in an age in which people are just using knives or cars, and the way in which we respond to that terror threat has not caught up.
It is impossible for our security services to keep our country safe with this new distributed methodology. We therefore have to have much more of a partnership approach: how can we all play a little role in making each other safer? I think this comes from our experience, but as the network of survivors supporting Figen and her campaign we do not want anybody’s sympathy, we want to make people safer so that these things and the impact they have had on our lives do not happen to anyone else. There is nobody more driven in wanting to defeat terrorism than those who have been directly affected by it.
There are two ways in which terrorists can win. One is by killing and maiming people. The other is by disrupting our way of life—making us live in fear and changing our way of engaging with each other. That is why, right from the start, proportionality has been central to our thinking. We do not want this to change our way of life. We do not want terrorists to win, either by injuring people or by changing our way of life, and that is why right at the heart of this proposal, from the beginning, has been proportionality. We want everybody to be empowered to play a small role in making us all safer. We do not want airport-style security outside village halls, as some of the papers might suggest we want.
The final thing I would say is that nobody wants to have a law named after their child. What we do want to do is to make sure no-one unnecessarily goes through what Figen and her family has. We want to make sure that there is a legislative response to the clamour of action that you have had in every inquiry post-2017, whether into the Manchester attacks or into the London attacks, to say that this is a loophole that has to be closed and now is the moment to close it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I have had the great privilege of meeting Figen and Brendan over many months on this, so I have no questions.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: I think it is that as many places as possible are covered. We as a campaign team are concerned about the threshold, if I am honest. I live in a small town —more like a village—and with the original 100 threshold, quite a few of the restaurants as well as the little theatre we have and the pubs would have been covered under the law. With the change in the threshold, my little town is now not coming into scope at all and is completely not secure under Martyn’s law. It concerns me. The change from the 100 threshold to 200 will exclude about 100,000 premises. It feels like quite a lot now no longer need to be within that scope. It worries me.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: The Manchester Arena inquiry obviously had Martyn’s law as one of its recommendations. If I remember rightly, Sir John’s words were that it is needed as a matter of urgency. I think he referred to training, and he also recommended—which is certainly not covered in Martyn’s law under the standard tier—that people have lifesaving training. That is not for debate in Martyn’s law at the moment. But certainly the ACT training was part of the recommendation.
Brendan Cox: To add to that, the other thing that has been amazing—I think you are hearing from Mayor Andy Burnham later—has been the extent to which Manchester has already started to operationalise some of this, so when we are having the debates about proportionality, we can consider some of the real experiences of businesses that are already implementing this. It is worth really digging into that conversation, because what it shows is that lots of businesses that fall below the threshold are voluntarily taking part in the training and starting to implement Martyn’s law, because they know what it gives them. Who does not want their venue to be safer from terror attacks? It is something that organisations in general want to do, and that is why we have been seeing the adoption of this ahead of the legislation being published, even by venues that will not be covered by the capacity legislation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: We had in Manchester a tabletop exercise that Nick Aldworth and I were allowed to witness. They invited us in and they gave us the results of that tabletop exercise. There were medium-sized businesses, small businesses, and venues and businesses even under the scope, and the feedback was that implementing Martyn’s law would actually be either no-cost or low-cost and that it would enhance, in a lot of cases, customer experience, because people would feel safer. The most onerous thing, in some people’s opinion, was to ask their staff to do the 45-minute, free-of-charge ACT e-learning training. Basically, they had to pay one hour of staff wages, but on the whole, they felt it was good and the staff felt better having that knowledge, because they felt better equipped to deal with a crisis.
In fact, some of the venues in Manchester were also saying they do regular real-life practice of lockdowns, for instance. For some reason, Manchester has really embraced it. A few years ago, I got called into a council meeting and they basically said, “We want to support you. What can we do?” I just looked at them and said, “Don’t wait for the legislation. Just do it anyway.” And Manchester did. They worked together with counter-terrorism police and put on the free-of-charge, once-a-month, three-hour, face-to-face ACT training. The sessions are always oversubscribed; they are very well attended.
Brendan Cox: I think that the fact that it has been taken up so strongly belies some of the idea that this is a huge burden on businesses. Of course, with any methodology like this, you can come up with a costing for how much the opportunity cost of doing x, y or z is. You have the big public campaigns around “See it, say it, sorted.” Of course, there is a cost with that. You could measure that cost through the amount you spend on it, the opportunity cost of the things that people could be doing while they are listening to it, the distraction cost—there is a whole way in which you could come up with a very big figure, but the reality is that is a proportionate response to what is a very substantial threat when it happens. As Figen mentioned, our threat is substantial at the moment, and that is therefore the proportionate response that we are trying to come up with.
In the conversations on and implementation of this in Manchester, one of the reactions we got, which was a broader reaction from the public as a whole, was, “Doesn’t this already exist?” The public expect that public venues would have an obligation to keep you safe. You have an obligation on the temperature that you need to keep food at, the number of toilets that you have and to fill in your tax return, but you do not have any obligation to keep your often paying customers safe from a very substantial threat, which is judged to be substantial by the Government. That is a massive loophole, and that is what this Bill helps to fill.
The Chair
There are no further questions, so I thank both witnesses for their contributions this morning. We will move on to our next guest, who is Andy Burnham.
Examination of Witness
Andy Burnham gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 10.20 am for this oral evidence session. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Andy Burnham: I am Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester. As colleagues will know, I left Parliament in 2017, two weeks before the attack at the Manchester Arena, so I have been closely involved with all the developments ever since.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Andy Burnham: Thank you very much, Minister. Before I get to the question, I will say a little more about my background, which has led me up to what I think. I was shadow Home Secretary at the time of the Paris attacks, and those at the Bataclan in particular. If that had happened here, this legislation would already be on the statute book. Obviously, as Figen said, we have lived through the terrible events of 22 May 2017, but in the seven and a half years since, the nature of the threat has changed. I do not think we could have imagined some of the incidents that we have seen since then, such as the terrible loss of a really loved colleague in Southend and the attack in Southport. We would not have expected that. I remember asking Theresa May at the time of the Paris attacks if we were prepared for an attack in an English city—even then we were thinking only of cities; we were not thinking outside of cities. I say that because all that has shaped my thinking over the years.
When Figen first came forward with the concept of this Bill, I took time to think it through with colleagues in our city region. We are part the Resilient Cities Network, which is a group of 100 cities around the world, and we are in the Strong Cities Network, so we are constantly sharing best practice with cities around the world, and it was our view that the lack of a clear set of standards for security in our venues was a real gap. We were conscious, though, that there may be an impact on venues, hence the measures that were brought forward had to be right but proportionate, and I think care has been taken over that.
As you have just heard, Manchester city council has done an exercise working with venues and surveying venues on some of the voluntary things that have already been done in our city region. As you heard a moment ago, the impact is negligible—it is low-cost—but venues also report that they think it has raised standards generally within the organisation and improved the visitor experience. The experience that people have when they visit—their sense of safety when they are in the city—matters a lot to us as a city region and we are working to raise it. We have gone ahead and, if anything, we want to keep going further and raising the bar.
I will finish by saying that my main message to the Committee this morning is that I ask all of you to please ensure that the Bill is not watered down any further—actually, I look to the Committee to strengthen it. Again, I believe that venues with a capacity of 100 to 200 should be covered by the Bill. I do not think it is right that there is no requirement for training within the standard tier; there should be a requirement for staff to take the free ACT training. The message from Greater Manchester is that we continue to support Figen and all the families who lost loved ones on that night. In one way, we support those measures for that emotional reason, and always will, but we also do so from a Resilient Cities perspective. We believe they will only strengthen people’s experience in our city. We think it is in the interest of parents whose kids come into our city to go to the many events that take place every weekend to understand that there is a basic level of security at all the venues across our city region.
Tim Roca
Q
Andy Burnham: That is a fair question. Of course, we have had those conversations. I have been at events—with Figen, actually—with our night-time economy adviser, Sacha Lord, where we have said, “Look, we think we should do this.” Then there have been conversations like, “Well, it’s difficult. The hospitality sector has had challenging times,” but as we have talked it through I think people have come round to the idea that security and safety is one thing that no venue should compromise on, because in some ways that is the first thing to get right. If you get that right, you will get lots of other things right. It is about raising the standard of what the industry does.
There is evidence that the Manchester visitor economy —I know Manchester is not far from your constituency and you probably know it well—has improved over the years and in many ways mirrors the offer that people can find in London, but we have a night-time economy adviser because we want to keep raising the bar. We are not complacent at all. There just has not been an outcry or backlash. People have worked with it. This attack happened in our city: we lost 22 people—young people, mainly, but people of other ages as well—on that night. It is incumbent on us to challenge ourselves about what we do as a city to respond to that, and to recognise that life is changing and the outlying towns and villages of Greater Manchester could see an incident of that kind.
There is a broader point here: speaking as police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, I do not believe yet that the country has all of its procedures in place to face what we are experiencing. I say that with reference to fire and rescue services. Currently, it is still not clear what the role of fire and rescue services is in relation to what is called a marauding terrorist attack. How can that be the case? That clearly needs to be addressed. We have done local things, but this legislation should be only the start, in my view, of really ensuring that there are arrangements in place that provide clarity to blue-light services and venues, as well as others, on the basics of responding to an incident. I think there is still work in progress on that point.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: That is a really important question. The guidance that I want to see would advise them to have a night-time economy strategy. That is really important for a whole host of reasons, and it is not just about the most serious attacks. We see concerns about spiking or the unacceptable treatment of women and girls, and there is a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. If we want to have the levels of safety that we all want to see in our country, there has to a more serious look taken at some of what happens within the night-time economy. For me, that would include ending out-of-area taxi working, for instance. We have a situation in our city region right now where, if you go into the city centre of Manchester pretty much any night of the week, but certainly on a Friday or Saturday, you will see hundreds and hundreds of taxis with a Wolverhampton plate.
Linsey Farnsworth
indicated assent.
Andy Burnham: You are nodding, which suggests that other places see that. It cannot be in the interest of public safety to have taxis licensed 100 miles away. I would say to local authorities that we need to start calling for change on public safety on nights out. That would include arrangements at the local authority level to ensure that taxi drivers are adequately licensed, and that the relevant criminal record checks are done at a local level and not undercut by something happening a few hundred miles away. I think that is an issue for Parliament. The time has come to end out-of-area work and require that the local authorities where people are doing their job are the ones that license those vehicles. I would like to see wider guidance given to local authorities and legislative change to support them in taking steps to protect the public when they are on nights out, both in implementing this legislation and in improving the safety of what goes on in and around venues on nights out.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: As we have said, smaller venues have been working with Manchester city council and the feedback has been that it is a positive thing to do. Obviously, to have specific training on how to lock down or evacuate a venue is helpful not only for the most serious of incidents but more broadly. Let us be honest: venues face a wide range of incidents on an ongoing basis. There are risks to people’s safety throughout the year. It is something that is part of the night-time economy. I think that it has to be proportionate, but the measures in the Bill are proportionate.
I would go back to that request for mandatory training. If it is free training, why is that not in the standard tier? How does that impose a burden? Did we hear that it is an hour of a member of staff’s time? I do not consider that to be burdensome, to be honest with you. I consider it to be good practice that people are supported in their working time to access and do that training. It would clearly help in a terrorist attack, but it would probably help more broadly in terms of situational awareness, vigilance, and general good practice for running and stewarding a venue and ensuring that it operates well at all times.
I personally do not see why the threshold has been raised to 200. As we have just heard, many of your constituencies will now have many venues that are not covered. Given what we have seen this year, I think it is as likely for an incident to happen in one of those venues as it is in a pub with a capacity of 300 or 400. I do not see that as less likely. Furthermore, I do not think that what is being asked of those places is unnecessarily burdensome. You could even argue that it is more important for the smaller venues to do it, because they will have less resource to call on in the event of an incident.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: Mr Bishop made a point about recommendations from the Manchester Arena inquiry. The deputy Mayor, who is sitting behind me, has led a whole process to look at implementing every single one of those recommendations—to the letter. As I have said, what happened on 22 May 2017 has changed the city, but not in the intended way. It was intended to divide us, but it brought us together, as you have just recognised. It was also intended to weaken us, but in fact it will leave us with stronger arrangements. At no point in this process have I seen anything other than overwhelming public support for what Figen has called for. The public support has never been in any doubt whatsoever.
I want to come back to the point about the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. You may remember that, on the night, there was confusion within the fire service about what to do, and it took a long time to arrive at the arena. The service has gone through a painstaking, difficult exercise about what happened and how, and it is a very different organisation as a result.
I want to come back to this point: the role of fire and rescue services is not clear. We, along with London, are the only two fire brigades in the country to have put in place arrangements for all our firefighters to have training in marauding terrorist attacks and to have the capability to respond. That is not the case with the others. Again, I had no resistance to that training from the firefighters or the Fire Brigades Union; everybody saw that it was the right thing to do. But we are now in a position where neighbouring fire and rescue services do not have that capability. It is unclear what happens in an incident, and it should not be unclear.
The Greater Manchester experience is that we have done everything that this legislation is asking, and more. We continue to challenge ourselves and do more, but it has to be standardised nationally for the reasons we have given around the nature of the threat. The message from us is that none of it has been resisted or too difficult to implement with our public services. There is strong public support. I come back to what I said earlier to members of the Committee: please do not let this Bill be watered down any further. If anything, it should be strengthened. Amendments should be coming forward to strengthen it. The risk is that smaller venues will become the ones that are more targeted if we leave that flank open, and I hope that we will not. I think that the standard tier should go back down to venues of 100 or more.
Chris Murray
Q
Andy Burnham: Thank you, Mr Murray. We are really grateful for its support. A lot of collaboration is going on between Edinburgh and Greater Manchester at the moment; the director of the festival was with us just last week.
I have visited Edinburgh festival for the last three years, and I am left in awe at the arrangements in place there because of the depth of experience in Edinburgh of running major events with many facets and many venues, and because of the number of visitors who come into the city. There is a lot to learn from Edinburgh city council and how it manages things. The fact that it supports the Bill should say something. Those who have been to the festival know that a whole range of venues are used—all kinds of sizes. That is the point I made a moment ago in response to Mr Roca: if the smaller venues were not covered by the Bill, they would potentially become the ones more at risk and more targeted.
The point is about the whole ecosystem of venues, from the smallest to the biggest. Measures should not be disproportionate, sure, but if the Bill went through in its current form that would cause me anxiety, given my position. I would have to look at the venues that were not covered. To go back to the question that Linsey Farnsworth raised, that would not make the job of Edinburgh city council, Manchester city council or any other local authority easier. Having clarity in terms of the arrangements is not going to make the job of local authorities harder—the more arrangements are standardised, the better.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
The reason Martyn went to this gig was the reason a lot of people go to gigs—they love music. You love music. Greater Manchester, and Manchester itself, is fantastic for music. Could you explain what is happening in Manchester locally to reassure some of those small-scale live music people, who are saying that this could put them out of business—“We’re not the big boys, we’re not the arena, how can we cope with this and make everyone feel safe without changing our way of life?” As Brendan said, not changing our way of life is ultimately the purpose of this legislation.
Andy Burnham: It is a good question, Paul, and it goes back to the guidance for local authorities. The way we work—when I say “we”, I am thinking of the leader of Manchester city council, Bev Craig, and deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester, Paul Dennett; people you will know—is that we get close to the venues because we all love music and we are a music city region. You will know that there has been a threat to one of our venues night and day in recent times; at different points, we have had similar issues with other venues.
We cherish the infrastructure, and we work hard to keep it. We work hard to understand the issues that venues have, and how we can work in a practical way to help them. That is what I mean by getting close to the night-time economy—that is critical, and it is one of the things we do really well in this country. It is a big reason why people come and visit Britain: not just for the big arenas, but for the grassroots music scene as well. We had WOMEX, the Worldwide Music Expo, in the city last week; Councillor Besford has been very much at the heart of that, and he runs the English folk festival. We, like Edinburgh, often have events that involve the smallest and the biggest.
My point is: do not just impose things on venues. You have to sit down and talk with them and ask what we can do to help. This is my point about Greater Manchester Fire Rescue Service—if you have a capable fire service, they can go in and help. The blue-light services can help provide the training and help people comply with the measures in the Bill. This is not just about leaving venues on their own, saying, “Here is Martyn’s law, so get on with it even if it puts you out of business.” That is not how it is done. We are doing it a different way: get down there and listen to them all. They will all have different issues, so support what they do because they are important in bringing visitors to the city.
I am just giving you the Manchester perspective. That is the way we go about things. The music infrastructure in the city, and the broader entertainment infrastructure, is highly valued. There was an era when a certain nightclub was just left to close and there are flats there now. We do not think like that these days; we protect the infrastructure and that means supporting the venues. It is tough for them, so get close to them and support them. I appreciate that times are hard, but there are blue-light services everywhere that can help them raise their game from a security point of view.
I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that. The Bill is designed to prevent people going through that and part of what I would say is that the way we and Edinburgh do it is a good model for others to look at.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank Mayor Burnham for his evidence. We move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Keith Stevens and Helen Ball gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Helen Ball: Good morning. My name is Helen Ball. I am the town clerk of Shrewsbury town council in Shropshire and I am also the chairman of the Society of Local Council Clerks nationally.
Keith Stevens: My name is Keith Stevens and I am the chair of the National Association of Local Councils, which looks after the 10,000 parish and town councils across the country.
Dan Jarvis
Q
My question is for Councillor Stevens. I know that you have had a long-standing interest in the process. As part of the pre-legislative scrutiny in the previous Parliament, I know that a number of concerns were raised around proportionality and thresholds, and also around the lack of clarity with regard to the regulator. I would be grateful for your view on the changes that have been made to the Bill since. Also, how receptive do you think local councillors will be to those changes?
Keith Stevens: Having heard what has gone before, as a parish councillor I was quite pleased when the threshold was lifted to 200 because that is proportionate. I will give the simple example of my own parish council. The village hall where we hold all our meetings has a capacity of, I think, 190. I have to be honest: we rarely get to 190 people at a parish council meeting. Normally, it is 20 people, including the councillors, as a maximum. That is why raising the threshold to 200 was welcomed by a lot of councils, because it meant that the rules were not quite as strict. However, I do not think that means that parish and town councils will not look at the security of any venue that any event is taking place in. Security is important and we always look at it.
Sorry, what was the second part of the question?
Dan Jarvis
Q
Keith Stevens: I think they are receptive to the changes and I think that local councils and councillors are very supportive of Martyn’s law. They have all seen the things, and most parish councils have quite good relationships with the security services. In my own area, we have regular monthly meetings to talk about the situation; actually, the police often use parish councils almost as the pulse of what is going on in the village. When there were all the problems last year, the police were in contact asking us to let them know whether we had heard any rumours that got off the ground. So, yes—very supportive.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Helen Ball: We have had conversations with a lot of parish councils and parish clerks over the last few months. A lot of village halls are quite distinct in where they are, so there is some concern as to how they would actually be able to enact evacuation and lockdown procedures, particularly when you have just got a large room and you may only have one entrance and one exit. There is that level of concern.
A lot of the problems that we have at the moment are more about the fear of the unknown; people have read the Bill and are looking at the worst-case scenario. We have tried to advocate—as a society and also as NALC, as part of our Martyn’s law working group—that it is a bit of a “Keep calm and carry on” situation, and that we can do this. A lot of it is a common-sense approach to security. The sentiment from our society is that the legislation should be welcomed and that regardless of whether there are bandings within certain buildings, we should develop a culture of terrorism awareness.
“What price is a life?” is the other comment that a lot of clerks have said of late. Why would somebody’s life be less important if they were in a building that has 199 people as opposed to 201? It is incumbent upon our sector to try to encourage a better culture.
Chris Murray
Q
Helen Ball: Let me give you a bit of my perspective as a practitioner. My involvement in that kind of terrorism management came two weeks after the Manchester bombings, because we were due to have an outdoor music event with 12,000 people in our park. We were starting to get comments from the public such as, “I don’t think I’m going to feel safe. Can I have my money back?” It was incumbent upon us to sit down with the event organiser and their security team, and the counter-terrorism officers and the local police, to put measures in place that would reassure the public that they were safe.
A lot of the kind of things in the current Bill are things that we have been doing. In effect, I, as a town clerk, have had to take on that kind of responsibility. I already had the responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, so it is not as if it is something brand new to us; it is just a different vein.
From our sector, clerks are exceptionally resourceful individuals. They have to be, because they have lots of plates spinning at any one time. So the right kind of guidance would be beneficial—perhaps guidance that we could work within the sector, including the security industry authority, to have very specific guidance that would help our fellow clerks. I think they would take it on board, because they see that this is an important piece of legislation that we have to work towards.
Keith Stevens: In the Bill, it would be good to have slightly more clarity on the responsibilities. If the parish council owns the land, and it is let out for an event, whose responsibility is it? Yes, I think it is down to the parish council to make sure the event organiser is carrying out everything per the rule, but whose responsibility is it if that person says, “Yes, I’ll do all that.”, and then does not? It is one of the slightly grey areas that could be made clearer.
Chris Murray
Q
Helen Ball: It is something that has evolved over the years. When I became town clerk in Shrewsbury 15 years ago, when we were renting the park for an event, it used to be a case of, “Fill out the application form, send me your public liability insurance and the cheque, then drop the keys off when you are finished—thank you very much.” Now we have more stringent premises licenses that require us to ensure that there are event plans and security plans, and that they are communicated with emergency services and the emergency planning team. It has become a morphed role anyway that we have absorbed. I do not really see how Martyn’s law is going to add significantly to that. It just gives us more strength in the argument with event organisers that we have legislation backing us.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Q
Keith Stevens: I don’t think so. One of the issues stopping people coming back or standing for councillor has been the standards regime. I was pleased that it was announced that that is being looked at, and it would appear to bring back the standards regime and the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I think that is the only reason why people have not come forward so much, and that is a growing problem not just for councils, but for charities, because of red tape and things like that. I think people will come forward and support their parish council on issues such as safety. People in the village have children and relatives, and they want to keep them all safe. That is where I think parish town councils are almost the key to safety in the community. They are the ones that know what is going on, and people follow their lead.
Helen Ball: I agree with Councillor Stevens. Parish councils are the beating heart of a community. The fact that they have community venues, parks and open spaces, as well as holding events in there, adds to the culture and the dynamic of that community. When you have that strong community infrastructure, you are likely to have a greater mandate from people wanting to stand. Both NALC and the Society of Local Council Clerks have regional structures, which means that we can cascade that enthusiasm and culture down to grassroots level.
Keith Stevens: I would just add that a lot of parish councils are custodian trustees for their village halls, and the village halls are run by a charitable management committee. In my view, it is beholden on the parish councils to make sure that all the community groups in their villages or towns also understand the effect of Martyn’s law. However, I have to mention that it will have a cost. There is not a cost on lives but there are a lot of smaller parish councils with a lower precept; the cost to them will increase, and we will need to undertake training programmes, which has been mentioned.
Ben Maguire
Q
Keith Stevens: The costs for the extra time of a clerk. A lot of parishes have a clerk who works five to eight hours a week, and they will have to find time to do some of those things.
Ben Maguire
In terms of training?
Keith Stevens: Yes, both training and carrying out the review. When Ms Ball carried out the review, it took quite a long time, didn’t it?
Helen Ball: Yes.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from members of the Committee, I thank Councillor Stevens and Helen Ball for their evidence this morning. We will constitute the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Paul Laffan, Stuart Beeby, Heather Walker and Alex Beard CBE gave evidence.
The Chair
For this oral evidence session, we have until 11.25 am. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Heather Walker: I am Heather Walker. I am the chief operating officer at the Royal Ballet and Opera.
Alex Beard: I am Alex Beard. I am the chief executive of the Royal Ballet and Opera, formerly the Royal Opera House.
Paul Laffan: I am Paul Laffan, the group safety and security manager for ATG Entertainment.
Stuart Beeby: I am Stuart Beeby, the group operations director for ATG Entertainment.
Matt Bishop
Q
Alex Beard: In principle, these risks are ones that we face operationally day to day. We are already on the crowded places register, so we are already taking many of the actions implied in this legislation. In particular, the lens through which we do that is a risk-analysis approach, with support from the counter-terrorism security adviser and our specialist contractors.
Codifying the expectations of us through “reasonably practicable”, as well as having access to support in implementing this legislation through the relevant authorities and a regulatory body to refer to, are positive additions in principle. Of course, that is subject to there not being any cracks in the obligations between the various actors, and there being sufficient resource for the regulator to deliver its functions. I see this as building on the practice that is already in place. I would just like to stress that we are fully supportive of the legislation. We were involved in its consultation and we regard it as being a good thing.
Stuart Beeby: ATG Entertainment’s perspective is as a multi-site operator. We have 64 venues across Germany, America and the UK. 33 of those are in the UK, from Torquay to Glasgow. Similarly to the Royal Ballet and Opera, we have been involved in the creation of this Bill. While we feel we are already on a good footing with our processes and training and are fully supportive, it is a similar message from us if the process is too formulaic—a one size fits all.
Right now we work with all the security elements, be it contractors and risk assessments and the like or our counter-terrorism colleagues in the local constabularies. The challenges that we face running a 1,000-seat theatre in Torquay are very different from those at our two large theatres in Manchester or our 10 in the west end. So we are very supportive and feel that we are in a good position moving forward with training and processes, but we have an eye on how formulaic this may be with—forgive me—a cookie-cutter approach to it.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Paul Laffan: For us, we already have the processes built in. We have been doing this for a number of years to ensure that we are prepared, as we should be as a public space. Although our venues are vast and wide, the majority are quite straightforward in terms of what we do. The events themselves do not vary a great deal—it is either a play, a musical, a comedy or whatever—the operation of the building does not alter too much and the buildings themselves are predominantly listed, large buildings.
We would expect to conduct initial assessments, which we have already done, and to review them at a similar frequency to all our health and safety approaches; just regular touchpoints subject to any massive changes. We therefore do not feel that the risk assessment element would be overly onerous upon us. For others in our industry, where they have more dynamic spaces and second spaces, it could be slightly trickier; having that resource and knowledge could be challenging. However, we do not foresee its being a huge concern for us.
Heather Walker: One of our thoughts is that the public will need to understand how venues will operate under this Bill. As an example, post covid when we were all opening up, we all worked very closely together to make sure the kinds of mitigations and arrangements in place, so that the public felt safe coming back into theatres, were similar.
Whichever theatre you went to, you saw the same sorts of things in place. I think the nature of risk assessing for this arrangement, which I totally agree with, is going to mean different things for different people. Having different kinds of events, or a different audience profile attending those events, will perhaps change what mitigations you put in place. From the public’s perspective, they will need to understand that not everybody is doing the same thing. That might create some concerns about just how safe one place is compared with another.
Paul Laffan: If I may add to that, I think this comes back to “reasonably practicable” and how we apply that. Someone’s risk assessment can vary from operator to operator, person to person, so it is a question of how much guidance there will be around the expectations so that, when we are weighing up that impact likelihood, cost analysis, of “reasonably practicable”, we understand how we quantify that for a large operator with significant funds behind, it versus a small operator with far less funds. That then would raise concern for me that we may inadvertently create a higher risk profile for another venue; if ATG or the Royal Opera House spent a lot of money strengthening our own resolve and it makes another operator who does not have the same access to funds appear a more viable target.
Stuart Beeby: Our principle is “deter”. That is the key thing: the counter-terrorism strategy is not “defend”, but “deter”. That means that if there is hostile reconnaissance and you look professional and so on, if you are being targeted you could be pushing them along to what is considered a softer target, although dynamically they are actually complying with all the requirements of the Bill.
Paul Laffan: There would be some shape and colour around the risk assessment process and what some of the expected outcomes and the suitable and understood control measures are that would be pragmatic and proportionate to the risk, but also replicable across the entire industry. On Heather’s point, if as a customer I go to see “Mean Girls” one day and a ballet the next, I should not be surprised that there is security and a similar experience on the front end.
Tim Roca
Q
Alex Beard: It puts additional responsibilities on the SIA, which needs the resources and expertise to fulfil those duties. It is a big step up—that is my No. 1 observation.
Heather Walker: And it needs the time to put this in place so that it is consistent and appropriate.
Paul Laffan: Certainly from our point of view, it is a good appointment. It is the logical one, given what it already does in the private security sector. Our only real concern would be around its—forgive me for using the wrong word—ability to pragmatically apply the risk assessment and the review of processes in what is quite a different industry and setting across much of live entertainment, versus the classic private security sector, but we are sure that that will come out in its guidance as it starts forming.
It would be great to have clarity in the Bill on how the SIA will interact externally, such as with public planning. As we strengthen our own four walls, if that shifts the attack vector to externals, with things like vehicle-as-weapon, we have very little control over the public spaces outside our buildings, yet we will introduce a crowd of people leaving after a show. HVM—hostile vehicle mitigation—is an example. That is something that we always push for in planning applications and it is very swiftly declined, fundamentally on the basis of cost and whether it suits the planning aesthetic of pedestrianised areas. It is about understanding how much power the SIA will have in enforcing, collaborating and engaging with external bodies on behalf both of the Bill and of us as private entities.
Alex Beard: Ensuring that there are no cracks between the obligations on individual institutions and the role of the local authority and the statutory authority is absolutely key. Even when hostile vehicle mitigation is accepted as required or desirable, the time lag in implementing it can be very considerable.
Chris Murray
Q
Heather Walker: Security is both a moral and a commercial obligation for our visitors and our staff. It is essential that the public and our staff feel safe in our building; that is an important part of their feedback and how we keep on attracting them. The reasonable practicableness is a very subjective view. As an example, we do bag searches for everybody who comes into the building. Some might feel that having security arches is reasonable, but we have to balance that with the fact that we are a theatre—we are providing entertainment and this is a social space to come into with your friends and family. All these things are about balance and assessment. Having a CTSA to guide us through that is certainly extremely valuable.
Stuart Beeby: Our view, looking across the United Kingdom, is very similar. Things are affected, and there is a groupthink. We can demonstrate with statistics how long it took people to come back into places of mass gathering for great entertainment: post covid, it has taken a long time. I speak as the largest operator of theatre in the UK. There will be areas, particularly in some constituencies, where there are still independent theatres run by local authorities. The challenge with the cost base in live entertainment is very real, given the national living wage, energy costs and just the costs of producing. There has always been a high bar, but with those three it is a bit of a perfect storm. Unfortunately, cost is a reality that makes people look.
As we tried to paint a picture earlier, when we talk about the formulaic, you could get the same effect by scanning the ticket, having the table, checking the bag, having another queue for bigger bags or maybe not even allowing bigger bags into your theatre. You can do all that. If you come to our theatre at the Lyceum, with Disney as our partner, where we are doing 2,100 people with eight shows a week, you will see dogs there. I do not use dogs at the Savoy or the Princess theatre in Torquay, but that does not mean that you are less safe. There is an assessment.
We have to constantly manage that message. We do customer feedback, and you are right that we get the two bookends: “You made us do a bag search, it was raining, it was ‘An Inspector Calls’, the average age was 65 and we were out in the rain,” versus, “You were rushing us through, I had a bag and the check by your security staff seemed cursory.” We are constantly having to balance it.
There will be a real challenge on cost, which comes back to the application. For us, I guess it is about being very clear. It needs to be effects-based in terms of how it is assessed and the mitigations you put in place, because good training and being professional are just as effective as somebody being poor and just trying to whizz everybody through an arch, which would create a lot of cost. That formulaic piece is key.
We are constantly managing the message that these are safe spaces to be, because in the theatre the average age is still higher. It is still that demographic that is 45-plus with more disposable income and, particularly in regional theatre with your matinées, there will be more retirees, so they are very receptive to trigger events.
The Chair
As no other members of the Committee have questions, may I thank all our witnesses for their evidence this morning? That brings us to the end of our morning session. The Committee will continue taking oral evidence at 2 pm, here in the Boothroyd Room.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month 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 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
The Chair
Welcome, everybody, to the first sitting of the Committee in which we consider the Bill’s content in detail. The only announcement that I will make at the beginning is that it is very helpful to Hansard if people hand over or email any notes they may have.
I recognise that this will be the first time that some Committee members have served on a Public Bill Committee. My view is that the best way to learn and understand the procedure is to listen to what is going on rather than looking at your phones and emails. On that basis, I am not going to make massive announcements at the beginning about the rules of procedure, because I assume that people will be able to pick them up pretty quickly.
Clause 1
Assured tenancies to be periodic with rent period not exceeding a month
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“unless the tenant meets the student test where the tenancy is entered into.
(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 54, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“, unless the landlord and the tenant mutually agree to have a fixed term during which period the landlord agrees to suspend the ability to seek possession under Ground 1 (Occupation by landlord or family), Ground 1A (Sale of dwelling-house) or Ground 6 (Redevelopment) of Schedule 2.
(1A) During a fixed term tenancy agreed under subsection (1) the landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent as provided for by section 13.”
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
David Simmonds
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope the Committee will forgive me; this is the first time I have served on a Public Bill Committee as a shadow Minister. I think it is the Minister’s first time as well. I am sure we will crave your indulgence as we go forward to make sure that the Committee runs efficiently and effectively.
Amendments 48 and 54 aim to address a number of issues, relating to the situation students face when securing appropriate accommodation, that were raised both in our oral evidence sessions and in evidence that several organisations submitted to the Committee for consideration. In summary, the amendments aim to ensure a carve-out— as previously considered in deliberations on the Renters (Reform) Bill—so that not just purpose-built student accommodation but student lets more generally fall outside the direct scope of the measures in the legislation.
There are in the evidence a number of examples of how the Bill will affect the ability of students to access the accommodation that they require while they are at their place of study. International students are a significant part of our UK university financial infrastructure, and the ability for them to secure, often from another country, appropriate accommodation in advance, for a fixed period of time, and sometimes for groups of students, is extremely important, not only to them, to meet their housing needs, but to the university because of the fees they contribute.
We heard representations about the impact on students of the need to take properties off the market to make them available to rent again, which occurs largely around the time of examinations, because of the annual cycle of student accommodation. Student organisations expressed a deal of concern, particularly in the context of student mental health—a significant issue that universities are concerned about—that the pressure created would be considerable if people are required to seek new accommodation at the same time as studying for examinations. We need to ensure that the student market retains the degree of flexibility that enables student landlords to address that issue.
The Bill has a broader interaction with areas where there are student communities. Most of us will know, either from our constituencies or nearby, that where there are universities, student communities have grown up and become established and there are landlords that specifically serve that market. Accommodation that may historically have been family homes has been converted specifically for student use, with landlords who specialise in that market.
We would not wish to see that supply of student accommodation significantly diminished because, given the changes in the Bill, it may become more profitable for a landlord to make a property available to the local authority for temporary accommodation, or simply to move it entirely into a different area of the private rented market. Where there is an established market for student accommodation that is vital for the local economy and for the university, we want to make sure that that is preserved.
Finally, there is the article 4 direction issue. Because of the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation in areas proximate to universities, many local authorities have introduced controls with a view to ensuring that an appropriate supply of student accommodation remains, without other types of houses in multiple occupation springing up. That is despite the fact that the physical nature of the accommodation would lend itself to a number of different uses in that market. Ensuring a carve-out would help to guarantee the long-term supply of student accommodation, so that young people who study can secure the accommodation they need at an affordable price.
I hope I have summarised the Opposition’s thinking in tabling the amendments and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Before I respond to amendments 48 and 54, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister, I put on the record my thanks to the witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.
It is agreeable to serve opposite the shadow Minister. He and I are of different political persuasions and, although I hope to persuade him otherwise, I fear we may not be of the same mind regarding some aspects of this legislation. He is, however, a sincere and thoughtful individual, and I know that, even when we disagree strongly in the sittings ahead, the debate will be measured and reasonable. The same applies to other Opposition spokespeople.
As the shadow Minister clearly set out, amendment 48 seeks to amend the new section 4A that clause 1 inserts into the Housing Act 1988, to provide an exemption from the single system of periodic tenancies for those who meet the student test in new ground 4A, set out in schedule 1—that is, all full-time students, irrespective of their living arrangements. The effect would be to require such students—even those who may be the sole occupant of a rented property—to continue to have fixed terms, denying them the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced by the Bill.
The shadow Minister made the case for the amendment on the basis that we require a carve-out for the student sector. I would argue that we have introduced in the Bill a limited carve-out in the form of ground 4A ground for possession. That will ensure that non-typical students can enjoy the benefits of the new tenancy system, as well as typical students, within the limited confines of that ground for possession. It should ensure that landlords can maintain the cyclical nature of that market. As I said in the evidence sessions, I suspect that that ground for possession may be used only in limited circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that tenants overstay their tenancies en masse. We think that limited carve-out provides what is needed to maintain the unique business model in the student sector.
Amendment 54 would have the same effect for all tenants, ostensibly on a voluntary basis, providing as it does for fixed terms in circumstances where a landlord and a tenant mutually agree to them, on the basis of possession grounds 1, 1A and 6, and rent increases under section 13 are suspended for the duration.
I am afraid I cannot accept either amendment. The Government have been clear that there is no place for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces. Fixed terms mean that tenants are locked into tenancy agreements and do not have the freedom to move should their personal circumstances require that—for example, if they want to take up a job in another part of the country or if a relationship breaks down. Fixed terms also mean that tenants must pay rent regardless of whether the property is fit to live in, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous landlords to complete repairs. As a point of principle, the Government will not deny any type of tenant, including full-time students, the rights and protections afforded to them under the new tenancy system the Bill introduces.
I also find the argument that fixed-term tenancies are more beneficial to both parties than rolling periodic tenancies utterly unconvincing. In circumstances where a responsible landlord and a good tenant have a mutual wish to sustain a tenancy over a defined period without a rent increase—the conditions that underpin the rationale for amendment 54—fixed-term tenancies would provide no clear advantages beyond those that both parties will already enjoy under periodic tenancies, as introduced by the Bill.
If the shadow Minister’s argument is instead that the benefit of fixed terms is that they ensure that a tenancy is sustained, even in the event of either party having good reason to end it—for example, if the landlord wanted to sell the property, or if a tenant wanted to buy and move into a first home—that simply exposes the unnecessary restrictions that fixed terms would impose in those circumstances, locking in either party against their interests.
Finally, I want to make it clear that amendment 54 would leave the new tenancy system open to abuse. In my view, it overlooks the power imbalance between landlords and tenants. In hot rental markets across the country the mismatch between supply and demand is acute, and one could easily imagine circumstances in which a disreputable landlord says to a tenant that the only way they are going to get the tenancy, which they may be desperately in need of, is if they take on a fixed-term tenancy. Tenants could feel forced to take on a fixed-term tenancy, perhaps without even knowing the condition of the property. I accept that the two sides of the Committee may have a legitimate and sincerely held difference of opinion on fixed-term tenancies, but I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
On the purpose and effect of clauses 1 and 2, the single system of periodic tenancies is at the heart of the legislation, and these clauses are key to its operation. Clause 1 provides that in future all assured tenancies will be periodic and can no longer have fixed terms. Any terms of an assured tenancy providing for the duration of the periodic tenancy to be different to the rent period—in other words, fixed terms—will be prohibited and legally unenforceable, and the tenancy will instead be a periodic tenancy. The clause also ensures that the tenancy’s periods will be the same duration as the period for which the rent is paid. Terms of a tenancy that state that the duration of the tenancy is different from the rent period will have no legal effect.
Clause 1 also limits the length of the rent period of an assured tenancy, stipulating that it must either be monthly or no more than 28 days long. Terms in a tenancy agreement that try to create a longer tenancy period will, again, be of no legal effect. Instead, the tenancy has effect as if it provided for monthly periods, with rent payable on the first day of each period. It is important to note that tenancies will be able to have periods of less than a month—which is an important feature for the social sector, where rent is more likely to be paid weekly or fortnightly—but it will not be possible to have a tenancy period of longer than one month, ensuring that disreputable or rogue landlords cannot seek to abuse the clause by demanding long rent periods to recreate fixed terms.
The new tenancy system introduced by clauses 1 and 2 —and others in chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill—will provide tenants with greater security and stability and empower them to challenge bad practice without fear of retaliatory eviction. As long as they provide the required notice, they will be able to end the tenancy at any point. Landlords will also benefit, through more straightforward regulation, clearer and expanded possession grounds, and the requirement for tenants to provide two months’ notice, which will ensure that landlords can recoup the cost of finding a new tenant and avoid lengthy void periods.
I appreciate that some landlords and groups are concerned that tenants will misuse rolling periodic tenancies as short-term or holiday lets. That concern was expressed on Second Reading and that also arose in the oral evidence. Although I understand the general apprehension and anxiety that surrounds such a significant change to the regulation of the private rented sector, those concerns are unfounded. The notion that tenants will routinely pay up to five weeks’ deposit, complete referencing checks and commit for at least two months, simply to secure a short-term or holiday let, has always struck me as improbable to say the least. As I argued on Second Reading, tenants simply do not move home unless it is absolutely necessary. Under the new tenancy system, when they do leave, they will be required to provide two months’ notice, giving landlords sufficient time to find new tenants.
Clause 2 removes the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 that established assured shorthold tenancies, so that such tenancies cannot be created in the future. The clause also removes section 21 of the 1988 Act. In addition, it removes section 6A of that Act, which provided the mechanism by which private registered providers of social housing could apply to a court to demote tenants from an assured to an assured shorthold tenancy if they committed antisocial behaviour. The change is being made because ASTs will no longer exist once the new single system of periodic tenancies has come into force.
As a result of the assured shorthold tenancy regime, and the ever-present threat of arbitrary eviction via a section 21 notice, millions of people in England live day in, day out with the knowledge that they and their families could be uprooted from their home with little notice and minimal justification. We know that a significant minority of them are forced to live in substandard properties for fear that a complaint would lead to a retaliatory eviction.
The insecurity embedded in the current system fails both tenants looking for a stable home for their families and responsible landlords who are undercut by the minority of unscrupulous landlords willing to exploit and mistreat them. A single system of periodic tenancies will provide greater security for tenants, while retaining the important flexibility that privately rented accommodation offers. It will mean that tenants can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities, save—with fewer unwanted moves—and avoid the risk of homelessness.
Removing section 21 will level the playing field between landlord and tenant, empowering tenants to challenge poor practice and unjustified rent increases. It will also incentivise landlords to engage and resolve legitimate issues of concern, given that they will be able to regain possession of a property only where there is good reason, using the clear and expanded possession grounds set out in schedule 1. With a single tenancy structure, both parties will also better understand their rights and responsibilities.
Far too many tenants are evicted from a private tenancy each year without due cause, which is why so-called no-fault section 21 notices are a leading cause of homelessness in England. As I argued on Second Reading, this broken system can no longer be tolerated, not least because the private rented sector now houses not just the young and mobile, but growing numbers of older people and families with children, for whom greater security and certainty is essential for a flourishing life. To ensure that private renters get a fair deal, we need to transform how the sector is regulated and level the playing field between landlord and tenant.
This Government will succeed where the previous Government failed, by finally modernising regulation of the sector and abolishing arbitrary evictions. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
The Chair
I assume that no one wishes to participate in the debate on clauses 1 and 2 and the amendments. Unlike in the informal hearing in which we took evidence, if people wish to participate in the debate, they must rise in their places so that I can see they wish to speak. In the absence of anyone wishing to participate in the debate, I call the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. When we consider the history of this sector of our housing supply, it is clear that there have been many attempts by Governments over many years to address the challenges that reflect different eras. Having sought the advice of the former Member for Henley, who was the Secretary of State who introduced the assured shorthold tenancy, I know that it was originally conceived as a means of increasing supply and reducing cost, so that tenants could more easily access accommodation of the necessary quality at an affordable price. There is no doubt that it achieved that end, but we also recognise that, although according to the Government’s own figures tenants in the private rented sector expressed the highest level of satisfaction with their accommodation, compared with occupants in any housing sector, there continue to be issues that partly reflect supply but also reflect the presence of some of the unscrupulous landlords the Minister referred to.
Clearly, there is a degree of philosophical and political difference, in that we on the Opposition Benches are strongly committed to the concept of freedom of contract. We can identify many examples, including those I mentioned, where people wish—for example, because they have a fixed-term contract with particular employment —to secure accommodation for a specific period. People coming for a course of study also may wish to secure accommodation for a fixed period, especially international students who are here for a period and then wish to leave the UK to return to their families elsewhere. In such cases the opportunity to have such arrangements is significant, and it is in the interests both of the landlords who specialise in providing that type of accommodation and of the tenant themselves that freedom of contract continues to be available.
Amendment 54 explores the issue that was raised previously in Parliament by the former Member for Totnes—the Mangnall amendment. Given that, as the Minister said, the Government are not minded to accept it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Sections 1 and 2: effect of superior leases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief, as this clause is simple and straightforward. It ensures that leaseholders can continue to sub-let under the new regime where they currently have permission to do so.
Leaseholder arrangements may currently require any sub-let to be on an assured shorthold or an assured tenancy with a fixed or minimum term. The clause will enable existing sub-leases to continue under the new tenancy system once assured shorthold tenancies and fixed terms are abolished. This will ensure that leaseholders and their superior landlords are not unduly affected by the reforms and that previously agreed arrangements can continue. It will not grant rights to leaseholders to sub-let for holiday or rental accommodation unless they were able to do so before the Bill took effect. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Changes to grounds for possession
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 77, in schedule 1, page 155, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) In the heading of Part 1, omit ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
(1B) Omit the heading of Part II.”
This amendment would make all grounds for repossession discretionary.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
“(a) omit subsection (3);
(b) in subsection (4)—
(i) omit ‘Part II of’; and
(ii) omit ‘, subject to subsections (5A) and (6) below,’”.
This amendment would make all grounds for repossession discretionary.
Amendment 74, in schedule 2, page 175, line 40, leave out from “claims),” to the end of line 41 and insert “omit subsection (6)”.
This amendment would make all grounds for repossession discretionary.
Mr Amos
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The intention of this amendment is to make all grounds for eviction discretionary for the court. As the Committee heard from experts during oral evidence, many in the sector are concerned that none of the grounds will be discretionary.
There are a range of circumstances in which discretion would be advisable in deciding eviction cases. The tenant may be terminally ill—a cancer patient, for example—and I understand that that example was considered during the last Parliament in relation to the previous Bill. The court would have no discretion to enable a stay of eviction in that case. The tenant could have caring responsibilities, perhaps for a disabled person. Again, there would be no discretion to vary the terms of the eviction.
There could be undue hardship caused if the tenant was unable to stay for a given period. Perhaps the tenant had already arranged to move and arranged new accommodation, but that was not available on the timescale in the Bill; in that case, there would again be no discretion. The tenant might have an impending examination to sit or a work commitment that was vital to their career. Again, there would be no discretion for the courts. The tenant may be a disabled person and need extra time or support to arrange the physical burden of moving home.
In a previous discussion, the Minister talked about the importance of taking the personal circumstances of tenants into account, and that is the intent behind this amendment. The courts will not be able to take personal circumstances into account because there will be no discretion on the terms of eviction.
Parties are especially concerned about this issue in relation to grounds 1 and 1A, which concern eviction for repossession by the landlord or their family or for the sale of the property. We heard from Liz Davies KC during oral evidence that, in many cases, a tenant could have done nothing wrong but would still be subject to eviction without any discretion for the courts to vary the terms of that.
Even if the Government do not accept the amendment, I argue that there should be discretion for the courts, if not in every case of eviction, at least in exceptional circumstances. I urge the Government to take that on board in the spirit in which I have moved this amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling these amendments, which allow us to have this debate. In my view—I think this is shared across the House —landlords must have robust and clear grounds for possession where there is good reason for them to take their property back. I hope that he will appreciate the steps the Government have already taken to ensure that the grounds are fair to both parties. We have overhauled the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill to provide additional protections for tenants, including longer notice periods, a longer protected period and a higher rent arrears threshold. We have also scrapped the previous Government’s harmful proposals to introduce a new ground for repeat rent arrears, and we have reduced the discretionary antisocial behaviour threshold to behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance.
However, amendments 73, 74 and 77, which would make all grounds discretionary, are a step too far. Indeed, I never argued for all grounds to be discretionary when we considered the previous Government’s Bill. Making all grounds discretionary would mean that landlords have no certainty that they would be awarded possession even if the grounds were otherwise met. That includes in situations of serious antisocial behaviour—where the tenant has been convinced of a serious criminal offence or has broken an injunction put in place to stop their behaviour. Landlords wanting to sell or move into their property could be prevented from doing so, and specialist sectors, such as temporary and supported accommodation, would not be able to guarantee regaining possession in order to house new individuals who require their support.
I assure the hon. Member that there are still many discretionary grounds in the Bill and that judges will have discretion in less clear cases or where possession may not always be reasonable, despite the ground having been met. It is absolutely right that judges have discretion where possession takes place in those circumstances, and that includes smaller breaches of a tenancy agreement or low levels of rent arrears. I believe the steps that we have taken to protect tenants provide sufficient protections against unfair evictions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member not to press his amendments.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I would like to speak in favour of the amendment and to bring the Minister’s attention to the evidence we received from experts, which highlighted the fact that discretionary grounds do not make it impossible for the court to award possession. In fact, in many cases, especially ones involving antisocial behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that the courts would apply a high threshold for where to exercise discretion. Nevertheless, that does not negate the principle that there may be extremely exceptional circumstances in which discretion is needed. The Government completely tying the hands of the courts so that they are unable to consider those extenuating circumstances is counterproductive.
Mr Amos
I accept what the Minister says about the Bill’s intent and that there are very limited circumstances in which discretion would be available. It is disappointing, though, that it is not recognised that courts require more discretion than is given. The Bill would provide discretion only in those very limited circumstances.
Matthew Pennycook
Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The mandatory grounds for possession are very limited and specific—for example, grounds 1 and 1A, where the landlord has a clear intention to move back into the property or move a family member in or to sell the property, and they have to evidence that with the court. I ask hon. Members to consider—this was put to me many times in the evidence sessions—the challenges that our courts face and the burden that this legislation places on them. Making every ground discretionary, irrespective of how reasonable it is for a landlord in those grounds 1 and 1A circumstances, for example, to take back their property quickly, risks overburdening the courts. As I say, many of the grounds remain discretionary. However, we think that there is a good reason why a certain number of mandatory grounds are in a different bracket from the discretionary one.
Mr Amos
I hear what the Minister says. The case was made forcefully by witnesses in oral evidence that the discretionary grounds for eviction are far too limited and that we need to see further discretion given to the courts. This would not prevent evictions continuing or the courts from making the decisions in accordance with the Bill’s provisions, and it would provide discretion to the courts. I urge the Government to consider widening the categories of discretion for the courts in evictions. I hope that the Government will consider that issue during the passage of the Bill, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
David Simmonds
I certainly do not want to imply that there would be any degree of political love-in, but on this matter, I agree with the Minister. It is worth saying for the record that we in the Opposition understand that when the courts are considering this matter, the first issue will be an evidential test: has the necessary threshold for the mandatory ground to be triggered been met? If the court’s opinion is that there is some doubt about that, clearly it has the discretion to act differently because it considers through an evidential test that the threshold has not been met.
In practice, courts deal with this matter with a high degree of discretion, as they do with all other matters that are alike. As Members of Parliament, we will be aware of situations where constituents have been victims of serious, persistent, long-term antisocial behaviour. The grounds outlined are examples where evidence has been accumulated and a court can swiftly make a decision to grant possession in order for the situation to be resolved for the wider benefit of other people affected.
We therefore support the Government’s position that the mandatory grounds should be framed in this way and that moving to make all grounds discretionary would add an element of doubt over and above the evidential test. That would, in turn, enable those who wish to perpetrate long-term antisocial behaviour to get away with it for a longer period of time.
Mr Amos
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 4, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
“(fa) after subsection (5A), insert—
‘(5B) Where the court makes an order for possession on grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act (whether with or without other grounds), the order shall include a requirement on the landlord to file and serve evidence no later than sixteen weeks from the date of the order.
(5C) Evidence provided under subsection (5B) must—
(a) provide details of—
(i) the state of occupation of the dwelling-house since the date of the order, and
(ii) the progress of any sale of the dwelling-house, and
(b) be accompanied by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.’”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 69, in clause 4, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 7, insert—
‘7A Evidential requirements for Grounds 1 and 1A
(1) The court shall not make an order for possession on grounds 1 or 1A in Schedule 2 to this Act unless the landlord has complied with subsections (2) to (4) below.
(2) Where the landlord has served a notice for possession on grounds 1 or 1A, the court must be provided with evidence verified by a statement of truth signed by the landlord.
(3) Where the landlord has served a notice for possession on ground 1 and the dwelling house is required by a member of the landlord’s family as defined in paragraphs 2(b) to (d) of that ground, the court must be provided with evidence verified by a statement of truth signed by that family member.
(4) Where the landlord has served a notice for possession on ground 1A, the evidence referred to in sub-section (2) must include a letter of engagement from a solicitor or estate agent concerning the sale of the dwelling house.’”
Mr Amos
The amendment’s purpose is to require the evidence to be provided by landlords on grounds 1 and 1A, in the case of occupying the home or selling the property, to be clearly stated in the Bill, so that it is clear what evidence needs to be provided and the test is clearly stated. The Government have indicated that the evidence required will be contained in guidance, but it would significantly reassure Members in this House and in the other place if we could see the evidential test for landlords to gain possession. The amendment sets out the need for a statement of truth and suggests that a letter of engagement from a solicitor in the sale of a property is the kind of evidence that should be in the Bill. I believe the amendment is self-explanatory in that regard.
Matthew Pennycook
While I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments—indeed, as a shadow Minister, I probed the previous Government on this point when discussing the previous Bill—on reflection, I do not think they are the right approach for the following reason, which relates to the previous debate. We have overhauled the Bill in a number of ways to strengthen protections for tenants, and we must be careful about tipping the balance too far the other way and penalising good landlords, who, in certain circumstances, have a right to certainty that they will get their property back and that this will move through the courts in an orderly fashion.
Amendment 68 is an attempt to deter abuse of grounds 1 and 1A, which is an honourable intention. It seeks to require landlords to present further evidence that they have fulfilled the grounds after the possession order has been granted. It does not detail what should happen if a landlord does not present the evidence. Furthermore, it will have no impact on cases that do not make it to court. Where a landlord has obtained a possession order through the courts, they will already have presented evidence to a court to satisfy a judge of their intent to meet the grounds. The amendment would also place an additional burden on courts, which would need to set up new processes to deal with the evidence, taking time away from progressing possession claims.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington asked me to consider whether grounds that are currently mandatory should be discretionary, and I thought very carefully about which grounds should be discretionary and which mandatory when developing and overhauling this piece of legislation over recent months. On the basis of that reflection, I have concluded that increasing the prohibition on remarketing and reletting a property after using these grounds, including in cases that do not reach court, is a better mechanism for preventing abuse than adding requirements for evidence. This will allow a tenant to take action if they see, for example, their property advertised online following eviction.
Amendment 69 seeks to put into legislation prescribed evidential requirements for grounds 1 and 1A. We just had a discussion about how we should trust judges and their judgment on these matters. I believe that judges are best placed to consider and determine the evidence before them on these mandatory grounds. Setting an enhanced evidence threshold may mean that judges are less likely to consider wider evidence, and it could inadvertently lower the threshold where an eviction is ordered. It is right that judges have the discretion to respond to the evidence provided on a case-by-case basis. That is what the Bill provides for, and I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Amos
The Minister says that the amendment does not include what would happen if the evidence was not provided—clearly, the evidence would not be there and the case would be weakened on that basis. I contest the idea that this is an onerous or burdensome requirement. The statement of truth is an extremely simple document—many on the Committee will have seen them—that can be produced easily and at little expense. I also contest the idea that courts need separate processes to look at statements of truth. They look at statements of truth all day, every day; new processes are not required.
The engagement of a solicitor in the sale of a property is not a particularly onerous requirement on someone selling their property. I assume that the person selling the property would, in any event, have to engage a solicitor, and would therefore need a letter of engagement. It is not an onerous requirement in any shape or form. The Minister said that judges would have less discretion. Again, I contest that, because judges would simply have more evidence in front of them; it would not have any effect on the amount of discretion that judges have. I urge the Minister to continue considering the issue, but I can do the maths, so I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
Again, I agree with the Government on this matter. A lot of residential property transactions are undertaken by licensed conveyancers rather than by solicitors. That is a much more affordable and efficient option, often done on a fixed-fee basis, and that is particularly relevant to smaller landlords. Introducing a requirement that a solicitor must be used would be unduly onerous and would inhibit the number of transactions in the market.
Matthew Pennycook
I wish to provide further reassurance to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I fear that we are dancing on the head of a pin here. Under the provisions in the Bill, judges will have to consider evidence to justify the use of mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I provided examples of the types of evidence that judges may require. It is up to individual judges to ask for that evidence and to make a decision on the basis of what is put in front of them. We trust judges to do that. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I do not accept the idea that judges are not looking at evidence and not ensuring that the use of these grounds is properly justified. That is misplaced, so I am glad he has indicated that he will withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 4, page 6, line 14, leave out “1A,”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 6, line 15, leave out “4A,”.
Amendment 57, in clause 4, page 6, line 16, at beginning insert “1A,”.
Amendment 71, in clause 4, page 6, line 20, after “4,” insert “4A,”.
David Simmonds
These amendments relate similarly to the issue of notice periods for grounds for sale. It is important to recognise that a very significant part of our housing supply continues to come from the private rented sector—in particular, from the buy-to-let market. Drawing on my experience as a financial adviser, one of the key issues for lenders in advancing buy-to-let mortgages arises because of the risks associated with them—in essence, people are much more likely to pay their mortgage payments on their own home than when they are borrowing to secure a home for investment purposes—so there is a risk premium, or a rating, on the mortgage interest. Consequently, a significant supply of finance is required to support the development of the buy-to-let market.
The introduction of significant restrictions on the length of notice periods will mean that when there is a default on those payments and they are not being made, it will be more difficult for the possession for the purposes of sale and the settlement of the outstanding debt to the bank to be progressed. That could have a chilling effect on the ability to secure finance and, in turn, an impact on the supply of properties available to those needing to secure a home in the private rented sector.
Once again, it is part of a broader, small “p”, philosophical and political argument. We are very much of the view that securing the maximum possible supply is very important, and we need to strike the correct balance so that we do not see a chilling effect having the unintended consequence of a reduction in supply.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman has just made clear, amendments 56 and 57 seek to reduce the notice period for the selling ground 1A from four months to two months. The Government believe that the notice period for tenants being evicted through no fault of their own should be four months, to give them adequate time to find new accommodation. An eviction notice can turn a family’s life upside down, and four months means they will not be forced to move during a school term. I draw the Committee’s attention to the remarks I made previously about the changing nature of the private rented system and the fact that more older people and families now live in it compared with the situation in the late ’80s, when the system was introduced.
Selling a property is often a long-term decision that involves significant planning on the part of landlords. We do not believe that landlords are likely to need to evict tenants with only two months’ notice, given the time it takes to secure a sale. They also have the option of selling with tenants in situ.
Amendments 70 and 71 were tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. They would make an extreme change that would reduce the notice period for the new student ground 4A to a mere two weeks from the current four months.
The Government believe that students are just as deserving of adequate notice as other tenants. The purpose of the student ground is to try to balance security of tenure with the need to preserve the annual cycle of typical student tenancies. These amendments do not assist the ground in that purpose at all. Student landlords plan their business models long term around the academic year, and after our reforms will factor the four-month notice into their planning.
There is no circumstance where a competent student landlord would suddenly need to evict tenants in line with the academic year with only two weeks’ notice. Indeed, currently they have to give two months’ notice under section 21. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrograde step vis-à-vis the current iniquitous arrangements that we are trying to undo.
Students often lack the capital to organise a move at short notice. A two-week notice period means it is likely they are given notice to leave during the summer break when they might be working, or even during their exams. We believe that it is right that they have four months’ notice to organise their move.
I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Mr Amos
Amendments 70 and 71 would align the two weeks’ notice for students in HMOs with the two weeks’ notice that the Bill provides that students would have in purpose-built student accommodation. All the points that the Minister has made in relation to the short-term notice period apply to the Bill because that is the Government’s intent in relation to purpose-built student accommodation. The amendments would simply align those properties under HMO ownership with those that are university or purpose-built student accommodation.
Landlords of HMO accommodation are likely to be smaller businesses than universities. Under the provisions in the Bill, universities would enjoy much greater flexibility on eviction than much smaller landlords, who would suffer as a result.
My concern is that there would be a reduction in the amount of student accommodation because of those very different terms on which HMO landlords would be able to let their properties to students compared with other tenants. Any reduction in the availability of supply of student accommodation, particularly in university towns, would have a serious impact on family housing, which is of course often occupied by students, much to the chagrin of residents who are looking for family homes.
It is vitally important that an unintended consequence of the Bill is not the reduction in supply of student accommodation. That is why we seek alignment with what the Bill provides for purpose-built student accommodation.
I urge the Government to consider reducing, if not to two weeks, then to two months, the grounds for eviction in other student accommodation, so that it is more closely aligned with the provisions that the Bill makes for the majority of student accommodation. I urge the Government to consider that and I will not press the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will consider that matter further. To be candid with the Committee, some judgments on provisions relating to student accommodation are finely balanced. We are trying to strike a balance between giving student tenants the right level of security while maintaining that annual cyclical nature of student accommodation.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are treating purpose-built student accommodation differently from that of students living in the general PRS. We recognise the limited market for such accommodation. Regarding students in the general PRS, I am reluctant to accept the hon. Gentleman’s advice. Student landlords will adapt to the system and factor the four-month notice period into their business models. I am happy, however, to reflect further on the arguments he made.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) After section 11 of the 1988 Act insert—
‘11A Possession on ground 6A: compensation of tenant
(1) This section applies where a court makes an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy on Ground 6A in Schedule 2 to this Act (whether or not the order is also made on any other ground).
(2) The court may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as a result of the order for possession.
(3) In deciding whether to make an order under this section, and what compensation to order, the court must (in particular) take into account the circumstances which led to Ground 6A being available as a ground for making an order for possession (including any conduct by the tenant which caused or contributed to Ground 6A being available).’”
This gives the court power to order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant where possession is obtained on Ground 6A (failure of premises to comply with planning requirements etc).
Matthew Pennycook
Without the threat of arbitrary section 21 evictions, tenants will be evicted only when landlords have reasonable grounds for doing so. Clause 4 amends the grounds for possession in schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. The grounds themselves are amended by schedule 1 of the Bill, which we will debate shortly. Most crucially, clause 4 sets out the notice periods for the grounds for possession. It extends notice periods for the main grounds where the tenant is not at fault, including where a landlord wishes to move in or sell the property.
In the current system, tenants can be evicted with as little as two months’ notice, even when they have done absolutely nothing wrong. In future, landlords will usually need to provide four months’ notice when the tenant is not at fault, such as when a landlord wants to sell or move in. Longer notice periods are critical to ensure that tenants have time to find alternative housing.
The previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill did not propose longer notice periods, maintaining the two months’ notice tenants face under existing section 21 arrangements. That was one of the main concerns expressed by the Opposition at the time, as well as by groups such as Shelter and Generation Rent. I am pleased to say we have addressed their concerns here. Crucially, four-month notice periods will also mean that families with children will never be forced to move during school term time when they are not at fault. That is fundamentally a matter of fairness from the Government’s point of view. Children’s education should not be disrupted simply to allow for the quicker sale of property, or to have another individual move in. Correcting that is at the heart of the Government’s opportunity mission.
The notice periods for the rent arrears ground will be increased from two weeks to four weeks. That will give vulnerable tenants who are struggling to pay their rent longer to find funds or alternative accommodation. I am confident that that will not burden landlords unfairly, and will give a little more time to tenants to find new accommodation if necessary, or to repay their arrears.
When landlords and communities are faced with antisocial behaviour, landlords will be able to make a possession claim to the court immediately. That will ensure that poor behaviour can be dealt with swiftly. That is currently only the case for the discretionary ASB ground 14, but we are expanding it to the mandatory ASB ground 7A, for which very serious behaviour must have occurred. It is a peculiar quirk of the current legislation that the discretionary ground allows landlords to take action more swiftly than the mandatory ground where tenants have committed very serious crimes. The clause would end that anomaly.
We acknowledge that permitting landlords to seek possession immediately, although appropriate, will not give tenants long to seek legal advice on their situation, or find a new home. The court will therefore not be able to make an order for possession that takes effect within 14 days from when the landlord serves notice on the tenant. In addition to notice periods, clause 4 would make provision for specific circumstances of possession. For example, the clause would ensure that superior landlords can continue possession claims made by an intermediate landlord, even after the head tenancy has expired. That will ensue that superior landlords requiring vacant possession will not have to begin a new claim when the intermediate landlord has already done so.
Finally, clause 4 would make further and consequential changes to the Housing Act 1988, to reflect wider changes made by the Bill, including the abolition of fixed-term tenancies and the introduction of new grounds for possession. That includes ensuring that protections for Case A tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 continue in the new system.
Members of the Committee might wonder what the wording in subsection (4),
“Disapplication of conditions where notice dispensed with”,
is designed to achieve. The use of certain grounds, including ground 4A, 5G and 6, hinges on the serving of valid notice. However, section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 permits a court to dispense with a notice requirement when it is reasonable to do so. This change will ensure that the grounds continue to work when this dispensation has occurred. The changes we are making in clause 4 will give tenants more time to find a place to live while ensuring that landlords can recover possession in a timely way when they have a legitimate reason to seek possession. That will ensure that the system works as intended.
David Simmonds
The Opposition supports the vast majority of these measures. We all recognise situations where a landlord is in breach of planning regulations, resulting in a property being overcrowded and potentially being turned into an HMO without the appropriate licence and so on, which can bedevil our constituents. It seems appropriate to take these steps to raise the stakes for landlords who seek to behave in that manner and drive them out of the market.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not have much to add to what I have already said. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Changes to grounds for possession
Carla Denyer
I beg to move amendment 42, in schedule 1, page 155, line 9, leave out “1 year” and insert “2 years”.
This amendment would increase the minimum period before a landlord can use certain grounds for possession from 12 months to 2 years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 58, in schedule 1, page 156, leave out lines 14 to 16.
Amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 156, line 15, leave out “1 year” and insert “2 years”.
This amendment would increase the minimum period before a landlord can use certain grounds for possession from 12 months to 2 years.
Carla Denyer
The Bill rightly seeks to address the fact that tenants do not have security in their homes. Amendments 42 and 43 would amend schedule 1 to lengthen the proposed period of protection against eviction under grounds 1 and 1A from one year to two years. This would be just one measure to start to address insecurity of tenure. It is worth recalling that the King’s Speech background briefing notes explain that one of the primary aims of the Bill is to increase tenant security and stability.
Private renting does not have to be insecure. The median length of tenancy in the UK is just under three years, while the average in Germany is 11 years. Insecurity erodes renters’ sense of belonging, and constant moving has a heavy financial cost. For children who are in privately rented homes—the Minister pointed out that they make up an increasing proportion of private renters—this insecurity takes a wider toll. Each school move at a non-standard time of year reduces expected GCSE grades by 0.5. Shelter has found that 13% of tenants with children in their household said that their last house move was stressful or upsetting for their child.
The Committee will no doubt be aware that constant moving is a major problem for private renters. Research by Shelter in 2022 found that a quarter of all private renters had lived in three or more privately rented homes in the previous five years—three different homes in five years. Amendments 42 and 43 are part of an effort to urgently change the renting culture and our ideas about what is acceptable when a property is rented out as someone’s home. I hope the Minister will look at them, not least because a central aim of the Bill is about addressing the deep unfairness of private tenant insecurity.
That unfairness is a massive problem in my constituency of Bristol Central, where a huge 47% of households are in the private rented sector. It affects many people. To give just two examples, a constituent I spoke to had to move six times in six years, and another constituent literally received her notice as she was moving her possessions into her new flat. That is unacceptable. Security is vital to allow renters to put down roots in their community and plan for the future. It is clear from the evidence gathered by the Renters’ Reform Coalition that the vast majority of tenants want security and the power to decide when to move on. They do not want the anxiety, discomfort and expense of being forced to move by a distorted, malfunctioning market.
Unwanted, unexpected home moves are stressful and costly. Generation Rent estimated in its evidence that an unwanted move costs a typical two-adult renting household more than £2,000. Almost half of renters have no savings at all. Moving frequently or a short period of time after the previous move impacts tenants’ financial resilience. For many, those costs are prohibitive and will push them into homelessness, not least because finding somewhere new can often prove impossible or mean accepting dangerous, substandard accommodation. To give one example among many from my constituents, after months of searching with no luck, a constituent and her partner had to settle for a grim place with an “unshakeable smell of damp” that made almost everything she owned “fuzzy with mould”.
Competition for properties in the private rented sector is fierce. Tenants often have little time in which to find a new home and little power to influence the terms of their tenancy agreements. They often sign 12 or six-month contracts under the current regime simply because that is the only option available to them, not because they actively prefer to be protected for only one year. Many tenants would prefer long-term security in their home. The proposed two-year protected period in amendment 42, coupled with rolling tenancies, would allow tenants a combination of flexibility and security.
We should reflect that the two-year protected period I am proposing is not radical or new—far from it. It was what was initially proposed in the former Conservative Government’s 2019 consultation, “A new deal for renting”, to ensure that security of tenure for tenants would not be undermined once fixed-term tenancies come to an end. However, when legislation was eventually brought forward, that Government watered down the protected period to just six months. The current Minister, then a shadow Minister, rightly supported a two-year protected period with regards to grounds 1 and 1A in the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee.
As well understanding its history, it is important to reflect on the fact that a longer protected period has the potential to drive professionalism in the sector. As ever, good landlords have nothing to fear from this provision. A two-year measure of security at the beginning of a tenancy is needed to create a disincentive for any abuse of the exemptions to no-fault eviction, and it would be a triple win: better for renters, for the local communities they move into, and for homelessness reduction.
The Renters’ Rights Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set out clear principles for the roles of both landlord and tenant and to develop a regulatory regime that reflects and incentivises that vision. While some landlords will have to make changes to their business plans, a two-year protected period should not amount to a significant change for many landlords or interfere with their business model. In the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee, when speaking to his amendment to create a two-year protected period, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly said:
“We believe that any landlord likely to use ground 1 or 1A in good faith will have some prior awareness that they or a family member may need the property for use at some point in the coming years, or that they may wish to sell it in the near future.”––[Official Report, Renters (Reform) Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2023; c. 173.]
Buy-to-let mortgages are often made available at fixed rates for two years or longer and, currently, the average tenancy in the private rented sector is longer than two years. This should not be overly disruptive, and it can provide much-needed stability for those in most need of it.
To conclude, the change to a two-year protected period would be one of the most important things the Government could implement in the Bill to more fully deliver on their ambition to decisively rebalance renting in favour of renters. The amendment seeks to understand the reasoning behind the proposal for a protected period of one year rather than two years, as was the Minister’s position previously. While 12 months is obviously an improvement on six, we can do better to improve the security of private renting, which has such a big impact on tenants’ health, wellbeing and life choices.
David Simmonds
I rise to speak to amendment 58. In general terms, I am very sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. In comparison with the UK housing market, most European countries have a much higher degree of long-term rental as part of their housing supply. The UK has a more mixed supply with a more significant owner-occupation sector. That is a challenge for the new Government, as it was for previous Governments, as we see overall demographic change bringing us a bit more in line with the housing markets of other countries. The UK, however, still remains significantly adrift of that position, which is why I am concerned that the hon. Lady’s amendments would potentially have, as with mortgage finance, a chilling effect on supply.
Carla Denyer
Would the hon. Gentleman be able to speak slightly louder? It is difficult to hear down here.
The Chair
Was the hon. Gentleman able to hear what the hon. Member for Bristol Central said?
David Simmonds
I shall do my best. It may be that, although seeking to comply with the rule of speaking to the Chair, I need to turn around more regularly to address the Committee. The point I was making is that while we have a lot of sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central, given that the changing nature of the UK rental market will result in these becoming more significant issues, we believe the issue of notice periods needs to be addressed through amendment 58.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member for Bristol Central has set out, amendments 42 and 43 seek to extend the protected period for the moving in and selling grounds to two years. Amendment 58, in contrast, seeks to remove the protected period for the selling ground entirely. We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance in this area.
The hon. Member for Bristol Central is right that during debate on the Renters (Reform) Bill, I probed the then-Government on increasing protections for tenants beyond the six months they had proposed. I did so given the relative lack of security that that Bill afforded to tenants, which we have improved on. I reflected very carefully on this point in the development of the Bill. Viewed in the context of the many strengths and protections that we have introduced to benefit tenants, I feel that a one-year protection period against the main landlord circumstances ground—this is not a general period of protection that applies to any arbitrary eviction, but is specific to grounds 1 and 1A—strikes the right balance between tenant security and ensuring that landlords can respond to genuine changes in their circumstances.
The shadow Minister highlighted the thinking that has led to me coming down to one year, instead of remaining with two. A two-year protected period for the moving and selling grounds is, I fear, too long. It would prevent landlords from being able to respond to changes in circumstances, and therefore harm confidence in the sector and risk decreasing supply. In some circumstances, landlords may only be able to let their property for a year—for example, if they temporarily moved abroad—and a longer period may therefore remove valuable supply from the market.
Most importantly, I was convinced that a one-year protected period would deter abuse from disreputable landlords seeking to circumvent the protections in place. The one-year protected period mirrors the typical one-year fixed-term tenancy. We think it strikes the right balance, but I am more than happy to give further consideration to the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central. I sympathise with and understand the significant costs borne by tenants from repeated moves. I understand, as I hope I have made clear in the debate so far, the need for stability and security, but we think that in this particular area, the one-year protected period is appropriate.
Carla Denyer
I thank the Minister for his response. I, too, have spent a lot of time reflecting on the potential effects of the amendment, including thinking about potential edge cases, exactly as he described.
Imagine someone who became an unintentional landlord, perhaps because after buying their home, they got seconded to another country for work for a year or two. While I recognise that it might be inconvenient for a landlord to have a two-year limit, it is also inconvenient for a tenant to have instability of tenure. If someone is, for example, seconded to work abroad for a year or two, with a fixed date of return to be back in their own property, they have to consider their responsibility to provide stable housing for their tenants. If they are not able to do that for a long enough time for the tenant not to be subjected to undue costs and effects on their health, stability, education and so on, maybe the landlord needs to look into short-term lets, rather than creating a situation where somebody believes they are making a permanent home. Say that person was going abroad for a year and a half, and the limit is two years—they might have to find somewhere else to live for a few months before moving back in. Yes, that would be an inconvenience, but we have to weigh that against the huge inconvenience for tenants who have their only home constantly disrupted and moved around.
I ask the Minister to look at this again, and to think about the edge cases, as well as where the greatest inconvenience and injustice really lies between the landlord and the tenant. I would be happy to have a chat with him. I will not press the amendment to a vote this morning.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for her further contribution. I have weighed very carefully in the balance, and looking at the Bill in the round, whether a two-year protected period would be appropriate. I concluded it would not be, taking into account those edge cases, for the following reasons.
While I sympathise with the point the hon. Lady made about the very significant costs that tenants face with moves, and while we obviously need to ensure that tenants under the new system have the requisite amount of stability and security, she too readily dismisses the potential impact on supply in the sector. It would be inconvenient for landlords; it would be inconvenient for tenants more widely if we saw a subsection of landlords that feel that they may need to use ground 1A and would not put their property on the rental market because of the possibility that they will need to use it.
As we heard in the evidence sessions, such is the acute nature of particularly hot rental markets across the country—hers will be one; mine is another—that if we lose a chunk of supply because we say to landlords, “It is too costly, too risky for you to put your property on the market if you may need to go abroad and work for a year,” that would be to the detriment of tenants in the round.
I think the one-year period strikes the right balance. It mirrors the sort of typical fixed-term, one-year tenancy. I urge the hon. Lady to go away and think about whether, in the round, with all of the protections we have introduced vis-à-vis the previous Government’s Bill, the one-year protected period does not do enough. We will not accept the amendment. I will, however, further reflect on the points she made because, as I have said, I am sympathetic to them and had weighed up two-year protected tenancies in the context of the previous Government’s Bill, but I think, looking at this Bill in the round, one year is the appropriate period.
Carla Denyer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 157, leave out line 13.
This allows Ground 1B to be used to obtain possession whenever the landlord intends to grant an assured tenancy to another person (whether or not it is to be granted pursuant to a rent-to-buy agreement).
Matthew Pennycook
I will begin by discussing Government amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. Rent-to-buy tenancies help prospective homeowners to get on the housing ladder. New possession ground 1B will allow social landlords to take possession in specified circumstances, to ensure that rent-to-buy schemes can continue to function in the future assured regime. Landlords must be able to take possession in all the necessary circumstances. The amendments therefore widen ground 1B, so that landlords can simply grant another assured tenancy, without its having to be on a rent-to-buy scheme. That will ensure maximum flexibility for social landlords to meet the demands of local housing markets. However, the period of the existing rent-to-buy tenancy will need to have expired and the sitting tenant must have been offered the opportunity to purchase the property, in line with the contract. This means that it will never be a surprise for the rent-to-buy tenant if the tenancy is ended. The amendments also clarify the definition of “market rent” in possession grounds 1B and 5H, to ensure clarity and consistency.
I will now discuss Government amendments 6 to 8. New ground 6A will allow landlords to evict their tenants when eviction is necessary to comply with enforcement action. We have already debated this matter in relation to a previous Government amendment. For example, if a property were overcrowded or the landlord had received a banning order, new ground 6A would apply. The amendments ensure that the new ground also covers situations in which a tenant’s occupation needs to be brought to an end in order to comply with planning enforcement action. For example, where an industrial unit has been converted to residential use without planning permission, a local planning authority may issue an enforcement notice requiring the residential use to cease.
If planning enforcement were not included in ground 6A, there would be no guarantee that the landlord could evict the tenant in those circumstances. That would risk undermining the planning system’s ability to enforce effectively against unauthorised development. That could result in poor outcomes for residents, the community and surrounding businesses. This measure will ensure that landlords are not left in legal limbo, where the only way to comply with planning enforcement action is for a tenant to cease to occupy a dwelling, and ensures that the tenancy itself can be brought to an end appropriately. We are also bringing forward an amendment to ensure that tenants are fairly compensated when they are evicted under ground 6A, ensuring that the measures are balanced.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments made: 3, in schedule 1, page 157, leave out line 30.
This leaves the definition of “market rent” out of Ground 1B, as it is superseded by Amendment 4.
Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 157, line 33, after “rent” insert
“(and here “rent” and “market rent” include any amount payable by way of service charge)”.
This ensures that any service charge is taken into account in both the rent and the market rent (when determining whether the rent is higher than 80% of the market rent).
Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 165, line 18, leave out from “than” to “, and” in line 22 and insert
“80% of market rent (and here “rent” and “market rent” include any amount payable by way of service charge)”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This replaces the term “affordable rent” with a reference to rent that is no more than 80% of the market rent.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 168, line 26, at end insert—
“20A After Ground 6 insert—
“Ground 6ZA
The landlord or superior landlord who is seeking possession intends to undertake such works as are necessary to ensure that the property meets the standards set out by regulations under section 2A of the Housing Act 2004 and the intended work cannot reasonably be carried out without the tenant giving up possession of the dwelling-house because—
(a) the tenant is not willing to agree to such a variation of the terms of the tenancy as would give such access and other facilities as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(b) the nature of the intended work is such that no such variation is practicable, or
(c) the tenant is not willing to accept an assured tenancy of such part only of the dwelling-house (in this sub-paragraph referred to as “the reduced part”) as would leave in the possession of his landlord so much of the dwelling-house as would be reasonable to enable the intended work to be carried out and, where appropriate, as would give such access and other facilities over the reduced part as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(d) the nature of the intended work is such that such a tenancy is not practicable.””
I have realised, in the course of debate, that the Minister has the benefit of being a bit closer to the overhead microphones than I am, so I will do my best to direct my remarks in a skywards manner, Sir Christopher.
The amendment seeks to bring in additional grounds for possession, and it is partly on the basis of evidence that we are aware of as a Committee and which stems from the social sector, where we know that there are many examples of landlords, including local authorities, that have to go to enormous lengths to access a property to carry out basic maintenance—often, in the case of local authorities, at no cost to the tenant, who is a council tenant—and to ensure that minimum safety standards, for example gas inspections, electrical safety inspections and remedial works to deal with issues such as damp and mould, are applied. We know that there has been extensive debate and consideration of evidence in relation to Awaab’s law and the need to ensure that properties meet the decent homes standard. Therefore the aim of this proposal is to ensure, where it is necessary for a landlord to recover the property in order for those works to be carried out and the tenant does not wish to co-operate, that there is provision in the Bill to achieve that.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister just made clear, amendment 60 would introduce a new mandatory ground for possession—6ZA—into schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. It would allow landlords to evict when they need to undertake works to meet the decent homes standard introduced by the Bill and those works cannot be completed without evicting the tenant. The objective that the hon. Gentleman seeks is reasonable and appropriate, but the Government do not believe that the ground is needed. I expect that the vast majority of works to meet decency requirements could be completed with the tenant in situ. Landlords may also undertake more substantial works between tenancies.
The proposed new ground is also unnecessary in the light of ground 6. The Bill’s revised ground 6 already permits a landlord to evict a tenant when they wish to undertake substantial redevelopment work that cannot be done with the tenant in situ. I am therefore reluctant to introduce a new ground that is not strictly needed, given what is in place in the Bill. However, I hope I have provided the Committee with sufficient reassurance that landlords will not be left unable to comply with the new decency requirements, as I say, in circumstances where the tenant must move out.
David Simmonds
I want to probe the Minister a bit on the point about substantial redevelopment. We are aware that to remedy issues of damp, for example, it is not uncommon for a landlord to need to remove all the plaster and potentially take out the flooring or ceiling for a lengthy period of dehumidification. Following that, extensive works would need to be undertaken to ensure that the damp does not reoccur. Those works being completed does not represent redevelopment of the property by, for example, building an extension or adding an additional floor, but leave the property substantially the same as before. It therefore does not seem to us that it would meet the test of redevelopment envisaged in the Bill.
The argument we are advancing is that in examples that may represent a significant risk to the health or safety of the tenant but the tenant does not wish to move, we need those additional grounds to be absolutely clear that that is a reasonable basis on which a landlord can seek to regain their property, so that they can carry out those works.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention, and I understand the point he makes. If it is acceptable to him, I will write to him with the technical detail about what substantial development entails. As I say, in most cases where substantial development is not taking place, works to ensure that homes come up to the new decent homes standard will be able to take place in situ. On the specific hard-edged case he mentions—that is, where the health and safety of a tenant is put at risk by the works required to take place or the conditions that the works are intended to remedy—I point him to provisions in the Bill like the extension of Awaab’s law, which will ensure that landlords have to respond to such hazards in a defined timescale and make accommodation for the tenant to move out in such circumstances. What I am reluctant to do here is to introduce a new ground that would have a substantial impact on tenants. They would have to leave the property and find new accommodation, and they might be owed a homelessness duty in those circumstances. That is a huge amount of disruption.
As I say, we think the existing provisions in the Bill do the job, but on the point he makes, which is a well-made one, as to precisely what the definition is and where the boundary lies between substantial and non-substantial redevelopment works, I will write to him with some more technical detail. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
David Simmonds
On the basis of those assurances, I will withdraw the amendment. Clearly, we will have the opportunity to return to this debate later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 168, line 30, leave out “situations has occurred” and insert “applies”.
This changes the opening wording so that it works better with the provision which follows.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 169, line 30, at end insert—
“(g) compliance with a planning enforcement notice or injunction would be, or is, incompatible with continued occupation of the dwelling-house by the tenant.”
This enables the landlord to obtain possession where planning enforcement action has been taken and compliance with that action would be incompatible with continued occupation under the tenancy.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 169, line 37, at end insert—
““planning enforcement notice or injunction” means—
(a) an enforcement notice issued under section 172 or 182 of the TCPA 1990 that has taken effect,
(b) a breach of condition notice served under section 187A of the TCPA 1990,
(c) an injunction granted under section 187B of the TCPA 1990,
(d) a listed building enforcement notice issued under section 38, 45 or 46 of the P(LBCA)A 1990 that has taken effect, or
(e) an injunction granted under section 44A of the P(LBCA)A 1990;
“P(LBCA)A 1990” means the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
“TCPA 1990” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;” .—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This defines the term “planning enforcement notice or injunction” which is used in Amendment 7.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 62, in schedule 1, page 170, line 3, at end insert—
“(za) for the first unnumbered paragraph, substitute—
‘At the date of the service of the notice under section 8 of this Act relating to the proceedings for possession—’”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 63, in schedule 1, page 170, line 6, at end insert—
“(ba) in paragraph (b), at end insert ‘and at the date of the hearing any rent is unpaid.’”
David Simmonds
Amendments 62 and 63 also deal with grounds for possession. Amendment 62 is intended to address situations where possession of a property may be required for persons on whom the landlord may rely in order to carry on living their lives, such as a carer. We heard evidence from organisations representing landlords in the more rural parts of our country on situations where grounds for possession may be necessary to enable a person with caring responsibilities to occupy the property.
Amendment 63 deals with a similar process in respect of antisocial behaviour. We have already debated the issue extensively, so I will not speak further to that amendment now.
Matthew Pennycook
Taken together, amendments 62 and 63 seek to remove the requirement for a tenant to meet the arrears threshold for mandatory eviction at the date of hearing. Instead, they would allow a tenant to be evicted only if they met the threshold at the date of the notice and had any arrears at all remaining at the date of their hearing. I am sure we all agree we should encourage tenants in financial difficulty to pay off their arrears, but we believe the amendments would act as a significant disincentive to even try to do so, as it would mandate eviction of a tenant who has done the right thing and tried to pay off their arrears.
I understand that, with the amendments, the hon. Gentleman is most likely trying to address the perceived problem of tenants gaming the system by paying off a nominal amount of arrears, placing them just below the threshold at the date of hearing, and thus frustrating a landlord’s attempt to evict the tenants. That was the rationale that underpinned new ground 8A in the previous Government’s legislation. However, this is not a problem recognised as occurring frequently, if at all, by me or by those who advise tenants going through the eviction process—in fact, it is hard to find cases of people trying to extensively game that system.
The previous Government’s solution to this problem was ground 8A, which we consider to be punitive. Similarly to these amendments, ground 8A would have punished tenants who did the right thing in trying to pay off their arrears. While we understand how frustrating rent arrears can be for landlords, we have to accept that most tenants act in good faith when trying to pay off their arrears, and they should be encouraged to do so. I hope hon. Members agree that we should encourage the right behaviour in tenants who are trying to bring down their rent arrears.
The amendments would therefore be fundamentally unfair and, most importantly, create the wrong incentives. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw amendment 62.
David Simmonds
I managed to make the dubious mistake of making the wrong points when I moved the amendment, but the Minister has brought us back to exactly the points I omitted to make. Concerns remain, particularly where there may be delays in accessing the courts to get a decision, either because of a lack of capacity—as we know, that remains a problem—or because of future resourcing issues in the new world that this Bill seeks to introduce, in which a number of routes will be open in the event of a dispute.
The Opposition remain concerned about the risk that those who wished to could seek to game the system. Most Members of Parliament will have had constituents who have been affected by tenants who failed to pay the rent. Those constituents may be accidental landlords renting out the property of a deceased relative while waiting for probate, and they may find that someone is occupying their property and perhaps sub-letting it for cash without passing that money on, leaving them in an incredibly difficult position. We want to ensure that people who behave in that way cannot continue to game the system. Having acknowledged the Minister’s points, however, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
In addition to the points I made previously, I briefly draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the fact that ground 8 will remain mandatory, and discretionary grounds will also be available when arrears do not meet the mandatory threshold, such as in cases of repeated late payment. We think the courts have the necessary provisions to be able to take action on rent arrears. What we find particularly objectionable in the amendment is that it would mean that anyone with any amount of arrears at the hearing would be subject to mandatory eviction. We think that that goes too far, so I am glad that the shadow Minister has agreed to withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 59, in schedule 1, page 170, line 13, at end insert—
“23A After Ground 8 insert—
‘Ground 8A
The landlord who is seeking possession, or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession for at least one of them, requires the dwelling-house for the purposes of providing care to—
(a) a person under the age of 18;
(b) a person who has a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010; or
(c) a person who requires personal care on the grounds of age, illness or injury.’”
I will not repeat at length the comments I made when I previously introduced amendment 59 in error. The amendment relates to the grounds for use when a landlord needs to put a carer into a property. It seeks to ensure that the required flexibility is available where the needs of a cared-for person must be put first.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister has just made clear, amendment 59 seeks to introduce a new ground for possession into schedule 2 of the 1988 Act to allow landlords to evict tenants when they wish to use the property for the purposes of providing care. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind the shadow Minister’s proposals, I do not believe that this ground is needed. Ground 1, which is a mandatory ground, allows a landlord to move in close family members. That includes children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and siblings. It could be used if the landlord wished to obtain possession to provide care for close family members.
This relates to a point that we have just discussed. We think that a two-year protected period might lead to such cases being prohibitive for landlords who need to make use of the grounds. We think the existing ground 1 is likely to cover the vast majority of cases of the kind that the shadow Minister seeks to help, without increasing the complexity in the system. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
Each new Bill is an opportunity to consider as widely as possible the issues that our constituents may face. A property that has been adapted for occupation by someone with care needs may have been rented out by, for example, a military family who need to move to a placement abroad. They may find that they cannot access the property on their return, when it is essential that they are able to do so in order for those facilities to be available. We think it is reasonable to raise such situations.
Recognising the points that have been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 61, in schedule 1, page 170, line 13, at end insert—
“23A In Ground 14, in each of paragraphs (a) and (aa), for ‘likely to cause’ substitute ‘capable of causing’”.
Amendment 61 seeks to broaden out the debate on the opportunity for a landlord to seek possession on grounds where antisocial behaviour on the part of the occupant is a factor. We have considered this quite extensively in Committee, but it is clear that it remains a significant issue in some cases. As I have said, most of us will have had experience, as constituency Members of Parliament, of matters arising from the antisocial behaviour of tenants. We will be aware of the enormous frustration, at both the landlord and the community level, at the inability to tackle that effectively under the current system. We want to ensure that those powers are as strong and as flexible as possible.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendment 61 seeks to expand the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground to include behaviour “capable” of causing nuisance or annoyance. Members may recall that this was proposed in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. When in Opposition, we strongly opposed the change, because it had the potential to significantly reduce security of tenure and, most importantly, put vulnerable tenants at risk of eviction. I remain concerned that it would leave tenants open to eviction, even when their behaviour was not causing any problems.
A huge range of behaviours are “capable” of causing a nuisance or annoyance. I was tempted to say that some of the behaviour of my children, on occasion, is more than capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. We can all agree that such a subjective term potentially includes a huge range of behaviours, and it would not be fair for someone to lose their home on the basis of some of them. For example, a baby crying frequently is capable of causing another tenant annoyance. In those cases, and there are many others that I could cite, it would be fundamentally wrong to put a family at risk of eviction because of that. Worse still—this is a point I recall very clearly from the discussions I had with domestic violence charities at the time of the previous legislation—we heard from many organisations that represent victims of domestic abuse that sometimes such abuse can be mistaken for antisocial behaviour, because of loud noises, banging or disruption in the property next door. The amendment increases the risk that tenants in such a situation could be evicted.
I understand that the shadow Minister wants to ensure that landlords have confidence that they can evict tenants who engage in genuine antisocial behaviour. That is an honourable aim, but there are already measures in the Bill to address that, including reducing notice periods so that landlords can make a claim to the court immediately when using the antisocial behaviour grounds, as we have discussed. We have also made changes to section 9A of the Housing Act 1988 to include amendments to ensure that the court considers the particular impact of antisocial behaviour on victims living with perpetrators in HMOs, which was a specific concern raised by the sector. We will also encourage the use of mediation and other tools by ensuring that judges take into account whether a tenant has engaged with attempts to resolve their behaviour, making it easier to evict perpetrators who do not engage.
For the reasons that I have set out, we believe that lowering the threshold from “likely” to “capable of” causing nuisance or annoyance could have extremely damaging consequences, and I do not believe it is in the spirit of what the Bill is trying to achieve. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Amos
I rise to support the Government on this issue, as Liberal Democrats did in the context of the Renters (Reform) Bill in the previous Parliament. To my mind, introducing a definition of antisocial behaviour that is simply about what is “capable” of causing annoyance and disturbance is tantamount to an authoritarian approach. When the Minister talks about crying babies, I cannot help being reminded that my own crying baby was complained about by the next-door neighbour when I was in rented accommodation. She does not cry so much now—she is 32. The very idea that anything capable of causing annoyance should be regarded as formally antisocial behaviour in law is an extreme concept, and it is an extremely good thing that this new Bill has left such thinking behind. This amendment should not be accepted.
David Simmonds
I will withdraw the amendment, because again the numbers are against me. It is important to recognise as we consider it, however, that there are examples—loud music is one—that might not within the definition of “likely” to cause nuisance or annoyance, but potentially would fall within our proposed definition.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider this issue. We know that a children’s party—I speak as a guilty individual in this regard—can be a very noisy occasion that generally takes place in the middle of the day for a brief period of time, whereas playing loud music for one’s own freedom of enjoyment all day and night may cause significant issues. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, have seen examples of behaviour that of itself and on an individual, case-by-case basis would not cause a nuisance, but that can cause significant upset to neighbours when repeated. That can range from the environmental impact of an activity such as servicing cars or maintaining vehicles to things such as loud music, and people can do those things at times of the day and night that are antisocial in the context in which the home is located. It is important that the Government give further consideration to the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 9, in schedule 1, page 172, leave out lines 29 to 32.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This is in consequence of Amendment 5.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg the indulgence of the Committee to spend a little time setting out the Government’s position on this schedule, because it is a key part of the Bill. As we have discussed, the Bill reforms the grounds for possession to ensure that tenants have greater security in their homes and, importantly, that good landlords can regain a property when necessary. Without section 21 and the threat of arbitrary evictions, tenants will have that greater security in their homes. Landlords will have to use one of the defined grounds for possession in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, as amended, when they need to evict a tenant. They will be able to repossess their property only when it is reasonable to do so.
Schedule 1 inserts new grounds and amends existing ones, ensuring that landlords have robust grounds for possession when there is good reason to take their property back. As we have discussed, that includes repossessing to sell, to move in or if their tenant engages in antisocial behaviour or falls into rent arrears. Although many of the grounds are broadly similar to those in the previous Government’s Bill, we have made some important changes that we believe ensure a fairer balance in the sector. There are three main types of ground: those relating to a change in the landlord’s circumstances, those to allow specialist sectors to operate and those where the tenant has not met their obligations. I will not cover each in detail here, but I will give a brief overview of some of the key provisions.
Mr Amos
I rise to ask the Minister to clarify something for my benefit, and possibly that of other people. The Liberal Democrats support the omission in paragraph 8 of the grounds for eviction for the purposes of creating holiday accommodation, but what will prevent a landlord from evicting to move in their own family, or purportedly for sale and then changing their mind and letting the property out as an Airbnb or holiday accommodation? There has been a massive rise in that type of accommodation; it is not scaremongering to suggest that there might be another increase. It is already a significant factor in the rental market, and it really hits some communities. I know we are debating this issue at a later stage, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister says about the schedule.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reasonable question. He and many others in the House have significant concerns about the impact of excessive concentrations of short-term and holiday lets in particular parts of the country. A landlord who has moved a family member back in under the mandatory grounds that he cites would not be able to re-let the property for 12 months and would be penalised if they attempted to do so. It was a three-month void period in the previous Government’s Bill, and we thought that it would not have acted as a serious disincentive. I frequently encounter landlords who can comfortably wear a three-month void because of the levels of rent that they charge, and I am sure that is the case in many other parts of the country. We think that a 12-month no re-let period will provide the necessary protection to ensure landlords are not incentivised, and do not feel able, to abuse the mandatory grounds for possession.
David Simmonds
The Minister has given a helpful and comprehensive overview of the matters that we have debated so far. Although we clearly have a different opinion about how to strike the correct balance, I accept that he is acting in good faith and, to a great degree, in line with the points previously made and the content of the Renters (Reform) Bill. The key issue we remain concerned about is the impact that all these regulations will have on supply. We all know that we have a constrained private rented sector, with areas in which significant numbers of people are chasing properties. We need to ensure that properties remain of a decent standard, at an affordable price, and in sufficiently ample supply. We have debated those concerns, and I hope that we can continue to deal with this Bill in the same co-operative and constructive spirit.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5
Possession for anti-social behaviour: relevant factors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
It is always better to resolve issues without resorting to eviction, but we recognise that when tenants are committing antisocial behaviour and it is impacting on neighbours, housemates and communities, it is sometimes necessary. In these cases, landlords need to have confidence that they can gain possession of their property quickly. The clause expands the matters that judges are directed to consider when deciding whether to award possession under the discretionary antisocial behaviour ground. We are making the change because we recognised landlords’ concerns about evicting antisocial tenants without section 21, and it is important that judges consider pertinent factors to ensure eviction can happen when it is right to do that.
Judges will take all relevant factors into account when determining whether to evict under these grounds, because they are discretionary, but under the current legislation, they are also guided to explicitly consider the impact of antisocial behaviour on victims. Clause 5 ensures that judges must also have regard to the question of whether the perpetrator has engaged with measures to resolve their behaviour. This will serve two purposes: making it more likely that landlords work with tenants to resolve poor behaviour, and making it easier to evict those tenants who do not engage. The change will contribute towards increasing the amount of dispute resolutions short of eviction in the private rented sector.
The clause also asks judges to give regard to the impact of antisocial behaviour on other tenants within houses of multiple occupation. Antisocial behaviour within house-shares can have a severe impact on those who live in close proximity. The clause will make it easier to evict perpetrators, which was a specific concern raised with us by a number of external stakeholders. Fellow tenants are the worst-affected victims of antisocial behaviour within HMOs, and landlords were concerned about their ability to evict perpetrators without section 21 notices. The clause ensures that courts can consider these factors.
David Simmonds
The Opposition welcome the points made in this debate. We want the following issue to be addressed. If it is expected that a dispute resolution process will be undertaken or that some form of external mediation will be accessed, there needs to be sufficient capacity to ensure that that happens in a timely manner. We do not have an example of a case in which someone who is evicted on grounds of antisocial behaviour is expected to endure a considerable period of time in order for mediation to take place, following which grounds for possession might then be sought. We need to make sure that the process is done swiftly and effectively, but we support the concept behind it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Form of notice of proceedings for possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 6 provides for regulations that will allow the Secretary of State to publish the form to be used when landlords serve notice of intention to begin possession proceedings. It is crucial that the information landlords are required to provide reflects current law. This gives tenants the best opportunity to enforce their rights and seek appropriate support. The clause will allow regulations to be made so that we can update the forms at speed and respond to changing circumstances. It is a simple and straightforward clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Statutory procedure for increases of rent
Mr Amos
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 7, page 8, line 31, leave out from “determination” to the end of line 36 and insert—
“(4AA) Where the rent for a particular period of the tenancy is to be greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), the rent may not be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.
(4AB) Any provision relating to an assured tenancy to which this section applies is of no effect so far as it provides—
(a) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period otherwise than by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), or
(b) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy, where greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.”
This amendment would mean that the maximum rent increase can only be an increase in line with the Bank of England Base Rate.
Mr Amos
At the beginning of today’s sitting, the Minister and the shadow Minister asked the Committee to bear with them, because it was their first time leading the Committee stage of a Bill in their respective positions. I ask the Committee to spare a thought for the hon. Member for Bristol Central and me, as it is our first time being elected an MP, our first time in a Committee and our first time dealing with this Bill. There are a number of amendments that we would introduced but which have not yet made it through to the amendment paper.
Matthew Pennycook
The Bill will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. This will prevent unscrupulous landlords using rent increases to evict their tenants—a form of section 21 by the back door. Clause 7 amends section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to achieve this. It provides that all rent increases for private landlords will take place via the existing section 13 process. That will ensure that tenants always have the right to challenge an unfair rent increase. Any rent increase outside this process, including rent review clauses, will be outlawed and invalid.
We will also give tenants longer to prepare for rent increases, with landlords having to provide two months’ notice to tenants. Landlords will still be able to raise rents in line with market rents once a year. These changes will not level the playing field for tenants if they are unable or do not feel confident to enforce their rights. That is why we are reforming how the tribunal will work. I will turn to that in clause 8.
Clause 7 exempts “relevant low-cost tenancies” from the rent-increase changes that the Bill is making. That means that current rent-increase provisions will be retained for social tenants who have an assured tenancy of social housing within the meaning of part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing.
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made clear, amendment 76 seeks to limit rent increases to no greater than the Bank of England base rate, and it retains provisions in the Bill that set out how rent increases can occur. I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the Commons. Several witnesses in evidence sessions also made the case for greater regulation of rents, and others contributed written evidence on these points. I would like to expand on the Government’s approach before turning to the detail of the amendment.
The debate around rent controls can quickly become complex regarding both the definition and the evidence available. What is agreed is that there is a broad spectrum of possible regulation, and different approaches have been tried around the world—and, indeed, within the UK. Perhaps the better question to ask is how we should regulate the private rented sector to achieve the best outcomes possible for tenants. That leads us to look at how the regulation of rents fits within the broader context of the entire system, including security of tenure, quality standards and better enforcement.
The Government have taken that wider approach by placing protections against excessive rent increases within an overarching set of reforms to the private rented sector. The interaction between security of tenure and rent regulation is therefore critical; if rents are too strictly controlled but evictions are too easy, tenants are left at the mercy of landlords’ whims, even if they pay the rent. If tenants have legal security from arbitrary eviction but there is no limit on rent increases, they can effectively be evicted by excessive economic rent hikes.
Many international comparisons can be cited. All should come with a health warning, but I think it is instructive to look at the experience of Sweden. The result of harder rent caps has seen the emergence of a huge, unregulated sub-letting market, which, in many ways, is the worst of all worlds, as it leaves the most vulnerable groups exposed to high costs and minimal protections.
The principle of some form of regulation of rents is already established in England. Rents for certain assured periodic tenancies are already subject to some form of regulation, as the tribunal system is there to prevent excessive increases, but as we heard in last week’s evidence sessions, it has been weakened to the point that it does not provide enough protection for tenants. That is why we have taken steps to strengthen the rent determination system and empower tenants.
In Scotland, we have seen over recent years the temporary introduction of stronger rent controls—rent freezes followed by rent caps. Anna Evans, who led the research into the Scottish experience, noted in her evidence last week that once rent freezes were introduced in Scotland, landlords were more inclined to increase rents when tenancies changed. Good landlords want stable and long tenancies but, when a new tenancy begins, landlords are strongly incentivised to set rents at, or close to, the cap, which may be at a higher level than they would have chosen in the absence of such regulation. We also heard, regarding new-build investment in the Scottish PRS, that there has been stagnation rather than growth over recent years.
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made clear, his amendment seeks to limit a rent increase to no greater than the Bank of England base rate, which is currently 5%. We believe that any attempt to use a simple metric on rent increases risks unintended consequences. Let us take an example: limiting rent increases to inflation might sound fair, but it would have resulted in rent rocketing when inflation spiked following the mini-Budget in 2022. I acknowledge that the hon. Member referred to the base rate, but others have argued for inflation-linked rent increases in the past, so my point is that there is always a price to be paid. That price can also be paid in the supply of new homes and the development of the build-to-rent sector, where we believe that these types of direct interventions discourage investment, limiting supply and leading to declining property standards.
Instead, our Bill works to strengthen tenants’ rights as a whole, with the ending of no-fault section 21 evictions being the key change. Our proposed changes— giving tenants the power to challenge excessive in-tenancy rent increases—are designed to fit with that increase in security of tenure. With every change to one part of this complex set of regulations, we must be mindful of the interactions with other parts, and the combined impacts on the system as whole. We believe that the Renters’ Rights Bill strikes the right balance. It introduces a series of powerful changes that will improve the PRS overall, including protections against unfair rent increases. We are confident that this will make a material difference to the lives of tenants. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Amos
I thank the Minister for his response on those points. We would argue that the current metric for market rents is actually more closely linked to inflation, and more likely to be affected by inflation, than would be the Bank of England base rate, which is obviously a separate—
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting)
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We come now to our fifth panel for the oral evidence session. We have until 2020. Can the assistant commissioner for specialist operations at the Metropolitan police, Matt Jukes, introduce himself to members of the panel?
Matt Jukes: Thank you very much. I am Matt Jukes and I am the assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police responsible for our specialist operations, but I also carry a national role as the head of counter-terrorism policing, responsible for the investigation of terrorist offences across the country and for our work in protective security.
The Chair
I apologise, but I may have inadvertently given a date rather than a time. This panel lasts until 2.20 pm.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Q
I am conscious that some, but not all, members of the Committee have spent quite a lot of time thinking about the nature of the threat that we face. You are supremely well placed, given your experience, to talk about the nature of the threat. I know that there will be limitations on what you can say. However, it would be incredibly helpful for the Committee if, based on your extensive experience of policing, you were able to say something about the nature of the terrorist threat that we face today and how that compares with, say, 10 years ago. Can you also say something about your assessment of the legislation we are dealing with and its benefits?
Matt Jukes: Thank you very much, Minister, and I thank the Committee for the opportunity. Before I move on to the threat, I would like to acknowledge all those who have been directly affected by the reality of terrorism in the UK and particularly to remember the victims of the attacks that have given rise to the movement towards the Bill. I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning to bring us to this point.
The terrorist threat in the UK remains substantial and across the years that I have been involved, we have moved from a situation where people once needed to travel to acquire terrorist training, methodologies and equipment to now being able to carry out that kind of research and reconnaissance and acquire terrorist knowledge from their bedrooms, increasingly driven by the internet. The most pronounced feature of our work of late has been low sophistication actors who are self-initiated. They are sometimes called lone wolves or lone actors, but are in fact often connected to small groups of individuals online and often inspired by terrorist rhetoric, which endures from decades of presence of that kind of material, now in the online space.
We see three principal forms of ideology driving radicalisation and risk. First, there is those who have been inspired by or are directly connected to organisations such as Daesh/ISIS or al-Qaeda—so-called Islamist extremist terrorism. Secondly, we have seen over recent years the growing presence of extreme right-wing terrorism in our casework. Thirdly, there is an increasing number of cases of individuals who are mixed, unclear or unstable in their ideology and who seek inspiration in the material online from a range of different sources, sometimes mixing and moving across those ideologies.
In contrast to the previous decade, where we saw the rise of the Syrian caliphate and travel overseas, in recent years we have seen less travel overseas to carry out acts of terrorism and we have worked incredibly hard internationally and in partnership to reduce the movement of terrorist foreign fighters. One consequence of that has been that all the major terrorist organisations, which seem at times very remote from the UK, speak in terms of attacks being carried out where you are—effectively, if you cannot travel, then you might consider an attack where you are—and we have seen examples of that ideology following through.
The major terrorist organisations, which have been significantly degraded since 2014 and the rise and fall of the Syrian caliphate, should be acknowledged, as the director general of MI5 has said, as being down but not out. Although I have spoken about the numerous, dispersed individuals who are inspired to act on self-initiation, we are seeing signals of growing and re-emerging sophistication in international terrorism. The most obvious instance of that was the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow earlier this year.
I will finish by scaling all of that. I am fortunate to work with a range of partners, communities, victims and survivors. Our core teams in counter-terrorism policing are currently investigating, in 800 separate cases, thousands of individuals who have expressed some intent to pursue a terrorist cause. Every year, 6,000 to 7,000 people are added to the roster of those who have been referred into the prevention of violent extremism casework through the Prevent lens.
All of that takes us to the question of how to mitigate those threats. We mitigate them through the pursuit of those who are already on our radar effectively, working closely with MI5. We mitigate those risks by trying to get ahead of them, with the prevention of violent extremism through the Prevent programme and elements of deradicalisation. It is absolutely critical that, in the conditions I have just described, we are able to protect the potential targets of terrorism and prepare communities, businesses and society to respond when terrorist events take place.
The terrorist threat now is harder to spot and harder to stop than it has ever been. Therefore, however effective our investigations are, we have to be ready to prepare and protect the potential targets of terrorism. To do that, we think that the proposed measures in the Bill—Martyn’s law—are proportionate, and highly likely to be effective.
We enjoy extremely positive relationships with a range of sectors—they are giving evidence this afternoon—but the measures will move us forward from a mode of co-operation, encouragement and collaboration, to giving communities, customers and society the confidence that there is a base level of preparedness and protection in place in the venues captured by the Bill. While we have enjoyed those relationships, we know there is a great deal of inconsistency around the country, and we would not want to see in any sense a postcode lottery for those who deserve protection.
I will finish with a small illustration. You have probably already heard, and will continue to hear, fear and concerns about the proportionality, cost and scale of the impact of the Bill. Given the terrible events of 2017, it is worth remembering that in Borough market during the London Bridge attack, the simple act of encouraging customers to remain in a premises and locking the door saved lives. At the level of intervention that is proposed in the majority of premises, the simple preparedness of staff to take low-cost or no-cost interventions can absolutely contribute to saving lives in the UK. For that reason, counter-terrorism is full square behind the Bill.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Q
Matt Jukes: The foundational incident for these conversations is the attack on Manchester Arena in May 2017. The evidence of the inquiry was clear that with a better prepared environment there, responders and those working on the premises could have changed the outcomes, whether by preventing an attack that evening, or mitigating its effects. One factor that has been discussed is that we will only capture a range of premises. We might touch on thresholds, but we might capture a range of premises and not all public spaces. One thing I felt quite confident in judging is that preparing businesses in these different tiers to be more security-minded, preparing people who work in those businesses to be more security aware and planful around the prospects of safety will raise overall the readiness of communities for attack.
Even though some of the attacks that we have seen over recent years have taken place in public spaces in open areas and would not be captured by this legislation, we might have seen trauma kits more readily accessible in adjacent premises. We might have seen people who were travelling to or from work who were more ready to play their part in responding as part of the community response to those incidents, and we might have been able to mitigate some of the risks of the spread of those attacks in the way I described in London bridge.
We know that where it has worked best, a combination of vigilance, preparedness and physical security can all play their part. We absolutely see both deterrent and mitigation of risk. Based on our experience of attacks over recent years, it would have to include those at major events. You are going to hear some more evidence about that. We know that in an enduring sense, major and public events remain a focus of terrorist planning.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Q
“displacing attacks from locations within scope of the Bill to a location out of scope”.
Do you want to comment on that? Then I will invite you to talk about thresholds, since you said that you had some thoughts on that.
Matt Jukes: Without making assumptions about terrorist intent, we know that there are some very enduring themes about attacks on public locations, major events and crowded places. Disrupting that through better protective measures or through better informed responses will remain an enduring feature, even if there is absolutely at the margins displacement. We see from our casework that there is evidence that better-protected targets sometimes do deflect terrorists to other targets or locations for their intent. We have seen some evidence of that.
The relevance of this Bill—I have already touched on it—serves to shift the whole of societal awareness in terms of vigilance and preparedness and increase protection overall. If there is displacement from one place to another, it is more likely still as a result of this—if this Bill were to pass and be enacted—that there will be a state of readiness, preparedness and deterrent in those other places. Tragically, the kinds of sectors and sites that have been in the sights of terrorists are much more susceptible to their ideology and their intent than they are to the shape of a particular Bill or legislation. Sadly, for example, places of worship will endure as a potential target.
For those who are fixated on targeting places of worship, it is more likely that they might desist from a particular attack or that that venue would be better prepared. There are examples from around the world. We have lots of practice in the UK where security at places of worship actually has saved lives. So I recognise Jonathan Hall’s reflections. Any sense of a rising tide of awareness and preparedness will serve to secure communities. I suspect that displacement is something that we can have in view and will continue to work at, but not something we should be preoccupied by. I would say, because it goes to thresholds, if I may bridge to that point, that there is an area of attention we need to apply to those places that are filled with smaller venues, but create big spaces.
If you think of the big public squares in London, they may be surrounded by premises with a capacity of 100, but overall they create spaces that are very significant and iconic. For that reason, going into the earlier evidence, we felt that the thresholds proposed previously were helpful, as they capture the scale of the premises that can be taken together. I could reel off the names of those squares; you would know which ones they are. I do not really want to give a target list to terrorists, but it is fairly obvious that there is a set of places across major cities in particular and towns where premises of 100 sit alongside each other and build up quite substantial public crowded places.
For that reason, we felt that 100 was a sensible place to start. You have to draw the line somewhere, and that felt like it. If we are to move upwards, we lose some of those premises, such as the bars, clubs and restaurants that would have been in Borough market, which might have been captured and therefore contributed to overall safety in that environment and may be missed. On thresholds, we are anxious about the effective moving further upwards and if there was any further consideration would have preferred that to move back down to where the earlier drafts had started.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Q
Matt Jukes: The first thing to say, as I am subject to a few watchdogs myself, is that the best performance of a watchdog is to raise overall standards and improve outcomes for the public. That might seldom be achieved by enforcement and best be achieved by the sharing of practice, the development of understanding and the support of the sectors involved. I do not have extant concerns about the investigatory and compliance powers, but I would expect a regulator and the authority that will come into that space to have their major focus on raising standards and for us all to hold compliance actions as the backstop to the cases that might be required.
I say that based on the fact that you will hear evidence from the Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange, which we work with closely to work with sectors. We get an enormous amount of leverage from working with sector-specific experts themselves, and I expect that the regulator would want to do that, rather than investigate and enforce in any excessive way. Having said that, the absence of something that is rigorous and provides that backstop would undermine the overall effect of the Bill if it were not present.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Q
Matt Jukes: That is obviously a proposition that has come through close work by the Home Office and the consideration of others. In essence, just to land on a conclusion, I would definitely say that the SIA is well placed, having played a leading role in regulating security standards. I am into my 30th year of policing, and I can remember the quality of private security provision at night-time economy venues and all sorts of other places going back to the years before the SIA had its very important role, and there is no doubt that it has professionalised and raised standards across the security industry.
As well as the sector-specific support that we would get from networks such as CTBIE, which you will hear from, the SIA is very well placed to sit at the heart not just of this function as a regulator but of the private security industry, which in the end will play an important part in raising standards across the piece. It is a matter for Parliament in due course, and it has been a matter for the Home Office to bring forward its recommendation, but we could certainly support continuing to work in the way that we have with the SIA.
The Chair
A timely finish. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Neil Sharpley, Mike Pearce and John Frost gave evidence.
The Chair
Thank you all. For this oral evidence session we have until 2.50 pm. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Neil Sharpley: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Neil Sharpley. I am the chair for the Federation of Small Businesses covering Home Office and Ministry of Justice policy, and so embrace security industry and terrorism aspects as well as crime.
Mike Pearce: Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. My name is Mike Pearce. I am the director of security for Land Securities, otherwise known as Landsec. I am also chair of the Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange.
John Frost: Good afternoon. I am John Frost, deputy chair of the Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange. I also head up business continuity and safety at Marks & Spencer and lead the Retailers Business Continuity Association.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Neil Sharpley: The simple answer to that is yes. The comments we made previously have been taken into account. We think that for any piece of new legislation that is breaking new ground, which we of course support and our own research shows that there is a need for information to be disseminated to businesses about terrorism risk, the threshold has been set at the right level initially. We expect that it will be reviewed in due course as the Bill, or the Act when it becomes that, beds in, but we feel that the parameters have been set correctly at present.
The concerns we expressed previously were about very small venues, community venues, local societies and things of that sort. The one thing that is not touched on in the Bill, which I should perhaps mention initially, is what the role of local authorities should be in helping to achieve the aims of the Bill. We all agree that the aims are to ameliorate the risk as far as terrorism is concerned. I am sure it has been observed before that many open public areas are surrounded by a plethora of smaller businesses, many of which would never be in scope of the Bill but all of which, because of the current threat vectors, might possibly be at risk. My question to you is, should this Bill also contain some provision that requires local authorities to assess the risks of those open areas and to embark on some sort of training exercise in respect of the smaller businesses surrounding them, whether or not they fall within the scope of the Bill in terms of specific obligations? That is something that needs attention and something we have touched on a number of times before, and I think the local authority representative who gave evidence before the Bill was launched also touched on that. It seems to be an area where, especially in smaller towns and cities, a considerable amount of good work could be done to reduce the risk beyond what is currently envisaged within the Bill.
In general terms, we welcome the changes. We think the Bill will take some time to bed in. Businesses will become accustomed to the responsibilities and, in due course, those responsibilities may not be regarded in such an onerous way as they might be regarded now for any new piece of legislation. It may also be possible, with due consultation, to change the parameters, but that is a matter for the future; it is a matter for research and for data, and we need to do what is necessary to ameliorate the risk, not what is unnecessary but looks good in regulatory terms. We need to address the specific risks—the real risks—themselves, rather than create a system that does not target those risks as extensively as I think could be done.
Tim Roca
Q
John Frost: In our organisation, regardless of any capacities, we would adopt an approach across all of our locations. The rationale for that would be that, having suffered incidents of this nature in sites, stores or premises that are below the threshold that has been set out, we would feel that there would be a moral obligation, as well as the legislative obligation, to equip all of our stores. Therefore, we will have our own inspectorate across stores in the enhanced tiers, but we will ensure that our management teams are trained, engaged, educated and equipped proportionately to respond to acts of this nature in every site that we operate in.
The Chair
I call Sonia Cooper—sorry, Sonia Kumar. I’m making names and times up today! I apologise.
Sonia Kumar
Q
How do you anticipate Martyn’s law affecting customer experience, especially for small retailers who may not have visible security measures in place?
Mike Pearce: Shall I answer that?
Sonia Kumar
Yes, that is for all three of you.
Mike Pearce: If I may, can I just set out what the CTBIE does and what we are made up of? I think it is probably quite pertinent to this conversation. The CTBIE has been around for over a decade now, it was sponsored originally by MI5, and sits now within the purview of CT policing. My co-chair is the head of the National Counter Terrorism Security Office, and we have 30 very senior, well-experienced security professionals who sit around the table representing 16 sectors of the United Kingdom. Around that table also sits the SIA—the Security Industry Authority—the Home Office, HSG—the Homeland Security Group—and a number of other acronyms, supporting that group. Each of that group has subgroups. For example, the CTBIE has a hotel subgroup, where it will reach out to the other hotels or smaller bed and breakfasts, so that it is transmitting and amplifying messages both from Government into business and from business back into Government, specifically around countering terrorism.
We have been doing that for 10 years. It is completely voluntary, and these individuals have given up their time, to introduce some significant products into the public space—the “run, hide, tell” messaging and the platforms that we have, which were all developed with John’s help —supporting the Government in getting the message to the widest possible parts of the engine room that is our economy and getting it to businesses in such a way that it makes sense to them.
We expect each of those sector leads to translate the messaging that they need to give to their sectors, because although it is one message when it is received by us, it needs to be adapted to the particular sector that it is being transmitted into. That is part of the complexity of this great Bill, which we support across the CTBIE. We are absolutely for it. We have been in it from the very beginning, as an absolute supporter. CT should bring us together—countering terrorism should bring us together—but the overriding priority for us is that we transmit and get these messages to business in the most effective and efficient way we can.
Let us, at the CTBIE, do that for you. We are very good at doing it and we are very practised at doing it, and we can measure how effective that delivery is. There are, of course, many other groups, and I am not saying you should exclude anybody, but this is a group that has been running—and running very well—for the past 12 years, supporting the messages from Government around countering terrorism. However, it needs leadership. It needs leadership from sectors. It needs us to set examples for the smaller businesses. It needs us to grow confidence in the communities that we seek to protect over the coming years; that is the opportunity. I do not know whether I have answered your question.
Around every CTBIE member, there are small business groups that reach out to us. Only recently, I was in Southampton with the police and crime commissioner, talking to small businesses about how Landsec—as the owner of big shopping centres and so on—supports the smaller businesses. How can we ensure that they understand whether the legislation, when it comes into effect, will affect them? More importantly, what do they need to do now to remain safe and what do they not need to be doing? They do not need to be spending money, asking for advice on legislation that is not yet in place; that is another concern of the CTBIE. All of the necessary authority that we hold as a group is respected within business, and utilising it would be an opportunity to reach out to small businesses very effectively. Does that answer your question?
Sonia Kumar
Q
Mike Pearce: The one thing that every sector in the UK has in common is that we rely on customers to drive the economic engine. We rely on them coming back to our venues, our hotels, our shopping centres and our supermarkets. If they do not feel safe and if they do not understand what their responsibilities are in order to keep their families safe, they probably will not come back in the same numbers as before if there is a major event at one of those venues. We do not take that for granted.
For example, over 32 million people transit through Saint David’s Dewi Sant in Cardiff, a Landsec property that is right at the heart of the community. That is a huge number of people in a very vibrant city that we sit in the middle of, and the customer experience is everything to us. They understand—we hope, because we message our customers, including brand partners like John and others, as well as smaller brand partners and the general public—our expectations; for instance, they understand what we expect them to do if they see something suspicious. The “run, hide, tell” message has not gone away yet. We have seen examples at some of our sites—at Bluewater, particularly—that people will move quickly if they see a threat. That has taken years to bed into the public consciousness.
The experience for the public should be welcoming: “Come on in. You’re safe. Come and enjoy the venue. Come and enjoy the hotel. We’ll worry about security for you, mainly, but you have a responsibility, if you see something, to notify us—and working together, we will do something about it.”
Kirith Entwistle
Q
Neil Sharpley: Is that for me? Are you asking about the impact of the current threshold?
Kirith Entwistle
Yes.
Neil Sharpley: Within the standard tier, the impact might not be as much as one needs to worry about. For those smaller businesses that fall within the enhanced tier, there is a real risk that substantial costs will be incurred in compliance. One problem is that if you fall towards the bottom end of the enhanced tier, you may not be able to pass on the full costs to your customers and there may therefore be an effect on profitability. It will vary because there are an enormous variety of different types of businesses and premises, and different types of staff who need training. One size definitely does not fit all.
It is crucial that there is flexibility in how this provision is regulated. The consultation in respect of the regulatory aspects which are to follow will be quite important to establish some sensible and reasonable rules to accommodate all different types of business. That is very important. It is absolutely essential that the guidance is clear and comprehensive, and that it includes examples that are not limited to one type of business. In terms of regulation in relation to capacity, we do need clarity—we need to know whether we are looking at standing people or sitting people, and whether we are looking at theoretical maxima, or the actual experience of the number of people who are accommodated. It is not necessarily the only criteria for risk, as I have already said, but we do need to have clarity as to how it should be applied so that businesses know where they are.
In terms of other costs, if I can briefly speak to enforcement, it is absolutely essential—as with all legislation —that it is a collaborative, rather than a punitive, approach, and that it is an education-first approach. We all want businesses to be educated as to how they can ameliorate these risks.
John Frost: Just to build on the point about impact —working alongside Cabinet Office, the National Preparedness Committee, and the local authority, there is an aspiration to improve and enhance societal resilience in the UK. This legislation will do that, but how we do it is crucial. At the moment, we do not have the guidance or the understanding of the inspectorate, but if—during the grace period—we can work together on what that guidance looks and feels like, and if we can work alongside business to shape it, of course it will be better adopted. If we can understand the framework of inspection and contribute, that will give us a much greater and much better opportunity to win together, and agree a way forward that is proportionate for everybody.
If we reflect on Mr Jukes’s comments, by raising it from 100 to 200, we have excluded an enormous amount of sites—particularly on high streets, which will have no obligation to do anything, when actually they have experienced attacks in those very sites where colleagues and customers have been injured, and where we were able to respond using low-cost evacuation and lockdown procedures and grab bags. There is a missed opportunity if there is no obligation to do anything in those sites.
There is also a little bit of a question mark over training. In the standard tier it says that it will not be obligatory, but there are enough free products to have enough engagement and education for even the smallest of organisations to be equipped to proportionately respond for no cost or low cost.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Cameron Yorston and Max Nicholls gave evidence.
The Chair
For this oral evidence session, we will have until 3.10 pm. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Cameron Yorston: Hello everyone, and thank you for having us. I am Cameron Yorston, a director at the Sport and Recreation Alliance.
Max Nicholls: Hi everyone—I am Max Nicholls, policy manager at the Sport and Recreation Alliance.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Secondly, we would like to get a sense of your views on the proposed changes in relation to the addition of the “reasonably practicable” standard. Again, we hope you will welcome that change. Your sense of those two changes would be very much appreciated.
Max Nicholls: I am happy to take that question. We certainly welcome the flexibility introduced by the change around capacity calculations, the ability to look at things such as historic attendance data and a wider range of measures that may impact how many people are on site. We have some sites in the sport and recreation sector that are quite large in their overall footprint, but which in reality have fairly few people in them at any one time. Previously, there was a concern that if a calculation based purely on footprint was to be introduced, lots of those premises could be drawn into the enhanced tier. We certainly welcome that change and the flexibility around how many people are on site based on the different criteria set out in the briefing note.
Cameron Yorston: The answer to the second question on the introduction of the “reasonably practicable” judgment is that we welcome it entirely. I also wanted to kick off a broader point that we, and the sector more broadly, welcome the intention of the Bill, as the gentlemen before us said. I think everyone can be supportive of the principle of trying to make venues in specific sectors more resilient across the country.
I suspect you will also have heard this throughout the day. What is missing—or rather, where we still need further clarity and guidance—is greater clarity on the practical implementation of the Bill and on how, in practice, that “reasonably practicable” judgment will apply. I am more than happy to elaborate and illustrate with specific examples of where it is not clear that the spirit and intention of the Bill, and those exclusions or measures you reference, will bite in the appropriate way. There is a risk of unintended consequences.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Max Nicholls: I will make an opening point generally on community sports venues and organisations. Across the country, we have roughly 100,000 grassroots sports clubs; as many on the Committee will be aware, these are predominantly volunteer-run, and do important work in the community to get people active and deliver community cohesion, as well as delivering all these other social benefits driven by participation in sport and physical activity.
We know that there are lots of challenges around recruiting and retaining volunteers, specifically post-covid. One common thing our members tell us is that volunteer recruitment is one of the key barriers to delivering more sport and physical activity. As Cameron alluded to, something we are keen to work with the Committee and Government on, through to the production of guidance, is supporting those volunteers in community-based organisations; we want to understand what their environment requirements are and give them as much information and guidance as possible to support them in the undertaking of their requirements.
As you say, that will look very different in different parts of the country. We represent a huge plethora of sports and recreational activities where the clubs and activities are very different. Having the flexibility to understand what is appropriate and practicable for those different organisations is important.
Cameron Yorston: To add to that briefly, and to reiterate the earlier point, we want to avoid unintended consequences. It is quite hard as at now to envisage all the specific impacts that might emerge from the legislation, given there is clearly a need for greater clarity and guidance.
The overarching point is that we do not want to impose any potentially prohibitive burdens or requirements on volunteers who are already very stretched, as that risks reducing the provision of sport, physical activity and recreation against the backdrop of the country’s wider challenges, such as issues with public health and a struggling NHS. What we do not want to do is inadvertently reduce people’s ability to participate in sport, recreation and physical activity, because there are adverse unintended consequences to that.
Kirith Entwistle
Q
Max Nicholls: There are some areas in which further guidance would be welcome. In a sporting context, we often have tournaments or events that are held in different venues every year: the Open golf tournament is held in a different golf club each year, for example. The interaction between the organiser of the event and the premises at which it is held is important not only from a responsible person perspective, but in terms of the requirements for the duration of the event and the rest of the year.
We would like to see flexibility where premises host an event that is classed as a qualifying event but are otherwise standard-tier premises for the rest of the year—where they understand their requirements under the obligations on standard-tier premises, but for the duration of the event only they must meet the enhanced requirements for a qualifying event. There is still some slight uncertainty about how that would work in practice, so we would welcome further engagement and clarification in the guidance.
A venue such as the Nottingham tennis centre hosts a one-week tournament with 5,000 people on site, but for the rest of the year it is a community facility with a couple of hundred people on site. We think that those are two different uses and should be treated as such, but we would welcome further engagement and clarification.
The Chair
As there are no further questions from Committee members, let me thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Kate Nicholls OBE and Mike Kill gave evidence.
The Chair
We have Kate Nicholls OBE, the chief executive of UKHospitality, in the Committee Room with us, and we are joined via Zoom by Mike Kill, the chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association. We have until 3.40 pm for this oral evidence session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Kate Nicholls: I am Kate Nicholls, chief executive at UKHospitality, the national trade body for hospitality businesses right the way through from a single-site independent pub, bar, nightclub, restaurant or hotel to the largest national chains. Our membership also includes some large event venues and exhibition centres.
Mike Kill: My name is Mike Kill. I am the chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association, which represents businesses that operate in the ecosystem between 6 pm and 6 am. Broadly, we represent pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, live music venues, events, casinos and the like that operate within that period.
Dan Jarvis
Good afternoon to you both. Thank you very much for appearing before the Committee today: you have a particularly valuable insight and we are looking forward to hearing from you.
We heard earlier from Mayor Andy Burnham, who was very positive about the impact that these measures are already having on the hospitality sector in Greater Manchester. I want to get a sense of whether that accords with your analysis of the impact of these measures on the hospitality sector nationally. It was very positive to hear the good news story from Greater Manchester, with the way it has been embraced by the hospitality businesses there, but it would be good to get your sense of whether there should be the same approach right around the country.
Kate Nicholls: I do not think anybody in the hospitality sector or the wider live music and events sector could have experienced the recent incidents we have had—not just in Manchester, but in London—and just sat back and waited for legislation to ensure that our customers, our public and, most importantly, our staff were safe. Since those events, and since the learnings coming out of the inquiry, we have been working collectively with our members to look at how we could take forward this protect duty within the context of our existing licensing regime—the Licensing Act 2003 puts on us a legal obligation to ensure we take account of public safety. As part of that, businesses in city centre locations, in particular, have worked with their local police forces and counter-terrorism to ensure that steps are already being taken to look at measures that could be encompassed within this duty.
I should also say that we are working to ensure that that is taken right down to the very smallest venues and that lessons are learned there, so that we have a basic level of security within the public realm. While Manchester is leading the way, quite unsurprisingly, we are working hard to make sure that we are doing the same thing and carrying out those lessons and delivering that in practice.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Mike Kill: With regard to the businesses that we represent—particularly some of the small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses that are slightly smaller and, as you can appreciate, on the lower tier—there is, without a doubt, a resonating concern around the cost base given the current economic climate.
A key area of concern for us, because the industry has a high turnover of staff, is that that continual training of staff within that high turnover is going to represent a level of cost. When we looked at things like the impact assessment, we felt that without a doubt, given the infrastructure, systems, processes and considerations at either level—whether on the standard or the enhanced tier—there is a concern that this will be onerous cost-wise, particularly around staffing levels. There is also concern with regard to certain shifts around things like the national living wage, which will drive that forward as well.
From the perspective of the industry, there is still a resonating concern that there will be an undue burden on small venues and community groups in particular, which, in the current economic climate, that could lead to further challenging situations. That is not to take away from the importance of safety; however, the reality is that we have to be honest about our position moving forward. So there are resonating concerns, but people are taking positive steps forward.
Just to reiterate and support Kate’s comments, there has been a very positive reaction to the Bill—it is very well supported. I believe the right action to move forward is happening across the sector as a whole at varying levels, but Manchester is without a doubt leading that, given the circumstances represented there.
Tim Roca
Q
Kate Nicholls: We do have some concerns about what is outlined around penalties. There are some gaps in the legislation. We know there will be secondary regulations and that there will be detail coming through in the guidance about the remit of the inspectors and the enforcement powers contained in the Bill, the level of fines and the powers available to people. We recognise this is a very serious situation, but there is an interrelationship between the Licensing Act, where you can have accelerated closure powers that could remove a licence entirely, and this piece of legislation, as well as the very high fines that could come through for the enhanced tier, particularly for those who are globally-based businesses. They are quite—eye-watering, shall we say?
There is a need to work with the industry. We appreciate that the Bill team and Ministers have worked with us to make some flexibility changes to the legislation as it has come through. We would also welcome the opportunity to work on this area, particularly around fines and the scaling of fines, the penalties that could be imposed, the way powers could be used, and the checks and balances around that enforcement mechanism, particularly to do with appeals and the ability to trade pending appeal, because there is a significant impact on a business if it is closed.
The Chair
Are there any other questions for the panel? I want to ensure I do not miss anybody again. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
I understand that we may be so far ahead of ourselves that not all the witnesses for the next panel are here.
Dan Jarvis
Dame Siobhain, may I propose that we change the order of the panel of witnesses, while remaining within the provisions of the programme order?
The Chair
Does anyone in the Committee object? No.
Examination of Witnesses
Jeremy Leggett gave evidence.
The Chair
For this evidence session, we have until 4.10 pm, so you could be answering questions for a very long time, Mr Leggett. Please could you introduce yourself for the record? Thank you for your flexibility.
Jeremy Leggett: It is my pleasure. My name is Jeremy Leggett. I am a policy adviser for ACRE, which stands for Action with Communities in Rural England. Would you like me to explain who we are as an organisation, Chair? We may not be familiar to many of the Committee. We are an England-wide charity that supports rural life throughout England. We do so primarily through 38 county charities, broadly one in each shire county, each of which has a village halls adviser who provides advice, support and training to the village halls within their county. Some counties have up to 100 or 150 entirely voluntarily run village halls.
I should say that ACRE, as the national body, prepares model documents such as hiring agreements that are used by the majority of village halls throughout England. With adaptation, they are frequently used in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well by our sister organisations. Because of that, I should also add that, as this is a reserved matter, we have been in touch with our sister organisations in the other UK nations about the implications of the Bill in their areas. I can reasonably confidently speak for my colleagues in Scotland. However, the situation with community buildings in Northern Ireland is somewhat different and has some particular complications. As I believe there is not an MP from Northern Ireland on the Committee, that may be something we could pick up on, or I could recommend who could be contacted there.
Tim Roca
Q
Jeremy Leggett: Yes. We welcome the threshold’s being raised, but I should go into a little bit of technical detail. When the threshold was set at 100, it would have included pretty much all the 10,000 or so village halls in England. That is largely to do with the village hall dimensions you need for short mat bowls and a badminton court, which give you a theatre-style capacity of a little over a hundred. Whether that capacity is ever used in that way is very questionable. So, certainly following the introduction of the Bill after the supplementary consultation on the standard tier, we welcomed the threshold’s being raised, but more because it took a lot of those village halls where the legislation would be most problematic out of scope. I am more than happy to go further into why it is problematic for them if you wish.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Q
Jeremy Leggett: Having sat in on the discussion this morning, I obviously have some anxieties about the possibility of the threshold being dropped back down to 100, as well as about having a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to bring the threshold back down to 100 anyway if that is seen to be required. The village halls that responded to the supplementary consultation on the standard tier did so thinking that the limit was going to be 100. If you recall, the supplementary consultation was carried out before a redraft of the Bill was made public so, as I understand it, there was some concern that a lot of village halls and similar organisations were responding quite negatively to the consultation because they thought the limit was going to be 100. Raising the threshold has taken quite a lot of those out, but it is probably worth at least thinking about why so many volunteer-run premises were so concerned about the standard tier when the lower threshold was 100. I can go further if you would like.
Katie Lam
That would be helpful.
Jeremy Leggett: Almost all the village halls of that size in England, Scotland and Wales are run as unincorporated associations. The charity itself is not a legal entity. The responsibilities for managing the charity are held personally and severally by the trustees, of which there might be between six and 10. So all the obligations under the Bill would fall to that group of people. Although the trustees of village halls voluntarily manage the halls for the benefit of their community, they are very seldom on site when it is being hired out. Therefore, the distinction between the people responsible for the building and the people responsible for the events is very clear.
Some of the provisions in the Bill for placing the responsibility on individuals who manage the building do not fit well with the constitutional structure of most village halls, although a small number are now becoming companies limited by guarantee and so on. Once we put in place the briefing, the support, the information and training, there is absolutely no guarantee that the people who have received that will be in the building if something happens. For those reasons, if no other, we have to think quite differently about how this legislation is going to be enacted in voluntarily run organisations.
It is worth saying that many of those we spoke to who responded to the standard tier consultation quite negatively are people who freely volunteer their time and their talents to provide a facility for their community—which they do, safely, 365 days of the year, for no pay. These are volunteers within their community. On speaking to many of them, they felt it was too heavy a stick to make this a legal obligation and that, in fact, rather more carrot would have been helpful in assisting them to do what they wanted to do anyway to keep their communities safe, rather than putting them at the risk of the law instead. That is one of the main reasons why the Home Office received such a negative response from that size and type of charities and buildings when doing the supplementary standard tier consultation.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Jeremy Leggett: I have to say that we have not looked in great detail at that. We have been so concerned about the way the entire Bill will be perceived by volunteers, because of the risk of us losing a lot of village hall trustees—simply because they do not want to see this responsibility falling on them personally—that we have not looked very hard at the exact sanctions that might be placed on them if they do not do it properly.
Paul Waugh
Q
Jeremy Leggett: Indeed. It was troubling this morning to hear quite so much pressure being placed on the Committee to bring the threshold back down, because that would bring a lot of those organisations we are most concerned about back into scope.
Kirith Entwistle
Q
Jeremy Leggett: We feel that the Bill is better drafted now than the draft Bill that was consulted over last summer. As was said this morning, I think by the National Association of Local Councils, a lot of work will need to be done on the guidance and regulation process to make clear exactly how the responsibilities fall between premises’ owners and managers on the one hand and events organisers on the other. That guidance and those regulations will have to be tailored in a way that works for the situation as I have described it, with halls that are run by volunteers who are not on the premises.
Kirith Entwistle
Q
Jeremy Leggett: It is a very good question. Over the last 10 or 15 years, the standard by which voluntary, village hall, and community centre trustees have come up to the mark on things such as fire safety, food, and health and safety is remarkable. There has been quite a major change over the last 10 or 15 years. So when it comes to the physical preparedness of the building, I have absolutely no concerns about them coming up to that mark quite quickly.
I think the issue is the integration between what is physically there and the procedures and training for what people actually do when something happens. It is quite easy to talk about making a quick decision to lock in when something happens; as even a relatively small business, with a core staff who are trained to understand which way to jump when something happens, you could probably be confident of that. In the case of a village hall, the people who are on site running an event may not have had that training. Either that, or we are getting ourselves into a position where the village hall’s conditions of hire will have to say, “You are not going to be able to hire this building unless you have done that preparedness training.” That opens up a wider sweep of preparedness among other kinds of organisations, which I am not really qualified to talk about.
The Chair
Thank you. If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for his evidence and his flexibility.
Examination of Witnesses
Jon Collins and Melvin Benn gave evidence.
The Chair
Our next witnesses are Jon Collins, chief executive of LIVE, and Melvin Benn, spokesman for the Concert Promoters Association. This is now panel 10 of the oral evidence session, and we have until 4.30 pm. Could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Jon Collins: My name is Jon Collins, and I am the chief executive of LIVE, which is the live music industry body in the UK. We pull together 15 different associations from across live music, including the Music Venue Trust, which represents the smallest music venues in the country, the British Association of Concert Halls, the National Arenas Association—taking us upscale—and the Association of Independent Festivals. The Concert Promoters Association, which Melvin is representing, also sits on my board, alongside representatives from artists, agents, managers and ticket retailers—right the way through.
Melvin Benn: My name is Melvin Benn, and I am the managing Director of Festival Republic. I am here today speaking on behalf of the Concert Promoters Association. Festival Republic is the largest festival producer and promoter in the UK, producing and promoting festivals such as Reading, Leeds, Latitude, Wireless and Wilderness, concert series in Gunnersbury park, Crystal Palace park and Finsbury park and so on.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Jon Collins: Thank you for those comments. We are attempting to be a critical friend to strengthen the Bill as it moves through the House. The first recognition is the role of licensing in our industry. Every one of the venues and festivals I have talked about will have a premises licence, be that for the event or for the venue. There are four objectives under that piece of legislation that relate to public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and so on. We have concerns about how the requirements under this legislation will or will not align with the licence conditions that our venues and festivals will be operating within.
There is a risk of some potential conflict—particularly as the licensing process is often a multi-year process, where the local authority gets to understand the venue and the festival and comes back year in, year out. There will be the development of security advisory group sessions and the development of an event management plan. That is a long, well-developed process, but now an inspector could potentially visit just before the event and say, “I am not satisfied with all of this; you need to take these steps.” The first thing we would note is that there is no requirement for them to be reasonably practicable in the Bill, whereas the requirement for operators is to take reasonably practicable steps. We think an amendment that adds that expectation to the inspectorate would be useful.
Beyond that, could the guidance for this legislation be mirrored in the section 182 guidance for the Licensing Act 2003 in England and Wales, and its equivalents in other countries and regions? Could we have something in the legislation to say that a requirement from the inspectorate cannot conflict with a licence condition? If there was conflict, if something happened and we had to get into the whys and wherefores, there would potentially be legal considerations there: “Well, I was compliant with this legislation, but you’re saying I am not compliant over here.” There are some challenges there that we think can be addressed as the Bill moves forward and the guidance is created.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Q
Jon Collins: The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is similar to the 2003 Act in its provisions. It could be, for example, a venue having a condition that says they will search everybody on entry. That will necessarily create a queue outside the premises, but it might be that from a counter-terrorism perspective you need to get everybody inside the premises as quickly as possible. Then you have a direct conflict, and the operator is trying to square that circle.
Melvin Benn: As Jon said, the two licensing Acts in England and Wales and in Scotland are very similar. In Scotland, particularly for outdoor events, licences are done on an annual basis, as opposed to a permanent premises licence as it is in England and Wales.
However, there is potential for conflict where a venue, an annual festival or an annual series of concerts has been in monthly meetings with safety advisory groups and has done all the preparation on the basis of the advice from the safety advisory group—who of course take advice from the local police force and the local CT SecCo, or counter-terrorism security co-ordinator, and so on—and the organisers will have their plan for the evening, or the festival, the weekend, or the next month or six months of the venue, all costed and budgeted, and then the regulator’s representative may come in and say, “I fundamentally disagree with that, and I need you to do this.” It appears that they have supreme powers. Certainly, in the way it is written, as Jon said, there is no factor of reasonableness in it, which we have to have. Parliament expects us to be reasonable in our endeavours, in our searching and so on. This does not have that factor of reasonableness, and it could cause conflict. It could be that the regulator and the safety advisory group have differences of opinion and we get caught in between, with what could be very significant financial penalties, not knowing quite which way to go.
Chris Murray
Q
Melvin Benn: The Bill certainly introduces conflict outside of the venue. Without question, it introduces conflict outside of the venue.
Venues are licensed premises, and we abide by licence conditions. That is how we survive in business. We work very hard to keep our customers safe, but we only have responsibility and jurisdiction over our licensed premises. We can have no jurisdiction or responsibility outside of the licensed premises, particularly when that is on the public highway. Once it is on the public highway, it is the responsibility of law enforcement. The Bill is actually trying to introduce a responsibility in something called “the vicinity”, which is very ill-defined—exceptionally ill-defined; we do not know what the vicinity is. Sometimes it is referred to as the grey space, but it is defined as “the vicinity” in the Bill, where we somehow have to take responsibility for safety.
We cannot undertake safety in a public space, because we have no legal right to affect what the public are doing in a public space. Actually, the British public, in the main, know that the only people that can charge them or direct them to do something different to what they are doing on a public highway are the police forces. So, if our security personnel, for example, are directing a crowd that do not want to be directed, to do something, they have every right—we have lots of video evidence of this in various locations—to stand their ground and say, “You have no right to tell us to do that—only the police can do that.”
The Bill is actually trying to tell us to do something that legally we are not allowed to do, and that is a very significant conflict. Even if the concept of vicinity was defined, we still have the problem of external to the licensed premises, which is very defined, where we have that responsibility. So there is conflict there.
Obviously, in terms of the general essence of the Bill, we are massively in support of its direction and desire; we are doing that, day in, day out. The Licensing Act is a really good basis for keeping customers safe—incredibly good. It is standing the test of time really well. This introduces conflict to that, unfortunately.
Paul Waugh
Q
Jon Collins: Our member, the Music Venue Trust, reckons that about 17% of their 800 members—so 140 or 150-odd—sit between 200 and 300. Fifty per cent. sit below 200 and the remainder above 300. There are a lot of small music venues out there. We heard talk about whether the threshold should be for the standard tier; there is an argument to move the threshold to 300, particularly for licensed premises, because all those venues already have the requirements of the Licensing Act, as Melvin put it.
The trust’s view is that, if this is introduced in a way that is integrated into operating practices under the licensing legislation, it does not need to be overly burdensome. It would actually align quite nicely with the standard operating practices, particularly if an organisation such as the MVT was able to develop sector-specific training, which it could then cascade out to its members. Part of the challenge in trying to understand the cost and implications of this legislation is that the tiers and the scope of the Bill are so broad, particularly—wandering off your question a bit—as the enhanced tier goes from 800-capacity venues up to 175,000-capacity festivals.
Melvin Benn: Some are even bigger than that, yes. As drafted, it literally ranges from 800 to an unlimited number. The largest festivals in the UK are for over 200,000 people, for example. Again, this is a complicated one, because safety applies to everyone, regardless of the size of space.
Jon and I have talked about this a little, particularly in respect of the previous witness, whom I only caught the end of, but if you are putting on an event in an unlicensed premise—a church hall, a community hall or something of that sort—and if it is for up to 499 people, you do not need a premises licence, but can apply for a temporary event notice. That is a licensing cut-off, in that sense. From 500 onwards, you need to have a premises licence. It would seem sensible for the Bill to mirror that to a certain extent, because once you get into the premises licensing, you get into safety advisory group meetings and sitting in front of local authority committees to get the premises licence to do everything properly.
There is that element of crossover that I think should be thought about a little. But there is that point that Jon makes, that you then go from 800 to 200,000 or greater. Should there be a different onus on a different event? The Reading festival, for example, is 105,000 people. Clearly, the intensity of planning and thought and so on, around a large event like that—the 105,000 people are all camping as well—is probably under greater scrutiny than, say, a 5,000 independent festival by the Association of Independent Festivals. That is somewhat under the radar to the world, in a way.
There is that discussion. We all accept, of course, that safety is paramount. As I mentioned, that is how we keep in business, in that sense. You just mentioned Andy’s example, and we work closely with all local authorities in Manchester and everywhere we go. It is a joint arm around each other, because with these events, local communities value the music spaces that they have, which are great for the local economy and so on. There is an element of partnership work with the smaller and larger venues. It is our business and it is what we do, but of course it must be partnership work. In our experience, the more partnership work there is in legislation, the more coherent and better it will be. At this point in time, it feels like the way in which it is written and planned is a little dictatorial and not in partnership. It is a little bit “you must do”, rather than “you must consider and take Government advice and so on”.
Paul Waugh
Q
Jon Collins: Most grassroots music venues operate on a 0.5% profit margin, which is not a profit margin, because the people who run those premises are not paying themselves properly. They actually subsidise, because of their passion and love for music.
Something like a bag check could actually create another type of security problem for venues like that. If they are 150 or 200-capacity premises, they might not have the conditions in which you need to search every person on entry, because of the scale of what they do. If that were imposed, there would be an additional cost because you would need to be able to staff that, but more concerningly there would be the creation of a queue outside the premises, which the Music Venue Trust has identified as creating a new risk. That may be addressing a risk that was not there in the first place. I apologise for being vague, but we are trying to pull numbers. Given that we are not entirely sure what the guidance in the final form of the Bill will say, the expectations of the inspectorate in terms of what operators should do are pretty challenging. However, if it is brought in in a way that is aligned with our licence requirements, it can be lower cost to comply.
Tim Roca
Q
Jon Collins: I think that is a by-product of the fact that we operate with licences and have partnerships with local authorities that go back decades. The variable that we do not want to introduce is for an inspector to come to a venue or festival and insert new requirements with no appeal, which they can do at the moment on the balance of probabilities, and disrupt that well-established way of working between the venue and the regulator.
On the Home Office’s costs, the difference between the low-end cost and the high-end cost for the total bill is eightfold—it is around £593 million and up to £4 billion. That tells you just how open-ended a lot of this legislation is at the moment. Trying to work out compliance costs and so on can therefore be a challenge, but the Manchester experience is common to our work with local authorities up and down the country.
Chris Murray
Q
Jon Collins: I will make one quick point before Melvin comes in. Because we operate with a licence, we are already considering counterterrorism safety and security in how we run the premises. The issue is the new variable. I do not see that there are two classes of venue; the Licensing Act takes care of that. If you are not meeting your obligations under that Act, your licence is at risk and can be removed. The fact that this can be imposed without appeal on a balance of probabilities, and disrupt what can be a decades-old relationship between the venue and the local authority, is the concern.
Melvin Benn: It is exactly as Jon said. Because there is an entertainment licence, the granter of the entertainment licence—be it a premises licence in England and Wales, or a yearly licence in Scotland, for example—has assessed that what the operator is doing is safe and makes the customer safe. In that sense, one could argue that there is no need for the legislation.
I think the industry generally would say that adding an additional safety piece about counterterrorism into the four pillars of the Licensing Act would have been a better route than creating an additional piece of legislation. We are not in charge of that, and we will go whichever way it is. We are fully supporting the direction of this. The simpler way would have been to add to what already exists, rather than to create something separate.
Tim Roca
Q
Melvin Benn: Obviously, I am speaking from the point of view of my industry. But it is an industry that is quite grown up and has an incredibly good safety record. In our view, adding to what already exists would have been in some ways a simpler route. There would then be something separate for unlicensed premises. The fact that the Bill almost ignores the existence of licensed premises is a little bit of a failure. That is where we see conflict—and we do see conflict—not with the overall aim, of course, but there are two jockeys on the horse at some points. That is where you are going to get to, and when there are two jockeys on a horse, that horse never wins. At least, I have never backed one that won.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Gary Stephen gave evidence.
The Chair
For this oral evidence session we have until 4.50 pm. I would be grateful if the witness introduced himself for the record.
Gary Stephen: My name is Gary Stephen, and I am representing the Association of University Chief Security Officers executive group. I am also the chair of the special interest group for CONTEST, and I represent members from the UK, Ireland, US, Australia, Europe and South Africa.
Tim Roca
Q
Gary Stephen: I am aware that in some parts of the security industry, the SIA has a poor reputation when it comes to the enforcement of licensed premises. But from the information provided to me, and with the creation of a separate entity within the SIA to manage the enforcement of new legislation, it is comforting. Looking at the alternatives, it seems like the most practical and logical appointment on the face of it.
Chris Murray
Q
Gary Stephen: The majority of higher education organisations will be in the enhanced tier with public protection measures. I strongly believe that most of my peers have significant experience in dealing with counter-terrorism risk assessments and security plans, and I would be disappointed if that was not already a priority for most of them in the planning and preparation of events. However, I am aware that not every organisation has an experienced security professional to manage events on campus.
With that in mind, we created the special interest group CONTEST to share best practice and signpost to our members what good looks like. Most organisations have very good relationships with local counter-terrorism security advisers, and due to specialist research being carried out on many sites, the security posture is normally of a good standard. So I would be conscious to make sure that vice-chancellors and COOs are aware of their obligation under the new legislation.
Kirith Entwistle
Q
Gary Stephen: For me, the difference between who is responsible for the premises—the organisation—and the event—the person—is clear. However, in the discussions I have had with my peers, we believe it is important that there is a clear understanding between the organisation and the event organiser about who exactly is responsible for what. We would hope that would be done by having the correct risk assessments and security plans in place and sharing them appropriately. On the face of it, it looks clear to us that the organisation is responsible for the premises and a person for the event. We are quite comfortable with that.
Tim Roca
Q
Gary Stephen: To give some context around that question, many higher education organisations are in a town and gown setting where the university is a small town in itself that is integrated into a busy part of the city. There are challenges of having multiple buildings with thousands of staff, students and tenants—elite sports clubs or teams; nightclubs, which you are referring to, which is where the GUU, the student union, comes into it; or commercial properties and theatres within the campus footprint. There could be confusion as to who is responsible for those buildings. The conversations we have had initially are that they are looking to us for guidance.
Most higher education organisations own the buildings and then lease them out to the smaller organisations. On the discussions we have had with them, the more premises around our institutions comply with the legislation, especially the smaller hospitality venues, the more protected our students and staff will be, both in and out of the academic setting. With that in mind, the original standard tier threshold of 100 people would be more beneficial for the Bill in my opinion. That would bring a lot more of those premises into scope and more venues would be prepared to deal with incidents. Does that answer your question?
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence. We will move on to our next and final panel. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Dan Jarvis and Debbie Bartlett gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Minister. For this final panel, we have until 5.10 pm. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Dan Jarvis: I am Dan Jarvis MP, the Security Minister.
Debbie Bartlett: I am Debbie Bartlett, Deputy Director for Protect and Prepare in the Homeland Security Group at the Home Office.
Paul Waugh
Q
Dan Jarvis: Yes, I am happy to do that. But with Dame Siobhain’s indulgence, perhaps you will let me say a few words about the sessions that we have had today. I hope that this has been a really useful opportunity for members of the Committee to hear from a range of authoritative stakeholders about the Bill. That, certainly from my perspective, has been incredibly useful in informing our collective understanding as the Bill moves forward in its passage through the House of Commons.
It would also be remiss of me not to reiterate the comments that I made earlier on about Figen Murray. I think that her contribution, and the contribution of the team that has supported her, has been outstanding and inspiring. We frankly would not be at this place without the incredible work that she has done over some time now. I think that that is worthy of recognition by the Committee this afternoon.
I also want to briefly reflect on the testimony that we heard from Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes, because I think that that was significant. He very helpfully outlined the nature of the terrorist threat that our country faces, and it is reassuring to know that the analysis from him and his team is that the Bill is both proportionate and effective.
I was also struck by the very positive testimony that we heard from Mayor Andy Burnham on the Greater Manchester experience. I think that, for those who have had some concerns about proportionality and about the impact that this Bill could have on certain sectors of the business community—and the hospitality sector in particular—it was reassuring to hear the very positive experience from Greater Manchester.
Also, before turning to the substance of your question, Mr Waugh, I just want to reiterate the importance of the cross-party support that we have been able to build for this Bill. This is legislation that began its life in the previous Parliament under the previous Government, with important pre-legislative processes taking place. All that has been incredibly helpful in terms of informing the process and ensuring that the Bill is as fit for purpose as it possibly can be. I am very grateful to all of those who went before and for the contributions that they made.
I turn to the substance of your question; I will bring in Debbie in just a moment because she has dealt with the detail of this for longer than me. I think that the heart of your question is about issues of proportionality. I am struck by the fact that we have had a useful conversation today about where the threshold of the standard tier should lie. I am quite confident that if a decision had been taken to place that threshold in a different place, we would still have had a discussion about whether it was in the right place and whether the decision to have it at a lower level would have excluded some even smaller premises. We have to be realistic that whenever you are dealing with legislation that requires a threshold, there will always be a debate—it has been in that sense a very constructive one—about where that particular threshold sits.
We have got to where we are based on extensive consultation. There was the pre-legislative process that took place in the previous Parliament. There have been two quite extensive public consultations and a significant amount of contact with a range of different stakeholders who would be affected by the legislation. In the end, Government have to take a view about what is the most appropriate threshold and that is what we have done. We think that that is the right judgment, but clearly there is still a debate to be had around that. After significant consultation and consideration, that is where we have got to and as the Minister, I think that is the right judgment.
It is also worth making the point that other changes have been made to the legislation since the earlier iteration, not least the inclusion of the “reasonably practicable” test, as well as the points around reasonable expectation. I hope they go some considerable way to reassuring the concerns expressed about the impact the legislation would have on smaller venues and premises. Debbie, if there anything you want to add to that, you are welcome to do so.
Debbie Bartlett: In terms of reflecting on the change from 100 to 200, one of the clear voices we heard through the consultation and the pre-legislative scrutiny process was around those voluntary organisations and premises. Moving from a 100 to a 200 threshold reduces coverage of those village halls from 54% at the 100 threshold to just 13% at the 200 threshold, which feels more proportionate given some of the feedback we received through the pre-legislative and the consultation process.
Chris Murray
Q
On compliance and how you are dealing with organisations that do not comply, obviously the hope would be that as many organisations as you come across are complying and doing this kind of thinking already. We have heard about how things like licensing regimes pretty much encourage a lot of organisations to do compliance. Can you talk about why you have set the threshold for non-compliance at that maximum and what the process was in deciding that?
Debbie Bartlett: In setting out the compliance and sanctions regime, the decision was taken—looking at the heart of the Bill, which is proportionality—to have a primarily civil sanctions regime in place. The key role for the regulator, as has been discussed today, is around educating, bringing people up to standard and improving protective security and organisational preparedness across the country. Obviously, to enable that regime to have teeth, there needs to be some kind of compliance and sanctions regime in place. The sanctions regime allows for flexibility. We have heard from significant witnesses today that this cannot be about one size fits all. We are talking about an extensive number of sectors with different operating models, different ways of working, different staff ratios and so on. There has to be flexibility in all parts of the Bill, including compliance.
Setting the compliance regime where we have, at the £10,000 maximum for the standard tier and the £18 million or 5% of worldwide revenue for the enhanced tier, mirrors some regulatory regimes in this space, so it is not unheard of. It also gives us the flexibility because when you consider the enhanced regime in particular, you are looking at venues that could go from 800-person capacity right through to 100,000-person capacity. That is quite unique in terms of what their revenue structures and so on will be in terms of how they will differ.
The regulator will have the ability to consider what is best when thinking about compliance and what can be imposed on a venue or an event. One of the things that they can take into consideration is the ability of the responsible person to pay the revenue costs. That will have to be considered. It is about giving us maximum flexibility because, as we have said, one of the challenges around this legislation is the uniqueness and the number of venues and the number of operating models that we are trying to consider.
Kirith Entwistle
Q
Dan Jarvis: Yes, we are confident that there will be enough time. Following Royal Assent, we expect the implementation period to be at least 24 months, and given the extensive consultation with stakeholders that has already taken place, that is very much a live process. It is not a process that will come to an end; it will continue throughout.
Having looked at this very carefully, the Home Secretary is particularly keen to ensure that we have an implementation period that will allow ample time for those businesses that will be affected to prepare properly. Yes, we are confident that all of the relevant safeguards are in place, but it is important that we continue to engage with businesses and other stakeholders.
That has been a productive process. As I have said, there have been two public consultations and I think there have been more than 100 stakeholder engagement events, with hundreds of businesses being engaged throughout that process. That will continue and we will make sure that all those businesses have the information that they require to implement the legislation.
Katie Lam
Q
Debbie Bartlett: To clarify how we are treating places of worship within the legislation, they are being treated slightly differently. Regardless of their capacity, if they are over the 200 limit, regardless of whether they are over 800 or not, they will all be considered within the standard tier. That is to reflect the unique role that faith communities play in society.
In terms of “from time to time”, how we are calculating capacity within the legislation goes back again to the point about making it slightly more proportionate and more venue-specific. Venues themselves will have to consider the greatest number of people reasonably expected to be present at the same time. It is about that word, “expected”. If they know that there will be more than 200 people expected at their venue at one time, they will be caught within that.
Where “from time to time” comes from is if there is an unexpected event, which unexpectedly has 200 people, which could not have been considered beforehand. There will not be any sort of automatic “You will now be in enhanced tier”—sorry, the standard tier—or you will not jump to the enhanced tier from time to time. So it is about the expected. If you expect more than 200 people, then you will be in scope of the legislation.
Tim Roca
Q
Debbie Bartlett: Again, that goes back to the proportionality aspect of the legislation and what we are actually asking of standard-tier premises. For standard-tier premises what the Bill requires is around putting in place protective security procedures. It is not asking as much as it is of enhanced-tier premises. We did not feel that it was appropriate to put in place restriction notices that could be conceived of as being more burdensome for those smaller businesses and smaller premises.
Chris Murray
Q
Dan Jarvis: Let me pick up on the first bit of your question, then I will hand over to Debbie for the second bit. Clearly, this is an important role for the regulator, and there has been an ongoing debate for some time about how best to provide that regulatory authority. A number of options were considered by both the previous Government and this Government, and there were other ways of providing that regulatory authority. Clearly, we were mindful of the Cabinet Office guidance about how best to proceed in terms of the creation of new regulatory authorities, which is not recommended. We looked carefully at the current role and responsibility of the SIA, and the judgment taken was that it has or will have the necessary experience and skillset to provide that regulatory function. This is an important role, and Ministers will ultimately be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the regulator.
This is an important piece of regulation that does require that regulatory function. We as Ministers clearly wanted to satisfy ourselves that that is the most appropriate solution. Clearly, we have to consider other factors as well, such as cost. Having considered all those factors and looked clearly at the capacity and capability within the SIA, the judgment was made that it is the most appropriate body to take on this regulatory function, but it is important to say that clearly there will be ministerial oversight over that process. Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the regulator, and this is a crucial part of the legislation.
I have to say that the feedback has been largely positive about the decision. There was a period of time initially when there was not clarity about the regulatory functions and who would provide that particular arms’-length-body regulatory function. The Government took the decision that the SIA was best placed to do that, and we think that that is the right solution.
Debbie Bartlett: We are absolutely alive to the fact that the SIA will have to align and work closely with a number of regulatory bodies, including those responsible for fire safety, licensing—as we heard from the gentleman before us—and health and safety, and with our other operational partners in this space, including the police, and industry themselves. There will be a lot of work to ensure that those regimes are complementary. We heard clearly from the gentleman about the concern of duplication. I do not think that is the case; it is actually about aligning. The licence regime is limited. That is why we felt this legislation was necessary over and above what is already out there.
Many of our venues and premises are already be aligned to things like health and safety and fire safety. Where possible, we have sought in the legislation to try to align and complement as much as possible. What we are asking of people should not be a huge surprise in terms of what has already been asked under those other regimes. They absolutely will have to align and, indeed, within the legislation, we are giving the SIA the powers to share information with other bodies as necessary in the delivery of their duties and those of other public bodies.
Katie Lam
Q
Debbie Bartlett: That is correct. As long as you do not expect to have more than 190 individuals at your premises, you will not be considered in scope of the standard tier. Obviously, the regulator—the SIA—will have the powers to seek information that will justify some of that decision making. For some, and we have set this out in fact sheets, depending on how you justify that decision, it could be historical attendance data or your fire safety capacity data—it depends what you use—you will then have to present to justify that decision making.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the Minister and Ms Bartlett for their evidence. That brings us to the end of today’s session. The Committee will meet again at 11.30 am on Thursday to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Renters' Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month 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 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline—as it was to serve under Sir Christopher’s chairmanship until I was somewhat surprised to be interrupted by the clock. But it reminded me to get a very good lunch, including excellent apple crumble.
As I was saying, the logic of the amendment is to attach the maximum rent increase to the Bank of England base rate. We do not accept that that is capping in any other way than in the Bill, which would cap the rent increase at what is considered the market rent through recourse to the courts. In the same way, our application of the amendment would limit it to the Bank of England base rate, which is, as I said, a much better measure of the costs that landlords actually face than market rents, which are susceptible to the effects of price inflation.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that further work might come through on the way the tribunal operates and how it could operate in future under the Bill, and that the changes to how the tribunal functions might help to deal with the issues addressed by the amendment?
Mr Amos
I would be delighted if that were the case. We would welcome anything that reduced the risk of extremely steep rent increases for tenants—I think Members on both sides of the Committee would want to see that. This amendment would limit increases to the Bank of England base rate. I stress that this would apply to within-tenancy increases only. However, I accept the points that the Government have made and I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I just thought I would offer a few more thoughts to try to further reassure the hon. Gentleman. As I made clear, we absolutely share his objective of limiting unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases, not least given the potential for that type of rent hike to act as an effective section 21 by the back door. On his specific point, the Government’s view is that linking rents to the Bank of England’s base rate would constitute a form of rent control. We may have a principled disagreement about whether rent controls are appropriate, but we are not convinced that they should be introduced, given the risks that I have set out.
I thought it would be helpful to touch on how the tribunal determines market rents, because I got the sense from the hon. Gentleman previously that he expected the tribunal to look purely at advertised rents. The tribunal has a high degree of expertise. It is composed of judges and industry experts. To determine the market rate, the first-tier tribunal can consider a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online, as he said, and also evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase. This could include statistics on changes to local rents and examples of the rent achieved by other properties—for example, the rent that neighbours are paying. The tribunal will be able to use its local expertise, including visiting a property if necessary. We think that the tribunal has the necessary expertise and understanding to take into account different factors that are forming market rates and to determine whether the rent that is being proposed reflects that.
To touch on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the Government are exploring whether the database could play a role in providing data on rents. That would be in addition to data about the ownership and standard of private rented sector properties. We are considering the feasibility of recording a wider range of data to support more informed rental experiences.
Our approach will take into account the balance of benefits and burdens for different users, and we will look at how data can best be collected to minimise requirements for private landlords to submit information. We will stipulate those requirements in the regulations, but I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman a bit more reassurance that the tribunal is not simply looking at advertised rents in making its determinations.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Caroline. The Opposition agree with the Government’s position on amendment 76. It is clear that interest rates set by the Bank of England are not a suitable proxy or measure to be used when setting a reasonable level of rent. If we look at examples in recent history, we see that we have gone through a period of sustained very low interest rates, followed by a rise prompted by the decision of the United States Federal Reserve, which sets the baseline for the rest of the world, to raise interest rates, so they sit at today’s present rate. Of course, inflation throughout that period was very much determined by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the consequent increase in energy costs in particular, and also in basic foodstuffs. All those things do not amount to an effective basket of measures that can be used. What the Minister has said on that point is important.
Mr Amos
Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the main costs landlords face are not from the price of goods in the shops, but the price of borrowing—the price of the loans with which they have acquired their properties—and, therefore, it is about the logic of the increasing costs to landlords being passed on through a relationship to the base rate of interest?
David Simmonds
No, I do not entirely accept that. For a start, we need to recognise that the costs landlords face when looking at purchasing a property will be based on the commercial cost of borrowing, rather than the Bank of England base rate. A landlord who is considering, for example, refurbishment or investment in a property is considering the rising cost of maintenance and servicing the property to the appropriate standard. The costs driving that, and the inflation behind them, are related not to the Bank of England base rate, but to what is going on in the market for those particular goods and services. It is important that we recognise that.
I hope the Government will acknowledge that it is particularly important to recognise that bringing in investment to create more private rented homes depends on the build to rent sector and on investors, including investment funds, that may specifically choose to come to this market on the basis of a reasonable, if modest, rate of return. If the investors considering creating new homes are deterred because the Government are fixing the available return on rent at a low level compared with alternative investments, that will lead to an exodus of investment from the private rented sector, which will be deeply harmful to the needs of renters.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, leave out from “date” to end of the line and insert—
“of the application under section 14(A1)”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in clause 8, page 11, line 39, leave out from “is” to “the tenancy rent” in line 2 on page 12.
Amendment 53, in clause 8, page 12, line 24, leave out from “13A(2)” to the end of line 32 and insert—
“or
(b) a date that the appropriate tribunal directs, if it appears to the tribunal that applying paragraph (a) would cause undue hardship to the tenant.”
Amendment 51, in clause 8, page 12, line 35, leave out from “is” to “the proposed rent” in line 37.
David Simmonds
The amendments relate to the role of the tribunal and the tribunal process. One of the concerns that was extensively aired in debate, and about which we have heard a great deal of evidence, is the impact of a process whereby from a tenant’s point of view, going to tribunal is a no-lose situation because the only possible decision the tribunal can take is to reduce the rent they would pay. That would mean that it would essentially always be in the tenant’s interests to go to the tribunal, because it would at worst defer the point at which any higher rent took effect. We have very significant concerns about the tribunal’s capacity to absorb that level of work and about the fact that to be fair to landlords as well, we should not have a situation where a tribunal can operate in only one direction. By proposing these amendments, we seek to make it possible for changes in rent to be backdated.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
We are talking about perverse incentives here. One way to tackle that would be through a costs regime associated with the tribunal. Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding that the current intention is that there would be no adverse costs orders awarded against a tenant, should they go through a tribunal process and not be successful in reducing the level of rent?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend raises an extremely good point. As he outlined, this is very much about perverse incentives. We do not want to create a situation in the market where it is always in the interests of the tenant to push this to the tribunal. We need to make sure that that point is effectively addressed, and the amendments seek to do that.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 8 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988, and the amended sections set out the circumstances in which a tenant can submit an application to the tribunal to challenge the rent amount either in the first six months of a tenancy or following a section 13 rent increase notice. Amendments 50 to 53 seek to alter the process for challenging initial rents and rent increases at the tribunal.
I must stress that, in the first instance, under this new system, the Government strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. Where an agreement cannot be reached, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe that a rent increase is above market rates. Such rises may represent an attempt by the landlord to exploit a tenant who simply wishes to remain in their home, or they may be an underhanded attempt to remove a tenant without pursuing the very clear possession grounds laid out in schedule 1. That is why we think clause 8 is so important.
Jerome Mayhew
I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?
Matthew Pennycook
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal. That is why we are seeing such low numbers of tenants going to the tribunal. It is an onerous process; we need to provide support and guidance about how to do it. I do not take his point that we will see a flood of tenants taking rent increase cases to tribunal.
To be very clear—I have said this on previous occasions—the Government want more tenants to take their cases to tribunal. We think the tribunal has an important role to play in setting the effective market rate for any given area, so we want to see a proportionate number of cases go through it—we obviously do not want to see it overwhelmed. However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides. I will expand upon what I mean and why we have come to this decision in relation to this particular clause.
The shadow Minister proposes in his amendments that rent increases, where they are challenged at the tribunal, should be backdated to the date the landlord first proposed. That would mean tenants possibly facing significant arrears immediately after the tribunal hearing. That is an incentive in the other direction, which we fear would, if introduced, see no tenants taking their case to tribunal. We have just had an extensive discussion about the need to address the affordability pressures to ensure that landlords are not exploiting the system with large, completely unreasonable within-tenancy increases. We have to take that into account as well.
Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights. As such, the Bill proposes that rent increases should apply only at the beginning of the next period after the tribunal determination, or up to two months later, in limited cases of undue hardship.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to develop my argument after his intervention, I am sure I will get to his points.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful—I am not intervening for the sake of it; there is an important point here. The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?
Matthew Pennycook
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me give him a bit more insight into my thinking. I recognise his point that there are incentives that operate in both directions. There is no wholly perfect, win-win solution. We have taken this decision partly because it was in our manifesto to protect renters from unreasonable within-tenancy rent rises, and also because we believe that landlords will adjust around the point in the annual cycle when they serve the section 13 notice to account for the period of time it will take for the tribunal to make a determination.
The hon. Gentleman is right that if the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase—not the whole rent, but the rent increase. We want to bring down the time of tribunal determinations so that it is a very short process. I will be very clear about this: we took the view that it was better that tenants were not, by facing the prospect of significant arrears, disincentivised from taking any cases to tribunal to challenge what could be, on a number of occasions, completely unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases. We felt that that is of more benefit than ensuring that they would face significant arrears at every point, which would be too harmful to their ability to challenge, given that we have not introduced rent controls—rent stabilisation—of the kind that other parties are calling for. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point specifically, my expectation is that landlords will adjust around the point that the section 13 notice is served.
The whole system should operate in a way that, hopefully, incentivises landlords not to propose unreasonable rent hikes that might be challenged. There is a clear incentive for landlords and tenants to come to an agreement—we know this will happen in a good number of cases—on what a sustainable rent increase is that reflects the market conditions. The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to intervene on me again if he wants, but I will just develop my argument a bit further in relation to some of the amendments.
The shadow Minister proposes that a tribunal should be able to increase the rent above the current rent payable if the rent is challenged in the first six months of the tenancy and, where a later rent increase is challenged, that the tribunal should be able to set the rent higher than what the landlord asked for. We believe that these amendments would exacerbate the worry that tenants already face in going to a tribunal to challenge their landlord. Tenants will not challenge rents if they risk being in an even worse position following a tribunal ruling. That is the sort of perverse incentive that we believe would pertain on the part of tenants if the amendment was taken forward.
As a slight challenge to Conservative Members opposite, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, their party once recognised this point. The proposed approach in the previous Government’s White Paper, “A fairer private rented sector”, is the one that we have taken in this Bill—namely, that the tribunal cannot increase the rent beyond what the landlord asked for. It is slightly disappointing to see hon. Members rescind that previous approach, which we think is appropriate.
The Bill encourages tenants to engage with the tribunal when they have legitimate concerns. By reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are disincentivising the minority of landlords who may be tempted to hike rents beyond what is reasonable. The shadow Minister’s amendments not only remove these important measures but put tenants at real risk of losing their home, undermining security of tenure, which is obviously a key principle of the Bill. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for talking through the Government’s thinking, and for his points about the debates on the previous Bill. The Opposition remain concerned that the envisaged process, whereby there will be an online application for a modest fee, will make it almost invariably in the interest of the tenant to challenge, because there is no negative outcome for them regardless. A great deal will rest on an issue we will deal with later on: the capacity of tribunals to make decisions quickly. I am mindful, however, of the numbers on the Committee, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 8, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
“(12) The Secretary of State must—
(a) conduct a review of—
(i) the impact of this section on the tribunals responsible for the determination of rent, and
(ii) the ability of tribunals to manage an increase in applications for a review of a proposed rent increase; and
(b) consult with the Competition and Markets Authority on any measures necessary to ensure that tribunals are able to assess market rents without having a distorting effect on the market.
(13) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (12) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 8, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
“(12) The Secretary of State must consult on—
(a) the adequacy of the existing resources of the tribunals responsible for the determination of rent;
(b) the need of the tribunals for further resources to manage an increase in applications for a review of a proposed rent increase.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on whether tribunals responsible for the determination of rents are appropriately resourced to manage any additional workload arising from this Bill.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 46, in clause 142, page 150, line 26, leave out from “subject to” to end of line 27 and insert—
“—
(a) the publication of a review under section 8 on the impact of that section on the tribunals responsible for the determination of rent; and
(b) subsections (2) to (6).”
David Simmonds
Amendment 47 relates to an issue that was briefly aired in the previous debate: the capacity and ability of tribunals to deal effectively with the workload that is likely to come their way once the Bill has made its passage through Parliament.
I understand that for a new Government there is a great deal of desire to bring forward legislation to address things that may be manifesto issues, but there has also been criticism of the risk. We have seen a lack of impact assessments that would enable us as Members of Parliament to consider properly the likely impacts of the legislation, and what resources will be required to mitigate those impacts. That issue ran through the previous debate on the ability of tribunals to make timely and efficient decisions so that both landlords and tenants are treated justly. It will also run through other debates, such as that on local authorities’ capacity to enforce effectively so that both tenants’ and landlords’ rights are protected in practice, notwithstanding what the legislation says.
Amendment 47 is designed to address the issue and ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority, which has a much wider remit in looking at how regulators and markets interact, can examine this issue and, having considered the impact of the legislation, provide us with some evidence that would then inform our thinking about the timing and operation of these facets of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I speak to clause 8 and respond to the amendments, it might be worth my making it clear to the shadow Minister that the Government submitted an impact assessment for the Bill to the Regulatory Policy Committee on 16 September 2024, and we will publish that in due course. In line with usual practice, the Government will always consider the impact of any policies when taking legislation through Parliament.
As I set out in the debate on the previous group of amendments, clause 8 amends section 14 of the Housing Act 1988. It stipulates when a tenant can submit an application to the first-tier tribunal. They may do so to challenge the rent amount in the first six months of a tenancy or following a section 13 rent increase. When a tenant brings an application to the tribunal, the tribunal will both assess what the landlord could expect to receive if the property was re-let on the open market and determine the rent. The tribunal has, as I have noted, experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that influence the market rate, which include the rent for similar properties in the area, the quality of fixings or the proximity to amenities.
For too long tenants have feared challenging a rent increase at the first-tier tribunal. We will end that by ensuring that the tenant will not pay more than what the landlord asks for following a tribunal determination. We are going further: we will end the practice of backdating rent increases, to stop tenants being thrust into debt. To protect the most vulnerable tenants, in cases of undue hardship the tribunal will be able to delay the start of the rent increase for up to two months from the date of determination. That puts tenants in a stronger position to challenge rents through the first-tier tribunal.
It is important to note that tenants are often scared to engage with the judicial process, so we hope that the measures I have outlined will give them more confidence to do so. Although we anticipate that there will be an increase in cases, we do not accept the frankly scaremongering assertions we have heard about the tribunal being completely overwhelmed, or about tenants risking a deterioration in the critical relationship with their landlord by challenging every single rent increase that is given to them. Nor did we hear, when they gave evidence to the Committee last week, that the groups that support tenants would recommend such action. Engaging the tribunal requires effort and time, and we believe that tenants will do so only where they have legitimate concerns, such as when a within-tenancy rent increase is unreasonable. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that the tribunal has the capacity to deal with any increase in cases.
Taken together with the measures in clause 7, the provisions in clause 8 will ensure that tenants always have a right of appeal and will prevent rent increases from being used to evict them. Rent increases outside the statutory process, such as in rent review clauses, will be outlawed. We believe the measures will ensure that all parties are clearer on their rights and responsibilities and will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.
Amendment 46 is drafted to prevent the Bill from coming into force until a review is published on the impact of clause 8 on the tribunals responsible for the determination of rent. The review would be provided for by amendment 47. The Government are committed to ending the scourge of section 21 as quickly as possible and have also committed to empowering private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, thereby stopping unscrupulous landlords from using them as a back-door means of eviction. The sector has waited far too long for these changes, so we will not tie implementation to any arbitrary requirements, as the previous Government determined to do in the previous Parliament. As I said, we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice and HMTCS to make sure that the justice system is prepared for any changes to case load and the procedures that will be required for our reforms.
Amendment 47 would introduce a legal requirement for the Government to publish a review of the impact of the reforms to rents in clause 8 on tribunals and their ability to manage any increase in the volume of applications that challenge the amount of rent payable. As I have made clear—I will put it on the record again—we are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and HMTCS to make sure that the justice system is prepared for the Bill’s implementation, which will come at a single point at the point of commencement. In Committee last week, we heard of the growing role of the first-tier tribunals and we heard—it is important to note this—praise for their handling of cases. We seek to build on that good practice.
We currently have no plans to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on whether any action is necessary to ensure that our reforms in clause 8 do not have a distorting effect on the market. I say respectfully to the shadow Minister that I have seen no credible evidence of that and, to be candid, I think the CMA has far better things to do with its time. The tribunal’s decision reflects market conditions rather than distorting them, so we do not think it realistic that the tribunal could affect market prices. The tribunal is also likely to determine rents for an extremely small proportion of the total rental market. We will of course continue to monitor the impact of the reforms on the market in the normal way.
Finally, amendment 75 would require the Secretary of State to launch a consultation to seek views on whether tribunals that are responsible for the determination of rent currently have adequate resource, and whether they will require further resources due to the rent reforms in the Bill. Given the ongoing work I have outlined, we do not think that launching a consultation at this time is required, and making a commitment to do so on the face of the Bill would be wholly unnecessary. I therefore ask Members not to press their amendments to a vote.
Mr Amos
I rise to speak to amendment 75 which, as the Minister said, would require the Secretary of State to consult on the adequacy of the existing resources for the tribunal system and on any further need for resources to deal with rent reviews established in the Bill. It is the same for the courts: sufficient judges and resources to ensure that the justice system works and does not seize up are vital to the supply of landlords bringing properties on to the rental market.
The Liberal Democrats know that most landlords and tenants are not going to rush to the courts unreasonably, and we do not support the use of court funding as a reason to delay the ending of no-fault evictions and the introduction of the Bill, as happened in the previous Parliament. As I have made clear several times, it is urgent that no-fault evictions are brought to an end. However, that does not mean that the courts and tribunal system is not seriously underfunded; it clearly is. I know the Minister is concerned about this—he mentioned some ongoing review work, and also spoke about it on Second Reading in response to my intervention—but we really need to go further. We need to come up with something concrete that is clear that putting resources into the courts and tribunals system will be taken seriously and will happen.
The mutually-owned Nationwide building society, which funds much of the accommodation we are talking about, has made its support for the Bill conditional on increased funding for the courts and tribunals. It says:
“In these situations, good landlords need to be confident they are able to gain possession of the property”—
I appreciate this relates more to courts than tribunals—and that once
“the situation has reached a point where a court is involved it is reasonable to expect that this process should be as quick and efficient as possible. This is not the case with the current…system which needs additional funding and resources to operate effectively”.
David Simmonds
One of the benefits of having been in government is that I have had the opportunity to consider many of these issues from the inside. We on the Opposition Benches remain concerned that it will be challenging to deliver the necessary level of capacity to provide the efficient service that tribunals need, and are expected, to provide for the benefit of both tenants and landlords. However, recognising that it is a game of numbers, I am happy to withdraw amendment 47.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, on the capacity of the Courts and Tribunals Service to effectively implement the new system, at the risk of repeating my extensive comments on Second Reading, it is worth trying to provide Committee members with some reassurance. First, at the risk of injecting a somewhat partisan note into the Committee, I agree entirely that our courts are in a terrible state after 14 years—I say 14 years because I am afraid the coalition Government had a hand in it—and we absolutely believe that improvements to HMCTS are needed to ensure that the new systems function effectively.
As I said, we are working closely with colleagues in government to ensure that improvements are made, as well as the exploring options for, for example, improved alternative dispute resolution so that only those cases that need a judgment come to court. There are a number of improvements we might make to take some strain off the courts, and those are the ones we are exploring.
Mr Amos
Will the Minister let me put on the record the fact that during the coalition Government from 2010 to 2015, whole Government Departments, including the Education and Health Departments, were protected and ringfenced against cuts? That bears absolutely no relation to what happened after the cuts were let loose in 2015.
Matthew Pennycook
But not the Ministry of Justice, I say gently to the hon. Gentleman.
Nevertheless, I want to reassure colleagues on the substantive point. We have chosen to implement the new tenancy system in a single stage. The commencement date will be made clear in due course, but we will ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared for the implementation of the new system. That is essential, and a huge amount of work is going on to ensure that that will be the case.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Repayment of rent paid in advance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Limit on rent to be requested in advance of tenancy—
“In the 1988 Act, after section 14ZB (inserted by section 8 of this Act) insert—
‘14ZBA Maximum rent to be paid in advance
No rent may be requested or received in advance of any period of the tenancy which exceeds the rent for one month of the tenancy.’”
This amendment would impose a limit of one month’s rent on the amount of rent which can be asked for or paid in advance of a tenancy.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be relatively brief because this clause serves a specific function, but I will focus on what it achieves. I am aware that the wider issue of rent in advance concerns a number of hon. Members—indeed, it featured in our discussions during the oral evidence sessions last week, on which I will say more shortly.
The clause will require landlords to refund a tenant for any rent they have paid in advance, where the tenancy has ended earlier than the period for which a tenant has paid. That serves a practical purpose—for example, if the tenant has paid for the month that they are in occupation and the tenancy is ended by the landlord two weeks into that month, the clause allows the tenant to reclaim the additional two weeks’ rent.
On the issue of rent in advance more broadly—which also pertains to new clause 6, to which I think the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will speak shortly—as I stated when I gave evidence to the Committee on Tuesday, Government Members have long recognised that demands for extortionate amounts of rent in advance put financial strain on tenants and can exclude certain groups from renting altogether. We are clear that the practice of landlords requesting large amounts of rent in advance must be prohibited.
Although it might be argued that the interaction of the new rent periods provided for by clause 1 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 accept that there is a strong case for putting the matter beyond doubt. As I made clear to the Committee, I am giving careful consideration as to how best that might be achieved.
Let me briefly address new clause 6, which seeks to limit the amount of rent in advance that can be paid prior to a tenancy period to no more than one month’s rent. Many of us will have heard anecdotal stories of the pressures placed on renters through demands for rent in advance, and it is for similar reasons that we have taken steps in the Bill to tackle rental bidding. I heard the evidence from last week, and we are looking at the matter carefully to ensure that we put the matter beyond doubt on the face of the Bill.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about looking at this area in detail. We raised, and discussed in some detail, the issue of how those with a poor credit history, or people who wish to secure a property for a fixed period—for example, international students—would be dealt with under the measures. We know that there are already limitations on the level of deposit that can be requested, but, particularly for those with a poor credit history, the ability to offer a larger sum of rent in advance can be a means of accessing a home in the private rented sector when they would otherwise not be able to access a home at all.
I am grateful to the Government for considering that particular group of people, who are in many cases extremely vulnerable tenants and often fall outside eligibility for support from the local authority under homeless duties, particularly if they have a job and an income. We need to make sure that we do not create a situation in which, inadvertently, a particular group of prospective tenants is effectively pushed out of the market. I am glad that the Government are taking that issue on board and considering how best it can work.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington wish to comment on new clause 6?
Mr Amos
Briefly, Dame Caroline. I am still getting used to the intricacies of the order of the agenda.
The new clause would limit rent in advance to sums of one month’s rent. The argument was well made in the oral evidence session, when we heard about the importance of rent-in-advance bidding and the need to reduce the risk of bidding up the amount that needs to be deposited in advance. One month’s rent is quite often the norm as a reasonable amount of rent to be provided in advance. Many years ago, when I was a student and renting, one month in advance was a reasonable amount. Bidding up that amount has a detrimental effect on tenants; hence the rationale for new clause 6.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
That will come later, when we reach that point.
Clause 10
Right to request permission to keep a pet
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 55, in clause 11, page 16, line 13, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the insurance sector before this section comes into effect to ensure that appropriate insurance products are available for tenants whose landlords have required insurance as a condition for consenting to the keeping of a pet.”
Clause 11 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
Many of the 11 million people living in the private rented sector would love to own a pet but have difficulty finding a property that allows them to do so. We want tenants in the private rented sector to enjoy the joys of pet ownership, just as homeowners do. We know the benefits of pet ownership for mental and physical wellbeing. I declare an interest: I have a dog named Clem, who I referenced in the debate on the previous Government’s Bill, and he is, as I know to be the case for many pets across the country, a valued member of the family.
We have heard the calls from animal groups for more protection for pets living in rented homes. In its written evidence to the Committee, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals highlighted the plight of renters forced to give up their pets because they cannot find a home that will allow pets. I am delighted that the RSPCA, as well as the Dogs Trust, Battersea, and Cats Protection, support the action the Bill takes in this area.
On how we support pet ownership in the private rented sector, clause 10 introduces a new implied term that allows tenants to make a request to keep a pet, which landlords cannot unreasonably refuse. That stops landlords utilising a blanket “no pets” approach and ensures that each request is considered on its merits. We understand that not all properties or situations will be appropriate for pets. Landlords will not have to accept their tenant’s request where it is unreasonable, such as where housemates have allergies and might be detrimentally affected by pet ownership.
The clause makes it clear that landlords will always be justified in refusing a request if their own superior tenancy agreement prohibits pets. That will ensure that the law is consistent and that landlords will not be put in a position where they are forced to breach the terms of their own superior lease. However, to ensure that the provisions have teeth, tenants will have the right to challenge refusals they think are unreasonable via the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman or in court. The ombudsman or court will be able to take an unbiased view on whether the landlord has reasonably refused a request.
Clause 10 also gives landlords an ample 28 days to respond to requests, with an additional seven-day window if the landlord requests more information from the tenant within the initial 28-day timeframe. I make that point because the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill proposed a 42-day response window. The animal welfare charities I mentioned were concerned about that duration, especially as it would mean tenants finding it hard to adopt a pet or the charities needing to keep animals for a long time while landlords made a decision. I share those concerns and I am pleased to say that we have made an improvement by bringing down the timeframe in this Bill.
Finally, clause 10 provides reassurance to landlords by allowing them to require pet damage insurance, either by charging the tenant for it or by asking the tenant to take out an appropriate insurance policy. These measures encourage responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector while providing landlords with assurance.
Turning to clause 11, although it is right that tenants can make the house they rent their home by having a pet, I understand that some landlords will be concerned by potential damage caused by pets to their property. The Committee has discussed the joys of pet ownership, but we all know that many pets can be active and at times destructive. That is one of the joys of pet ownership, but also one of the realities, particularly when it comes to some types of animals.
Clause 11 builds on changes made by clause 10 and amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to permit landlords to require tenants to take out an insurance policy to cover any potential damage caused by a pet or to charge the tenant the cost of such a policy. When granting consent, the landlord will be able to decide which insurance option best meets their needs. That underscores our commitment to ensuring that the private rented sector provides secure and stable housing. We recognise that pet ownership plays a crucial role in achieving that mission.
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for amendment 55, which seeks to ensure that suitable insurance products are available before landlords are allowed to mandate that their tenants purchase them to cover pet damage. We know that one of the reasons landlords are hesitant to take on tenants with pets is a fear that those pets could cause damage to their properties, which the tenants’ deposits might not be sufficient to cover.
I recognise that not a lot of insurance companies currently offer products designed to cover damage from pets. It is understandable that in the current climate, in which landlords have discretion over whether to accept or refuse pets, there is no demand for insurance and therefore the market is limited. We believe, however, that by creating an enabling environment for the industry, the Bill will cause the insurance market to adapt. I am sure that, as firm believers in the free market, the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for Broadland and Fakenham share that view.
I hope the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will also be reassured that my Department has already had discussions with the insurance industry regarding such products. The discussions have been promising and I am aware that there are products in development to meet his concerns.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is quite right; I am a believer in the free market and I am sure the market will respond. Does he have an indication from his discussions with the insurance industry of the kind of price and the surcharge that will be required to fit the need?
Matthew Pennycook
We have not considered extensively the range of prices in the Department’s discussions, but I am sure the market will respond. I do not see any particular concern that companies will charge excessive rates for pet insurance, but that is something we will monitor as we bring the relevant parts of the Bill into force.
In the light of those points, I hope the shadow Minister will consider not pressing amendment 55 to a vote.
David Simmonds
Clearly, there are a number of ways in which this issue may be addressed, and adding a third-party liability element to domestic insurance, contents insurance or building insurance would be one means of doing that. We know that the industry is likely to respond, as we have just heard from the Minister. I congratulate him on his choice of dog name; Clem sounds like the kind of animal that a future leader of the Labour party would like to have when profiled. Had the dog been called Jeremy or Karl, it might not have been quite as popular.
As we have just heard in some detail, the Government have been looking at this issue and engaging with the market to ensure that insurance providers understand the upcoming demand. I recognise the publicity that many pet and animal charities have brought to the issue, which I think will help to create a climate in which those businesses are more likely to bring forward these products. In the light of those points, and on the understanding that we are making serious progress on this matter, I am happy not to press amendment 55 to a vote.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I wonder—forgive me, because this is also my first Public Bill Committee—how this will work in a house in multiple occupation compared with a dwelling house, and who will have to have the insurance. If a HMO is operated on a joint-licence basis, who is responsible for the insurance and the indemnity that goes with it?
On another point, what safeguards are we putting in place to ensure that any noise issues arising from pet ownership can be tackled, and where does responsibility for that sit? I appreciate that, where someone owns their home or rents a home that allows them to have a pet, it is probably done through the local authority, but I am conscious, particularly in the HMO setting, of how we would mitigate against that and ensure that we do not end up in a situation where neighbours do not know who to approach to ensure that either the insurance or the antisocial behaviour is acted upon.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady rightly challenges us on some of the finer points of how the provisions will be implemented. If she is amenable, I will happily write to her with further detail on precisely how we see them working in particular circumstances. Her point on HMOs is well made, and I will take it away and come back to her as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Duty of landlord and contractor to give statement of terms etc
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 12, page 17, line 7, leave out “subsection (5)” and insert “subsections (5) and (5A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 11.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 13 and 14 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
We believe the rental market works better when all tenants are clear on their rights and obligations. That prevents misunderstandings and means that both parties know what to expect. Without clarity about their rights, tenants may be unable to take advantage of the new rights that the Bill will give them. That is why it is critical that tenants understand what they are signing up to from the outset. Landlords benefit from clarity too. By being clear on rights and responsibilities at the beginning of a tenancy, responsible landlords can more easily comply with the new rules and ensure that they are providing a good service to their tenants.
That is why clause 12 requires landlords to provide tenants with a written statement setting out the terms of the tenancy. This includes a requirement to state where the landlord might wish to recover possession on certain prior-notice grounds. We will set out in secondary legislation details of what must be included in the written statement, but we expect that it might include details such as the rent, contact details for the landlord, and basic rights and responsibilities that apply to both parties. It is worth pointing out that most landlords already do that, and this requirement will ensure that good practice is extended across the sector. In time, this will lead to fewer disputes and help ensure that both parties comply with the law.
Turning to clause 13, the Government will have zero tolerance for any attempts by unscrupulous landlords to evade the new tenancy system. While the majority of landlords are good and do right by their tenants, we know that there are some who will seek to evade the new laws. That is why we are strengthening the enforcement regime to identify and fine unscrupulous landlords, drive out bad actors from the sector, and protect tenants from back-door evictions. Driving out bad actors is to the benefit of good landlords and tenants alike.
All landlords must be aware of their legal obligations and operate accordingly. I know that landlords can fall into the practice of renting out a property through many different—sometimes sad—circumstances. That is, of course, where the term “accidental landlord” comes from. Many of those landlords are good people doing their best, but that cannot be an excuse for the tenant suffering, and it is not an excuse for landlords not to understand their legal obligations. If a tenant is renting a home, it should not make a difference who their landlord is. Everyone has the right to a safe, decent and secure home.
Let me be clear: the law is not accidental and must be followed. If it is not, then the Bill sets out a robust enforcement framework. With a new tenancy system coming into force, we must ensure that landlords always use the correct procedures when gaining possession and evicting a tenant. The prohibited behaviours outlined in clause 13—for example, purporting to bring a tenancy to an end by service of a notice to quit or orally, by phoning a tenant to tell them that they need to leave the property by a certain date—reflect this responsibility.
In opposition, I was clear that we had a number of reservations about the enforcement measures in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. As a result, we have worked hard to close any potential loopholes that a small minority of unscrupulous landlords may seek to exploit. We have taken action in a number of areas. For example, we have increased the restriction on re-marketing or re-letting the property after the use of grounds 1 or 1A to 12 months. That is a significant increase, and is necessary to avoid the grounds being used to effect back-door eviction. It will make it unprofitable to evict a tenant simply to increase the rent, and will stop landlords using the grounds as a back-door section 21. It will allow tenants to enjoy protection from no-fault eviction, while ensuring that there are comprehensive possession grounds in place so that a landlord can get their property back.
Clause 14 clarifies that the duties of landlords set out in new sections 16D and 16E of the Housing Act 1988 can be fulfilled or contravened by someone acting on their behalf. Many landlords will use the services of a letting agent, for example, and that is a sensible means of meeting their obligations, such as to provide a written statement of terms. For most landlords, the clause will make compliance easier. For example, if someone acting on behalf of the landlord issued a written statement of terms to the tenant, that would meet the landlord’s duty to provide the statement. However, landlords should not be able to absolve themselves of legal responsibility for providing a safe and secure home simply by appointing an agent. The clause ensures that landlords retain overall responsibility for complying with the law.
Government amendments 10 and 11 are merely consequential provisions. They qualify the new duty to provide a written statement of terms where a demoted tenancy is transferred to a new landlord. In such circumstances, the new landlord will have 28 days from the date that they become the landlord to comply with the requirement to provide a written statement of terms, instead of having to do so before the tenancy was entered into, which they obviously would not be able to do. We do not expect that circumstance to arise often in practice, but the amendments ensure that the law will operate effectively if the situation occurs.
David Simmonds
The Opposition broadly welcome the work the Government are doing in this area. Bringing clarity to the process is very important. In our work as constituency Members of Parliament, we will all have seen many cases where a lack of clarity on whether a notice has been properly served, or on whether a tenant or landlord fully understands their responsibilities and duties, is at the heart of a dispute or difficult situation. I have a brief question for the Minister, but I wanted to be clear on the record that bringing this level of clarity is important.
The enforcement process that the Minister referred to rests on a number of different organisations. Principally, the Bill envisages local authorities as the agent of enforcement. The fire brigades are a significant part of determining the suitability and safety of properties, and they bring prosecutions in the magistrates court when they find properties that have been occupied and rented to tenants but are clearly not safe on grounds that give them the power to prosecute. What consultations has the Minister undertaken with fire brigades about those prosecutions and the evidence that emerges from them about the circumstances of tenants found in such conditions? Those tenants are often among the most vulnerable, and they may not even have a written tenancy agreement, never mind a good understanding of their rights or a landlord who understands their duties and responsibilities.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. On the general point about local authority enforcement, he is absolutely right. Landlords who fail to issue a written statement of terms on or before the first day of a tenancy will face enforcement action. They risk a fine of up to £7,000 from the local authority, the proceeds of which will be ringfenced to further enforcement work in that authority.
The shadow Minister made a specific point about fire brigades. To be honest with him, I do not have the answer to hand. I am happy to engage with officials to see what conversations the Department has had with the fire service, so that I can address his points. I will come back to him in writing as soon as I possibly can.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment made: 11, in clause 12, page 17, line 16, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a tenancy becomes a tenancy to which this section applies by virtue of section 143C(3) of the Housing Act 1996 (demoted tenancies: change of landlord), the statement under subsection (2) must be given within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the new landlord becomes the landlord under the tenancy.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This creates an exception from the new duty, inserted by clause 12 of the Bill into the Housing Act 1988, for a landlord to provide a written statement of certain matters before entering into an assured tenancy, so that the landlord of a tenancy which becomes an assured tenancy following the transfer of a demoted tenancy under the Housing Act 1996 has 28 days from becoming the landlord of the tenancy to fulfil those duties.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Landlords etc: financial penalties and offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
We pick up a point we have just debated, which is the enforcement framework that the Bill provides for. The reforms we are putting in place will be underpinned by an effective, consistent and proportionate enforcement framework. In the Government’s view, serious breaches of the law should entail serious consequences, and we are clear that we will take action where it is needed to prevent abuse of the new system. To that end, clause 15 extends councils’ powers to issue financial penalties against landlords who flout the rules. The clause allows councils to penalise initial or minor non-compliance with a fine of up to £7,000—for example, for failing to provide a written statement of terms, such as we have just discussed, or for purporting to bring a tenancy to an end orally.
Serious, persistent or repeat non-compliance will be met with a fine of up to £40,000, with the alternative being criminal prosecution. That includes knowingly or recklessly misusing a ground for eviction, and re-letting or re-marketing a property within 12 months of using the moving in or selling grounds. Local authorities will be able to take robust action against the landlord who decides they will routinely evict tenants under a false claim to be moving a family member into a property or planning to sell it. That will act as a powerful deterrent and—although this is not the original purpose of the sanction—fines will provide valuable funding for local authority enforcement activity.
Clause 16 sets out the process that local housing authorities must follow when issuing financial penalties. That includes the appeals process, recovery of unpaid penalties and how local authorities may use the proceeds of the financial penalties. It includes the stipulation that proceeds of the financial penalties should be used to fund future enforcement activity. The clause provides clarity to local housing authorities on the process they must follow when issuing financial penalties to unscrupulous landlords.
I reassure the Committee that this clause also protects good landlords. The process allows landlords to make representations to local housing authorities for consideration when issued with a notice of intent, as well as appealing a final notice to the first-tier tribunal.
Clause 17 provides definitions for terms used in sections 16D to 16L and schedule 2ZA—for example, “local housing authority” and “relevant person”. That is simple and straightforward, and it requires no further elaboration.
Clause 18 provides that criminal offences contained within section 16J do not bind the Crown, which means that the Crown cannot be found criminally liable for these offenses. However, should the Crown break the rules, it is possible for a council to issue a fine in the same way as with private landlords. The Government believe that this is a reasonable approach and one that maintains precedent established in previous legislation, such as the Tenant Fees Act 2019. However, those acting in the service of the Crown will not be exempt from criminal liability. It is only fair that they are subject to the same financial penalties and criminal offences that apply to other individuals. I commend clauses 15 to 18 to the Committee.
David Simmonds
In practice, the measures contained in this section of the Bill will probably be the most important for our constituents who are tenants. Their ability to secure enforcement, where there is a breach of the legislation, will be critical. The Minister will know that the Opposition have shared concerns about ensuring that the resource from the enforcement regime will be sufficient to be self-sustaining. It strikes me that the enforcement regime, as set out, is very similar to that which already exists for local authorities in respect of environmental crime, such as fly-tipping, where it is assumed that the proceeds from fines and costs will be sufficient. Most of us will recognise that, in reality, that is rarely the case—carrying out that enforcement action always represents a cost to the council tax payer. Although it is not a matter for legislation, it would be helpful to understand how the Government intend to engage with local authorities to understand the cost of these new burdens fully and use the new burdens doctrine to ensure that they are appropriately resourced.
As the Minister has said, there is a point at which enforcement action outside criminal prosecution is taken, and there is a stage at which criminal prosecution may be the only available option. With other types of enforcement, many local authorities find that the push towards criminal prosecution is necessary to bring an end to the antisocial behaviour that is causing the problem in the first place. The challenge is that the proceeds of any fine resulting from criminal prosecution go into the consolidated fund of central Government expenditure, rather than accruing to the local authority. Even if there is not an award of costs, the largest part of that resource, which in theory is available to sustain the system, in fact goes into a different Government pot for other uses. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated what process of engagement and consultation the Government envisage they will take with local authorities. That must be designed to ensure that the resources derived from enforcement find their way to the sharp end of it, so that in practice, in the real world, it makes the difference that we hope it will.
Matthew Pennycook
I completely agree with the shadow Minister that many of the provisions in the Bill will not work as intended without robust local authority enforcement. We have increased the fines from the levels in the previous Government’s Bill to £7,000 and £40,000. It is also worth noting that those fines can be issued repeatedly—they are not a one-off—if landlords continue to breach the relevant provisions.
More generally on local authority resourcing, I make two points. First, it is important to note that many of the provisions in the Bill will not need to be enforced immediately. They will come into play one or two years down the line, so not every measure in the Bill that needs enforcement will require it from the date of Royal Assent. We have made it clear in previous debates that although we think that fines are part of the answer—we want the “polluter pays” principle to be at the heart of the Bill—we recognise that in many cases, they alone will not be enough. That is why I have set out that in accordance with the new burdens doctrine, we will ensure that additional burdens on local authorities that result from our reforms are fully funded.
The shadow Minister made an interesting point, as he has done several times today, that challenges me to go away and think about the final destination of fines from criminal prosecutions. I will take that away and give it serious consideration. We are in agreement that we need to ensure that where local authorities enforce breaches of the provisions set out in this Bill, those funds should come to local authorities. I will come back to him on the point he raises about the consolidated fund, if he is amenable to me doing so.
David Simmonds
The Minister’s response prompts me to ask a further question. I am grateful to him for undertaking to write back on the consolidated fund. In other enforcement regimes modelled on this system that provide scope to issue significant fines, there is a common pattern of local authorities outsourcing the responsibility to third-party enforcement agencies. We see that with littering, environmental crime and all manner of areas of local authority duty. Essentially, business makes a pitch, and if they receive the delegated authority to act on behalf of the council in the performance of its duties, they will enter into a profit share agreement. In the case of parking regimes, historically, for each parking ticket that was issued, some money went to the company and some money to the local authority.
That creates a risk—this was mirrored in the earlier debate—of perverse incentives. At local authority level, the incentive could be to pursue the landlords who are easiest to deal with and most likely to yield financial restitution to contribute to the bottom line of the business undertaking the work. That could result in a scarcity of resources to deal with the more difficult and intractable cases, and the most vulnerable tenants.
Have the Government thought about how, in their engagement with local authorities, they will seek to ensure that the regime is enforced equally? Local authorities have an understandable desire to outsource. Particularly in built-up urban areas where there may be a high density of rogue landlords, how can we ensure that the process will not result in extremely vulnerable people falling outside the enforcement regime because it simply is not profitable to pursue it in other parts of the country?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that thoughtful point. To be entirely open, it is not one that I have considered. I think it is a fair challenge, and I will go away and give some thought to how we can ensure that local authorities look at all breaches in the round and apply the same approach to each, rather than targeting the low-hanging fruit. To provide reassurance on the concern about good landlords being caught up in the process, I repeat that the process allows landlords to make representations to local housing authorities and the first-tier tribunal if they think that that has happened.
The other point, which we will debate in quite extensive detail, is that enforcement by local authorities is not the only means that the Bill provides of tackling rogue landlords and breaches. I draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the significant strengthening of rent repayment orders, which offers an alternative, tenant-led enforcement mechanism. As I think I said in my evidence to the Committee last week, across the country—in local authority terms, enforcement is a real postcode lottery—the most effective thing I have seen is where well-resourced and effective local authority enforcement is complemented by tenants taking action with rent repayment orders. When the two work in tandem, it can be of real benefit in driving bad landlords out of the sector. I will give further consideration to the shadow Minister’s specific, well-made point.
Rebecca Smith
I want to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has just made. It may not quite fit at this point in the consideration of the Bill, but it has come to mind while we have been talking about this. I am sure that we all have been contacted by a tenant and then found out that they are one of five or six tenants, all with the same rogue landlord. What can we do in the Bill to enable the trigger point for one tenancy to be used as an opportunity to explore other tenancies with the same landlord? I have dealt with such a case, where I encountered a landlord with five or six tenants across a city, managing properties with appalling conditions and treatment of tenants. We do not want to have to repeat the exercise six times.
Is there anything in the Bill that would enable the local authority to see whether there are any other tenants in the same situation, or is that a bit too Big Brother—would it be pursuing it too far? The whole Bill is aimed at tackling rogue landlords. Are we slowing down that process by taking each property individually? Is there a mechanism whereby we could collect them all together?
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the hon. Lady correctly, and if she is amenable to it, I will fold this point into the written response that I have already promised her, but multiple fines can be levied for breaches. If a landlord in a particular part of the country with multiple properties is in repeated breach over that portfolio of properties, local authorities will be able to levy fines on more than one occasion, so it is not a £7,000 limit in the first instance, or £40,000 for more serious cases, per landlord. Again, I will expand on it in a written response, but I think the database can do some work here in terms of landlords in a particular area registering all their properties. I think it will become apparent quite quickly—it depends on how we use the database—if particular landlords show a pattern of behaviour whereby they are not treating their tenants appropriately. Let me come back to the hon. Lady in more detail as part of the response that I have already committed to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Notices to quit by tenants under assured tenancies: timing
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 19, page 31, line 19, leave out from “substitute–” to end of line 34 and insert—
“‘(b) it satisfies—
(i) subsection (1ZA), if it is given by a tenant in relation to premises let under an assured tenancy, or
(ii) subsection (1ZC) in any other case; but in relation to landlords under assured tenancies see section 5(1) of the Housing Act 1988 (notice to quit by landlord is of no effect).’
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
‘(1ZA) A notice to quit satisfies this subsection if—
(a) it is given not less than—
(i) any length of time before the date on which the notice is to take effect, not exceeding two months, that the landlord has agreed to in writing, or
(ii) in the absence of agreement under sub-paragraph (i), two months before the date on which the notice is to take effect, and
(b) it is in relation to premises let under a repeat tenancy or, if it is in relation to premises let under any other assured tenancy, it is to take effect—
(i) no earlier than any time, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the terms of the tenancy provide for the tenancy to begin, that the landlord has agreed to in writing, or
(ii) in the absence of agreement under sub-paragraph (i), on or after the last day of the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(1ZB) In subsection (1ZA)(b) “repeat tenancy” means an assured tenancy under which the tenant becomes entitled to possession of the premises within the period of one month beginning with the day after the last day of a previous assured tenancy—
(a) under which the same premises were let, and
(b) which was between the same parties.
(1ZC) A notice to quit satisfies this subsection if it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect.’”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, in clause 19, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(aa) where it is given by a tenant who meets the student test under Ground 4A, not less than ten months before the date on which the notice is to take effect;”.
Amendment 67, in clause 19, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(aa) where it is given by a tenant in relation to a premises in which they are the first tenants since its construction, not less than twenty-four months before the date on which the notice is to take effect;”.
Clause stand part.
Clause 20 stand part.
David Simmonds
One issue that we have debated—I think, once again, it falls to a small p political and philosophical difference—is ensuring the availability of appropriate options for levels of term, in pursuit of our aim of freedom of contract for those to whom these terms would most lawfully and best apply. The purpose of this amendment is to move us on towards achieving that, and I believe that it would.
Mr Amos
The intention behind amendment 66, which stands in my name, is to take landlords at their word that they value hugely the opportunity for fixed-term tenancies, which of course are being removed by this Bill. We support the move to longer tenancies—periodic tenancies—in the Bill. Our policy was to extend them to at least three years, and in effect this Bill extends periodic tenancies almost indefinitely. But for the student population, it is a big disadvantage that students can no longer really rent premises or rent accommodation for the 10 months for which they need it. They nearly always face being forced to rent for 12 months, and paying rent over the summer period when they do not want to do so.
We are taking landlords at their word that they really value fixed-term tenancies, and that fixed-term tenancies would unlock investment and support from the landlord sector. The amendment would offer landlords and student tenants the option to enter into a 10-month fixed-term tenancy, which would benefit students in not having to rent for 12 months. MoneySuperMarket.com—other websites are available—has said that according to a survey in 2023, average student rents are £535 a month. Saving each student two months’ rent would save them £1,000, which is well worth it from their point of view. From the landlord’s point of view, if, as we heard in oral evidence, landlords value fixed-term tenancies, the option to have such certainty would be of value to them.
Having looked at the amendment again in the cold light of day, I will be withdrawing it, because I am not sure that the wording—for which I take full and complete responsibility—delivers my proposal as an option; it seems to indicate a requirement for a rolling 10-month notice period. However, I encourage the Committee to consider the benefits to students of reducing their tenancies from 12 to 10 months.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 19 amends section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to set out the rules about what period of notice a tenant must provide to end a tenancy, stipulating that they will not have to provide more than two months’ notice. This will help renters to end tenancies quickly if they have a change of circumstances, such as needing to change jobs or move to a new area. It will also prevent them from being trapped in substandard properties for long periods of time. Allowing tenants to move on from poor properties is fundamental to establishing fairness in the new system, and it will incentivise landlords to provide a good service.
This will also provide landlords with the certainty they need. We believe that two months is sufficient time for landlords to re-let the property, minimising the time and costs of void periods. Landlords will not be allowed to ask for more than two months’ notice in the tenancy agreement. That will prevent them from replicating fixed terms by locking tenants in for long periods of time. If the tenancy agreement does not mention the tenant’s notice period, clause 19 requires tenants to provide at least two months’ notice. They will be able to provide more notice if it suits their circumstances. We recognise that sometimes a shorter notice period will be preferable for both tenants and landlords. The landlord and tenant may therefore agree to a shorter notice period in writing.
Clause 20 prevents landlords from specifying the form of writing that a tenant’s notice to quit must take. Landlords will not be able to include terms in the tenancy agreement that insist the notice to quit is provided in a particular form, such as a letter. Any attempt to do so will be rendered void by this clause. Instead, tenants will be able to provide notice in any written format, such as text message, email or letter. That will remove unhelpful barriers to tenants’ ability to provide notice to quit.
Clause 20 also clarifies that a tenant’s notice to quit can be withdrawn before it comes into effect, if the landlord agrees in writing. That is a sensible clarification to ensure that both parties can agree to continue the tenancy if that suits their respective circumstances.
I have to be clear that we will not accept any change that would increase the length of notice that tenants are required to provide. Amendment 49, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, seeks to prevent tenants from ending a tenancy in the first six months by ensuring that only notices that expire after six months would be considered valid. We will not be reintroducing that measure, which even the previous Government felt was unnecessary until the very late stages of their own Renters (Reform) Bill.
Tenants will not routinely end tenancies just after moving in or use assured tenancies as an alternative to holiday lets. In our view, tenants have to go through far too much administration and provide too expensive a deposit for this to be a viable concern. If tenants do have to end a tenancy, I am confident that two months is a fair amount of time for both parties to adjust. Six months is a long time to live in a house with damp or mould that the landlord simply painted over when doing viewings, or perhaps simply advertised inappropriately online—just as it is too lengthy a period to remain living with a partner after, for example, a relationship breakdown. I note again that landlords could still regain possession in that six-month period if the tenant was at fault, using the clear grounds for possession set out in schedule 1. Why should a tenant’s right to leave, when a landlord is at fault, be any different?
I turn to amendments 66 and 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Amendment 66 would require tenants who meet the student test in possession ground 4A to give 10 months’ notice. That would mean that students would have to know 10 months in advance whether they wanted to remain in the property. Landlords who are concerned about making a property available for new student tenants can seek possession under ground 4A if they meet the requirements of that ground. Similarly, amendment 67 would require tenants who are the first residents in newly built properties to provide 24 months’ notice when ending an assured tenancy.
I am afraid that I do not accept that it is reasonable to penalise some tenants because of the circumstances or the property in which they live. Those tenants deserve the same flexibility that everyone else will enjoy under the single system of periodic tenancies. We do not believe that it would be fair or justifiable to lock them in for such long periods of time. Again, since most new buildings should be good quality, tenants will only leave if they really need to. In other words, they can stay for 24 months, or perhaps longer if they want to, under the periodic tenancies that the Bill provides for. For those reasons, I ask the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington not to press their amendments to a vote.
David Simmonds
I would like to ask the Minister, not at this stage but in due course, to provide a little bit more detail. In his response to these amendments, he referred to what sounds like an asymmetric process in the expectations of how notices would be given. It would be a requirement for a landlord to put a notice of any kind to the tenant in writing, but the tenant would be able to give notice by means of a text message. It seems very clear that that situation could give rise to disputes about whether information or notices were properly served in both directions. I urge the Government to ensure that, as the Bill makes progress, there is sufficient symmetry. For example, when disputes arise that might go before the courts or the tribunal, there needs to be real clarity, by way of an audit trail of what has been said to each party.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that. I will undertake to provide him with more detail on the specific point he has made, which is noted and understood, either at an appropriate point in our further consideration of the Bill or in writing.
David Simmonds
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Limitation on obligation to pay removal expenses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Section 11 of the Housing Act 1988 currently requires landlords of assured tenancies, who have been awarded possession under the redevelopment ground 6 or suitable alternative accommodation ground 9, to pay the tenant reasonable moving expenses. These grounds are mostly used by social landlords, who use assured tenancies and do not have access to section 21 no-fault evictions. The grounds support social landlords to manage their stock, ensuring that social housing is good quality and remains available for those who need it.
Clause 21 amends section 11(1) of the 1988 Act to ensure that only private registered providers of social housing will be required to pay removal expenses for grounds 6 and 9, once all tenancies become assured tenancies. We think it is unlikely that private landlords will regularly use grounds 6 and 9. However, on the rare occasions that they need to use them, they will not be required to pay removal expenses, ensuring that they are able to manage their assets in a reasonable way. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Assured agricultural occupancies: grounds for possession
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
As Committee members may be aware, qualifying agricultural workers are automatically entitled to an assured agricultural occupancy, which offers enhanced security of tenure to those who qualify. Tenants under AAOs cannot be evicted using section 21 or if their employment by the landlord comes to an end. Clause 22 makes consequential changes to AAOs to reflect the new tenancy system. That includes preventing landlords from evicting AAO tenants under the employment ground, now 5C, as well as ground 5A and the new superior landlord grounds. Those grounds cover circumstances where tenants under AAOs cannot currently be evicted, but they are being amended or introduced by the Bill and may pose a risk to their security in the new system. The clause will maintain the status quo.
Clause 23 seeks to replicate the existing mechanism in the Housing Act 1988 that allows landlords of qualifying agricultural workers to opt out of providing assured agricultural occupancies. They can issue assured shorthold tenancies instead, as long as they inform the tenant from the outset. We understand that many landlords make use of the opt-out, as it provides more flexibility for the agricultural sector and helps to maintain the supply of rural housing for workers. The clause therefore replaces the existing opt-out in a way that will be compatible with the new tenancy regime once ASTs are abolished, giving landlords access to the full range of new possession grounds.
I hope that both clauses are uncontroversial, and I commend them to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I can assure the Minister that we do not want to push these clauses to a vote. I am grateful to him for his explanation. It is important to recognise that agricultural workers are one category of tenant who often have different sets of circumstances, as their access to a home is connected to their job. School caretakers are another common example; it is not unusual for there to be a property on the school site that the post holder has the right to occupy.
It has become increasingly common, rather than going down the route of creating a tenancy from the outset, for the employment contract to have a side agreement of a licence to occupy, so the home is made available to the individual not as part of a tenancy agreement, but as part of a licence to occupy connected to their role. I would like the Minister to illuminate the Committee with the Government’s thinking on that issue.
There is a second issue. As has been described to us by a number of representatives from rural businesses, it is quite common for landlords to ask a tenant to vacate a particular property because its location or its facilities are directly connected with a role that they formerly did, and to offer them another like or equivalent property on the same estate. Traditionally, that has been a way of ensuring that, for example, farm workers who retire from a role in the care of animals where they had to be on the site 24 hours a day, and therefore cease to carry out that function, can be moved to another property on the estate without having to go through an extremely complicated and bureaucratic process. That process may not be good for the landlord, who has an urgent need for a worker on site to look after the animals, or for the tenant, who may have expectations about how their new accommodation will be secured, particularly at the point of retirement.
I would be grateful if the Minister could illuminate the Committee with the Government’s thinking on how that issue could be effectively addressed, so that we can take the matter into full consideration for those rural communities where it is particularly important.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his points. If I have understood him correctly, I fear that those matters are slightly outside the scope of these clauses. I reiterate that we understand that many agricultural landlords use the opt-out to provide ASTs to their tenants instead, and that opt-out is retained by clause 23. We do, however, think that AAOs are a crucial part of the tenancy system, and we do not want to reduce their security by abolishing them outright and bringing these tenants into the wider assured tenancy system. I will take on board the points the shadow Minister made and come back to him in writing, if he will allow me; they raise a number of matters pertaining to housing that may or may not be in the scope of the Bill and these clauses. I think it is probably better if I come back to him in writing, given how specific and somewhat technical they are.
Mr Amos
I wonder whether the Minister would help me with an issue that is somewhat related to agricultural tenancies. In fact, it is a different kind of tied tenancy that has been raised with me by constituents, where the notice period required to be given for Church of England ministers—
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington tests my knowledge. I keep a lot of things in my head, but the particular tenancy arrangements as they pertain to Church of England ministers is not there. I am more than happy to discuss some of these issues with the hon. Gentleman outside the Committee, Dame Caroline.
The Chair
That would certainly help with my job.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Accommodation for homeless people: duties of local authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The Bill will remove fixed tenancies and section 21 evictions, as we have discussed at length. These changes mean that we also need to amend part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 to ensure that councils’ statutory homelessness duties align with the new system. Clause 24 makes three changes to homelessness legislation to ensure that is the case.
First, clause 24 makes changes to how local authorities discharge their main housing duty. One of the ways in which local authorities may currently bring their main housing duty, which is a duty to secure settled accommodation, to an end, is by making an offer to a tenant of a suitable private rented sector tenancy with a fixed term of at least 12 months. With the removal of fixed-term tenancies, section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 is amended to instead refer to an assured tenancy.
Secondly, the clause amends sections 193(1A) and 193C of the Housing Act 1996, which concern the consequences when a person owed either the prevention or relief duty deliberately and unreasonably fails to co-operate with the local housing authority. If the local housing authority is satisfied that the applicant is homeless, is eligible for assistance, has a priority need, and is not intentionally homeless, then the applicant is still owed a duty to be accommodated. This duty, however, is currently a lesser one than the main housing duty. The lesser duty is to offer a fixed-term tenancy of at least six months as opposed to the period of at least 12 months that is required under the main duty. With the repeal of fixed-term tenancies, the lesser offer is redundant, and is removed by the clause.
Thirdly, subsection (4) of clause 24 repeals section 195A of the Housing Act 1996, which is the duty in homelessness legislation to offer accommodation following re-application after a private sector offer, known more commonly as the re-application duty. The re-application duty was introduced, alongside the introduction of private rented sector offers, as a means to end the main homelessness duty. It was introduced to respond to concerns that due to the short-term nature of assured shorthold tenancies, applicants who accepted a private rented sector offer may become homeless again within two years, and no longer have priority need.
The increased security of tenure and removal of section 21 evictions means that the re-application duty will no longer be relevant. The change will streamline the management of re-approaches and ensure that all applications will be treated according to their current circumstances at the point of approaching. There will no differential treatment between those placed in either private rented or social housing accommodation. The clause makes necessary and reasonable changes to the homelessness legislation as a consequence of the tenancy reform that we are introducing. I commend it to the Committee.
David Simmonds
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was the main vehicle for ensuring that the homelessness duty might be addressed through an offer in the private rented sector. That was a means of ensuring that people who are not able to immediately access the kind of accommodation they need through the local authority can instead secure it in the private sector, and it has, to an extent, been very successful.
I want to ask the Minister what consultations are being undertaken across the Government to ensure alignment between parts of Government that have different responsibilities and duties, particularly in respect of notices that might fall within the scope of this Bill. I am thinking, in particular, of young people leaving the care system, who may be accommodated under section 20 by the local authority because of their risk of homelessness. In addition, when asylum seekers are placed in accommodation by the Home Office, there is a move-on period; the Home Office-owned legislation may result in their needing to access accommodation, so they may fall within the scope of this Bill. What consultation is being undertaken to ensure that those notice periods are aligned? I have to acknowledge that that was an issue for the previous Government—particularly in respect of asylum seekers, for whom the homelessness duty set out a different period from the Home Office’s move-on period, so individuals found themselves falling between those periods and were therefore unable to access the support they needed to find accommodation through their local authority.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. I hope he will be satisfied with the following answer: extensive engagement has taken place between Departments in developing this Bill as it pertains to areas that cross departmental responsibilities. Again, given the extremely technical nature of his question—particularly in relation to asylum accommodation, which is not within my area of responsibility—I will come back to him in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Tenancy deposit requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 25 will maintain important deposit protections so that tenants can be confident that their money is being handled safely. Landlords will be required to comply with deposit protection rules before a court can make an order for possession under section 8 of the Housing Act 1988. That will apply only if the landlord has failed to store the deposit in one of the prescribed schemes or comply with the applicable rules.
The clause also makes consequential amendments to the Housing Act 2004 to ensure that deposit protection rules continue to apply in the future once assured shorthold tenancies are abolished. Deposits taken for existing assured shorthold tenancies will still need to be protected after the new system has come into force. Deposits taken for assured tenancies created after commencement will also need to be protected. This is an extremely straightforward and simple clause, and I look forward to the extremely technical question that the shadow Minister will put to me on it.
David Simmonds
The Minister will be delighted to know that I do not have a detailed, technical question to ask him on this clause, but I am sure that if he gives me some time, I will be able to come up with one.
The Chair
Let us not do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Tenant fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 26 amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to ensure that its provisions remain applicable and relevant to the tenancy reforms in the Bill. In particular, it removes the provision that prevents a landlord from serving a section 21 notice where they are in receipt of a prohibited payment from a tenant. Removing that provision is necessary, given that section 21 notices will be abolished. There will remain strong enforcement mechanisms in the Tenant Fees Act, including offences for landlords who require payments from tenants that are prohibited under that Act. That will ensure that under the new system tenants will continue to be protected from unfair and prohibited payments that were previously outlawed.
Clause 27 amends council tax rules to clarify council tax liability once fixed-term assured tenancies are abolished. That will ensure that assured tenants remain liable for council tax until the end of their tenancy agreement. That will include where they have served notice to end the tenancy but leave the property before the notice period has ended. In that instance, the liability will not fall to the landlord until the tenancy has ended. I commend clauses 26 and 27 to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I would be grateful if the Minister shared the Government’s thinking on the interaction between this issue of liability for council tax and the legal duties on local authorities to collect it, where they have an obligation to ensure that, as part of the efficient delivery of public services, they maximise the level of council tax collected. I understand the purpose of what the Minister has just described. I would try to ensure that, in situations where there may be an end to the tenancy, we do not create a situation both where the liability is difficult to assign and there is potentially an issue of who needs to be pursued for that council tax. Clearly, it is important to ensure that local authorities with a separate set of legal obligations in that respect are fully sighted on what the impact of this may be, and on the performance of their duties.
Matthew Pennycook
To reassure the shadow Minister on the general matter, there has again been extensive engagement with local authorities on the development of this Bill. I think he referred to clause 27, and it is our view that tenants should obviously be responsible for council tax payments until the tenancy has formally ended. When a tenant serves notice, the tenancy does not end until the notice period has expired, even if the tenant leaves the property before then. This measure will not change anything for most tenants, but clarifies where they will be liable for council tax until the end of the notice period, including where they have served notice to end the tenancy but leave the property earlier. It simply ensures that council tax remains aligned with other household costs, such as rent and bills. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister, but if not, I am more than happy to pick it up at a future point or in writing.
David Simmonds
That goes a long way in providing the necessary assurance. It is necessary for there to be clarity, for example, where a contract includes not just the rent but council tax within a single payment to the landlord, who will then be paying the council tax on behalf of the tenant, as happens under some rental contracts. We do not want to create a situation where the local authority is pursuing a tenant for the council tax at that point, because the tenancy has ended and the tenant argues that they have already made that payment to the landlord and it has not been passed on. I simply wanted to ensure that, in the performance and function of the collection fund, which I know is high level and a very important part of the Department’s overall calculation of the level of local government finance, we are not at risk of creating any potential loopholes.
Matthew Pennycook
That has usefully clarified the point that the shadow Minister is driving at. Local authorities are well-experienced in the administration of council tax, including determining who is liable. For example, they have powers to require residents, owners or managing agents to provide information to help establish liability, and where that is not complied with, they can impose a penalty. We will work closely with the local authority sector when implementing the new system to ensure that the new rules are well-understood, but we think local authorities have sufficient powers to determine liability for council tax in any particular circumstance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Other amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 12 to 21.
Schedule 2.
Clause 29 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
The Renters’ Rights Bill makes some significant changes to legislation, such as abolishing section 21 notices, assured shorthold tenancies and fixed-term tenancies. This means that there are references that need to be removed and changes needed to ensure that the wider stature book remains in good order.
Clause 28 sets out that those consequential amendments to existing legislation are made in schedule 2 of this Bill. Schedule 2 makes consequential changes to a number of Acts of Parliament to reflect the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies, fixed-term assured tenancies and no-fault evictions. They ensure that existing legislation can continue to operate after our reforms to the tenancy system have taken place, and they are predominantly minor and technical in nature. For example, our amendments to the Housing Act 2004 in paragraph 45 are simply repeals of legislation that prevented landlords using section 21 to evict tenants from an unlicensed HMO. We have amended the Housing Act 1985 and the Localism Act 2011 to reflect the abolition of demoted tenancies, where social housing tenants can be “demoted” to less secure assured shorthold tenancies, as ASTs will no longer exist.
In paragraph 48 of schedule 2, we have also repealed provisions in the Deregulation Act 2015 that outlawed retaliatory evictions via section 21 as this legislation will cease to have that effect after the Renters’ Rights Bill is implemented. In paragraphs 1 to 7, we have made amendments to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 to ensure that mobilised reservists’ tenancies continue to be protected. From those examples, the Committee will see that the changes that schedule 2 makes are technical and uncontroversial, ensuring the statute book continues to operate effectively and consistently after our reforms to the tenancy system.
David Simmonds
I commend the Government for the work they are doing to ensure that the statute book lines up across all the different pieces of legislation. Will the Minister inform the Committee how the changes to the homelessness prevention duty will impact on tenants who have no recourse to public funds in the UK?
Matthew Pennycook
I commend the shadow Minister for challenging me on those points. I do not have that answer to hand, so I will commit to come back to him in writing on that specific point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Amendments relating to Chapter 1 of Part 1
Amendments made: 12, in schedule 2, page 174, line 29 at end insert—
“Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973
7A In section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 (provision of temporary sleeping accommodation to constitute material change of use), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after ‘person’ insert ‘otherwise than under or by virtue of an assured tenancy’;
(b) after that paragraph insert—
‘(aa) “assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988;’”.
This creates an exception to the restriction on the provision of temporary sleeping accommodation in residential premises in Greater London for less than 90 days, where occupation of such accommodation is under or by virtue of an assured tenancy agreement.
Amendment 13, in schedule 2, page 174, line 31, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
“8 The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.
8A In section 81ZA (grant of secure tenancies in cases of domestic abuse), in subsection (4), in the definition of ‘qualifying tenancy’, in paragraph (b), omit sub-paragraph (i).
8B In section 81B (cases where old-style English secure tenancies may be granted), in subsection (2C), in the definition of ‘qualifying tenancy’, in paragraph (b), omit ‘which is not an assured shorthold tenancy and’
8C In section 82A (demotion because of anti-social behaviour)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraphs (ba) and (c);
(b) in subsection (8), omit paragraph (b).
8D In section 171B (extent of preserved right), omit subsection (1A).
8E In Schedule 3 (grounds for withholding consent to assignment by way of exchange), in ground 2A, in the definition of ‘demotion order’, omit ‘or section 6A of the Housing Act 1988’.”.
This adds further amendments to the Housing Act 1985 to remove the power of private registered providers of social housing and registered social landlords to apply for demotion orders relating to secure tenancies (new paragraph 8C(a)) and otherwise in consequence of the changes made by Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 14, in schedule 2, page 176, line 2, at end insert—
“17A In section 15 (limited prohibition on assignment etc. without consent), in subsection (3), omit ‘a statutory periodic tenancy or’.
17B In section 17 (succession to assured tenancy)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a), omit ‘periodic’;
(b) in subsection (1A)(a), omit ‘periodic’;
(c) omit subsection (1B);
(d) omit subsection (1C);
(e) in subsection (1D), for ‘, (1A), (1B) or (1C)’ substitute ‘or (1A)’;
(f) in subsection (5), omit ‘or (1B)(c) above’;
(g) in subsection (6), omit ‘, (1C)’;
(h) omit subsection (7).”
This makes further amendments to the Housing Act 1988 to take account of changes made by Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 15, in schedule 2, page 176, line 17, leave out paragraph 21 and insert—
“21(1) Section 39 (statutory tenants: succession) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), in the words after paragraph (b), omit ‘periodic’.
(3) In subsection (6)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a), omit ‘periodic’;
(b) in paragraph (d), after the second ‘tenancy’ insert ‘(but this is subject to section 4A)’;
(c) in paragraph (e), for ‘sections 13 to 15’ substitute ‘sections 13 to 16C’;
(d) omit paragraph (f).
(4) Omit subsection (7).
(5) In subsection (8)—
(a) omit ‘periodic’;
(b) after ‘above)’ insert ‘; and section 24A does not apply in relation to the assured tenancy to which the successor becomes entitled’.
(6) For subsection (9) substitute—
‘(9) Where, immediately before the predecessor’s death, the predecessor was a tenant under a fixed term tenancy (the “former tenancy”), the following provisions of this subsection apply in relation to the assured tenancy to which the successor becomes entitled on the predecessor’s death (the “new tenancy”)—
(a) not later than the first anniversary of the date of the predecessor’s death, the landlord may serve on the tenant, or the tenant may serve on the landlord, a notice in the prescribed form (a “notice of variation”)—
(i) proposing terms of the new tenancy, other than terms as to the amount of the rent, that are different from the terms which have effect by virtue of subsection (6)(e) (the “implied terms”), and
(ii) if the landlord or the tenant considers it appropriate, proposing an adjustment of the amount of the rent to take account of the proposed terms;
(b) where a notice of variation has been served under paragraph (a)—
(i) within the period of three months beginning on the date on which the notice was served on him, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, may, by an application in the prescribed form, refer the notice to the appropriate tribunal under paragraph (c), and
(ii) if the notice is not so referred, then, with effect from such date, not falling within the period referred to in sub-paragraph (i), as may be specified in the notice, the terms proposed in the notice shall become terms of the tenancy in substitution for any of the implied terms dealing with the same subject matter and the amount of the rent shall be varied in accordance with any adjustment so proposed;
(c) where a notice of variation is referred to the appropriate tribunal, the appropriate tribunal must consider the terms proposed in the notice and must determine whether those terms, or some other terms (dealing with the same subject matter as the proposed terms), are such as, in the appropriate tribunal’s opinion, might reasonably be expected to be found in an assured tenancy of the dwelling-house concerned, being a tenancy—
(i) which begins on the date of the predecessor’s death, and
(ii) which is granted by a willing landlord on terms which, except in so far as they relate to the subject matter of the proposed terms, are those of the new tenancy at the time of the appropriate tribunal’s consideration;
(d) whether or not a notice of variation proposes an adjustment of the amount of the rent under the former tenancy, where the appropriate tribunal determine any terms under paragraph (c), they must, if they consider it appropriate, specify such an adjustment to take account of the terms so determined;
(e) in making a determination under paragraph (c), or specifying an adjustment of an amount of rent under paragraph (d), there must be disregarded any effect on the terms or the amount of the rent attributable to the granting of a tenancy to a sitting tenant;
(f) where a notice of variation is referred to the appropriate tribunal, then, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree, with effect from such date as the appropriate tribunal may direct—
(i) the terms determined by the appropriate tribunal become terms of the new tenancy in substitution for any of the implied terms dealing with the same subject matter, and
(ii) the amount of the rent under the statutory periodic tenancy is altered to accord with any adjustment specified by the appropriate tribunal;
but for the purposes of sub-paragraph (ii) the appropriate tribunal must not direct a date earlier than the date specified, in accordance with subsection (3)(b) above, in the notice of variation;
(g) nothing in this section requires the appropriate tribunal to continue with a determination under paragraph (c) if the landlord and tenant give notice in writing that they no longer require such a determination or if the tenancy has come to an end.’”.
This makes consequential amendments of section 39 of the Housing Act 1988.
Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 176, line 37, at end insert—
“30A In section 124 (introductory tenancies), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘, other than an assured shorthold tenancy,’.
30B In section 125 (duration of introductory tenancy)—
(a) in subsection (3), omit ‘, or a relevant assured shorthold tenancy,’;
(b) omit subsection (3A).”.
This adds further amendments to the Housing Act 1996 relating to introductory tenancies to take account of the changes made by Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 177, line 2, at end insert—
“31A In section 143C (change of landlord), in subsection (3), omit ‘shorthold’.”
This adds further amendments to the Housing Act 1996 relating to demoted tenancies to take account of the changes made by Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 18, in schedule 2, page 178, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) in Schedule 1 (demoted tenancies), omit paragraph 2(3).”
This amends Schedule 1 to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 in consequence of the amendment made to section 171B of the Housing Act 1985 by Amendment 13.
Amendment 19, in schedule 2, page 178, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—
“45 The Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows.
46 Omit section 75.
47 Omit section 98.
48 In section 116 (general effect of final management orders), in subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a)(ii), omit ‘subject to paragraph (b))’;
(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—
‘(b) paragraph (a) does not apply to the creation of an interest in the nature of an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988.’
49 In section 136 (making of final EDMOs), in subsection (5), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) paragraph 2 is to be read as requiring the notice under paragraph 1 to also set out the rights and powers of the authority under paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 7 in connection with a dwelling in relation to which a final EDMO is in force;’.
50 In Schedule 7 (general effect of final EDMOs), in paragraph 10(4)—
(a) in paragraph (a)(ii) omit ‘(subject to paragraph (b))’;
(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—
‘(b) paragraph (a) does not apply to the creation of an interest in the nature of an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988.’”
This replaces the amendments to the Housing Act 2004 and adds new amendments to the provisions in that Act relating to management orders to take account of the changes made by Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 20, in schedule 2, page 179, line 4, at end insert—
“(ba) in section 158 (secure and assured tenancies: transfer of tenancy)—
(i) omit subsection (3)(b)(i) and the ‘and’ after it;
(ii) omit subsection (4)(b) and the ‘or’ before it;
(iii) in subsection (8)(b), omit the words ‘that is not an assured shorthold tenancy’;
(iv) in subsection (9)(b), omit the words ‘that is not an assured shorthold tenancy’;
(v) in subsection (10), omit ‘shorthold’;
(bb) in section 159 (further provisions about transfer of tenancy under section 158), in subsection (6)(c), for ‘and “assured shorthold tenancy” have’ substitute ‘has’;”.
This adds further amendments to the Localism Act 2011 in relation to the transfer of tenancies to take account of the changes made by Part 1 of the Bill.
Amendment 21, in schedule 2, page 179, line 8, at end insert—
“(ea) in section 184 (tenancy deposit schemes), omit subsections (10) to (13);”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This repeals section 184(10) to (13) of the Localism Act 2011. The repealed provision amends section 215 of the Housing Act 2004 (which is replaced by clause 25(5) of the Bill).
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Tenancies of more than seven years
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
With this clause, we turn to chapter 2 of part 1, which deals with tenancies that cannot be assured tenancies. The clause excludes from the assured tenancy regime fixed-term leases of more than seven years, which is particularly relevant for leasehold homeowners and those who purchased via shared ownership, who can sometimes be legally considered tenants under the assured regime despite having purchased their property. The clause will therefore exclude entirely such fixed-term leases and any others over seven years in length from the assured regime, thereby supporting the continued operation of shared ownership and providing additional security to shared ownership homeowners by exempting them from the grounds for eviction in the Housing Act 1988. It will also exclude leaseholders from the assured tenancy system, finally closing the so-called tenancy trap. It is unjustifiable, in the Government’s view, that leaseholders who have purchased their homes can face repossession for rent arrears through the assured tenancy regime. The exemption will therefore ensure they are protected.
I am grateful to stakeholders for raising concerns with me over the ways the clause could be undermined or abused. Let me be clear: we will not tolerate attempts to get around the abolition of section 21 by abusing this clause. I am therefore considering whether any action is needed to ensure that the system operates as intended, and that no abuse of the system can take place.
Clause 31 rectifies an omission to ensure that, as is the case for other specified sections where local authorities have an interim duty or discretion to provide temporary accommodation, a tenancy granted pursuant to section 199A of the Housing Act 1996 cannot become an assured tenancy. This will allow the private landlord to regain possession of their property once the local authority’s duty to provide it by way of interim accommodation ceases.
David Simmonds
From our constituency work, many of us will be aware that when an individual has a “no recourse to public funds” condition because of their immigration status, although they may be employed in the UK and potentially in the public sector, the local authority has no duty to house that individual. That, however, may be compromised if, for example, there are children in the household, where duties under the Children Act 1989 and the National Assistance Act 1948 are triggered and the local authority effectively has a responsibility by another route. Although the individual may occupy a private rented sector property that has been procured for them by the local authority under those duties, they do not have any rights to public funds to pay for it, and therefore fall into a slightly ambiguous position with respect to this Bill. Some clarity would be helpful, especially given that there is a significant market of landlords, many of them directly contracted with the Home Office, who specifically provide accommodation for people who find themselves in a NRPF situation.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point; it is well made and well understood. As I will write to him on the subject of no recourse to public funds, I will ensure that that point is also covered in our correspondence.
Rebecca Smith
I have a point on which I would appreciate clarification. Increasingly, local authorities are purchasing properties to act as temporary accommodation because of a shortage of private rented accommodation. I am interested in whether it is within the scope of the Bill to look at how we would ensure that local authorities are not inadvertently caught up in the new legislation if, for example, they have bought 10 flats in a block to act specifically as temporary accommodation. If they put residents in it temporarily, are they inadvertently caught by the new legislation? Or will they be able to find somewhere else for the people to live, enable them to finish that tenancy and provide it for somebody else who might need temporary accommodation? It is a pretty niche example, but it is happening in my constituency. I am interested to see whether we have accidentally tied ourselves in knots.
Matthew Pennycook
That is a niche point—one of many we have had on some of the more technical clauses. That is not a concern that has been expressed to the Government in relation to this clause or other aspects of the Bill, but I will commit to go away and deal with that set of issues relating to temporary accommodation and no recourse to public funds in the round. I will give Committee members a full and detailed answer on each of the points that have been raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
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
Diabetes Treatments
(1 month 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
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Bool to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered diabetes treatments.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. On 21 May 2021, my world changed forever when I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 33. While my diagnosis was a shock, given its late onset, the feelings of fear, disbelief and sadness are shared by all those diagnosed—young or old, with type 1 or type 2.
Diabetes is a complicated condition that has been done the great disservice of being stigmatised through misunderstanding. It is not necessarily that we have eaten too many sweets or not looked after ourselves. Type 1 is an autoimmune condition—we did nothing to cause it—and people can develop it later in life; Mr Speaker and I can attest to that. Type 2 is not just for the over-40s and the unfit; someone can be slim and active, like Sir Steve Redgrave, and still be diagnosed. That is why I have secured today’s debate. Breaking down the stigma and investing in early treatment of diabetes is so important to allow patients to live fulfilled lives, and to do so in the most long-term, cost-efficient manner for the Government.
Our understanding of how to treat diabetes has come on leaps and bounds since the discovery of insulin back in 1921, but there is still so much more that we can do. Some 5.6 million people in the UK are diagnosed with diabetes. That includes 4,329 people in my constituency of South Northamptonshire—more than 6% of the population. However, last year, just 54% of my constituents with diabetes received all eight of their essential checks, which are important for identifying and preventing complications.
The total cost of diabetes to the NHS is estimated at £10.7 billion, and 60% of that is spent on the costs of diabetes complications. Every week, complications from diabetes lead to 2,990 cases of heart failure, more than 184 amputations, 930 strokes and 660 heart attacks. Those should be preventable with the right education, the right support, and the right attitude from individuals and the Government.
There is so much that I could talk about on diabetes, but this is a short debate, so my initial ask of the Government, on type 1, is that we end the postcode lottery, with equitable treatment for those living with diabetes wherever they live in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I declare an interest: I am a type 2 diabetic. In our discussion before the debate, I informed the hon. Lady that, when I was first diagnosed some 18 years ago, believe it or not, I was at least 17 stone and probably getting bigger by the minute. I went on a diet because that was what the doctor recommended; I am down to a nice trim 13¼ stone.
I am thankful for the NHS and the treatment offered, but there is a clear disparity between the treatment offered in different areas of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Lady agree that diabetes does not have to be a death sentence, but does not have to adversely affect quality of life either? We must ensure that, no matter where someone is in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, they should get a level of diabetic care that enables them to live life to the fullest. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Sarah Bool
Absolutely. I totally agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. It does not have to be a death sentence; it can even lead someone to No. 10 Downing Street, if they are Baroness May, so it should not prevent anyone from achieving anything.
Going back to my asks for type 1, we must also commit to greater access to technology for diabetes, such as hybrid closed loop technology, and increase awareness of the condition and treatments in schools and among the public. We also want to see the expansion of early testing for type 1 diabetes to identify children who are living with the condition and to make sure that they and their families get the right support.
I apologise in advance to hon. and right hon. Members if I suddenly start to beep during this debate, or in the Chamber in the future. They can be assured that it is not because I am some form of 21st century R2D2; it is because I wear an insulin pump and sensors. When my blood sugar is running low, it will alert me so that I can consume a lifesaving sugary treat. This hybrid closed loop system has dramatically improved the quality of my life with type 1. It does not just benefit adults with diabetes like me; there are parents of young children with a HCL who feel they can finally sleep at night without fear of missing a nighttime low blood sugar for their little ones.
Type 1 is also a condition that creates a serious mental burden on those who live with it and their loved ones. As a condition where someone’s pancreas stops working and no longer produces insulin, it requires constant thought and calculations alongside normal activities. Each day, a person with type 1 is assessing how many carbohydrates there are in their food and how much insulin they should dose, taking into account whether they have exercised, will be exercising, or generally rushing around; how hot or cold it is; how tired they are; how stressed they are, with public speaking adding to the mix for me; for women in particular, what their hormones are doing; and, when they have low blood sugar, how quickly they can access a sugar supply.
My insulin pump and sensor have ensured that many of those burdens have been eased. I just wish that more of my fellow diabetics had the same opportunity. I know of one lady from the south-west of England whose local integrated care board did not prescribe HCLs, so she had to move to London, away from her support network, just to access that vital technology. That cannot be right. As part of building an NHS fit for the future, Ministers should ensure that wherever someone is in the UK, they can access vital treatments for diabetes, such as the HCL.
There are other treatments that the Government should commit to fully exploring, such as early detection and new drugs. As with my diagnosis, more than 80% of type 1 diagnoses occur in people with no known family connection to type 1 diabetes. Many people are not aware of the four “T” symptoms that they should look out for: thirst, toilet, tiredness and thin. Early detection is vital in preventing complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis, which one in four children with type 1 are diagnosed with, and which can be lethal. Early detection can also identify people who would benefit from early intervention clinical trials and treatments.
The ELSA study is a programme funded by Breakthrough T1D that offers children between the ages of three and 13 a simple finger stick blood test to determine their risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The study is currently open to families across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with over 20,000 children having been screened so far. I ask that the Government work to have the programme expanded and implemented on the NHS nationwide, as it could drastically reduce the instances of future complications from type 1.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. One of the things that we have noticed back home in Northern Ireland is that even if someone gets a type 1 diabetes diagnosis early on, it does not mean that their life is over—they can still go on. We have a high prevalence of young children in Northern Ireland who have type 1 diabetes, and for them it is rather scary but also a fact of life. I have seen some of those young boys and girls growing up and the diabetes has not affected their life at all. It is important to know that those being diagnosed early with diabetes can have a normal life and family.
Sarah Bool
I absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman; people can live a fulfilling and fulfilled life, but they do need a little more help along the way. If we get that at the right time, it can literally transform a life so that they can live like everyone else.
One of the promising new treatments coming forward is teplizumab, which will delay the onset of type 1 in children by an average of three years. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US in 2022, it is about to start a technological appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In conjunction with the national early detection programme, teplizumab could drastically reduce the complications associated with type 1.
With the rise of social media, we have seen an ever-growing societal preoccupation with body image. Earlier this year Baroness May and Sir George Howarth released a parliamentary report into type 1 and disordered eating, also known as T1DE. T1DE is an eating disorder where someone might restrict their insulin to lose weight or experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia alongside type 1. Evidence suggests that up to 40% of women and girls and up to 15% of men and boys with diabetes experience some form of disordered eating, so we really must continue the work of Baroness May and Sir George in raising the profile of diabetes and its complications.
On type 1, I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government work with the NHS to increase awareness of the hybrid closed-loop technology, particularly among lower socioeconomic groups, and to fund its roll-out nationally; to provide comprehensive training for healthcare practitioners on HCL technology; and to establish a national diabetes registry to support technology adoption and track health outcomes.
Turning to type 2 diabetes, right hon. and hon. Members will have heard a lot about and might even have been tempted by Ozempic and Wegovy, known as the GLP-1 medications—seemingly magic solutions that have helped many in the public eye to shed unwanted pounds. However, that class of medication is an important treatment for those with type 2 diabetes as it is prescribed to lower blood glucose levels. My concern, and that of some of my constituents who have written to me, is that there is a real risk of a shortage of those medicines for type 2 diabetics while they are being prescribed for weight loss. It is therefore essential that the supply of those drugs is protected for diabetics. Will the Minister take action to ensure that everyone with or at risk of type 2 diabetes can access the medications that they can benefit from?
Alongside medications, we should ensure that newly diagnosed type 2 diabetics are given the right support. In some cases it is possible to put type 2 into remission, so it is essential that access to evidence-based services such as the NHS path to remission programme is increased for people in the first three years of their diagnosis. Likewise, people under the age of 40 with type 2 are at increased risk of developing diabetes complications, but are less likely to receive their essential care. The NHS type 2 diabetes in the young programme—T2Day—provides extra support for that group, including confirmation of diagnosis, additional checks, contraception and pre-conception planning, and assessment of cardiovascular risk. The Government must commit to sustainable long-term funding for the programme to ensure that the rise in type 2 diabetes in working age adults does not lead to a drastic increase in serious complications.
There are also inequalities across the diagnosis of diabetes. Those living in deprivation and people of black and south Asian ethnicity are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes but less likely to receive their diabetes care, and they go on to experience worse health outcomes. As the Government develop their plan for the NHS, they should use health inequality impact assessments for all diabetes-related policies to understand how reforms affect different groups.
As right hon. and hon. Members might have worked out by now, I could speak about diabetes all the way to the moment of interruption this evening, but I will draw my speech to a close. Acting as our own pancreas is hard and our illness requires 24-hour attention. Diabetes treatment is relentless, but so are we.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) to this place, as I have not had a chance to do that. I thank her for securing the debate and sharing her own personal experience. She spoke powerfully about her fear, disbelief and sadness at her own diagnosis.
More than 4.9 million people in the UK have diabetes and 2 million people are now at risk of type 2 diabetes. The impact on the health and wellbeing of the nation and on the lives of people with diabetes and their families cannot be overstated. The hon. Lady has put a superb case this morning. A central mission of this Government is to build a health service and care system fit for the future. As part of that, tackling preventable ill health such as type 2 diabetes is crucial. At the same time, we want to ensure that people with types 1 and 2 diabetes receive the best possible care so that they can live healthier lives wherever they live in the United Kingdom.
As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire mentioned, a central factor to people with diabetes living well is ensuring that they have access to annual diabetes reviews that cover the eight processes recommended by NICE. Annual diabetic reviews are associated with reduced emergency admissions, amputations, retinopathy and mortality. However, in 2019 only 42% of people with type 1 diabetes received all eight health checks, and that figure dropped significantly during the covid-19 pandemic. The NHS has worked hard to recover these services, and the proportion of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes receiving all eight care processes reached 43.3% and 62.3% respectively in 2023-24. Although that is an improvement, in order to drive faster uptake the NHS will invest £14.5 million over the next two years to support up to 140,000 people aged between 18 and 39 to receive additional tailored health checks from healthcare staff. That will include support to help break down any stigma associated with the disease and support people with diabetes management through blood sugar-level control, weight management and cardiovascular risk minimisation.
I want to draw attention to what the hon. Lady said about stigma, because it is important. My best friend from university was diagnosed in her early 20s, which was some time ago—she will not thank me for mentioning that. I have family and constituents who have type 1, and I have learnt a lot from them about how important it is to look after oneself and get the care that one needs. I also commend Baroness May and Sir George Howarth. They were a formidable duo in Parliament, raising awareness of what is possible. They were both great servants of their respective parties, and I know they will continue that work.
Technology also plays a critical role in helping people with diabetes to live healthier lives, and I am pleased to hear of the personal impact a hybrid closed loop system has had on the hon. Member’s life. As many will be aware, NICE has made recommendations on offering real-time continuous glucose monitoring and hybrid closed loop technology to adults and children with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The NHS is making progress, with over 65% of people with type 1 diabetes using glucose monitoring to help manage their condition, and I expect to see similar rapid progress for people with type 2 diabetes.
Following NICE’s final guidance in December 2023 on HCL systems, NHS England has developed a five-year national strategy with guidance for NHS providers on a phased uptake for delivering this life-changing technology to eligible diabetes patients. I am sure the hon. Member and others will be watching that roll-out closely. It started this April with an initial focus on children, young people, pregnant women or those planning to become pregnant, and adults already using pumps who want to transition to a HCL system. The longer implementation period is because of a need to build essential workforce competencies in specialist adult services. To ensure that patients are safe, NHS trusts should only provide HCLs if they have access to specialist, trained clinical staff experienced in providing insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors for type 1 diabetes. I know that waiting to access this technology is causing many people distress, and I assure the hon. Member that NHS progress in delivering these technologies is a matter of importance to this Government.
I also thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of type 1 and disordered eating. NHS England has provided funding for eight integrated care boards to support the development and establishment of type 1 disordered eating services in every NHS region. NHS England is drawing on learning from the existing services, other emerging evidence and the findings of a recent parliamentary inquiry to ensure that all areas of the country are supported to improve care for those identified as having type 1 disordered eating.
On type 2 diabetes, the hon. Member expressed concerns about access to GLP-1 medications, such as Ozempic. Following intensive work with industry, the broad supply position for GLP-1 medications in the United Kingdom has improved. However, global supply issues remain for specific medicines, including Ozempic. We continue to work closely with manufacturers and others in the supply chain to help ensure the continued supply of GLP-1 receptor agnostics for UK patients, and to resolve the remaining supply issues as quickly as possible, for example by asking suppliers to expedite deliveries.
I now turn to prevention and to the support available for people to put their type 2 diabetes into remission, which, as the hon. Lady outlined, is possible. In fact, I canvassed somebody last weekend who was very proud of their ability to do that. It is great work. Lord Darzi’s report on the NHS, which was published last month, noted the worrying increase in the prevalence of people with type 2 diabetes and the necessity of prevention.
The prevention of diseases, including diabetes, is a priority for this Government. The Healthier You NHS diabetes prevention programme supports people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes to make lifestyle changes, either through face-to -ace group programmes or digital services. The programme reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes by 40%. The programme has also been working to raise awareness among the diabetes healthcare professional community about the growing numbers of children and young adults with type 2 diabetes, and we have heard about that today.
Healthcare professionals need to understand the more aggressive nature of early onset type 2 diabetes, compared with older onset type 2 diabetes, to support earlier diagnosis. Further, given the inequalities in who develops type 2 diabetes and the poorer outcomes for those of south Asian and black ethnicity, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member, the NHS has established a focused engagement campaign, using social media and more traditional approaches to raise awareness and boost the uptake from those groups.
Living with type 2 diabetes is not inevitable if early action is taken to live a healthier life. As the hon. Member said, the NHS type 2 diabetes path to remission programme is a joint initiative between NHS England and Diabetes UK. It provides a low calorie diet and support to people who have been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who are living with obesity or are overweight. This year, the programme has been expanded to make it available across all England, enabling more people to benefit and to recover from type 2 diabetes.
The hon. Member asked specifically about the ELSA study, which I understand is recruiting 20,000 children in the UK, to better understand the potential benefits of screening for type 1 diabetes. I understand that the University of Bristol, in my home city, is also undertaking a similar study, looking at the risk of type 1 diabetes in adults. The Government look forward to seeing the outcome of both of those studies, to help inform future policy making.
By moving from sickness to prevention, the Government want to shorten the amount of time people spend in ill health and prevent illnesses before they happen. That is one of the goals of reforming the NHS, which is part of the Government’s 10-year plan. I know that the hon. Lady will contribute to the debate in the rest of this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
IPP Sentences
(1 month 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
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were introduced in 2005 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are cruel, unjust and damaging to those who are still serving them. They were meant to be used to protect the public against criminals who had committed one of 96 offences and who were thought still to be a danger after the minimum term or tariff of the original sentence had expired. No level was set for that tariff by the legislation and the open-ended nature of the sentences led to some catastrophic results.
The House of Commons Library, in its excellent briefing paper for this debate, noted one instance where the courts applied an IPP sentence to someone who had served a minimum term of just 28 days. The misapplication of, and erroneous logic behind, IPP sentences resulted in widespread criticism and to the Government being challenged in court over restrictions on ways that IPP prisoners could demonstrate that they were no danger to the public.
Following a joint report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and HM inspectorate of probation that highlighted the low levels of IPP prisoners being released, as well as the unsustainability of IPP prisoners adding to the burgeoning prison population, a ministerial review was carried out. Eventually, after further court cases and public pressure, IPP sentences were abolished on 3 December 2012. By then, more than 6,000 prisoners had received IPP sentences. Fast-forwarding to the present day, according to Ministry of Justice statistics as of June this year there were 1,132 IPP prisoners who had never been released, and a further 1,602 who had been recalled for breaching their licence conditions, making a total of 2,734 IPP prisoners still in our prisons.
Criticism of IPP sentences has come from far and wide. In August of this year, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, the UN special rapporteur on torture, said:
“IPP sentences are inhuman treatment and, in many cases, amount to psychological torture.”
Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas described them as “morally wrong” and “inherently unfair”. Even Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were brought in, described their introduction as “the biggest regret” of his political career, which in some cases had led to injustice.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Did the hon. Gentleman hear Lord Blunkett on the media today saying that one of the alternative options should be secure therapeutic units?
Bambos Charalambous
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right, and one of the biggest impacts of IPP sentences is on the mental health of prisoners. I will come to that later. She makes a good point with which I agree.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I want to raise the case of my constituent whose son is serving an indefinite IPP sentence and suffers from long-term psychiatric conditions. She feels he is in the wrong institution, unable to access the specialist support he urgently needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases underline the urgent need for a review of IPP sentences, particularly given the crisis in overcrowded prisons?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is right. There is a special need for prisoners to receive support. Keeping IPP prisoners incarcerated for longer than they should be is adding further pressure on our already overcrowded prison population.
In a recent written response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Minister confirmed that there are still five serving IPP prisoners who were given a minimum term of less than six months but have served more than 16 years. There are a further 15 with a tariff of between six months and a year who have not been released after 16 years. There are in a further 47 in the same position whose tariff was between a year and 18 months.
Among the 1,132 IPP prisoners who have never been released is one of my constituents. Ongoing legal proceedings preclude me from naming him, although I can say that in 2006 he was sentenced to serve a minimum of 10 years for robbery under an IPP plan but has now served 19 years. He is now 42 years old and has missed the funeral of his grandfather, along with countless other family occasions. That has had a serious impact on him and his family.
The psychological harm experienced by IPP prisoners and their families has been well documented by the British Psychological Society, which refers to the heightened risk of self-harm and suicide that IPP prisoners face as a result of their hopelessness and their perpetual state of anxiety at the prospect of additional years in prison. The deterioration of IPP prisoners’ mental health is illustrated by the Royal College of Psychiatrists case study in which a 17-year-old was given an IPP sentence for street robbery of trainers and given a one-year tariff but spent 10 years in prison, during which time he lost both his living relatives: his mother and grandmother. His mental health deteriorated so badly that he had to be transferred to a secure NHS mental hospital.
Having spoken to some of the family members of people currently serving IPP sentences—I met them at lunchtime today, and many are in the Public Gallery—I have heard at first hand about the impact that this unbearable situation has on family members, but the impact on IPP prisoners is far more profound. According to the United Group for Reform of IPP, or UNGRIPP, which is campaigning to bring about change to IPP sentences, 90 IPP prisoners have committed suicide since the sentences were introduced, with nine of those suicides occurring in 2023. Considering that the prison population last year was approximately 87,000 and IPP prisoners were only 3% of that total, it is staggering that IPP prisoners accounted for 10% of all self-inflicted deaths in prison in 2023.
One example is the tragic suicide of Scott Rider in 2022. In 2005, he had been sentenced to an IPP sentence, with a minimum tariff of 23 months. Seventeen years later, he was still in prison. He was one of the longest serving IPP prisoners at the time of his death. Following a three-day inquest into his death, the senior coroner for Milton Keynes, Tom Osborne, said in his regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths:
“On any consideration of the circumstances of Mr Rider’s death one has to conclude that his treatment was inhumane and indefensible and that if action is not taken to review all prisoners sentenced to IPP then there is a risk of further deaths occurring.”
He added:
“Mr Rider was one of many IPP prisoners struggling to progress”
and, at the time of his death, he had served 17.5 years and had
“given up all hope of release.”
The loss of hope of ever being released is certainly one of the big factors behind the high levels of suicide and self-harm among IPP prisoners. Even when IPP prisoners have been released on licence, the draconian licence conditions have led to prisoners being recalled for minor breaches of their licence, such as being late or missing an appointment. As I have mentioned, there are currently 1,602 IPP prisoners who have been released on licence but recalled.
I am sure that we all agree that the current situation cannot continue, so what is to be done? In September 2022, in its excellent report on IPP sentences, the Justice Committee, chaired by Sir Bob Neill, made several recommendations to remedy the damage done by the sentences. The three main recommendations can be summarised as follows. No. 1 involves a refreshed action plan for IPP sentences, better access to prison programmes to help IPP prisoners to progress and better support for prisoners who are suffering with their mental health because of these sentences. No. 2 involves better training for Parole Board members overseeing IPP prisoners’ parole hearings, more support for IPP prisoners in preparing for parole hearings, a reduction of the qualifying licence period and better support for prison leavers. No. 3 is resentencing. In paragraph 152 of its report, the Justice Committee said:
“Our primary recommendation is that the Government brings forward legislation to enable a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals…This is the only way to address the unique injustice caused by the IPP sentence and its subsequent administration, and to restore proportionality to the original sentences that were given.”
The Committee also noted that there is precedent for resentencing retrospectively, but that it would require primary legislation. Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas emphasised his support for this approach.
I acknowledge the steps that this Government and the previous Government have taken to tackle some of the problems caused by the licence conditions of IPP sentences. Particularly of note is section 66 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which creates an automatic termination process for IPP licences in certain circumstances, starting from this Friday, 1 November. At lunchtime, I had the pleasure of meeting a former IPP prisoner who will benefit from this measure, which means that he will no longer be on an IPP licence and will be able to be at large freely. The Act also allows for reviews by the Parole Board in certain circumstances from 1 February 2025.
However, resentencing would be the most effective way to deal with the legacy of IPP sentences. I am aware that it is not without its problems, but it is the only just and fair way to deal with this appalling situation, which, if left unresolved, will lead to more IPP prisoners self-harming and taking their own lives.
Prior to this debate, some of the IPP reform campaigners met Lord Woodley to discuss his private Member’s Bill on resentencing IPP prisoners, which reflects the Justice Committee’s recommendations on the matter. I hope Ministers will meet Lord Woodley to discuss his proposals, because there needs to be a review of IPP sentences, and all options need to be considered.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister advise me on what steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in our prisons? What support mechanisms have been put in place to help IPP prisoners who are struggling with their mental health, including those who have been institutionalised, to help them overcome the barriers that may adversely affect their parole hearings and to prepare them for a return to life outside prison? Will the Government reconsider their position on resentencing IPP prisoners? At a stroke, that would rectify this injustice once and for all. Will the Government at least carry out a review to see what the barriers to resentencing are? That is the one thing that all commentators think needs to be done to resolve the injustice caused by IPP sentences.
I thank UNGRIPP, the Howard League—which runs an excellent advice line for family members of IPP prisoners —the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society. I also thank the House of Commons Library for its excellent briefings ahead of the debate. Most important are the family and friends of IPP prisoners who are incarcerated and those who have endured IPP sentences. Finally, there are those who unfortunately bow to the pressure of hopelessness, as there is no end to their sentences in sight, and, sadly, end their lives in prison. I hope that change will come and that IPP sentences will finally be gotten rid of from our prisons and confined to the dustbin of history, where they belong.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I expect to call the Lib Dem spokesperson at 3.28 pm.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. I think I have attended every one of these debates over a number of years. I declare an interest: I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers’ Association and a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, which contains the probation officers, the prison officers, PCS, representing the civil service, and others dealing with this issue.
Here is the tragedy: after every debate, expectations are raised that perhaps there will be some Government movement, but there has not been, so we have lost more lives and many more people have self-harmed. The briefing from the wonderful UNGRIPP shows that in 2023 there were 1,866 self-harm incidents among IPP prisoners. As my hon. Friend said, there have been 90 suicides. People see no hope in their future; they are the most insecure prisoners. Many prisoners I have dealt with know their sentence and know what they have to do to get out, and they do their best. There are others who think they will never get out, but at least they know the situation. With IPP prisoners, there is an uncertainty, which contributes to that lack of hope. Professional prison officers from the Prison Officers’ Association tell us clearly that it is almost impossible to help or manage these prisoners because they have no hope. They lose confidence in whatever rehabilitation scheme they have been placed on, because every time they go on them, they are still not released. As a result, they are simply returned to despair.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green said, His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation made clear recommendations about its concerns for these prisoners, and the Justice Committee set out a whole series of recommendations that I believe overcome the doubts that have been put forward by successive Government Ministers and which I hope we do not hear today. Ministers’ fear that if we release any of these prisoners and something goes wrong, the Government will get the blame.
The Justice Committee considered the issue from a political perspective, asking, “How can we manage this?” The idea was to go through that process, to ensure that there is support and preparation for rehabilitation and release; and that there is professional expertise, brought together on a panel, to examine case-by-case what needs to be put in place to secure the release of these prisoners so that they are safe and society is safe. Give Bob Neill his due—he worked really hard on a cross-party basis to achieve consensus among the Committee on a contentious issue; and the justice unions group and the POA completely endorsed and advocated its recommendations.
By refusing to act on those Justice Committee recommendations, which are so reasonable, the state is committing a crime and perpetrating an injustice against these individuals. It isn’t just me who thinks that; David Blunkett, who brought these measures in, said—if I remember rightly—that the situation was a stain upon our justice system and that there needed to be action. I commended the last Government when they reformed the licensing arrangements, and that move has benefited some people, but it has been of no benefit whatsoever to the 2,734 that are still locked away.
What we expect from this Government—our Government, I have to say to the Minister—is a programme of work that takes the Justice Committee’s recommendations and looks at the practical action that needs to be taken to achieve them. Part of that could be the Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill, which Tony Woodley has brought forward and for which I think there would be overwhelming support in this House. As a result, we might give some justice to those people who have suffered such significant injustice. We have had many cases before us where someone has committed a relatively minor crime and been sentenced to a year in prison, but 10 years later they are still inside. Many of these people are serving between 10 and 18 years, having been sentenced only up to four years for a crime they committed.
We have a responsibility on our shoulders to honour the recommendations from the Justice Committee—recommendations that that its members worked so hard on—and to implement them. There is a sense of urgency about this. I do not want to be here in six or 12 months’ time saying that we have lost more prisoners as a result of self-harm and suicide. What has happened to the families? The irony in all this is that, as prisoners tell us, it is not just the individual who is serving the sentence; it is their family as well. It is their children, their mothers, their fathers: their whole family is destroyed as a result. So for God’s sake—for humanity’s sake—let us address this matter now and let us do it as a matter of urgency.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on calling this important debate at the start of this Parliament. I also endorse the comments made about the Justice Committee, and its incredible work scrutinising this issue and coming up with workable recommendations. work scrutinising this issue and coming up with workable recommendations.
My constituent, who lived in York before being taken into custody in 2005—19 years ago—was given an imprisonment for public protection sentence on 22 January 2007. His original tariff meant that the Parole Board could have released him on 26 May 2009, but he is still there. It must be one of the most egregious cases in the system.
IPP sentences were introduced through the Criminal Justice Act 2003, despite warnings that they would be an affront to justice. They were reformed in 2008 and abolished in 2012, and a total of 8,711 sentences were imposed.
My constituent’s family have been superb and have met me, to keep me informed of the progress for my constituent—apart from that there is no progress, because we do not know what happens next. There have been incidents and consequences, but he is seriously unwell, because he never knows the date of his release or how the injustices he has now served will ever be undone. To incarcerate someone indefinitely comes at significant cost—it is beyond comprehension. My constituent’s mental health has significantly spiralled, as he cannot see an end to this nightmare.
As we have heard, reports have shown that 90 people have taken their own lives while on an IPP sentence. There have been 1,866 incidents of self-harm; the figure is around 2,000 incidents of self-harm every year, across many years, among those on IPP sentences.
The nature of an indeterminate sentence is profound and we understand that denying somebody release has a huge impact. It is often denied as they are not engaging, as my constituent did not for some time, with psychiatric services. He just could not—yet that delayed his progress towards release. After getting a sentence of two years, four months and nine days, he has now served a sentence of 19 years, and his hope is diminishing as he continues to wait for the Parole Board to do justice. He was just 24 years old when a single incident occurred; now 43, having completed course after course after course, he is yet to be released.
The Justice Committee report highlighted the inconsistencies in the way IPP prisoners are treated, the failure of the Parole Board to properly stratify risk, and the conditions that prisoners have to satisfy in order to be released. As a result, we see people languishing in their cells without hope of ever getting out.
The Parole Board needs to be given the scope to properly look at this measure. That is why I support the recommendations in the Justice Committee’s report on resentencing. It is not just people who are incarcerated who are on an IPP sentence; on their release, people continue on that sentence in the community, and for the smallest misdemeanour can easily be recalled. There is no consistency. People may miss appointments and therefore be recalled. We heard in evidence to the Select Committee how small some of the misdemeanours were that meant people were recalled back into prison.
We need to find a way out of this situation. The report calls for resentencing and the reduction of the recall period to five years from the current 10 years. Will the Minister support that change? If not, I ask him to give us a full explanation as to why.
This all comes in the context of significant current pressure on the courts. Perhaps a specialist court is needed to review all these cases, to ensure that the decisions are expedited in the resentencing and ensuing release process. We need to ensure that people have the right support to go back into the community, given that the Probation Service is at absolute breaking point, not least as it is having to deal with early releases at the moment. Again, a specialist focus is required. For example, my constituent has been in prison for 19 years, so a lot of steps need to be taken to ensure that when he is released, he is safe to himself, that he gets the mental health support he requires, and that the family also get support over that period. We must recognise the huge vulnerability of these individuals at that time.
We also need to ensure that the process is robust and consistent—we have seen inconsistencies in the judgments of parole boards, causing further frustration for many people on the inside—and that there are allocated safe places, where people can start to rebuild their lives. My constituent is fortunate to have family who are prepared and a place to go, but many people do not have those associations because it has been so long since they were on the outside. We need to make sure that real expertise in this area is brought in.
When we hear places like the European Court of Human Rights deeming such sentences to be in breach of article 5, on the basis of protection of unlawful deprivation of liberty, the Government cannot sit on their hands. They must act swiftly; and being new in government brings the opportunity to ensure that they do.
How is the Minister is going to review the programmes that people on IPP sentences and others are placed on in prison? The Select Committee heard evidence that many are not fit for purpose nor evidence-based. How do we ensure that the focus of those programmes is on rehabilitating people ready for their future life, and that they are not just a process that prisoners have to go through, serving no benefit?
The Lord Chancellor and the Minister have to rebuild the criminal justice system—we recognise that. The most important thing is reducing the offending rate and ensuring that we do not continue to see the current levels of reoffending. There are some good models out there, including my local prison, Askham Grange, which has the lowest reoffending rate in the country. With that, there is a proper process in place so that the residents —as they are given the dignity of being called—are given support when coming out and going back into employment and civil society. That invest-to-save model needs funding and support. As we transition services, we need to ensure—particularly for those serving IPP sentences, but also across the wider criminal justice system—that the right support is put in the right place.
Ultimately, I turn to the matter of our psychiatric services, because my observation is that many prisons have now become a place where people with significant and severe mental health challenges have to be; it is a failure of our mental health services that they are there at all. Many on IPP sentences fall within that category. If there is a resentencing process, which I hope there is, can we ensure that we also look at mental health support? For many people, perhaps hospital is a more appropriate place than prison. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate, and it is an honour to follow the speeches so far. I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I am obliged to speak in this debate because IPP sentences have been raised time and again at our meetings by the trade unions, especially the Prison Officers’ Association and the National Association of Probation Officers. What those unions say is that their members, prison and probation officers, have been placed in an intolerable position because of IPPs. They are made to administer that sentence, which is tantamount to torture, to many of the most vulnerable and damaged people they manage, both in and out of prison.
If we are to be honest, we must first admit it beggars belief that we are still having to discuss this matter today. I will not reiterate the 2022 Justice Committee report recommendations, but it should be noted that the Committee recommended that the Government convene an “expert committee” to advise on any resentencing exercise. That point needs to be repeated—it has possibly been lost in recent debate—because it would of course be up to the Government to appoint such an expert committee, which would include a judge to explore resentencing, and to decide whether to follow its recommendations.
As explained by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, which I thank for its briefing, the expert committee
“could recommend, for example, a staggered release schedule to give probation adequate time to prepare, or prioritisation for those with the shortest tariffs or longest time served over-tariff, or even partial resentencing starting with those previously considered safe for release by the Parole Board.”
That last option would of course include prisoners who had previously been released but since recalled, often for no further offence. The expert panel might recommend any of those models or something else entirely, but—this is important—the Government would be free to pick and choose the option that is most palatable politically and manageable in the present crisis of prisons and probation. That is why the Minister has nothing to fear from a resentencing exercise along those lines, as suggested by the Justice Committee.
It is no wonder that the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, who I had the pleasure of meeting last year with the justice unions, has called for “adequate and appropriate reparations” for IPP prisoners and their families to compensate them for an “inhumane” punishment that
“often amounts to psychological torture”.
She also warned that
“citing public safety as the reason not to immediately resentence IPP prisoners…is misleading”,
because
“the UK, like any society with a strong rule of law, has measures to protect the community after prisoners are released.”
That is fundamental to a society that believes, as I am sure we all do, that that is how justice should be served. I therefore urge the Minister to listen to the UN and not to ignore such international opinions, as his predecessors were sometimes prone to do.
I also put on record my support for the private Member’s Bill introduced in the other place by Lord Woodley, the Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill, which is listed for Second Reading next month. The Bill, which mirrors the amendment moved by Sir Bob Neill to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the last Session, calls on the Government to set up an expert committee to advise on resentencing and then enact its advice. I urge the Government to back this important Bill or, if they find the full-fat version of resentencing too much to take, to move an amendment in Committee to make it palatable. I most certainly agree with commentators such as Peter Stefanovic that this is a matter of conscience, and that all parties should therefore allow a free vote on IPP reform.
Finally, I will say something through the Chair but directly to people serving on IPP in prison or in the community, and to their friends and families. I know that many of them are watching and listening to this debate, and I know that there are some in the Gallery now. When I speak to them, I want them to know that there are many of us here in Parliament who will not stop calling out this injustice. In both the Commons and the Lords, cross-party parliamentarians will stand up for them. On the left and the right, on the Front and Back Benches, they have politicians in Parliament who will not give up until the problem that Parliament created back in 2003 has been fixed. I do not want them to lose hope, but I do not want to give them false hope either. I do not want them to think that Lord Woodley’s Bill—I know that he will not mind me saying this—will in itself make resentencing a reality. No—the reality is that the power lies with Government, not with Backbench MPs, nor with Lords or Ladies or anyone who is not in government. It is up to the Government to change the law. I am not sure it really looks like the Government presently have the political appetite for resentencing, shameful though that may be.
We should not therefore think that resentencing is just around the corner, even when we consider the Prime Minister’s background in criminal justice and the comments from Lord Blunkett recently, but please do not give up hope now. Hope is a precious thing, and pressure from campaigners pays off. For example, we have licence changes coming into effect on Friday that will mark the end of a living nightmare for at least one person, who I thank for sharing his story with me earlier. I do not need to remind Members that it was a Labour Government who introduced this sentence, which is tantamount to torture, and a Tory Government who abolished it, albeit in a botched way. We have a golden opportunity to end this living nightmare for so many prisoners and their families once and for all. I urge the Minister and his new Government to take courage and do the right thing by justice. Diolch yn fawr.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for setting the scene so well, and all those who contributed.
We do not have this sentence in Northern Ireland, but I have met some of the groups that have been lobbying here, and they have given me some idea of the process. I want to make a few helpful contributions to this debate and endorse ideas that others have put forward.
There is definitely a need for reform and a review of the IPP sentence system. Others with much more knowledge than me—especially the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green—have outlined that well. In Northern Ireland, of course, some prisoners are in shockingly similar positions, so I want to add to this conversation.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He and I have been friends for many years. We were brought together not just because we are MPs but because we are Leicester City football club supporters; we were the Leicester City House of Commons football supporters club. There were not many of us—perhaps there are not many more now, but there are a few more Leicestershire MPs, so we have maybe half a dozen supporters now.
It is also a pleasure to see the Minister—
Jim Shannon
The shadow Minister—absolutely. We sometimes forget that time has elapsed. It is nice to see him in his place too.
It is clear that IPP sentences remain an issue. The House of Commons Library prepared an excellent briefing for us, which helped us bring together our thoughts. As of 31 March 2024, there were 1,180 unreleased IPP prisoners and 1,616 recalled IPP prisoners in custody in England and Wales—a total of 2,796. Given the accommodation issues in prisons, it is clear that we must look at this integral part of the system and the process as we try to find solutions and move forward.
As of March 2024, all but 13 unreleased IPP prisoners had passed their tariff date. The pressure caused by those sentences on the system must be addressed, but we cannot ignore the need to ensure public safety. Although the system and the tariffs must be looked at, the safety of the general public is key, so we must ensure that anybody who is released is not a danger to them.
We could get into the whys and wherefores—the reasons our prisons are overrun. That is not what this debate is about, but I have heard them all from the concerned victims of crime when the perpetrators are released early. When I ask questions of the Minister in the Chamber, I always focus on the victims, and I wish to do that today. It is very important that we do not forget them as we try to find a solution for IPP prisoners.
The main issue behind the complaints is not justice, but fear. The victims are frightened, and the necessary changes and reform must have three foundational principles: justice, rehabilitation and the victims. They are on an equal footing, although I always focus on the victims.
I understand why we are having this debate. It is incredibly difficult to factor in unended prison sentences when planning the prison system, but we must ensure justice and listen to victims’ voices when we reform this system. When these people are released automatically, they must not be left in the midst of a community that has no way forward. Resettlement after prison terms have been served is an issue throughout the UK, so there are things to be done and put in place before anyone can be released from prison.
The Government need to make changes, but they must satisfy those three core principles. My plea for prison reform throughout the United Kingdom is that it must meet the principles of justice and rehabilitation. Importantly, we must listen to the voices of victims. It is not an easy task. The Minister has got a big task ahead of him. I am quite sure he will be able to respond to that, but these things have to be done correctly, wisely and sensitively. I suppose that is really what I am asking for. Now is the time to bring about those steps.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. The introduction of IPP sentences was well intentioned but in reality it has gone badly wrong. That is not only my view but the view of Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were introduced.
We know that two of the key failures were that IPP sentences were intended for only the most serious violent and sexual offences but in practice captured many of the lower level criminal offences and were applied to shorter sentences, and that the practical implications of the recall provision were not properly appreciated or considered at the time of introduction. From what I understand, we have cross-party agreement on that assessment and on the intention to correct it. I view today’s debate as being about how we can best and most quickly achieve that aim and address, as others have said, a gross injustice.
As a MP for only a matter of months, I am already acutely aware of the toll those sentences have taken, not only on the prisoners who are affected but on their family members. I have at least two constituents who are currently recalled to prison because of non-criminal breaches of their licences and who are dealing with post-traumatic stress and other mental health challenges. That is driven to a significant extent by the uncertainty about whether they will ever be released or even about when their next parole hearing will be. As I and others have mentioned, that also significantly affects the family. I am sorry to say that I have been made aware that one of their partners has committed suicide in recent days. Her family’s view is that her losing her partner and her main source of support, while he was on one of those sentences, has been a contributing factor.
I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are taking action to implement the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Government, and I really welcome that. The new automatic termination process and the presumption to terminate, and reducing the associated qualifying periods, will help a significant number of those currently on IPP licences. I ask the Minister to consider what additional steps the Government could take to accelerate the safe release of IPP prisoners who are still in custody, and to prevent the recall merry-go-round which many have experienced.
Recalled prisoners are a growing proportion of the total number of IPP prisoners in England and Wales. Many of the reasons for recall speak more to the need for mental health provision than for a recall to prison. For instance, one of my constituents was recalled for things he said to the police during a mental health crisis while intoxicated. Having served 17 years on an IPP sentence, he will now be in prison for an indeterminate length of time while waiting to be seen by the Parole Board, having committed no further criminal offences.
As far back as 2008, the chief inspectors of prisons and probation were highlighting the lack of resources necessary to rehabilitate IPP prisoners and the enormous strain IPP sentences placed on the prison system and the Parole Board. We know we inherited from the last Government a prison estate and a criminal justice system that is now in even worse shape. It is teetering on the edge and requiring the early release of some prisoners where it is considered safe to do so. I certainly welcome the action the Minister and his colleagues have taken to begin to clean up the mess.
Last week in the main Chamber we were told that IPP sentences would be excluded from the sentencing review announced by the Secretary of State. I understand the reasons why, but the actions that are being taken for those on IPP sentences and the new sentencing review must speak to each other, particularly where they are addressing common challenges such as the need to focus on rehabilitation and support in the community and to free up prison places across the prison estate.
Key to this will be the IPP action plan. We have a plan, but as yet no report to Parliament on its effectiveness. My understanding is that that was due in March, but was delayed to May by the previous Government and has still not been published. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward that publication as a matter of urgency, together with the annual report by the Secretary of State on steps taken to support those serving IPP sentences with their rehabilitation and progress towards release.
I also urge the Minister to consider the ways in which the IPP action plan could be improved, reflecting on some of the feedback on its inadequacy that has been highlighted by previous Justice Committees and other civil society organisations. We must understand the adequacy of the current support available to prisoners serving IPP sentences or who have been recalled and have clear measures of assessment. We cannot continue to have IPP prisoners languishing in our overcrowded jails.
As of March this year, 80% of unreleased IPP prisoners had been in prison for over twice their original tariff length. I previously mentioned that IPP sentences had been attached to offences other than the most serious offences that were intended in the original legislation. I note that around 190 IPP prisoners are still in custody more than 10 years after completing their original tariff of two years.
As the Justice Committee, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust have said, there are high rates of self-harm and recall to prison among IPP prisoners. That should cause us to look very closely at the adequacy of the support they are receiving, both in prison and when out on licence, and make improving it a priority for the new Labour Government. It is self-evident that those two things are linked, and that it will be very difficult for IPP prisoners to show that they no longer present a threat to the public if they are not receiving intensive support to deal with the psychological effects of believing they may never leave prison despite, for instance, having passed the end of the two-year tariff more than a decade previously. Lord Moylan has in the past described IPP sentences as
“a form of mental torture”,
as other Members have referenced today. I agree with him that we have a moral responsibility to administer justice to IPP prisoners, who have been neglected for too long.
Some Members have today raised resentencing. I know from her answer to my question in the Chamber last week that the Secretary of State is not in favour of resentencing. However, it is not clear to me why it could not be done in a way that balances the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender, as recommended by the Justice Committee in the past, via an expert committee that could correct any disproportionate sentences while considering public safety. A wide range of respected organisations consider that that could be done and I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on that point.
Just as I opened with words from Lord Blunkett, so I will end with them. He has described the current situation concerning recalled IPP prisoners in particular as “unequal”, “unjust” and “immoral”. The coalition Government took the right step in ending IPP sentences in 2012, but they left unfinished business. Those still serving IPP sentences, or who have been recalled, need a system that will be fairer to them and give them the necessary support to leave prison while preserving public safety. It is our issue to fix as the new Labour Government.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Vaz. I also thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate on a hugely important subject. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for mental health, I will start with a story that illustrates the issues that many have been touching on about people not knowing when their release date is going to be and how it can affect mental health.
Many Members will have heard of Tommy Nicol. He is a tragic illustration of what can happen when the mental health needs of IPP prisoners go unmet. Tommy was sentenced to four years for robbery, but he served six years without hope of release. The Parole Board then recommended that Tommy complete a course of therapy, but there were no services available. When he subsequently moved prisons to access better services, he self-harmed and set fire to his cell. That then landed him in isolation, where he became psychotic and inflicted more self-harm. Just three days after being moved into isolation, he tragically took his own life.
Despite the clear warnings that Tommy was psychiatrically unwell, no mental health assessment was ever carried out and there was zero mental health support during his time in isolation. The consultant forensic psychiatrist who gave evidence at the inquest said that the IPP sentence had contributed to Tommy’s death, as he had completely lost hope. Tommy had made a complaint a few years previously that his lack of a certain release date was the
“psychological torture of a person who is doing 99 years”.
We know that individuals serving IPP sentences often end up extremely unwell, with high rates of suicide and self-harm. It is hard to imagine being locked behind bars for maybe 22 hours a day without hope of release. Most of us here seem to agree with Tommy that that amounts to psychological torture.
Today we are focusing on the critical issue of IPP sentences, but to understand the impact they are having, it is worth considering them in the broader context of the state of our prisons. HMP Winchester in my constituency serves as a stark example of the ongoing crisis. Just last week, it was placed under the urgent notification process following an inspection by HM inspectorate of prisons. The findings paint a troubled picture: the years of underinvestment have left lasting physical and psychological impacts on both prisoners and staff. Resources for rehabilitation and education are severely lacking. That only perpetuates the high reoffending rates, which are bad for the prisoners and costs taxpayers even more in the long run.
If rehabilitation is the fundamental purpose of prison, how can we expect individuals to reform when faced with conditions like those reported last week in HMP Winchester? Consider these distressing statistics: 47% of prisoners report easy access to drugs; 41% return positive results on random drug tests; many are sleeping in cramped and dirty cells; self-harm and suicide have become normalised and prisoners spend up to 21.5 hours each day confined to their cells, with only 2.5 hours outside. Those conditions, marked by violence, isolation and pervasive drug use, paint a bleak reality that makes rehabilitation nearly impossible.
Individuals serving IPP sentences are suffering immensely, with mental health issues running high and suicide and self-harm rates elevated. IPP prisoners are two and a half times more likely to self-harm than those serving other types of sentences, and we know that prisoners in general are more likely to self-harm than the general population. Despite that, the recent independent sentencing review excludes IPP sentences entirely. It is profoundly unjust that some individuals with lesser offences are stuck in IPP limbo, while others who committed more serious crimes are being released early under the Government’s current policy. Reforming IPP sentences could alleviate prison overcrowding, improve mental health outcomes and enhance safety, yet those reforms remain absent.
The Lib Dems urge the Government to establish an expert committee to advise on how we can swiftly resentence individuals still serving IPP terms. Addressing the crisis in our prisons, at HMP Winchester and all the others, is essential. We must right the wrongs of IPP sentencing. If our goal is rehabilitation, we should be providing the resources and the conditions necessary for these individuals to re-enter society as productive citizens, not leaving them scarred by indefinite incarceration.
The Secretary of State has assured us that the independent sentencing review imposes no constraints, and yet a glaring oversight persists: the exclusion of IPP sentences. Nearly 3,000 individuals remain incarcerated without a defined release date, some for lesser offences than those who have recently been released under the current policy. Reforming these sentences is not only a step towards justice, but a practical partial solution to overcrowding. As mental health spokesperson, I am particularly concerned about the deterioration of IPP prisoners’ mental health. As the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned, we are worried about how that may affect any subsequent parole hearings. We ask the Government why they have chosen to exclude IPP sentences from the review, and whether that that decision will be reconsidered.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and a privilege to speak in today’s debate. Doing so from the Opposition side of the Chamber takes some getting used to, though I fear I may have time to get used to it. I am very pleased to see the Minister here; I know him well and he is a thoroughly decent and able man, so it is a pleasure to see him back in the House after a brief absence from this place.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate on an issue on which there are strong and sincerely held views. I know the hon. Gentleman well. He spoke eloquently and with typical decency and humanity. Before moving to the substance of the debate, as a Leicestershire MP I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that he and the Minister might have another ally in their footballing cause in this House.
[Clive Efford in the Chair]
As we have heard, the IPP sentence has understandably been called a stain on our justice system, not least by my predecessor in office, the former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, among others. It is a sentence that can keep people essentially in limbo in what could be termed preventive detention, not because of something they have done, but because of something that they may do.
The sentence was brought in under the previous Labour Government by the then Home Secretary, David—now Lord—Blunkett. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for what he has done subsequently. He has become one of the greatest advocates for reform, which speaks of his integrity. It takes a big person to acknowledge the botched introduction of the legislation in 2005 and the error that was made; it speaks well of him that he has been willing to do so.
A decade on from the 2012 abolition, the Justice Committee report of September 2022 was hugely important in what it said and the look it took at this issue. It made a number of constructive recommendations, which the previous Government considered very carefully. I am pleased that in the final days of the previous Parliament, a consensus was reached that enabled the then Victims and Prisoners Bill to progress into legislation. I am grateful to the now Government for the constructive approach they took in those final days. Changes to the IPP sentence were a key part of that.
The hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) called for those changes to be enacted. That has already been done through that legislation, reducing the licence period from 10 years to a review at three years, reflecting what the Justice Committee said—although going a bit further than the five years it suggested—with the Parole Board then considering the termination of the licence. There is a presumption of termination, but it is a rebuttable one were there to be any other considerations to be taken into account. Were that not acted on after the three years, after a further two years the Secretary of State must terminate that licence, unless there had been a recall during that period. Those changes have already been made, and I believe the implementation was carried out relatively recently by the new Government.
That new test creates a presumption for licence termination unless public protection considerations mean that the Parole Board deems that licence to be needed. There is a hugely difficult balance to be struck, rightly, between the challenges the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green, among others, set out and the challenges that the sentence poses—to hope, and to the ability to see a way forward and make progress, for those serving way beyond the time that would be handed down under the current sentencing regime for the equivalent crime.
That must be set against public protection considerations, which must also be at the heart of the approach. Where the Parole Board has deemed it will not agree the termination of the licence, that is because the Parole Board has refused on the grounds of public protection. We have heard today of the huge impact that the nature of that uncertainty, lack of hope and clarity has on those serving IPP sentences.
That lack of hope has an impact on those people’s mental health. The nature of the sentence has a huge impact not just on individuals but on their family, friends and others. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) set that out very eloquently, as he does. I must always be careful in lavishing praise on the right hon. Gentleman, as it will probably not do my political career much good, but I found myself reflecting carefully on what he said because he made his point in a measured, and very human, way. This is why the changes contained in the Victims and Prisoners Act were needed.
However, although the Justice Committee recommended resentencing, that would potentially see those whom a parole board had very recently considered not safe to release on public protection grounds released immediately, even if that went contrary to the board’s view. Just last week, in her response to questions following the statement she made to the House, the new Lord Chancellor set out her view that His Majesty’s Government continue to oppose resentencing, as set out in the Justice Committee’s report.
The hon. Member for York Central highlighted the huge importance of progress—of people being able to see their progression towards release and the termination of their licence. Engagement and support is absolutely central to that. The changes to licence times, and the approach to licence termination, will help people progress, but it is important that we reflect, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, not just on those IPP prisoners but on the victims of those crimes, and it is right that we consider both in the round.
Before I turn to that, I think we are beginning to see some progress. When this matter was debated in the context of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the figures were that around 3,300 IPP prisoners were still detained; the latest figures from the House of Commons Library show that there are now just under 2,800. That is a degree of progress. Equally, it is important to remember that at that time about 1,200 had never been released or had the opportunity to make progress and be released, so more progress needs to be made.
I will put a number of questions to the Minister, and I expect he will respond in his typically helpful and constructive manner. Can he set out what progress is being made on the action plan? I think the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) touched on this, but my understanding is that, with the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act through Parliament, it was deemed that there might be an interaction between that and the action plan. That explains the delay: the plan would have been published earlier this year, but the changes made in the Act were—and are—significant. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), clearly and eloquently set out the importance of mental health considerations in this context. Mental health can have an impact both on those with an IPP sentence and on their families and friends, and there is a need for mental health support and care to enable that progression, both inside prison and on release so they can continue to abide by the terms of the licence. What support is available to IPP prisoners before they appear before the Parole Board to best demonstrate what they have achieved?
If victims anticipate a release date further in the future, they might well be concerned about what happens if a licence is breached, or if there is suspicion of that. How is that reported—to probation, or to the police—and how is it acted on? What action would be taken? Once a licence is terminated, would the victims’ understanding be right that at that point they have no further options, because that person is deemed to have served their time and to be a free citizen?
To conclude, Mr Efford, I am conscious that the previous Lord Chancellor continues to look very carefully at the issue. We saw the approach he took in the Victims and Prisoners Act, and he was clear that he would always continue to look carefully at any changes recommended by Committees or others, ensuring that balance between justice for IPP prisoners and addressing the concerns of victims and public protection. Will the Minister confirm that he and the new Lord Chancellor will continue to adopt a pragmatic and measured approach in considering this incredibly challenging issue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. We have had a full and informed debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it and setting it off in such a positive way. He drew our attention to the issues and reminded us, as others did, of Lord Blunkett’s words about IPP sentences being the “biggest regret” of his political career. We all need to roll up our sleeves and work across the parties. I welcome the fact that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), recognised how we, in opposition, worked constructively with the Government. He is now doing the same. The problem belongs to all of us and we should put our shoulders to the wheel to resolve it in the best way possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green also drew our attention to the heart of all this: these prisoners often feel a loss of hope and that they are in a cycle of despair. It is our responsibility to do all we can to break that cycle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke with deep understanding and eloquence. He drew attention to the way in which prisoners often self-harm and the need for programmes to be focused precisely on the needs of individuals to bring about practical action. I hope that is where we are going now with the action plan and the dashboard behind it, which follows each individual prisoner so that the right approach can be taken for them and so that they and the prison authorities know what they have to do to allow people to move to the next stage so that there is, we hope, a positive outcome for everybody.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke about people languishing in their cells without hope. That is a depressing picture and we all have a big responsibility to turn back the clock so that it is no longer the case. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I pronounced her constituency wrong but did my best, so I hope she will forgive me—drew attention to the comments of the special rapporteur. Lord Timpson met the special rapporteur yesterday, so we are taking those issues seriously as we try to move forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his usual warmth and passion. He drew attention to the important principles of justice, rehabilitation and the needs of the victims, and the need to balance them as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) focused on the words of Lord Blunkett, but also drew our attention to the way recall has been used in a way perhaps not anticipated at the outset. I hope that what happens later this week will help remedy some of that. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), gave us Tommy’s harrowing story. Sadly, there are many stories like that, and our job is to try to ensure that there are not more in the future.
A lot of the history has already been dealt with, so I will not go back over what has been covered so well by others. The Government recognise the challenges faced by those serving IPP sentences, and it is absolutely right that the sentence was abolished. More than 5,000 people are still serving IPP sentences. For those serving the sentence in prison, the Government are determined to give them the support and opportunities they need to make further progress towards a safe, sustainable release. For those serving the sentence in the community, an end to the sentence is now within their grasp.
The debate is timely, as I was pleased to meet the IPP Committee in Action with Lord Timpson today—I see members of the group in the Public Gallery—in what I felt was a positive meeting. That does not mean that everything was where we wanted it to be, but it was a constructive, positive meeting, as we tried to work with people with genuine concerns and experience to get better outcomes.
This Friday, we will implement the first phase of changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which we supported in opposition, and we are determined to implement those vital provisions at the earliest opportunity. We will also publish an updated IPP action plan shortly, which will continue to focus on the rehabilitation of IPP offenders through frontline delivery in our prisons and in the probation service. It remains the case, however, that supporting IPP offenders continues to present a number of challenges, particularly when it comes to those who have never been released. In addition, we must never lose sight of the paramount importance of protecting the public, which the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston spoke about so sensibly.
The changes to the IPP licence in the Victim and Prisoners Act will mean that this Friday those who were first released at least five years ago—or four years ago for those convicted when they were under 18—and who have spent the last two on licence without recall to custody will have their licence automatically terminated on 1 February 2025. The qualifying period for when the Secretary of State must refer an IPP licence to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination, which is currently 10 years, will be three years, or two for those convicted when under 18. Commencing the new measures means that the IPP licence will end automatically for around 1,800 people on 1 November. In addition, 600 people will be referred to the Parole Board to consider licence termination on 1 February 2025. We anticipate that the changes, once fully implemented, will reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two thirds.
I recognise that the changes will not automatically result in any change to the status of those serving IPP sentences in prison. For that reason, the Government are determined to give those people every chance to make further progress in reducing their risk and eventually obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board in a way that prioritises public protection. As hon. Members have said, there is a responsibility on us to provide hope, but also to ensure that hope is realistic and proper.
The IPP action plan is one of the first steps in delivering that. The refreshed plan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked for, places greater emphasis on effective frontline delivery in our prisons to ensure that prisoners serving IPP sentences have robust and effective sentence plans that they are actively engaging with, and that they are in the correct prison to access the right interventions and rehabilitative services. Lord Timpson, the Minister for prisons, probation and reducing reoffending, is determined to use his role to achieve that, including by ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. Lord Timpson would also remind us that in the Timpson business he had 30 IPP prisoners as good, effective colleagues, so he has lived experience of working hard to deliver for people in this area.
Those efforts will ensure that IPP prisoners can get to the right place to pursue the programme of intervention that they need to reduce their risk and make further progress towards a future release by way of the direction from the Parole Board. Around 30% of IPP prisoners are not currently in the correct prison to start the next formal intervention specified in their sentence plan. We are clear that that must be addressed as a matter of urgency, notwithstanding the challenges brought about by the current population pressures, which the Government are taking decisive action to tackle.
Rachael Maskell
My constituent has been waiting 17 years for release. Can the Minister provide a timeframe by which my constituent can expect to hear what the justice system further expects of him before he gets that release?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Each case is different, so I come back to the importance of individual plans for individual prisoners, and the fact that they need to know, from conversations with the prison authorities, exactly where they are and what intervention is there, and they can see themselves progressing positively towards a positive outcome. It is impossible to give a timeframe on each individual case, but I would hope that each individual would have a feel of what the timeframe might look like for them.
Every prison now has a dedicated full-time neurodiversity support manager, and each has attended a bespoke awareness session on the IPP sentence and its impact on those serving it. Those managers are working with frontline staff to help them improve their support and communication with neurodiverse IPP prisoners, fostering good relationships and effective support for improved prospects of progression. We will continue to focus on delivering good education training and work opportunities in prison to build skills, alongside support for IPP prisoners to access employment and accommodation on release.
The IPP action plan is reviewed annually, and the Government will continue to scrutinise thoroughly progress made. To increase accountability, next summer the Lord Chancellor will be laying before Parliament the IPP annual report, which will detail the activity that has been undertaken to support those serving the IPP sentence, and hopefully address the points that have been made about where individuals lie in relation to confidence and assistance. If the anticipated progress is not being made, we will then consider what more we must do to drive the progress that we are determined to see. We will not accept no progress; we expect and demand progress, and that is what we will be looking for.
I appreciate that those still serving the sentence in prison will consider that they have not really benefited from the previous IPP action plans—there is some scepticism. This Labour Government will not allow that to be the case in future. We will robustly drive meaningful actions to deliver actual changes to how well IPP prisoners are protected and supported. That includes supporting those who have never been released, and those who have been recalled to custody. Recall remains a vital function in managing the risk of released IPP prisoners. The thematic review from His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation highlights the fact that decisions to recall IPP offenders have been proportionate and necessary, and that must continue to maintain public protection.
The Government’s overriding priority remains the protection of the public—I was pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, reiterated that in his comments—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central pointed out, that needs to be robust and consistent. It is vital for public confidence and protection that those serving the IPP sentence in prison are released only following a thorough risk assessment that finds that their risk has reduced to the point where they may be safely managed in the community. That is a judgment for the independent Parole Board, which has also recognised that a greater focus on the IPP cohort is necessary. The board has set up a dedicated IPP taskforce so that IPP cases are handled and reviewed by Parole Board members with the appropriate knowledge, experience and expertise of the IPP sentence.
Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence would result in most of them being released automatically—we are coming on to the issue of resentencing, which I know is an issue of huge contention and concern—but, in many cases, the Parole Board has repeatedly determined that those individuals are too dangerous to be released, not having met the statutory release test. In those circumstances, sadly, public protection has to take priority.
The alternative would be resentencing via the court, which would likely result in most offenders still in custody being released without any licensed supervision, despite the Parole Board having assessed in the past two years that those individuals should remain in custody for the protection of the public, having not met the statutory release test. Either approach, sadly, would pose an unacceptable level of risk to members of the public, and, in particular, to victims. I am especially concerned that resentencing could result in dangerous IPP prisoners being released, without a licence period, into the community.
John McDonnell
I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend, but that is a distorted reading of the Justice Committee report. It actually saw resentencing as enabling a refocusing on these particular prisoners, and an expert panel was to be involved to ensure that there was not a mass release in that way; there would be a staggered release, with all the expertise and support available. I think that the Minister has misread the Justice Committee report and should revisit it.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I will very happily revisit the report as my right hon. Friend advises, but the reality is that we need to crack on with this. We need to get things to a better place as quickly as possible, and that means having the right support available to support each individual, to move them on their way. There may be a way of resentencing happening, but it is complicated and it has significant risk, which is why we are not going there. People released in those circumstances would not be subject to any licence conditions, including those that protect victims, for example by prohibiting contact with victims and enforcing exclusion zones. I do not accept that that is an acceptable position for victims.
On IPP offenders in the community, a resentencing exercise would also halt the risk management and support for these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of having been recently released from custody. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 makes significant changes to the IPP licence period and allows for the termination of the IPP sentence in a safe, sustainable way, ensuring that the public and victims are best safeguarded. It is about balance, and I recognise that there are very strong arguments— and good arguments—for the balance to be elsewhere, but this is where the Government want to place the balance at the moment.
Rachael Maskell
The big issue, which I think all colleagues across the Chamber have been raising consistently in this debate, is people’s mental health. Continuous uncertainty will continue to mean people having very poor mental health, including self-harming and, tragically, losing their lives. Will the Minister ensure that he puts time frameworks around what he is talking about, so that people can start planning in their mind what their future looks like? At the moment, they are still looking down a very dark hole.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Each IPP prisoner should know what they need to do in order to make progress through the system or towards the community, and each IPP prisoner should also know what the system should be doing to support them. That is the question, really, and I look towards friends and family because they are a massive resource in this respect. If individual IPP prisoners do not know what they should be doing in order to move on the journey towards release, or they do not know what the system should be doing to support them on the journey towards release, which includes support on mental health and other support of that kind, then there is an issue that we need to focus on and deal with. That is my answer to that point.
I will come on to the questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, about what progress is being made on the action plan. I hope I have managed to cover off in my response the fact that the action plan is central and progressing in the way that we would wish. I have just mentioned mental health support. In relation to the licence breach, where the licence is still in force and victims become aware that an offender has breached a licence condition—for example, if they have entered an exclusion zone—they may report it to the police or their victim liaison officer. Where the licence is terminated, all licence conditions end, including exclusion zones.
John McDonnell
This debate has been helpful in expressing the concerns that people have. I am worried that we have been in this situation many times before, relying on an action plan that is never implemented effectively. I hope the Minister is saying that this one will be, but I must say that I have some scepticism, given the resources within the prison network and system at the moment. It is worth revisiting the discussion about the Justice Committee recommendations. Will he meet with a number of us from both Houses to talk through those and see whether, as we monitor this action plan, we can actually prepare a fall-back if it does not work?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend and colleagues across both Houses with Lord Timpson to discuss progress on this in broad terms, because we can work together. We all want improvements, and we want this long-standing injustice to be put right for the future, and if we work together we are more likely to achieve that. I thank everybody who has spoken in this most timely and helpful debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, who secured it.
Bambos Charalambous
I also thank colleagues who have taken part in the debate, which has been thorough and thoughtful. There have been great contributions from everybody. I also have an apology from the Justice Committee, which is in its first meeting right now so its members could not be present, but would have liked to attend, so we would have had more voices around this Chamber.
I welcome many of the comments made by the Minister, particularly those about the action plan and the dashboard for prisoners. They need to know what is happening, so I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that they need to be in the correct prisons in order to progress and the fact that they will have dedicated time to see support workers and get the right education and training to be released. I look forward to seeing the action plan when it is republished, and I am keen to see what progress it makes, because we want to see progress and ensure that IPP prisoners are no longer suffering and are able to get on with their lives. It impacts not just them, but their families. If this does not work, I certainly think we need to revisit the resentencing option.
One point made by numerous Members in the debate was about the recommendations of the Justice Committee, which talked about having an “expert committee”. It is about looking at and resentencing each individual case, which would be very time-consuming, but the right and just thing to do. We will see where we go, and we will monitor the progress made on this by the Government. If progress has not been made, we will come back and seek to look at other alternatives, but I welcome the measures put in place so far.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered imprisonment for public protection sentences.
Lower Thames Crossing
(1 month 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
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a new Lower Thames Crossing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I start by thanking the colleagues from neighbouring constituencies in Kent, Essex and the wider Thames estuary who are present in the Chamber. I also thank representatives of businesses across our region for joining us in the Public Gallery; there is an impressive number of people from Kent and Essex here to show their support, from the private sector, Government-sponsored boards and a variety of other organisations. They have come together in support of the lower Thames crossing, and the economic and skills potential that it would create for Kent, Essex and the UK economy.
I understand that the planning decision on the crossing is, as the Secretary of State for Transport has made clear to me, a quasi-judicial one, and that the Minister may not be at liberty to comment further than the written ministerial statement issued on 7 October. However, I am not here to talk about the planning process; we are here to talk about the merits of the lower Thames crossing proposal, the delivery of which not only is vital to my constituents, but will add £40 billion to our economy and be vital to the delivery of our Government’s core missions.
Before I come to the merits, it is worth reflecting on the impact of having only one crossing—a single point of failure—over the Thames east of London, effectively creating the largest bottleneck in the UK. It is nearly a given that every Dartford resident’s life will be disrupted in one way or another because of traffic gridlock caused by tailbacks from the Dartford crossing. The crossing operates continually over capacity, struggling daily with 50,000 vehicles on top of the capacity for which it was designed, so disruption is an everyday issue.
When the crossing goes wrong, as it did earlier last week, it goes disastrously wrong. Last Monday, a major technical fault at the tunnel left Dartford at a complete standstill for nearly 30 hours while repairs were made to one of the two tunnels. Trips that should have taken 10 minutes took four or five hours. That has a real impact on the lives of my constituents. It impacts residents trying to get to work, stifling local trades and businesses. Brian, a constituent I have been in contact with following Monday’s chaos, is a self-employed plumber from Swanscombe; the traffic meant that he could not get to his customers and lost out on a full day of work.
Children across my constituency are regularly late to school or lose out on extracurricular activity by being stuck in traffic. Rajiv, another constituent, wrote to me about his 12-year-old daughter, who arrived back in Greenhithe at 8 pm last Monday tired, hungry and confused, having left her school in Northfleet four hours earlier. For those unaware of the geography, that is a journey of 4 miles. A school bus service for children with special educational needs and disabilities was cancelled, which meant that those young people lost out on a full day of learning.
The disruption also impacts the health and wellbeing of residents. People miss out on GP and hospital appointments, and live in worry that, as it has before, traffic could cause a delay in getting to A&E should an accident happen. Another constituent of mine, a lorry driver with a pre-existing heart condition, made the decision to take a lower-paid job driving vans on one side of the river, as he was worried that if he got stuck in traffic and needed an ambulance it would not get to him on time.
With stories like those, it is no wonder the lower Thames crossing has such strong support in my community, with over 70% of those consulted backing the new route. It has huge support from business, with 73 organisations nationwide, including the Port of Dover, the British Chambers of Commerce and some of the UK’s biggest retailers, saying that the crossing must go ahead. There is clear support for the crossing. The need for it is clear to residents and businesses, and it has been for a long time.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I will keep my intervention brief; suffice it to say that my constituents perhaps do not support the lower Thames crossing quite so wholeheartedly as he does. Does he agree that the crossing will mitigate the problems he has set out for only five to 10 years at most, and then we will be back in our current situation?
Jim Dickson
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention. All the calculations indicate that on the day the lower Thames crossing opens, there will be a 20% reduction in vehicles using the Dartford crossing, and that after 15 years that reduction will still be at around 14%. The crossing should also help to cut some traffic on the A13 in her constituency and from junction 30 of the M25, so there are advantages for her constituents as well as a clear advantage for mine and for the UK economy.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; a lot of people across Kent and Essex are very invested in the issue. I will use a number that he gave to make my point. A 14% reduction in roughly 10 years’ time, when the current traffic volume is around 200,000 vehicles, is a reduction of 30,000. We are already 50,000 over capacity, so we will be spending £10 billion to be 20,000 vehicles per day over capacity. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making an important point and something needs to be done, but does he agree that the crossing is not ambitious enough, given its tremendous impact on the way of life in Essex and its limited impact on the actual problem?
Jim Dickson
The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the lower Thames crossing project, which would take 20% of traffic out of the Dartford crossing and retain 14% of that reduction after 15 years—to get the figures right—should be bigger and wider. That is certainly a point of view. I am happy with the proposals as they stand. I would rather not make the crossing bigger and wider and therefore potentially create additional disruption and environmental impact. All those things are under control with this project, and I would not like us to go back to the drawing board and start the process again; that could take another 15 years.
This is a long-term project. The last Labour Government identified the need for a lower Thames crossing 15 years ago and the project has been in conception since, but, broadly speaking, it has been sat on for the last 14 years. The route has been subject to lengthy consultation—three separate consultations, to be precise. After years of engagement, legitimate concerns have been worked through, and the crossing is the best solution to the lack of road capacity across the Thames, which costs our economy £200 million a year in lost time alone.
As a Government of growth, we now just need to get on with the job and get the crossing delivered. Why? Because it would add £40 billion to the economy—it is precisely the kind of long-term project that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is talking about—and there are arguments for how it will contribute to all five of the Government’s missions for change. I will briefly list them. The crossing will be critical in kick-starting economic growth in the south-east of the UK. Once built, it will double capacity over the Thames east of London, creating another direct connection between channel ports, the midlands and the north. That will mean another road route for goods to flow to and from Europe, whereas right now, unlike nearly every other European nation, we have only one.
The project will also reduce the number of vehicles using the Dartford crossing, as I said in response to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), by around 20%, with 13.5 million fewer vehicles using the crossing each year, vastly improving journey times and reliability. It will also improve resilience across the major road network, providing new junctions with the A2, the M25 and other roads. There is also an opportunity to kick-start further progress in the Government-backed Thames estuary growth area, creating 1.3 million new jobs and £190 billion-worth of growth by 2050.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the vision of the Thatcher Government in the 1980s that took the area of Docklands and transformed it into Canary Wharf. There have been similar attempts over the years to do that with the Thames estuary, because there is such enormous economic potential; it would be transformative for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, for mine and for the entire region. It would reflect a dearth of ambition if we did not see the same level of effort and ingenuity going into this project, because the project would be transformative. This is not just about daily problems for our constituents; it is about that economic transformation, which would have a lasting impact for our country.
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is completely right. The project has the potential to really kick-start the growth in the Thames estuary that has started but needs extra investment in order to succeed. In addition to the points she makes, we should think about the Thames freeport in that context; it could generate £2.5 billion additional growth and attract £4.5 billion in public and private investment.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I want to focus on the merits of the lower Thames crossing for Gravesham, where one in five people have no qualifications and two in five live in relative poverty. Is my hon. Friend as outraged as I am by the announcement that the skills hub for the south part, in Kent, is to be in Maidstone, and not in Gravesham, where it could address some of those issues?
Jim Dickson
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The skills element is absolutely critical. The skills hub will be in Maidstone, but will be available to everyone across the region. The further education sector has come together as a consortium to make sure that 16-plus residents across the region benefit. I have spoken to at least one major construction business today that has been looking to start a skills hub in my hon. Friend’s constituency and would be very happy to do so upon the announcement of the start of this programme. There are lots of opportunities, both in Maidstone and in her constituency, for new jobs and new skills opportunities for residents. That is an extremely important point.
The crossing has already been through the planning process and a delivery team is ready. That means that the project is shovel-ready and could be under construction shortly after decisions on planning and funding are made. We could be reaping the benefits very soon after a May 2025 decision.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the lower Thames crossing has the potential to boost skills and economic growth not only in Dartford, but across Kent, and in particular in Medway, the area that I represent? In recent years, I have had many helpful conversations with the lower Thames crossing team about ensuring that opportunities for skilled jobs in construction, in green industries and in steel can be accessed by my constituents in Rochester and Strood. Some 192 businesses in Medway have already registered on the lower Thames crossing supply chain, so this is potentially a huge opportunity to boost skills and economic growth in the region.
Jim Dickson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for her efforts to bring skills and opportunities together with the investment that we hope to see from the lower Thames crossing. She is absolutely right that there are numerous opportunities, including a dedicated T-level, apprenticeship and graduate set of schemes. Through the lower Thames crossing team, we are also developing the first green workforce in the estuary and helping the estuary in north Kent to become a high-skills economy, in contrast to the situation at the moment, where some parts do not have those skills and opportunities.
Speaking of a green-skilled workforce, the lower Thames crossing will play a vital role in Britain becoming a clean energy superpower. It is leading the way in cutting carbon out of infrastructure, with its contractors already committed to reducing carbon by 50% with measures such as low-carbon concrete and steel, and eliminating diesel from the construction fleet. The crossing will replace up to 20 million litres of diesel with clean hydrogen power and ensure that its heavy machinery is powered in that way. The scale of hydrogen purchases will kick-start development of a hydrogen ecosystem in the Thames estuary, which the Thames Estuary Growth Board says has the potential to attract £2.2 billion of investment, create 9,000 new highly skilled jobs and 5,300 jobs in downstream automotive manufacturing, and boost the economy by an extra £3.8 billion. These clean energy initiatives will help transform our construction industry into a world leader in delivering low-carbon infrastructure.
Jen Craft
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way a second time. I want to clarify the claim that the lower Thames crossing is a piece of green infrastructure. Does he agree that the more roads we build, the more people will use them? That will lower our air quality, particularly in Thurrock and the surrounding areas. It also flies in the face of our commitment to net zero, given that more people will be using vehicles that cause pollution.
Jim Dickson
We cannot address a bottleneck such as the one at Dartford, where the air quality is terrible, simply by allowing the situation to continue. We need additional capacity to spread that vehicle movement across more than one part of the Thames. That is what this proposal is about. There are many plans within the lower Thames crossing project to mitigate any environmental impact, such as by more than replacing the trees that are lost. The hydrogen economy means that it will be a low-carbon project. The new habitats that are created as a result of the replanting will be bridged, and will therefore be able to spread across the north and south banks of the estuary; that will ensure that they are preserved.
The lower Thames crossing will also create safer and stronger communities by increasing skills and job prospects, and it will contribute directly to the Government’s mission to reduce the cycle of crime and prioritise rehabilitation. Just last week, the lower Thames crossing, north Kent’s own Gallagher Group and Flannery Plant Hire launched a new skills hub—an initiative designed to tackle our construction skills shortage by engaging new people through pilot courses. The first pilot has started. The 20 individuals involved include six prisoners who, upon their release, will have a guaranteed interview in the construction industry. The aim is to expand that skills hub throughout the build. Think how much of a difference this project can make to a local community when it is actually engaged in the construction.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend very much for securing this really important debate. I have spent far too much time snarled up in traffic between my constituency, Sittingbourne and Sheppey, and Dartford, so we need a big change in the north Kent transport networks. Given that this proposal has been around for a long time, what changes does he think need to be made to it to get it over the line now? We have a bit of time before it comes up for full consideration in the spring. Given that it has struggled to convince everybody, what beneficial changes could be made to it?
Jim Dickson
At the moment, the project is attempting to receive a development consent order from the Government; that will be adjudged in May. The project is a result of three separate consultations and something like 350,000 pages of a planning application, so it really is not for me to suggest changes, but it is important that local people not only feel the benefit in goods and vehicles flowing north and south more freely, but in skills and investment in their local communities.
Finally, on the Government’s five missions, the lower Thames crossing will create a healthier and happier local population. In the long term, the growth generated will support our vital public services such as the NHS. Its impact in reducing congestion drastically will be felt by my Dartford constituents, who will not experience the everyday disruption to their lives that they do right now—
Jim Dickson
I would like to make progress, because the Minister needs to speak.
The project will tackle the air pollution, the missed hospital and GP appointments and the strain on wellbeing that being in constant gridlock brings. The case for the lower Thames crossing is compelling, and the merits are huge. It will relieve the congestion in Dartford, which has affected the local community and held back local trades and businesses—it simply cannot continue. The project has overwhelming support from the business community, as can be seen today. I am happy to confirm that, alongside the businesses represented in the Public Gallery today, I have formed a business consortium, which is working closely with the local community to do everything we can to get spades in the ground.
Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present her first Budget to the House, with growth and infrastructure at the fore as key themes—as, rightly, will be the financial challenges our Government face and the importance of leveraging private capital where we can. The Chancellor said last week that we need to:
“invest in things to get a long-term return for our country and for taxpayers”
when it comes to infrastructure. The previous Government spent 14 years talking about this project, for which there remains huge and increasing support. As a party of growth, Labour now needs to deliver. I and the consortium of businesses stand ready to work with the Government to get this vital piece of national infrastructure built as soon as possible.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am aware that there are a number of people who have asked to speak. This is a half-hour debate. I will call the Minister now and if she gets through her speech she may be able to take interventions. There is no other way to do this, I am afraid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Thank you, Mr Efford. It is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) on securing this debate on an issue which I am well aware is of great importance and interest to him and his constituents.
It is great to see quite a number of those constituents here today, to see other hon. Members, and to see very many people in the freight and logistics sector too, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has spoken with great passion. I would also like to thank him and other hon. Members here today for their engagement on this matter so far, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). I know that they are working very hard on behalf of their constituents.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has written to my Department several times on the issue of congestion at Dartford, as well as on progress on the application for a development consent order for the lower Thames crossing, a nationally significant infrastructure project connecting Essex, Thurrock and Kent.
The application for the lower Thames crossing development consent order was made under the Planning Act 2008 by National Highways, submitted to the planning inspectorate in October 2022, and accepted in November 2022. The appointed examining authority began its examination in June 2023 and concluded it in December 2023. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s recommendation report on 20 March this year, with a statutory deadline of 20 June for a decision. Following a written Ministerial statement in May, the statutory deadline was extended to 4 October due to the general election. The deadline has since been further extended, to 23 May 2025, to allow more time for the application to be considered, including any decisions made as part of the spending review.
As with all nationally significant infrastructure projects, this is a complex scheme. There can be detailed matters that need to be worked through even after an examination has closed to ensure a legally robust decision is made. The Government recognise that transport infrastructure is vital for growth and acknowledge the critical role that roads play in our national transport system, facilitating the movement of people and goods that underpin the UK economy.
Lilian Greenwood
I am afraid not. I am very short of time.
Decisions on development consent orders are made as quickly as possible, including ahead of any statutory deadline when appropriate. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has made regarding congestion at Dartford and the very significant impacts on the lives of his constituents. I am aware of the incident that caused the closure of the Dartford tunnel on 20 and 21 October, and National Highways have assured the Department that a full investigation is continuing.
As my hon. Friend knows, I visited the Dartford crossings myself recently and I appreciate how quickly queues can build and the impact those have on local people and businesses. National Highways are clear that the purpose of the lower Thames crossing is to relieve demand on the existing Dartford crossings, to improve connectivity between our ports and the rest of the UK, and to provide development opportunities across the Thames estuary in Essex, Thurrock and Kent.
However, it is also important to acknowledge that large schemes such as this have the potential to impact on a significant number of people as well as on the environment. There will always be a wide variety of views, and I note the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock). May they be assured that the final decision on the application will be based on a full consideration of the evidence presented by all parties.
While I am not involved in the decision on the development consent order for the scheme under focus, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has acknowledged, given the decision on the application is currently under consideration in the Department, I cannot take part in any discussion on the pros and cons of the proposal, however tempting that may be. That is to ensure the process is correctly followed and remains fair to all parties.
I note, however, that much focus has been given recently to the cost of delivering large-scale infrastructure projects. The planning system plays a vital role in ensuring the right scheme is delivered. The Government are absolutely committed to reforming the planning system to support the transformation of transport infrastructure to work for the whole country. Streamlining the delivery process, reforming compulsory purchase compensation rules, improving local decision making and increasing capacity in the system through the planning and infrastructure Bill will all help to accelerate the delivery of the critical transport infrastructure that this country needs.
I recognise the importance of the issues raised today and the request that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made to discuss funding. I will certainly speak to my Treasury colleagues, and I hope I can help to facilitate the meeting that I know he would want.
Dr Sullivan
Gravesham is going to suffer from poor air quality, a lack of housing through workers coming into the area, increased congestion and loss of ancient woodland. Yet there is a lack of investment in training and skills in the area affected most by the crossing. Does the Minister agree with me that Gravesham residents deserve to be fully supported and the effects mitigated?
Lilian Greenwood
It is important that the views of my hon. Friend’s constituents are considered alongside those of all people in any decision about a scheme of this sort.
James McMurdock
I recognise the points being made and I do not want to speak against them for the sake of it. However, I am conscious that with nearly 15 years of planning, five years of construction and, with the Minister’s numbers, another five years until we have a 14% reduction at best, which would still put us over capacity, is that not a quarter of a century of wasted opportunity? Given the scale and cost, does she agree with me that we have to get this right?
Lilian Greenwood
I certainly agree that we have to get this right, and that is the purpose of the process, which I know is a frustratingly long one.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we also need to look out for businesses in my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford? Currently, when there is congestion, they end up travelling 28 miles—instead of six miles—to the Blackwall tunnel and back again, and a 10-minute journey ends up taking them an hour. We therefore need to look at options for river crossings through both south London and Kent as we move forward.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend has very effectively put the views of his constituents on the record.
Finally, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is reassured that my Department fully appreciates the importance of the proposal to his constituency and that it is being thoroughly considered. I thank him for securing an opportunity to discuss the issue and all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Zero Emission Vans
(1 month 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
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the transition to zero emission vans.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Vans are the workhorses of the UK economy, with one in 10 workers, across a range of industries, relying on a van for their job. From engineering to construction, and from food delivery to emergency and rescue services, many of these industries are part of the backbone of our economy, and we must support them as we make the journey to net zero.
Currently, emissions from vans are increasing year on year, which contributes to the detrimental impacts of climate change across the UK and globally. In my constituency of Tamworth, residents have been hit by flooding for centuries, but it is in recent decades that extreme flooding events are becoming more common, and the flooding season is now lasting three months instead of one, putting a huge strain on our rural economy’s farmers and on our food security. Those floods, which have left people in our rural villages isolated and trapped, have been a key issue, blocking routes for vans and HGVs, with fleets forced to do 15-mile diversions to get back on track. The devastating effect of climate change is impacting both residents and businesses, and we must take every step we can to reduce emissions.
We must do that by using zero emission vehicles. Since 1990, emissions across the UK fleet have risen by 63% via the increased use of diesel vans. In our bid to reach net zero, we must explore the challenges within this sector and address the limitations on infrastructure, including the hurdles and higher costs. We must move some of our most polluting vehicles off our roads and move towards cleaner, more environmentally friendly vans. We cannot do that unless there is a step change in the approach to investment and infrastructure, and we must ensure that we do not leave small and medium-sized enterprises behind in the process. In this debate, I shall argue that the 4.25 tonne e-vans should face the same rules and regulations as the 3.5 tonne diesel vans, and that more should be done to deal with the ad hoc installation of the electric infrastructure needed to lay the foundations for our transition towards a net zero economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on introducing this issue. I spoke to her before the debate, and I understand that she is bringing forward something that we all need to endorse, right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We should encourage local councils to deal with the vans that they have, and ensure that they move towards electric fleets. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government and the Minister might need to be involved in some way to ensure that there are incentives to make that happen, whether through low finance deals or grants? If we can get the councils to do it, that makes it easier for the rest of us to follow.
Sarah Edwards
Absolutely. It is incredibly important that we involve councils, because they can help and go a long way in ensuring that that infrastructure is there, and they can actually fund some of the changes. I think that is a well-made point, so I thank the hon. Member for his contribution.
While the move to zero emission vans is vital, it does not come without challenges. Currently, the target for zero emission vans is about 70% by 2030, and operators need support with that. Small and medium-sized enterprises are already struggling with the weight of increasing energy costs. In order to support them through this transition, there must be targeted incentives and a roll-out of suitable infrastructure, but there is no protection for businesses from energy costs.
Businesses in my constituency and across the country have seen their bills increase fourfold, with many going under as a result. Their energy rates are linked to credit ratings, and new businesses often do not get the best rate until year three and onwards. Without those bills receiving the scrutiny that residential bills have had during the energy crisis, many business owners simply do not have the capital available to invest in greener solutions. If and when they do, they find that it is not just the cost but the time for the grid upgrade to take place, and in some cases businesses have been told that they cannot draw the power that is needed.
On my recent visit to Brakes in my constituency—the UK’s leading wholesaler, responsible for 70% of the food delivery to businesses and organisations, including hospitals and care homes, which operates 365 days a year on a just-in-time operation—it cited progress on installing chargers for its 7.5 tonne refrigerated vehicles, but it wanted to go far further in its bid to go green. Battery technology at present is not able to provide enough power for both refrigeration and long distance, limiting the types of vans and trucks that can be used by the industry. The company is unable to install additional green infrastructure due to the roof being unsuitable for solar installation, and would struggle at present to draw the power needed from the grid for its ambitions. The grid upgrade simply is not possible, so that business ambition is being stifled by the lack of infrastructure that it can tap into.
The challenges of infrastructure regulation, affordability and availability of suitable projects is holding back businesses in their move towards e-vans, which in turn slows down the laudable goal to reach net zero. A giant leap is therefore needed to move the market from the 5.9% of e-van sales that we saw last year for the UK to meet its emissions targets.
The average e-van costs around 50% more than a diesel option, which is a huge financial burden for a small or medium-sized enterprise that is keen to move towards greener ways of working, but is struggling to bear the upfront costs of the new vans and the uncertain energy costs. Diesel options are outperforming the e-vans currently on the market. From range to charging speed, operators are paying more for less. Although running costs can be lower, these are being undermined by the huge costs of charging at public charging stations.
My constituent, David Furnell from Evolution, explained that the installation of EV chargers often requires upgrades to power supplies, which can be costly and take months and in some cases years to complete, to bring a power supply up to the standard ready for installation for EV charging. There are limited incentives for small businesses to install this type of infrastructure, with larger private companies often bridging the gap and getting energy supplies up to the standard needed.
At present, schools are receiving a higher incentive for the installation of charging infrastructure, whereas commercial premises are receiving a much smaller incentive through the workplace charging scheme. Schools can get 75% off the cost of a buy-and-install charge point up to a maximum of £2,500 per socket. In contrast, the EV infrastructure grant for small and medium-sized enterprises gives them money off the cost of wider building and installation work, which is needed to install multiple charge points. The grant covers 75% of the cost of the work, up to £15,000, and they can get £350 per charge point socket installed and up to £500 per parking space enabled with supporting infrastructure. Although that grant is a good step, it is not considered large enough to incentivise SMEs to accept the risk and financial burden of installation and transition to net zero.
If we are to move towards the widespread use of zero emission vans, we must ensure that infrastructure such as charging facilities is available and affordable and, crucially, in the right places. The burden of cost for both the installation of EV chargers and the upgrade to power for e-vans falls at the feet of small and medium-sized enterprises, which is no way to drive our journey to net zero and grow our economy. We need a spatial strategy to assist with this, and one which does not rely upon solely the private sector and those who may have the capital to invest.
In the 2023 Logistics UK van report, a third of respondents cited power supply infrastructure as one of the biggest challenges for fleet electrification. A large percentage of van users do not have access to a home driveway to charge, and often public charging bays are not physically designed for vans. There are also nitty-gritty challenges, such as a lack of standardisation of payment methods and the inability to pre-book specialised bays. As a result, there is uncertainty for businesses regarding their ability to keep their vans on the road and moving. Many businesses, particularly our SMEs, need the highest levels of confidence that their vans will be on the road and earning throughout the day.
Many businesses, particularly our SMEs, need the highest levels of confidence that their vans will be on the road and earning throughout the day. For those fortunate enough to access private charging options, the cost of grid connection upgrades, the complexities of landlord sign-off and planning approval processes can cause issues. Both access to power and its cost are key challenges in this debate and can be difficult obstacles to overcome.
Those challenges are not limited to the transition for zero emission vans. The logistics industry is essential to our economy, and many companies operate fleets with vehicles of varying sizes, providing different coverage for different parts of the business operation. The heavy goods sector currently accounts for just under 20% of UK transport CO2 emissions, yet only 0.8% of heavy goods vehicle fleets are zero emission. For HGV fleets, there are limited options for the heaviest vehicles, and those that are available are expensive. The Road Haulage Association anticipates that the overall cost of decarbonisation for HGVs will likely exceed £100 billion. Electric trucks are at least three times the price of an equivalent diesel. The RHA also estimates that up to £2 billion of investment in energy infrastructure is needed to power zero emission vehicles. Since 2014, the logistics sector has invested an additional £2.2 billion in new HGV fleets to reduce their nitrogen oxide pollution. It seeks to replicate that for CO2 emissions, but there is a lot of work to do when the target for phasing out new diesel HGVs below six tonnes is 2035 and the target for all HGVs is 2040.
Regulation is also a big challenge in this transition, particularly regarding the weight of vehicles. A battery is heavier than fuel, and for e-vans to be able to perform like diesel vans they will be heavier. E-vans, weighing 4.25 tonnes, also face HGV MOTs, because their weight tips them into the next category of commercial vehicle, and this regulation places significant burden and additional expense on operators, impacting their downtime. It also means that there is less choice and flexibility, as fewer testers are qualified to do an MOT on an HGV. Logistics companies argue that 4.25 tonne e-vans should face the same rules and regulations as 3.5 tonne diesel vans. They are delivering the same amount of goods, but their battery puts them outside current legislative parameters. The vehicles are now classed as HGVs, meaning that they must be driven in a fleet with an operator licence and those driving them must have HGV qualifications, which cost money and time in training and must be kept up to date. No one wishes these safety requirements to be removed for HGVs, but the technical point of the weight difference between the e-van and the standard diesel van should be reconsidered as a large financial barrier to what looks externally to be an identical vehicle. It is important that these issues are considered by hon. Members and noted as a policy that has limited the transition to zero emission vans.
Various countries are successfully leading the way in the transition to electric vehicles. The Netherlands’ e-van share is more than double that of the UK. Its clear policy framework for urban logistics has introduced a number of zero emission logistic zones, starting from January 2025, and as a result the wider policies supporting its transition are leading the way among European countries for electric van uptake. We see a similar use of policy in the US, which is supporting the transition to electric vehicles under the EV acceleration challenge. Since 2021, electric vehicle sales have tripled in the US, and the number of publicly available charging ports has grown by more than 40%. The US’s Inflation Reduction Act 2022 has added and expanded tax credits for purchases of new and electric vehicles by taxpayers, and provides a $7,500 tax credit for every new green vehicle weighing up to 14,000 lbs, which equates to approximately 6.3 metric tonnes. Above that weight, it is $40,000 per vehicle. The UK could consider whether, in order to get growth, we need additional support for businesses that assist the Government in their ambition for a greener economy that promotes growth throughout the UK. If we are to transition successfully to zero emission vans, we must consider the blueprints in other countries and their successes and failures as the UK plans for growth.
Although we can incentivise businesses to move towards the use of zero emission vans, we must ensure that sufficient infrastructure, legislation and policy are in place to support that. The challenges around charging facilities, cost and infrastructure are large but not insurmountable, especially when the earlier we invest, the earlier the payback begins. The new partnership between this Government and businesses could help to transform the van sector, tackling a huge environmental impact and growing our economy. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate and the Chamber for its consideration of this important topic.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Back Benchers that if they intend to speak in the debate they should stand in their place, to give the Chair a chance of knowing who intends to contribute. I call Chris Bloore.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for securing the debate. My remarks will be brief, as she covered much of what I was going to say. I want to be clear on the point about making it easy for us to have the infrastructure in this country for businesses to take advantage of electrification. We must make it easier, quicker and cheaper to install charging points that are suitable for vans. In the Logistics UK van report 2023, a third of respondents cited power supply infrastructure as one of the biggest challenges for fleet electrification. The physical layout of public charging spaces is often designed for cars, not vans, meaning that, even if there is a charging point, most van users miss out.
I welcome the consultation over the summer on the first electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy for Worcestershire. That will set out how my county council and its partners intend to support the transition to electric vehicles. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do more to encourage small businesses to install charging points that are fit for the future.
We have heard from many colleagues about the vital role that vans play in businesses across the country, and the contribution that electrification would make to meeting net zero targets. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assessment of the country’s current charging infrastructure and its ability to meet electric fleet and e-van business operations in the future.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, the current state of the electric van roll-out is simply not good enough. We are way behind what is needed to meet the target of 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035. Currently, less than 2% of light goods vehicles are electric, while so far this year, little more than 5% of new registrations are electric. That is behind not just the Government’s zero emission vehicle mandate of 10%, but what is being achieved in comparable European countries, including, as we heard, the Netherlands, Germany and France.
Things are not improving, with worrying signs that the industry is stagnating. Since July, new electric van registrations have fallen every month. As the Climate Change Committee outlined last week, urgent action is needed for us to meet our national defined contributions under the Paris agreement. There is no time to delay. Transport is still the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases in the UK, responsible for 26% of the UK’s total emissions in 2021. Decarbonisation of the sector is consequently critical to meeting our targets.
There is no doubt that the Government have inherited a mess. Broken promises and mixed messages from the previous Government discouraged businesses from the investment needed to transition to electric vehicles. Not only did the Conservatives roll back on some of the commitments they made, but they failed to keep the commitments they retained. In March 2022, the Government of the day set out a target for 300,000 public charge points across the UK by 2030. By the end of their term, only 60,000 had been built, way behind the rate of growth needed to meet their target.
However, the new Government cannot simply blame their predecessors. If they are serious about meeting our international commitments, urgent steps must be taken now. Currently, the charging network—particularly rapid charging—is too poor for many businesses to feel confident in investing in electric vehicles. That is exacerbated by the current market, with very few vans—less than 20% of the models available—having a range in excess of 200 miles. Even basic models cost far more than their petrol or diesel equivalents.
Admittedly, the Government cannot dictate to the market, but surely they can take steps to help the situation. Increasing the charging capacity across the network, with an increase in both on-street points and ultrafast chargers at service stations, is vital to increasing business confidence in EVs. Rapid chargers, in particular, are vital for businesses, which cannot afford to waste hours waiting for vehicles to charge.
We also need clarity on what support will be given to businesses converting to electric vans in the future. The Government currently give a plug-in van grant of up to £2,500 for small vans and £5,000 for larger ones, but the subsidy is due to end next year. Will the Minister confirm that the scheme can be extended?
Vans are vital to our economy and employment, with one in 10 people relying on a van for their everyday work. In order to meet our climate commitments, the Government need to put their foot on the accelerator and work with businesses in transitioning to electric vehicles. Urgent steps are needed, and I hope the Minister will confirm that they are finally coming.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful and well laid-out speech, covering a range of really important issues. The way she has brought this debate is a credit to her. In that spirit, I hope the Minister and I can have a positive interaction and try to get some answers.
I know we can all agree that vans play an integral role in our economy, and if the UK is to decarbonise successfully, vans will need to play a central part. Any measures in service of this welcome transition must offer a pragmatic and reasonable way forward, which the hon. Lady outlined so well. It is key to remember that too speedy a transition to electric vehicles can present challenges that we may not yet be ready to address.
It is probably no surprise that I want to draw attention, first, to the measures taken by the last Conservative Government and the manner in which they did so. They spent over £2 billion to transition the UK to zero emission vehicle use, and as of November 2023, the plug-in van grant alone had supported over 40,000 electric vans and HGVs across the UK. The previous Government also acknowledged the challenges presented by battery warranty requirements and amended battery warranty capacities, which was a welcome move. In 2023, the Department for Transport took the welcome step of announcing that the additional five-hour training requirement for drivers would be removed, and that it would make changes to towing allowances for electric vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes. Again, the hon. Lady touched on some of the very important issues facing the industry.
I urge today’s Government to continue this work and to listen to the sector. Specifically, I ask the Minister whether the Government intend to retain the changes that I mentioned and whether she will commit to the renewal of the plug-in van grant, which is set to expire at the end of March 2025. It is critical that this Government continue on the route established by the previous Government and that they do not get too tied-up in any longer-term reviews that may hold things up. I know that the Minister is widely experienced in transport from her previous role and that she will be across these important issues.
The industry and drivers would appreciate more certainty about what measures the Government intend to retain and what action they intend to undertake. I hope that the Minister will offer some specificity. I also hope that the Government will commit to engaging with the industry on a range of issues, including MOT testing and drivers’ hours to further understand how the Government can pragmatically remove barriers to aid decarbonisation for fleets.
As the hon. Member for Tamworth rightly mentioned, infrastructure is crucial. As of May 2024, the Government, in collaboration with the industry, supported the installation of over 61,000 publicly available charging devices. That included more than 10,000 rapid-charge points.
The hon. Lady spoke about being able to charge the vehicles, and the infrastructure involved. That is very important, but we also need to be able to generate the electricity if the infrastructure is in place. Does the Minister intend to have a wider conversation with the Energy Secretary about how quickly the building of new turbine-run power stations will be up and running so that we can try to meet the current demand, as well that of the infrastructure that needs to be put in place? To reach 300,000 chargers by 2030, the number of public charge points installed annually must continue to grow by around 30%. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to maintain that growth year on year?
Finally—but of central importance—given that the Government have confirmed it that they are moving the date for new petrol and diesel vehicles back to 2030, can the Minister provide clarity on the timeline for vans? Changes must be pragmatic. I think the hon. Member for Tamworth will not be aware that I sat on the Bill Committee for the Energy Act 2023 in the last Parliament, and that I made the point then that we need a pragmatic approach that takes the public with us. In that spirit, I ask the Minister to reflect on how that can be achieved, communicated and properly undertaken. I ask her to consider how the concerns about the potential costs that might be put on businesses will be addressed through new employment laws, and whether that is one of the unseen consequentials after the Budget that may stop some of the investment. I am requesting that she looks holistically at all the different aspects relating to where small businesses, in particular, may look to invest in this area.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the questions I posed, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth on a very well thought-out speech.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, and so soon as well. I am delighted to respond to this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) recently passed her first anniversary in this House, and she is proving a great champion for the people of Tamworth. I congratulate her on securing the debate and on setting out the challenges of the transition to zero emission vehicles so succinctly. I also thank other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken and made important contributions.
I will summarise the actions that this Government are taking to address some of the issues that have been raised. The transition to electric vehicles is crucial to achieving the UK’s net zero target by 2050. As well as the environmental benefits, including lower carbon emissions, better air quality and reduced noise, the transition will help us to kick-start the economy and make Britain a clean energy superpower. Transport remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. The domestic transport sector produced a staggering 28% of the UK’s total emissions in 2022. Road transport is responsible for 89% of those emissions, and vans are responsible for 19% of road transport emissions.
The challenge of eliminating that carbon and shifting to clean, green vehicles is immense, but it is also a huge opportunity for British manufacturers. Zero emission vans will be at the heart of the global economy, and making them in Britain will deliver well-paid green jobs for generations to come. To achieve that, we must ensure that there is certainty for industry and consumers, so that manufacturers have the confidence to invest and build vehicles here in the UK and consumers have the confidence to switch. When I talk about consumers, I mean not just individual drivers, but fleets and operators.
To provide certainty, we have stated our intention to phase out the sale of new cars solely powered by internal combustion engines by 2030, and we will set out further details on reducing emissions from vans in due course. All new cars and vans will need to be zero emission by 2035 and, of course, that is no change from the plan under the previous Government. There is a clear plan to get us from where we are today to where we need to be in a decade’s time.
The zero emission vehicle mandate sets annual targets for vehicle manufacturers for the registration of new zero emission cars and vans. Those targets provide a clear investment signal to vehicle manufacturers and the charge point industry. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, will be aware that the mandate is being extended to also cover Northern Ireland.
The targets for vans rise annually from 10% this year to 70% in 2030, and were determined in close consultation with vehicle manufacturers. The Government recognise that the ZEV mandate targets are particularly challenging for vans. Industry figures for the year to September suggest that zero emission vans account for 6.2% of sales, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that they have remained steady at around 5% across 2023 and 2024. Clearly, we have further to go. That is why vans receive additional flexibilities under the ZEV mandate compared with cars.
Van manufacturers in 2024 can defer 90% of the target for this year to later years, meaning they can choose to sell fewer zero emission vans this year in exchange for selling more in future years as demand reaches critical mass, more models are available and prices potentially—hopefully—come down. Manufacturers can also use the carbon dioxide conversion flexibility, which allows them to sell fewer zero emission vans in exchange for reducing average emissions across their new non-zero emission vans, producing ICE vans that are less polluting. Vehicle manufacturers can therefore meet the requirements of the mandate without incurring fines, even if they do not achieve 10% of new van sales this year. However, we want to help industry to reach those targets, which is why the Government provide incentives to support the uptake of zero emission vans and trucks.
The plug-in vehicle grants, which help to reduce the up-front purchase cost of vans and trucks, have supported more than 110,000 vans and heavy goods vehicles across the UK since 2012. Although the plug-in grants are kept under review, and the Government have been clear that they will eventually end, I am constantly looking at the matter to ensure we can achieve our aspirations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth also mentioned HGVs. The phase-out date for new non-zero emission trucks is 2035 for vehicles up to 26 tonnes and 2040 for those above. The Government remain technology neutral, investing in both hydrogen and battery electrification, which is why we are providing up to £200 million as part of the zero emission HGV and infrastructure demonstrator programme. The programme will build sector confidence in the capabilities of the heaviest HGVs—40 to 44 tonnes—by supporting hundreds of battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell HGVs and kickstarting the deployment of the charging and fuelling sites. I got to ride in a battery electric HGV on a recent visit to Scania—these vehicles are here. They are not in a test phase; they are very real and available for deployment. My driver was very enthusiastic about the experience of driving an electric HGV, which, as anyone who has driven an electric vehicle will know, can accelerate really well, which is important for safety when pulling on and off roads.
We are already acting to make it as easy as possible for operators to make the switch to zero emission vans, and flexibilities are already in place on driver and operator licensing to align regulations for heavier electric vans with their petrol and diesel equivalents; as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said, they look exactly the same. Standard licence holders can already drive alternatively fuelled goods vehicles up to 4.25 tonnes, rather than the usual 3.5 tonnes, provided the driver has completed five hours of additional training.
Alternatively fuelled vehicles up to 4.25 tonnes are also exempt from the need for operator licences, which place additional operational requirements on organisations operating vehicles above 3.5 tonnes. As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said, a previous consultation sought views on the removal of the additional requirements for alternatively fuelled vehicles to access the driving licence flexibility, which included the additional five hours of training, the types of vehicles eligible for the flexibility and the towing allowance. The consultation also sought views on limiting the flexibility to zero emission vehicles only. Responses were mostly in favour of the changes, and the Government are now considering options to make it easier for both drivers and operators to move to zero emission vans. We are continuing the work of the previous Government in that respect, and reviewing options for amending roadworthiness or MOT testing, as well as drivers’ hours, tachograph and speed limiter rules for those heavier zero emission vans. The Government take road safety very seriously, and reducing the number of those killed or seriously injured on our roads is a key priority. Road safety is therefore a primary consideration in assessing any changes to regulatory weight thresholds.
Let me turn to the issues about charging infrastructure. We recognise that van and fleet drivers are likely to rely on public charging infrastructure. Their needs can differ from those of private drivers because of several factors, including shift work, long journeys and the need for flexibility—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said, some of the vans require refrigeration units too. There are already 70,000 publicly available charging devices in the UK, which is a 42% year-on-year increase. The challenge is to continue to deliver at that rate.
For drivers who park near their home, the local electric vehicle infrastructure fund is delivering over £380 million in capital and resource funding to support local authorities to deliver the roll-out of tens of thousands of local charge points. They will support van and fleet drivers without off-street parking, helping them to charge close to home. The local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth has been allocated more than £5 million of local electric vehicle infrastructure funding. That will help Staffordshire to work with industry to transform the availability of charging infrastructure for their residents without off-street parking, including those who need to charge a van outside their home.
Cross-pavement solutions also provide a permanent option to safely charge an EV on the street outside a driver’s home. We are looking at how we can support local authorities to help people access these solutions. Eligible van and fleet drivers who wish to install a cross-pavement solution can benefit from the Government’s electric vehicle charge point grant. To pick up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) about charging spaces not being appropriately set out for vans, we are continuing to communicate with charging providers about the importance of their being accessible for van drivers. Our work with the British Standards Institute on accessible charging infrastructure will also support larger bays.
Charge point provision along the strategic road network—our motorways and A roads—has significantly improved in recent years. Those charge points are essential to support drivers making long-distance journeys. There are now more than 960 open-access rapid and ultra-rapid charge points at motorway service areas across England and many more on or close to our key A roads.
The quality of charge points is also improving. The Public Charge Point Regulations 2023 were introduced in November last year, and already require all charge points to provide clear and consistent information to enable customers to compare prices easily. Additional requirements from the end of November of this year will enable van drivers and all consumers to get free up-to-date information about charge point availability, access a 24/7 free helpline and expect 99% reliability across each rapid charging network. The contactless payment requirement will simplify payments at many public charge points, including all rapid charge points, eliminating the need for drivers to use multiple apps. The regulations will improve the charging experience for all drivers, particularly commercial drivers, who spend the most time out on the roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth asked about the workplace charging scheme grant. That continues to provide support for businesses, charities and public sector organisations to install charge points. Since 2016 it has supported over 55,000 workplaces and offers up to £350—capped at 75%, as she said—towards the purchase and installation of charge point sockets. However, the Government know that in order to give the public confidence in making the switch to electric vans, they need to feel confident in their ability to charge those vehicles, whether at home or depot or on the road. We recognise that more needs to be done and that is why we have committed to accelerating the roll-out of charging infrastructure. We are currently considering the most effective way to do this, and we will have more to say in due course.
We recognise that grid connections continue to be a major obstacle for those wishing to make the switch to electric vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth illustrated the challenge by giving the example of a business in her constituency. We know there is a need for significant reform to the grid connections process, which is why we are working with Ofgem and the network companies to make it easier. Of course, there is also a need to increase electricity generation more broadly.
The Government have a plan to deliver the UK’s transition to zero emission vans by maintaining our ambitious but achievable ZEV mandate targets, reviewing measures to make zero emission vans as accessible as possible, and accelerating the roll-out of charging infrastructure. We will continue to work closely with fleet operators, individual organisations and their trade associations to understand the barriers to their uptake of zero emission vans and identify solutions to help overcome them.
I once again thank my hon. Friend for leading this important debate and I also thank the other hon. Members who contributed.
Sarah Edwards
I ask that the House approve the consideration of the transition to zero emission vans.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transition to zero emission vans.
Written Correction
Other Correction
Helena Dollimore
Topical Questions
The following extract is from Housing, Communities and Local Government Questions on 28 October 2024.
Helena Dollimore
In 2022, Lubov Chernukhin opened an amusement centre in Hastings town centre known as Owens. The project received more than £400,000 of taxpayer money as part of the Conservatives’ levelling up towns fund plans. Ms Chernukhin has also donated more than £200,000 to the Conservative party. Shortly after opening, Owens closed, and earlier this month it was covered in boarding, which now dominates Hastings town centre. Can the Minister advise me how my constituents can get their money back, and how we can ensure that money is never wasted again like that?
[Official Report, 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 525.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore):
Helena Dollimore
In 2022, Lubov Chernukhin opened an amusement centre in Hastings town centre known as Owens. The project received more than £400,000 of taxpayer money as part of the Conservatives’ levelling up towns fund plans. Ms Chernukhin has also donated more than £2 million to the Conservative party.
Written Statement
National Bus Fare Cap
(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)
In his pre-Budget Speech on Monday 28 October, the Prime Minister confirmed that single bus fares will be limited at £3 until the end of 2025, as part of more than £1 billion to be invested in buses.
The current £2 cap on single bus fares had been due to come to an end on 31 December 2024. Under the plans of the previous Administration, funding for the current cap on bus fares had been due to expire at the end of 2024. From 1 January 2025 through to the end of December 2025, we will introduce a new single fare cap at £3 to ensure millions of people can access affordable bus fares and better opportunities all over the country. This will particularly benefit passengers in rural communities and towns, and will save passengers up to 80% on some routes.
The cap means no single bus fare on routes included in the scheme will exceed £3, and routes where fares are less than £3 will only be allowed to increase by inflation in the normal way, so that some fares will remain below £3. The fare cap will help millions access better opportunities and promote greater use by passengers.
We are providing funding of over £150 million to enable the introduction of the cap. This is part of a £1 billion funding boost for buses which will be set out at the Budget to help local areas deliver high-quality, reliable bus services and protect the vital routes that so many people rely on. Improving the reliability and number of services and routes is essential to encouraging more people to use buses.
Buses are the engines of economic opportunity across the country. Our bus revolution and new buses Bill will give every community the power to take back control of their services, improve the reliability of services and turn the page on four decades of failed deregulation.
[HCWS172]