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 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
We will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The last Government’s affordable housing programme is expected to deliver only between 110,000 and 130,000 homes, although when it was published in 2020, the ambition was for 180,000. Labour is fixing that. The Chancellor announced in the Budget an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million into the affordable homes programme to deliver 5,000 new social and affordable homes.
Paulette Hamilton
Many of my constituents in Birmingham Erdington are worried about the deteriorating quality of social housing. What work is being done to ensure that housing stock is maintained to the highest standards, so that tenants can live in the safe, high-quality housing that they deserve?
Angela Rayner
I know that housing quality has been a particular issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency. All social housing tenants deserve to live in a safe, decent home. We will bring forward Awaab’s law to the social rented sector, setting new time limits for social landlords to fix dangerous hazards. We will shortly consult on minimum energy efficiency standards and a new decent homes standard. We will direct the Regulator of Social Housing to introduce a new competence and conduct standard and an access to information requirement.
Jessica Toale
There are 2,151 families across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole on social housing waiting lists, many in unsuitable temporary accommodation. What steps is the Department taking to unlock development sites in densely packed constituencies like mine, so that the council can meet its housing targets, and families can get the safe and secure housing that they deserve?
Angela Rayner
We have consulted on changes to the national planning policy framework to maximise development on brownfield land, and we have invited views on proposals for a new brownfield passport, which will provide more explicit guidance on how the potential of land in urban areas can be maximised. We intend to publish updates on the national planning policy framework by the end of this year.
Douglas McAllister
In Scotland, 242 people died while homeless last year. Those deaths are a travesty for our country and a damning symbol of Scottish Government failure. My local authority of West Dunbartonshire declared a housing emergency this year. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we head into winter, it is more urgent than ever that the Scottish National party Government finally take action, deliver a fair deal for councils, build more affordable social houses and offer every Scot a safe, secure home?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue; 242 people dying is absolutely horrendous. We face an acute housing crisis. While housing and homelessness are devolved, I urge our Scottish counterparts to grip this issue. I completely agree that he gives a damning example of the crisis in Scotland. Every single homeless death is a tragedy. That is why a sufficient supply of affordable housing and joined-up support services are essential, as we will make clear in our upcoming inter-ministerial meetings with our Scottish colleagues.
Gregor Poynton
I have another question on the SNP’s failure on housing, because it is so bad. Scottish figures show that new build starts are falling in all sectors, and are at their lowest level since 2013. Private sector new builds are down 20% since 2022. For social housing, the figure is even worse: they are down by 30%. This is devastating the opportunity for families across my constituency to get a home of their own. The SNP has the largest funding settlement in devolution history. Will it use that to properly fund the social rented sector?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the housing crisis in Scotland, where too many families are waiting for too long for a safe and secure home. I completely back all the brilliant work that my friend the Scottish Labour leader is doing, and I know that the choice will be stark for people in Scotland in May 2026; it will be between a national Labour Government delivering for the working people of this country, and a clapped-out and failing SNP Government north of the border.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Given that the Secretary of State’s avowed goal is to create more social housing, can she explain to the House why Labour-controlled Thanet district council is seeking to build a large housing estate on the outskirts of Birchington-on-Sea, on prime agricultural land? There is little demand for those houses, and little provision of social housing. Can she have a word with the leader of Thanet council?
Angela Rayner
In our new national planning policy framework, we have set out how we are protecting agricultural land, but we have also set out the fact that our country faces a housing crisis. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency does not have a crisis, because it is everywhere.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Over the last 10 years, under the previous Government, £500 million of taxpayers’ money was handed out to second and holiday homeowners in Cornwall alone, while only half that amount was spent on social housing for first-time need. Meanwhile, there is a massive backlog of shovel-ready social housing development that has planning permission and is ready to be delivered, but is caught by construction inflation. Surely the Government can add the dots to resolve the problem—
Angela Rayner
I really hope so, Mr Speaker; that is the plan. We are taking steps through the new national planning policy framework, and we have new mandatory targets for local authorities. We have also allowed local authorities to keep their right to buy receipts. The Government are taking a number of measures to ensure that we get the homes that we so desperately need, and I am determined to get to that 1.5 million figure.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s warm words about improving affordable housing availability. Does she agree that the affordability of housing is closely related to the bills that people have to pay—energy bills in particular? Will she ensure that all new social housing from this stage forward is built to the highest possible standards of energy efficiency, to save people’s bills?
Angela Rayner
Again, we have been looking at how we build safe, secure, energy-efficient homes that bring down people’s energy bills. The previous Government saw energy bills go up really high. We are introducing Great British Energy so that we can bring bills down, and are building the homes that people desperately need.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I am sure that the House agrees that affordable housing is important. However, my experience in Leicester South is that all too often it is provided in new developments, as homes for shared ownership or as similar housing products, which are out of reach for the poorest in my community. What my community really needs is more social rented houses. What is the Secretary of State doing to promote the construction of social rented homes, as opposed to other affordable housing products?
Angela Rayner
I agree with the hon. Member that we need more social homes. That is why we have been putting more into the affordable homes programme. We have made it absolutely clear that under section 106 notices, which he mentioned, homes need to be affordable; that is why we have put affordability tests in the NPPF. We want to ensure that people have those homes, and we want to build the next generation of council and social housing—and we will.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
We can see that after just five months, the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes lies in tatters. The National Housing Federation says that the Government will miss their target by 475,000 without more grant—last week the Housing Minister said the same—and now Labour-run South Tyneside council says that the plans are “wholly unrealistic”, with other Labour councils agreeing. Is it not time for the Government to admit defeat, come back with a deliverable plan and provide the sector with the certainty that it needs to deliver more social homes across the country?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Member has forgotten that his Government failed to meet their housing targets every single time. The Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. Under the Tories, house building plummeted as they bowed to pressure from their Back Benchers to scrap local housing targets. We are bringing back mandatory housing targets. The Chancellor has put more money into the affordable homes programme, and we will build those homes. The hon. Member does not know my history and how I work.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As hon. Members will be aware, we consulted on proposed changes to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system between 30 July and 24 September. My officials and I have been analysing the over 10,000 responses received, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year. We also intend to bring forward the planning and infrastructure Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, early next year.
Louise Jones
Many young families would love to live in my beautiful constituency of North East Derbyshire, but unfortunately we just do not have the housing for them. Could the Minister assure me that our planning reforms will enable us to get the right housing in the right places with the right amenities, to complement the beautiful constituency?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government are determined to increase rates of house building in order to address the housing crisis and boost economic growth, but we are equally committed to improving the quality and sustainability of the homes and neighbourhoods that are built during our period in office. In the aforementioned NPPF consultation, we proposed a series of changes to realise that ambition, including golden rules to ensure that development in the green belt is in the public interest, and a vision-led approach to transport planning.
Mr Mohindra
The dangerous proposed reforms to the NPPF are among the many things that the Labour Government have rushed through in the past five months. How will those reforms ensure that villages such as Kings Langley, and South West Hertfordshire, retain their individual character and identity, and do not have their green spaces re-banded as grey belt, concreted over and absorbed into an ever-increasing Greater London?
Matthew Pennycook
We are not going to concrete over the green belt. The Government are committed to preserving the green belt, which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, but we have to move away from the previous Government’s approach to it, which was to allow land in it to regularly be released in a haphazard matter, often for speculative development that did not meet local housing need. This Government are committed to taking a smarter, more strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release, so that we can build more homes in the right places and secure additional public benefit through the operation of our golden rules.
Josh MacAlister
My constituency is fortunate enough to have a number of potential projects that are ripe for investment, including the Port of Workington and energy projects for new nuclear and other kinds of clean energy. They are essential projects for economic growth, but to get them going we need major planning reform, not just for housing but for infrastructure projects. Does the Minister agree on the urgent need for planning reform for infrastructure, and that any legislation that we bring forward must be comprehensive, so that we can remove all the obstacles that stand between us and getting building?
Matthew Pennycook
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I wholeheartedly agree. The delivery of critical national infrastructure is essential for economic growth, accelerating the UK’s efforts towards clean power by 2030, and energy independence. The Bill in question will include old measures to streamline the delivery of infrastructure and new homes. Furthermore, our forthcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy will provide a strategic road map for how we plan for future needs and support our commitment by making timely decisions on national infrastructure.
Dr Evans
Under the housing targets, Hinckley and Bosworth will see a 59% increase in housing. North West Leicestershire will see it go up by 74%, but Leicester city, where there is brownfield and infrastructure, will see it fall by 31%. That is compounded by the fact that the Liberal Democrat-run borough council in Hinckley and Bosworth does not have an up-to-date local plan. Given that there is speculative development in Hinckley and Bosworth, will the Minister consider strengthening neighbourhood plans? We know that they deliver more housing, provide protections for people locally and have buy-in from communities, yet the council suffers without an up-to-date one.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are leaving in place the protections on neighbourhood planning. He is mistaken if he is suggesting that we are skewing development towards rural areas. The proposed standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across city regions. Indeed, across mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%. Local plans are the best way for communities to control development in their areas. I am sure that he will agree that Hinckley and Bosworth borough council needs an up-to-date local plan in place. Perhaps he can work with me to ensure that that is the case.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Ministers briefed the media over a week ago about plans for local government reorganisation and devolution. When do the Government plan to set them before the House, so that Members representing areas across the country can take a view?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure how that relates to planning reform, which is the subject of the question, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will set out in due course how our plans for devolution will be taken forward.
David Simmonds
Apologies if there is confusion; I was expecting to come in on question 4. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear it.
Many areas of the country stand to lose millions of pounds from the scrapping of the rural services grant—one of many local government funding streams that are expected to change. When will our councils, and this House, know the full impact of the financial changes, so that any reorganisation, devolution, or changes to local plans and other council strategies can be delivered with full knowledge of the impact that the changes will have on councils’ on the ability to lead locally?
Matthew Pennycook
Full details of the provisional settlement will be set out in the coming weeks.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
In July, the Deputy Prime Minister invited places without a devolution agreement, including Somerset, to come forward with proposals for their area, in order to gauge the approaches and forms being considered across the country. We welcome Somerset’s support for this initiative, and look forward to hearing its views on the imminent White Paper on English devolution, which will be released shortly.
Sir Ashley Fox
My constituents have had to endure the Liberal Democrats presiding over the transition from two levels of council, which worked—they balanced their books—to a unitary council that is on the brink of bankruptcy. Can the Minister assure the House that no new council reforms will be forced on unwilling areas, and that local opinion will be at the forefront of his decision?
Jim McMahon
I think we have all had to endure Liberal Democrats, so I can reflect on that. We are in constant dialogue with local councils on our twin-pronged approach. One prong is devolution and making sure that we push power out of this place and into local communities. The other is reorganisation in cases where councils recognise that it delivers more effective and efficient local government. The Department is keen to hear the conversations that local areas are having on that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I hope that you will endure us, Mr Speaker. Dorset council, which covers half my constituency, has agreed to work with Somerset and Wiltshire—all unitary councils—on a devolution arrangement, but residents are already raising concerns that top-down reorganisation will take decisions further away from their homes and communities. They are worried about what a mayoral combined authority might do to them. What assurances can the Minister give that the town and parish councils, on which residents rely so heavily, will not be expected to keep unitary councils afloat, and that my residents will not see back-door council tax rises as a result of the changes?
Jim McMahon
Central Government have said to local government that we want to reset the relationship and work as partners in power, and it is not unreasonable to expect that councils will do the same at a local level and will work together in partnership. We see that across the country: local councils work in partnership with their parish and town councils in the interests of their community. Whether or not reorganisation takes place, we expect that to continue.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab) [R]
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
We are taking action to tackle the root causes of homelessness. Funding for homelessness services is increasing next year by £233 million, taking the total spend to almost £1 billion in 2025-26. We are also abolishing no-fault evictions and will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation.
Chris Webb
Over the past two years, we have witnessed a staggering 50% increase in homelessness in Blackpool, underlining the urgent need for support in our communities. Blackpool’s homelessness partnership, through which the council works with the third sector and local charities, has done outstanding work to prevent homelessness, but we need more support. What steps will the Minister take to support and strengthen local efforts to ensure immediate relief and long-term solutions for some of the most vulnerable in our society?
Rushanara Ali
This Government have already made £10 million of additional funding available to local authorities, including Blackpool, to tackle rough sleeping pressures this winter, and we are developing a long-term, cross-departmental strategy. The £547 million rough sleeping initiative will continue to support local authorities across England by funding tailored rough sleeping services, which includes funding of £313,000 for Blackpool borough council in 2024-25.
Steve Race
As a result of the Localism Act 2011, introduced by the Conservative party, the ringfence around homelessness funding was removed. Due to that, and despite the good work that the Government are doing on funding homelessness services, Tory-led Devon county council is consulting on cutting its entire homelessness support budget, which would have a devastating impact on people and on the city of Exeter. Does the Minister agree that councils should really invest that money in homelessness services and not squirrel it away in other pots across the council?
Rushanara Ali
We are absolutely focused on tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and their root causes. The previous Government left local authorities in a dire condition. The autumn Budget announced £4 billion of additional funding for local authorities and services, and funding for homelessness services is increasing next year, but I will look into the points my hon. Friend raises. We are determined that wherever people live they are protected from the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.
Warinder Juss
Although in my constituency we have the City of Wolverhampton council’s homelessness prevention strategy, which has had some success in tackling homelessness, last week I was contacted by a constituent fleeing domestic violence and finding it difficult to get permanent social housing for herself and her daughter. Crisis, the national homelessness charity, reports a 15% increase in children living in temporary accommodation—the highest on record—and we know that issues such as substance misuse and lack of proper employment also cause homelessness. Will the Minister please confirm how her Department is helping councils to deal with the societal and economic issues that can cause homelessness?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend raises really important issues about how multiple underlying causes can drive people into homelessness. We are determined to tackle the root causes, which is why the Deputy Prime Minister is chairing the inter-departmental taskforce on homelessness and rough sleeping. The previous Labour Government took action, and cut homelessness and rough sleeping. We are determined to ensure that we tackle the underlying issues, which means reforming the supported housing that victims of domestic violence need and ensuring that local government works with mayors and national Government to tackle these issues. We are absolutely committed to doing that.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Wokingham borough council is under intense financial pressure, making the crucial task of reducing homelessness a significant challenge. Initial estimates are that the Budget’s new funding for local government will be more than swallowed up by cost increases in employers’ national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage, let alone the ever-growing demand for statutory services. Will the Minister meet me and the leader and chief executive of our council, so we can discuss the future of its finances and what we can do to reduce homelessness?
Rushanara Ali
I am aware that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), has already met the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to look at the specific issues he raises in relation to homelessness. To reassure him, we are working across Government on these very issues, looking at how different agendas can be brought together to tackle the deep-rooted issues affecting homelessness and rough sleeping, and how best we can support local areas. I look forward to engaging Members from across the House as we develop that very important cross-departmental strategy to tackle the deep-rooted causes of homelessness and rough sleeping.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Rural homelessness has risen by 40% in just the last five years. In our communities, that is massively fed by the fact that average house prices are about 12 times above local incomes, as well as insufficient local housing. Does the Minister agree that we need to give planning powers to local authorities and national parks, so that they can designate exclusively for social rented housing and developments that therefore cannot be used for expensive housing for which, frankly, there is no need?
Rushanara Ali
As I said, we have an ambitious plan for affordable and social housing, which fits within the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes. It is vital to make supply available. We are putting in funding, including £500 million for the affordable homes programme, which will build 5,000 properties. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the work we are doing to ensure that there is a proper and effective national planning framework to go hand in hand with local work with local authorities. I hope he can see that we are very much working in the spirit of ensuring that we increase supply, provide affordable and social housing, and tackle the root causes that need to be addressed.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Some 18,000 homes with planning permission across Somerset are waiting to be built, but nutrient neutrality issues, flood risk and the national shortage of planners are preventing or delaying the delivery of those much-needed homes. What discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about fixing the issue and ensuring that appropriate homes are built to help reduce the strain caused by the lack of housing in Somerset?
Rushanara Ali
I can reassure the hon Lady that the Government are addressing those issues and will take appropriate action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers are very much engaged with this important agenda.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Sadly, homelessness is projected to rise by 27% this year. The Government’s broken promise on national insurance rises has wreaked havoc across the charitable sector, with 110 national homelessness charities warning the Chancellor that £50 million to £60 million will be lost in the sector and Homeless Link calling the increase
“the final nail in the coffin”
for the sector. Will the Minister listen to that warning, and what will she be doing to convey these concerns to the Chancellor and change this disastrous policy?
Rushanara Ali
I welcome the shadow Minister to his position. May I remind him of the record of his party in government? In those 14 years, 123,000 households, including 150,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation—not to mention the scandal of rough sleeping and the deaths caused by that Government’s neglect. We are investing to tackle those issues and the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left behind. We have already announced £233 million in the Budget; Conservative Members need to decide whether to back us on the investment we are making to clean up the mess that he and they have left behind.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
My Department has set a workforce and location strategy that proposes to retain 16 of the existing 22 departmental offices. This will result in six offices closing over the next two years. Staff engagement on the announcement is ongoing, and consultation on implementing the strategy is beginning this month. My Department will continue to engage with the trade unions and consult with them before the office closure proposals are finalised and implemented. The Department will not make any compulsory redundancies and will continue to help the colleagues and staff affected to work effectively in their roles.
Mary Glindon
There has been a drive across Government Departments to increase the number of hours that civil servants spend working in the office, but the proposed closure in Newcastle means that staff working and living in the area who cannot work from home will face a 40-mile commute to the office in Darlington. Can the Secretary of State assure me that there will be an equality impact assessment before any decision is made, to ensure that the needs of those with protected characteristics and caring responsibilities are fully considered?
Angela Rayner
As my hon. Friend knows, I am a big advocate of flexible working and making sure that we support our colleagues. The Department prepared an initial equality impact assessment in advance of the announcement of the location strategy, which will be developed during the consultation with the staff and the trade unions to inform the mitigations that will support the staff who are affected.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Many of us fought very hard to ensure that the Department had a location in the city of Wolverhampton, and I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, recognise how important it is to get civil servants out of London and right across the country. How is the Secretary of State looking at developing and growing the base in Wolverhampton as part of her wider strategy?
Angela Rayner
The strategy will create a more coherent office estate that enables stronger office communities and transparent career pathways for progression, and we will continue to be represented across each of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
For far too many leaseholders, the reality of home ownership has fallen woefully short of the dream. Over the course of this Parliament, the Government are determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and to do what is necessary to finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. On 21 November, I made a written ministerial statement to update the House on the steps that the Government intend to take to implement the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statue, and to progress the wider set of reforms that are necessary to end the system for good.
Damien Egan
I recently met people living on the redeveloped Blackberry Hill hospital site in Fishponds, and they told me about the excessive and unfair leasehold charges that they face from their property management company, FirstPort. What assurances can the Minister provide that this Government will, once and for all, free people from the leaseholder system and end the rip-off fees?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government are acutely aware that far too many leaseholders across the country are routinely subject to unjustified permissions and administration fees, unreasonable or extortionate charges, and onerous conditions that are imposed with little or no consultation. That is not what home ownership should entail, and it is why we must bring the system to an end in this Parliament. As I set out in the written ministerial statement to which I referred earlier, the Government will act to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, such as the ones my hon. Friend mentioned, by strengthening regulation in this area.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given me in this Chamber, and in a written answer at the end of October, on the plight of leaseholders who have extra apartment levels grafted on above the blocks in which they live? I appreciate that he does not want to alter the planning presumption in favour of granting permission to build add-on extra levels, but will he at least consider outlawing any attempt by freeholders to pass on the cost of botched extensions to the poor old leaseholders, who have suffered enough by having such extensions built over their heads in the first place?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will recognise—I know he does—that those types of developments are the result of the expansion of permitted development rights that was taken forward after 2013. There are issues with the quality of some of the works that have come through that stream. On the specific issue he raises, perhaps it might be a good idea if we sat down together. I will happily discuss with him how we can protect leaseholders from those types of variable service charge increases.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Battersea is home to a large number of leaseholders, many of whom have had to face astronomically high service charges from what we all know are unscrupulous management agents. I am very pleased that this Government will protect leaseholders, given that the last Government failed to do so, but is the Minister willing to meet me and some of my leaseholders so that he can share Labour’s plans to protect them?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am more than happy to sit down with her, or to join a call or meeting with leaseholders in her constituency, in order to discuss the Government’s plans to end the system in this Parliament. We fully appreciate the wish of leaseholders across the country for us to act with speed. As the ministerial statement sets out, we also have got to balance that with the need to get these reforms right. The serious and specific flaws that were left to us by the previous Government in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 are a warning about what happens when reform in this area is not done properly.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to continue our work to address issues with the current leasehold system. However, where we are building new towns, such as Sherford in my constituency, residents, like others in new builds, face council tax and service charges, with no likelihood of that changing. What plans does the Minister have to address the impact of service charges in new towns as part of leasehold reform?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the pressures placed on residential freeholders as a result of some of the management estate charges that come through that route. There are provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act to provide residential freeholders with additional protections, and we need to bring those measures into force. We also then need to look more widely at how we reduce the prevalence of private and mixed-tenure housing estates, which are the fundamental root of the problem.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
The English devolution White Paper, due by the end of the year, sets out how we will transfer power from Westminster to people who know their areas best. The White Paper will also announce measures that will give local places and communities greater control over shaping their area.
Emma Foody
Libraries, pubs, football, community centres—these are the things that make up a community, but in so many places they have vanished over the last 14 years. I am delighted to hear plans of a community right to buy. What work are the Government doing to ensure that local authorities and community groups have the guidance and expertise needed to utilise this powerful new right once it is realised?
Jim McMahon
In there is the point about devolution and localism: structures matter and the framework matters, but in the end it is about getting the power out to the communities who have skin in the game. That is why we want to ensure that the community right to buy provides an effective means for communities across the country to take ownership of assets that are important to them. We are considering what further support and guidance we will provide to communities and local authorities to support them in this measure, and I know that the Minister for local growth, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), is fully engaged in this endeavour.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Many of my constituents would welcome further powers being devolved to their local communities. They are as keen as mustard to see the right homes in the right places, particularly social housing, but one of the things stopping social housing being delivered is the viability calculations that are undertaken by developers, who use them to say that only expensive houses can be built. Are the Government looking at reviewing the use of viability calculations?
Jim McMahon
That is some way from community ownership, but the devolution White Paper is one of a number of measures that we are taking and it will have a clear community strand. This does not sit in isolation, however; it is part of the wider reforms that are taking place to ensure that communities, local authorities and Government work in partnership.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
The community ownership fund has empowered community groups across the UK to take long-term, sustainable ownership of assets that benefit their local community, and I know that colleagues across the House are eagerly awaiting further news on round 4 of the community ownership fund, which will be with them in due course. Beyond this, through the English Devolution Bill, we will introduce a strong new right to buy for valued community assets, which will help local people to acquire valued community spaces when they come up for sale, keeping them in the hands of the local community.
Naushabah Khan
I recently met the friends of the Flying Saucer pub, a community group in my constituency who are working to bring this asset of community value back into local hands. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the Government are committed to supporting the retention of community assets such as this, and will he agree to meet me to discuss the Flying Saucer campaign and the broader challenges that communities face in reclaiming and retaining such assets?
Alex Norris
Now then, Mr Speaker, you know there is no greater enthusiast in this place for a local pub than me—[Interruption.] And indeed for flying saucers. These are exactly the types of assets of community value we are talking about, and exactly the sorts of assets that will be in the scope of the new community right to buy. Of course I would be keen to meet my hon. Friend and the campaigners on that issue.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
East Devon District Council has declared Seaton hospital an asset of community value and is awaiting news of round 4 of the community ownership fund to see whether we might get funding from that source. In the meantime, NHS Property Services might be seeking to remove part of that hospital. Can the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to prevent that?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, although I am sad to hear it. The asset of community value status really ought to give a degree of protection, but I am happy to talk about that further. As I have said, round 4 of the community ownership fund will be coming forward very shortly.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges are placing on leaseholders, including those whose landlord is a social housing provider. As the hon. Gentleman will know, variable service charges must, by law, be reasonable. Their reasonableness can already be challenged at the appropriate tribunal and the housing ombudsman can investigate complaints about the fairness of service charges made by shared owners, as well as tenants of social housing landlords, but the Government are exploring what more can be done to give leaseholders the protection that they need from unaffordable service charge increases.
Mr Kohler
Many leaseholders in my constituency live in properties where Clarion housing association is the freeholder. This year’s service charge is on average almost 50% higher than the original estimate and for some on the High Path estate it is over £1,000 more. Does the Minister agree that leaseholders deserve transparency, not shock bills? What more can be done to give the housing ombudsman the power to demand compensation payments?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that supplementary question and assure him that I share his deep concern about the pressure on the household budgets of shared owners in his constituency, and others across the country, as a result of rising variable service charges. In addition to the routes to redress I have just set out, I draw his and the House’s attention to the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 that are designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them unreasonable. Further detail about our plan to bring those and other provisions in the Act into force can be found in the written ministerial statement made on 21 November.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, social housing providers and councils operate within a regulated service charge regime that does not allow them to make a profit, and the Housing Ombudsman Service is there for any complaints. Will the Minister consider bringing in a similar regime for the private sector?
Matthew Pennycook
I have set out the routes to redress that are already available and our intention to switch on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, but I am more than happy to sit down and have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more protection leaseholders in this space require.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
We are intent on moving towards allocated, multi-year funding settlements targeted at need. We will set out this refreshed vision for local growth funding in the multi-year spending review, working with local leaders to drive growth in the areas that need it most, and ending the plethora of competitive pots.
Rachel Taylor
I am very pleased to hear the Minister’s reply. The last Government wasted local authorities’ time and money by making them bid for handouts from central Government. In North Warwickshire, so much time was spent preparing numerous bids for the new swimming pool and leisure centre that our community desperately needed, only for vital funds to go to places without such high levels of need. Under this Labour Government, will the Minister ensure that local authorities receive the fair funding they require to deliver the local services they know their communities need?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the harm done by that “beauty parade” funding model, which was inefficient and created so much disappointment. What follows will be much better.
Gill German
Seaside towns such as Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in my constituency have much in common with our north-west neighbours. The 2019 “Future of Seaside Towns” report highlights the need to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, while recognising common issues. How do the Government plan to use national funding streams while ensuring local delivery to deliver long-term growth in our seaside towns?
Alex Norris
That is another important argument for why we need longer-term, allocative settlements. It is my hon. Friend, her local authority, her local residents and her community who know Rhyl. They are the experts, and they should have the flexibility to break the one-size-fits-all model to make things work for themselves.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I declare an interest as a Stratford-on-Avon district councillor. Does the Minister agree that, in two-tier local government areas, district and borough councils are best placed as the most local form of government to allocate funds from the UK shared prosperity fund, given their proximity to communities and their deep understanding of local needs?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady tempts me to discuss the shared prosperity funding, which communities will receive shortly. I have to say that my enthusiasm is for all tiers of government in local areas—whether that is metro mayors, upper-tier authorities, boroughs and districts or indeed parish and town councils—to come together in shared interest to improve their communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers; it is always good to hear some positivity. We in Northern Ireland are still waiting on shared prosperity funding. There would be some benefits for my constituency; Strangford has coastal issues such as seaside improvement and coastal erosion. Has the Minister had an opportunity to talk to the relevant department in Northern Ireland to see how central Government could help us back home?
Alex Norris
I am always careful not to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, given that at the High Street Heroes awards for Retail NI last year, I awarded the winning high street to Ballymena rather than Newtownards, and I am not sure he is ever going to forgive me. I assure him that I am having conversations with ministerial counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive. We are also talking to local authorities and some of the groups that have been delivering projects, such as Go Succeed. Those conversations are ongoing as we speak, and the full answer about the allocations will be coming shortly.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
Today I published our remediation acceleration plan, a step change in our response to the building safety crisis. Without decisive action, the risks and the hardship of unsafe cladding could be with us until 2040. That cannot go on. The plan sets out how we will fix buildings faster, identify remaining buildings that are still at risk and ensure residents are supported through the remediation process.
Mr Charters
I recently heard from a constituent with three young children who has applied for over 80 properties, but is still waiting for social housing. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to speed up the planning process specifically for social housing?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for more social housing. We have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, and I have proposed changes to the national planning policy framework to support that. We have also announced additional funding for the affordable homes programme.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
At whose request did the Secretary of State call in the planning application for the Chinese super-embassy?
Angela Rayner
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Despite him being on the Opposition Benches, we seem to have a lot in common: we both came to Parliament in the 2015 intake, represent constituencies in the north and think the Tories deserved to lose the last general election. We take planning decisions in the normal way.
Kevin Hollinrake
I used to have ginger hair as well! May I give the right hon. Lady the answer to my question? It was the Foreign Secretary. In opposition, the now Home Secretary warned that the Chinese Government are “attempting to influence Parliament”, and trying
“to interfere in our democracy and undermine our security.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 667.]
Those risks are all heightened by this development. Are this Government so desperate to counteract the disastrous Budget and their own growth-wrecking trade union Bill that they are now willing to override national security, national interests and the sensible concerns of their Home Secretary by kowtowing to the Chinese Government?
Angela Rayner
We have got record investment into the UK through our international business summit. I am proud of our Employment Rights Bill, which is pro-worker and pro-employer. It will reward good employers and put money back into the high street. This Government take national security very seriously and will continue to do so.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
It was a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues to talk about devolution in Cornwall. He will know that we have agreed to a non-mayoral devolution deal for Cornwall as a first step. We recognise the distinct culture, history and identity of the Cornish people. This important step will allow us to unlock deeper devolution in Cornwall and, in time, we hope it will allow Cornwall to take its seat at the Council of the Nations and Regions.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent, Dom, purchased a high-rise building that, it now transpires, does not meet building regulations on combustible materials used in the early 2000s. His building is being remediated, but the materials are being allowed to remain, locking in the risk for the long term and sending insurance premiums sky high. Why are the Government not investigating historic non-compliance? What is being done to protect homeowners from unfair losses and sky-high insurance premiums?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
We are clear that dangerous buildings need to be remediated. That is why the best thing that any building owner can do is get into a scheme today to unlock the funding and meet those duties they have as building owners. When they do that and when they are approved for the grant, they would have an inspection at that point, so I am surprised to hear that dangerous defects would be locked in, as the hon. Lady says, but I am interested in having a conversation with her to understand that further.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Alex Norris
Yes, of course. The issue of cladding defects is exceptionally important and, indeed, the subject of a debate later today, but so are non-cladding defects and protecting leaseholders from their impacts.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my previous response. The proposed new standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across our city regions. In mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%, matching the ambition of our local leaders.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time to meet me to talk about devolution and growth in that region. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that growth is felt in every part of the country, and that requires partnership from central Government, local government and the business community. I would be more than happy to meet him to talk about how we can do that going forward.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
The hon. Member will be aware that the Electoral Commission has published a report on the general election, and we will consider its findings and will come back in due course on this matter and others.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter many times. She is well aware of the Government’s approach to tackling excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. I am of course more than happy to discuss the issue with her again in the future.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Most parties in this House, representing a collective total of 500 MPs, agree that first past the post is damaging trust in politics, and 64% of the public would like to see change. Does the Secretary of State agree that a national commission for electoral reform could address that, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group?
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Jim McMahon
We are working constructively with Medway council as part of our framework to support councils in the most difficulty. This Government are clear that the process will be collaborative and supportive and, on that basis, we are more than happy to meet to discuss it further.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Councils up and down the land, but particularly in the south-east of England, are frustrated by the high levels of undeveloped consents. It is perfectly possible that the Secretary of State will find that, come the next election, her target has been consented but is nowhere near built. Will she consider allowing councils to have a 10-year housing supply number that includes undeveloped consents, so that when the number is reached, developers have no choice but to build?
Matthew Pennycook
We took steps, in the proposed reforms to the consultation on the national planning policy framework, to encourage build-out—not least through encouraging mixed-use development. However, we are reflecting on what more can be done to encourage that and to ensure that sites are built out in a timely manner.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I have to get everybody in. It is not just about your question.
Rushanara Ali
I am very sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I refer to my previous comments; I am very happy to meet and engage with her on her work to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
If Wiltshire embraces the opportunity to join Dorset and Somerset in an elected mayoral authority, will there be local elections all-out in Wiltshire next spring?
Jim McMahon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on devolution. We are absolutely ready to talk to any areas that are keen to take on devolution, particularly a mayoral combined authority. Any decisions on whether elections do or do not take place will be part of future consideration.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the deadlines. However, the National Audit Office report published last month shows that the majority of buildings affected by cladding have not been identified. Will the Secretary of State go further by delivering a more joined-up approach, so that we can identify and remediate those properties as soon as possible?
Alex Norris
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. It will probably not surprise her to hear that the first question I asked when I became Minister with responsibility for building safety was, “How many buildings need remediating?” I do not think that it will surprise her or colleagues to hear how astonished I was to find out that between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings were unidentified after seven years—which shows the previous Government’s intent. We are going to identify them, work out what their risks are and get them remediated.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitments, in response to my written parliamentary questions, to a consultation on ending fleecehold. However, my constituents in Markhams Close and across Basildon and Billericay just want to know when that will take place.
Matthew Pennycook
As I set out in response to a previous question, we will consult on how to end the prevalence of new fleecehold estates, and we will, in the short term, ensure that residents on existing estates have the protections they need against unfair management charges.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Government’s Mayoral Council is handing back powers to local communities. We are already seeing the impact of that. Claire Ward, the Mayor of the east midlands, attended the first meeting in October. She is leading the way: the east midlands is one of the youth trailblazer regions granted £5 million of Government funding to help young people into work or training. What work are Ministers doing to give those who contribute to our country a say in how it is governed?
Jim McMahon
The forthcoming English devolution White Paper will set out clearly our top-to-bottom redistribution of power, and how we include and engage people at a local level to ensure that they can actively participate in the development of their areas.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
There is growing concern among constituents that planning decisions are being swept aside because of the Government’s new planning reforms. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be meaningful engagement between constituents and their local planning authority, and that decisions will be respected?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said, the best way to shape development in any given area is to have an up-to-date local plan in place. Where such plans are not in place, local authorities leave themselves open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and to development via appeal, so I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his local authority has an up-to-date plan in place. That is the best way for residents to have control. We want more resident engagement upstream in those local plans.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
In five years, the cost of West Sussex county council’s Oracle upgrade has risen from £2.6 million to £28 million. Is that the kind of contract mismanagement that the Office for Local Government can look into?
Jim McMahon
We are currently in the process of reviewing oversight, accountability, and checks and balances to make sure that they are in place and fit for purpose, and that the early warning system works. More detail on that will follow in the English devolution White Paper before Christmas.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Labour’s housing targets desperately need reform to take into account land availability around protected landscapes. The Government have said that the answer is the costly planning appeals system. Does the Minister think that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Matthew Pennycook
Local plans have to go through examination for a determination of whether they are sound. Hard constraints, such as the type that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, will be taken into account when those plans are tested, even under the new framework.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Government’s commitment to build more affordable homes is both welcome and urgent. However, we also need to ensure that registered providers are willing and able to take on section 106 affordable homes when they are built. In recent years, a combination of factors has meant that too many homes stand empty. Will my hon. Friend say what steps can be taken to tackle the section 106 standing stock scandal?
Matthew Pennycook
We recognise that this is a growing problem across the country that is having a severe impact on affordable housing supply. My hon. Friend will not have to wait long to find out what the Government propose to do to bear down on this problem.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The proposed planning reforms mean that towns such as Tring will see up to 40% more housing built on the green belt. What assurances can the Minister give that sacrificing that countryside will not have a negative impact on the community, and that we will have infrastructure before the occupation of homes and truly affordable homes for people in the local community?
Matthew Pennycook
We want to put in place a planning system that is geared towards meeting housing need in full. That is a clear difference between us and the Conservative party. In bringing forward its local plan and looking at development, every local area should look first at densification—that is, what it can do on brownfield land. It should only have to review green-belt land if it cannot meet the needs in that way or via cross-boundary strategic planning.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Last week, my local council announced the proposed closure of the much-loved Prince of Wales theatre in Cannock. Despite the council’s financial pressures, local people do not want that theatre to become collateral damage. Will the Minister meet me to see what could be done to explore community ownership and give our theatre the bright future that thousands of my constituents want to see?
Alex Norris
As my hon. Friend knows, I am very keen on community ownership, and I am sad to hear about the situation in his community. I would definitely steer him towards the “asset of community value” process in the immediate term, and of course, I would be very happy to meet him and campaigners on this issue.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Non-qualifying leaseholder status gets slapped on a property in perpetuity long after the required safety works are completed. That status means that it is almost impossible to acquire a mortgage—solicitors advise very strongly that purchasers steer clear of such properties, which are very often flats—and the status is inherited by successive owners in perpetuity. Has the Minister considered what this status does for the housing crisis?
Alex Norris
I completely understand the challenge. Drawing a line between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders—between people who own a property and therefore suffer from things that have been beyond their control, and landlords that are businesses and therefore have multiple assets—will always be a difficult job. At the edge, where the boundary between qualifying and non-qualifying becomes blurred, there are some difficult cases. As a new Government, we are committed to working with people to understand better how we can go forward on that. As for the substantive point on where the liability should lie, it is about finding the right balance between those who built the building and those who live in it.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Will the Minister commit to working with local authorities to use new powers to run high street rental auctions, so that we can end the affront of empty shops this Christmas?
Alex Norris
Yes. High street rental auctions, which were launched at the weekend, are a brilliant way—[Interruption.] Indeed; they were part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which I am sad to say the previous Government did not commence—as part of the war on woke, I believe. Nevertheless, we have commenced those auctions. They are a tool in the hands of local communities; if there are vacant properties, let us get them brought back into use.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I represent Tunbridge Wells, and just over the boundary in Wealden district, a large housing development is proposed. Wealden will get the houses, but the infrastructure burden will fall particularly on my constituents who live in Tunbridge Wells. Will the Secretary of State update me on the reforms to the NPPF? What is being done about this problem of cross-boundary infrastructure?
Matthew Pennycook
In the NPPF, we set out the clear direction of travel towards the universal coverage of strategic planning across the whole of England. We had an Adjournment debate on that just last week. We are determined to put in place the mechanisms that will allow effective cross-boundary co-operation to ensure that the right infrastructure and housing growth takes place.
Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship
(1 week, 3 days 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
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s Chagos negotiations on the UK-US defence relationship.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond on behalf of the Department.
On 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic agreement to secure the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a crucial role in regional and international security. The agreement secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The agreement is strongly supported by our closest friends and allies, including the United States. It has been supported by all relevant US Departments and agencies, following a rigorous scrutiny process.
This base is a key part of UK-US defence relationships, as it enables the United Kingdom and the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitments to regional stability, provide a rapid response to crises and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The President of the United States applauded the agreement. To quote him directly:
“It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes.”
Several other countries and organisations, including India, the African Union, the UN Secretary-General and others, have welcomed and applauded this historic political agreement.
Our primary goal throughout these negotiations, which started over two years ago under the previous Government, was to protect the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. The operation of the base will continue unchanged, with strong protections from malign influence.
For the first time in 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We look forward to engaging with the upcoming US Administration on this and many other aspects of the UK-US special relationship.
Finally, hon. Members can be reassured that the long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout, and this agreement secures its future. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of the US and our allies and partners.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
At a time when we face the most challenging military threats for years, surely our top priority should be to preserve the strongest possible US-UK relations, given that this is so vital to our national security, yet it appears that the Government are seeking to agree a deal surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands before President Trump is formally in post. We know that the new US Administration are concerned about the Government’s deal because presumptive nominee US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the deal
“poses a serious threat to our national security interests”.
He has also suggested that
“it would provide an opportunity for communist China to gain valuable intelligence on our naval support facility”.
Let us be clear: our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital strategic asset for the UK in the Indian ocean, and it is critical to our presence and posture in the Indo-Pacific region. In particular, it is an especially important base for the United States, and we believe that anything that damages its defence posture, particularly in relation to China, also undermines our national security. We understand that the new Mauritius Government have now launched a review of the deal.
Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government’s policy really is to try to rush through their Chagos deal before President Trump’s inauguration? Does he not see how that would be hugely disrespectful to the new Administration and President Trump’s democratic mandate? Given that we now know it is common for the MOD to state the cost of overseas bases, will he be transparent and finally tell the House how much we will have to pay to rent back the vital military base that we currently own?
Finally, although we would prefer the Government to cancel the whole deal, at the very least will the Minister pause any further ratification until the new US Administration are in place and the Mauritius Government have concluded their review?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and his strong focus on this matter. I think he has a bit of amnesia from when the Government he was a part of started these negotiations. They held 11 rounds of negotiations, and it took a Labour Government to conclude them. We have done so in the best interests of our national security, and the national security concerns of our closest allies. It would not have been possible to secure a deal and the support of the United States if all parts of the US security apparatus were not in support of it, and as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that to be true, regardless of the politics he must play today.
The hon. Gentleman asked two quick questions. We intend to continue our dialogue with the new Mauritian Government and our friends in the United States. He will be aware, of course, that it is illegal under US law for us to engage directly with the new Administration until they come into place, but we will continue to have dialogue with our US and Mauritian friends.
I am surprised that as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman is asking about costs. He will know that it is usual for us to declare the operating and running costs of overseas bases, but it would compromise our operational security and long-term relationships if we were to declare the Government-to-Government payment for overseas bases. We have declared the operational running costs of our overseas bases, and we will continue to do so in response to parliamentary questions. Detailing the security payments for Government-to-Government interactions is not something that this Government do, and was not something that his Government did either.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The UK-US base on Diego Garcia is of great significance for defence and has strategic international significance. Steps must be taken to ensure that its legal status is secure in the future, and of course the voice of the Chagossians must be central in any future arrangement. It has been reported that President-elect Trump has reservations about the proposed treaty, and newly elected Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius has ordered a review into the treaty. What further representations have been made to both our partners to ensure that we have the support of our international partners?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The continuing operation of Diego Garcia is in the interests of UK and US national security, and this deal secures that operation. I congratulate Dr Ramgoolam on his election. In a letter to the Prime Minister on 15 November, he noted his commitment to completing the negotiations, and Jonathan Powell was in Mauritius this week to start that process.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
We, and all those who care about the resolution of this issue, are deeply disappointed about the way we have been led to this point, with 11 rounds of negotiations under the Conservatives, and more under the new Government. Just four weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary presented his deal to the House. Now the new President-elect and the new Prime Minister of Mauritius are expressing doubts. Is it not striking and shocking that it has unravelled so quickly? Does the Minister agree that whatever happens next, it is vital that the voices of the Chagossians are finally injected into the process, and that they are able to fulfil their rights of self-determination?
Whatever lies ahead in these talks, the Liberal Democrats have strongly argued that all treaties should come before the House before signing, and I believe that members of the Government, including two who are on the Front Bench today, supported that in the past. Will the Minister commit to allowing meaningful opportunities for parliamentarians to examine the detailed proposals, including the necessary assurances on elements of the deal relating to our national security, before anything is signed?
Luke Pollard
We will follow the normal process for treaty ratification, which is that after signature, the treaty will come before this House, with details given to colleagues and with the ability for full parliamentary scrutiny, as would be expected as part of the normal process. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the Chagossians. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sat next to me, has been meeting Chagossian communities in the UK. He will continue to meet those communities. This Government deeply regret how they were treated and removed from the islands originally. It is one reason why we have made the relationship with the Chagossians such an important part of the future of the islands, as the Foreign Secretary has previously outlined to the House.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the operations of the vital UK-US base on Diego Garcia will continue, completely unaffected by the terms of this deal? Separately, will he confirm that our commitment to the Falkland Islands, to Gibraltar and to the rights of the people there to self-determine remain completely unaffected by this deal?
Luke Pollard
As the first Minister from the new Government to visit the Falklands, I was able to say clearly that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they would like to be. The message I gave to the Gibraltarians was that Gibraltar is British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want it to be. I confirm to my hon. Friend that this deal secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. That is something that our US allies have supported.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Which is more important for Britain’s vital security: to have the approval of the outgoing American President, or the approval of the incoming one? What is there to prevent China, with Mauritius’s agreement, putting listening outposts on other islands that could compromise the security of Diego Garcia?
Luke Pollard
There are specific arrangements in the treaty that prevent any foreign power from putting security apparatus or security forces on any of the outgoing islands. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see that when the treaty comes before the House. In relation to the support of the United States, we would not have signed an agreement if it was not supported by our US friends. This deal secures the operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. I expect that when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it too.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Chagos belongs to the Chagossians. A quarter of the global population of Chagos lives within my constituency. I am aware of statements made by Ministers that they have met representatives of the Chagossian community; I do not know who those representatives are, but I know of representatives in my constituency who have not yet been consulted. Does the Minister agree that before any further dialogue takes place, the Government should engage fully with the community representatives in my constituency?
Luke Pollard
The Foreign Office Minister beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has met a range of representatives from the Chagossian community and will continue to do so as this process continues. I know that he would welcome a conversation with my hon. Friend to make sure that that dialogue is as complete as it can be.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
First, may I ask, what is the rush? Why is the Minister in such a hurry to get this done? May I suggest that it would be to the Government’s advantage, if their case is so strong, to allow this House to debate the agreed text in public before it is signed? May I also suggest that it stretches incredulity for him to tell the House that there have been no discussions at all with the incoming American Administration? Can he at least tell the House what informal dialogue there is with the incoming Administration about what their view really is? Can he report that to the House, please?
Luke Pollard
As a long-standing Member of this House, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with how treaties are debated and agreed by this House. After signature, they come forward for ratification. This process was started a number of years ago by the Government that he supported. Eleven rounds of negotiation have taken place. We have secured a deal that is in support of the UK and US base on Diego Garcia, which will continue to operate well into the next century. When he and others see the detail of the deal, I am sure they will back it.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is hard to imagine anything said from that Dispatch Box over the past five months that has survived contact with reality, and this is no different. In the tripartite relationship between the United States, the United Kingdom and Mauritius, two of those partners now have doubts about this arrangement, so what is the unseemly rush about? In the tension between national security and the human rights of the Chagossians, this Government, as usual, have managed to reconcile neither.
Luke Pollard
I am not certain whether the SNP’s record on national security really gives the hon. Member the platform that he is pretending to have on this one. I recognise, however, that he is trying to make a serious point about the deal. When the deal is signed, it will come before the House in the usual way. That will allow parliamentarians of all parties to look at the detail of the deal and take a judgment, and the House will vote in the usual way, as it will do on other treaties.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What is it in particular that the new regime in Mauritius have doubts about? It is that they want more money, isn’t it?
Luke Pollard
I think it is quite normal for any new Government to look again at a deal signed by their immediate predecessor—[Interruption.] The reason I say that is that when they look at the deal, they will see that the detail is convincing; just as it will be for our US friends, because it is a deal backed by the entirety of the US security apparatus that secures the future operation of the UK-US base well into the future and deals with the uncertainty around the base that existed until the deal was made. Hopefully, the right hon. Member will back the deal when the details come before the House—let us see.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The presentation of what the American Administration believe is a fantasy. Joe Biden is going—in fact, many think that he has gone already. I have been contacted by very senior officials and advisers from the incoming Republican Administration, and every single one of them is appalled at this deal. They know that the leasehold agreement will not survive, just as the deal with China over Hong Kong did not survive. Has not the time come for the Government to admit that this is a rotten deal for the UK, a rotten deal for America and an even worse deal for the Chagossians? If the Minister cares so much about the sovereignty of the Falklands being in the hands of the Falkland Islanders, why not have a referendum of the Chagossians and ask them to settle who should have sovereignty over those islands?
Luke Pollard
As someone who has been in the Falklands recently, let me say that whipping up uncertainty about their future is not helpful for the security of the Falkland Islanders. Let us be absolutely clear: the Falklands are British for as long as the people of the Falkland Islands want to be British.
When it comes to this deal, I am certain that when its detail has been put before this House and before our US friends and other allies, they will see that it not only secures the future of the UK-US base—something that is not the case until the deal is signed—but secures it well into the next century, when the hon. Gentleman and I will no longer be in this place but the UK-US base on Diego Garcia will still be operating, securing our national interests.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
We in this House all know how the People’s Republic of China has been able to use commercial vessels, including fishing vessels, to impinge on how we operate. Will the Minister set out how large an exclusion zone there will be around Diego Garcia to ensure that our interests and US interests are properly protected?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his serious question and the way in which he presented it. It is important that we have certainty about the security of the future relationship. That is why the treaty sets out clearly security arrangements for the outer islands that will prevent foreign nations from putting security forces or security apparatus on those islands. The full details will be in the treaty. It is important to note that Mauritius was one of only two African countries that did not join the Chinese belt and road initiative, and maintaining a strong relationship with it—especially in more contested times—is vital. That is what the deal helps to deliver.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister says that the outgoing Biden Administration in the US are keen on the deal, which may or may not be the case, but the British public plainly are not—for good reason—and they see the payment of a dowry to Mauritius as rubbing salt into the wound. If he is not prepared to comment on the quantum that he has in mind, will he at least explain the structure of the costings he is applying to come to the figure that he wishes to give Mauritius for taking on these islands?
Luke Pollard
I thank the former Minister for his question. As he served in the Department that I now serve in, he will know that it is normal to reveal the operating costs for overseas bases, but that we do not—he did not and we do not—reveal the Government-to-Government payments. That was standard procedure for his Government and every Government before, and it remains the policy of this Government. This deal secures the future of the UK-US base, and I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to understand why it secures that for so long, and hopefully he will be able to back it.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister has said that he is not willing to give details of the financial arrangement, although he will be aware that the Mauritian Prime Minister has described the deal as a sell-out. Can he at least give an assurance that the Government will not commit to giving yet more money to get the deal through before the new US Administration arrives in January?
Luke Pollard
We think that this is a good deal. When the details come out, others will be able to make their judgment, but I think they will conclude that it is a good deal. It secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia, which was the overriding objective when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. The Conservatives set that objective, and we are glad that this deal secures the future of the base well into the next century. That is an important step for UK and US national security.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Will the Minister set out how he intends to implement safeguards against China establishing military capabilities and surveillance capacity in the British Indian ocean territories?
Luke Pollard
That is an important question, and one that I responded to a few answers ago. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that safeguards in the treaty will detail that no foreign security forces will be able to set up on the outer islands, providing that security perimeter around Diego Garcia that we and our US allies have sought. This is a good deal because it secures not only the future operation of the base but the future security around the base. I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to see that for himself.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I return to a question asked but not answered this afternoon. If as a result of the review the Mauritian Government demand more money, will the Government pay up in order to save face?
Luke Pollard
I am confident that this is a good deal. The Mauritian Government will look at the deal that has been signed and see that it is a good one. Our US friends know that it is a good deal, and anyone looking at it in future will see that it is a good deal because it achieves our No. 1 objective of securing the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), alluded to the presumptive nominee Marco Rubio’s comments that the deal represents a serious threat to US national security. Does the Minister agree?
Luke Pollard
All the representatives of the US security apparatus who have seen the detail of the deal back it. It secures the future of the base and it allays US fears around the future of the base. There has been some barking from the Opposition Front Bench about this, so it is important to say that the base on Diego Garcia is not currently secure for the long term. There are questions over its long-term sovereignty, and people are building support against our sovereignty claim. This deal secures the long-term operation of that base well into the next century.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Having been one of many in this House to have vehemently opposed the ceding of the Chagos Islands without consulting the residents, and having stood in solidarity with those who opposed it, I am anxious to ensure that the Americans take control. In turn, we must offer them support and allow those residents who consider themselves British to be a part of the equation. What steps has the FCDO taken to ensure that the US is aware of the strength of opposition to this decision from those from the Chagos Islands?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his serious question. This deal not only settles some of the outer islands for the Chagossian communities but allows visits to Diego Garcia for the Chagossian communities who were removed in a way that this Government so deeply regret. The detail of the deal is good to secure our national security and US national security, and it takes important steps to recognise and remedy the pain suffered by Chagossian communities.
Bangladesh: Attacks on Hindu Community
(1 week, 3 days 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
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Bangladesh and recent attacks on the Hindu community there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The UK has a long-standing commitment to the protection of human rights. The UK champions freedom of religion or belief for all; no one should live in fear because of what they do or do not believe in. We are working to uphold the right to freedom of religion or belief through our position at the UN, G7 and at other multilateral fora, and in our important bilateral work.
Just last month, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) is aware, I visited Bangladesh, where, as part of our programme, I met Chief Adviser Professor Yunus and Foreign Affairs Adviser Touhid Hossain. At the meeting with Chief Adviser Yunus, I discussed the full range of bilateral issues, including the importance of protecting religious minorities in Bangladesh. The UK Government support freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression in Bangladesh through both our political advocacy and development programme funding, providing up to £27 million from March 2023 to February 2028 under the Bangladesh collaborative, accountable and peaceful politics programme for protecting civic and political space.
On the Hindu community in Bangladesh specifically, I was given assurances by the interim Government in Bangladesh that support was available for minority communities in Bangladesh in the lead up to Durga Puja —a national festival. We were pleased to see the establishment of a special policing unit, which was active in protecting mandaps—the Hindu worship sites—as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware.
The UK Government will continue to monitor the situation, including making representations from this House, and will engage with the interim Government in Bangladesh on the importance of freedom of religion or belief specifically as it affects the Hindu community.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you for allowing this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
Since the fall of the previous Government in August, Bangladesh has seen more than 2,000 incidents of violence, most of which have been targeted against the minority Hindu community. Hindus make up less than 10% of the population of Bangladesh. As my hon. Friend will be aware, anti-Hindu violence has been a recurrent event in Bangladesh. Indeed, earlier this year, the Jamaat-e-Islami party was banned after riots in which 200 people were killed.
While Bangladesh no longer has the secular constitution of 1971 and became an Islamic state in 1988, there are none the less supposed to be protections for minority religions under the constitution, including articles 28 and 39. However, these appear not to be being enforced. There are reports of police and army standing by, as more than 20 places of minority Hindu and Sufi worship were vandalised and their worshippers attacked. This came to a head on Friday, when extremist groups from the Jamaat-e-Islami party attacked two Hindu temples in Chittagong and conducted a campaign of orchestrated violence against the Hindu population.
A leading Hindu monk, Chinmoy Krishna Das, a former leader of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness has been arrested. ISKCON is a worldwide branch of modern Hinduism with its UK headquarters at Bhaktivedanta Manor in Bushey, many of whose worshippers live in my constituency of Brent West and the surrounding areas of north-west London. People are concerned that while he was engaged in exclusively peaceful protest, he has been denied due process, charged with sedition and refused bail, yet none of the individuals who attacked the temples has been apprehended or charged. On Saturday, senior Bangladeshi journalist Munni Saha was taken into police custody following an attack on her car by a large mob in Dhaka, and released only under the provisions of the criminal code.
The situation is clearly on a knife edge. With such large diaspora populations in the UK and large Hindu communities with strong links to the community in Bangladesh, I ask my hon. Friend what more she can do to have discussions with the Bangladeshi Government and other partners in the region to ensure that tensions are lowered, the rule of law put into effect, and calm and order restored.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is right to raise these concerns. Our high commission, based in Dhaka, is in detailed discussions with the interim Government of Bangladesh on how to verify and record the number of incidents or attacks against communities, and indeed small businesses, where there have been reports of such attacks, as well as taking remedial action and indeed working on prevention.
That is why, in the week we visited, we were pleased to hear that the special policing unit had been set up. We stand ready to offer advice on law and order, but know that that is part of the road map towards a more stable Bangladesh. We are aware of the statement of concern from the Indian Government following the arrest of Chinmoy Krishna Das, a well-known Hindu leader, on sedition charges. The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office desk is closely monitoring those developments.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
First of all, I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for his urgent question on this important subject. He also raised the arrest of the ISKCON leader, and I too am familiar with the place of worship near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
There are deep and long-standing ties between our two countries. The Minister visited Bangladesh recently. She is right to point out that, as the hon. Member for Brent West said, the degree of escalation in the violence is deeply, deeply concerning. What we are witnessing now is uncontrolled violence in many quarters. We are watching with horror and shock as further violence spreads in Bangladesh. The thoughts of all of us in the House are with the diaspora community here and those affected in Bangladesh. These are deeply disturbing reports. The Minister also mentioned the deadly attacks and the violence that took place during what is an auspicious period, the Durga Puja festival, in 2021.
Given the current instability in Bangladesh and the departure of the former Prime Minister in August, this is a moment of deep concern. Many Governments are condemning the violence and calling for peace, and law and order to be restored. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but I emphasise that all efforts must now be taken. A religious leader has been arrested and we need to know what is being done, due process in particular, to secure his release.
Will the Minister give details of the Government’s engagement with the Bangladesh Government on that particular matter? What discussions have taken place? Have we been robust in pursuing: the right to protect life; the prevention of violence and persecution; and, importantly, tolerance for religious belief? What efforts have the Government undertaken to build on the previous Government’s work to promote freedom of religion and belief in Bangladesh? Can the Minister say what discussions are taking place with other international partners to help restore the stability we desperately need to see in Bangladesh?
Catherine West
The protests following the student-led events in June, July and August were deeply troubling and led to the fall of the Government of Bangladesh. The Opposition spokesperson is quite correct to emphasise the nature of these worrying protests. Our constituents are concerned, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West brought this important question here today. They include reported cases of retaliatory attacks against allies of the former regime, including the Hindu minority. Some of the attacks are allegedly politically motivated and are of concern. That is why I had it at the top of my agenda when I met Professor Dr Yunus and why the effort was made to set up the policing unit. Our high commission is active—more than any other that I could see when I was there—in guiding, helping and supporting a peaceful transition to a new Government, elections eventually and a harmonious future. Anywhere in the world where freedom of religion or belief is at risk, there we will be standing up for the rights of minority groups.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Many constituents in Aylesbury have raised concerns about the safety of Hindus in Bangladesh. They have shown me extremely concerning social media content containing threats to Hindus to leave the country or face extermination. Does the Minister agree that that is unacceptable? Will she outline what representations she has made to the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that those who incite and perpetrate violence are held to account?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is doing excellent work representing her constituents who are concerned about these acts of violence. I impress on her that the UK was one of the first with ministerial support to arrive in Dhaka, speak with the chief adviser Professor Yunus and be vocal in support of minorities.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
We share the concerns of Members on both sides of the House about these attacks. I note that the Minister has spoken to her Bangladeshi counterparts, and urge her to continue to do so.
The most recent Foreign Office human rights and democracy report lists Bangladesh as a “human rights priority” country and highlights
“reports of harassment...particularly towards...Hindu minorities, often incited online.”
The report recognises that
“UK funding through civil society organisations supported freedom of religion or belief and community mediation processes”.
Can the Minister update us on the progress being made, using UK funding, in combating religious discrimination in Bangladesh? Is that funding at risk of being another casualty of the latest round of cuts in overseas development assistance? Will the Government support our call for an ambassador-level champion of freedom of religion or belief, so that the UK can do more to ensure that the rights of Hindus and all religious minorities are protected and upheld?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestions for the Government. I can confirm that, on 20 November, the Deputy Prime Minister said in Parliament that the envoy appointments were under ministerial consideration and would be decided on in course, so the hon. Lady will hear presently about the freedom of religion representative. Regardless of any ministerial visit, the treatment of minorities will always be uppermost on our agenda with the Government we are visiting. As for her question about funding, we are providing up to £27 million between March 2023 and February 2028 under the “Bangladesh—Collaborative, Accountable and Peaceful Politics” programme for protecting civic and political space, fostering collaboration, reducing corruption, and mitigating tensions that lead to violence. That is the sort of programme that we have when a country is a “human rights concern” country.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), for raising these important issues. We must be vigilant against all attacks on minorities, be they Buddhists, Christians or the Hindus in Bangladesh. Does the Minister agree that, sadly, at times, since the country’s formation in 1971, there have been communal tensions of this kind? They are not new. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have sent me a list of flashpoint events. Between 1974 and 2001, the Hindu population in Bangladesh decreased from 13.5% to 8.5%, so this is not a new phenomenon. May I also caution the Minister? Following the collapse of the regime after the murder of 800 students in the summer, some people may seek to exploit these tensions, and we need to stamp on that hard. Can the Minister assure us that we are doing all that we can to enable the country to make the transition to democracy, and to what people are calling Bangladesh 2.0?
Catherine West
The hon. Lady is a champion of human rights in the House, and I thank her for her particular interest in Bangladesh.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is sad that the Minister has to come here to answer an urgent question, having been asked last Thursday for a statement on the Floor of the House. Hindus are suffering with their houses being burned and their businesses ransacked. Priests have been arrested, and I understand that two more were arrested over the weekend, and 63 monks have been denied access to the country. The clear issue is an attempt at the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Bangladesh. Will the Minister come out and condemn outright this violence against Hindus? We want to hear not just words of piety, but absolute condemnation of what is going on. Religious minorities are being deliberately persecuted because of their religion.
Catherine West
The hon. Gentleman must rest assured that this was at the top of my agenda when I met Dr Yunus, the leader of the interim Government. It was very much at the forefront of our discussion. As with similar nations, we were there first—ours was the first ministerial visit—and it was absolutely at the top of the list. There can be nothing like a face-to-face encounter with the person in charge to underline the importance of freedom of religion or belief, and in this instance, of stopping attacks against the minority Hindu community.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important urgent question. I represent a diverse community. Both Muslims and Hindus in Liverpool have made representations to me about the growing sectarian violence, the slide to extremism, and particularly the persecution of the Hindu minority. The violence faced by minorities on religious and political grounds must stop. What representations are the UK Government making at the United Nations on this matter, and are we confident that the interim Government in Dhaka can get a grip on this?
Catherine West
I commend my hon. Friend for her commitment to the communities in her constituency. I want to emphasise that in my visit last month, freedom of religion or belief, the protection of minorities, and general law and order were right at the top of the agenda. The UK is at hand to support Bangladesh at this difficult time, when law and order, and stability, are at risk.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Clearly, it would have been expedient to have had a special envoy for religious freedom in place; it is all very well for the Minister to say that such an appointment is under ministerial consideration. What is the problem? Do the Government not have anyone committed enough or talented enough to do it?
Catherine West
I am a big believer in mainstreaming all these important responsibilities, because having a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief sometimes lets the Minister off the hook. As the representative of the UK in Dhaka, I see it as my responsibility, and mine alone, to make the case for the Hindu community or any other persecuted minority. I am not going to wash my hands of that and let somebody else do it. The responsibility is being mainstreamed across every single ministerial brief as we speak.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Residents in Portsmouth North have loved ones and family members in Bangladesh and, like this House, are concerned about their safety and security. Does the Minister agree that we need to see a peaceful pathway to an inclusive and democratic future for Bangladesh, and can she give us and Portsmouth North constituents information on how that is being advanced?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. First, we had a face-to-face meeting with the leadership of the country and, secondly, we are providing ongoing support. The high commission in Dhaka is involved in keeping law and order, in advising on anything that leads towards the safe holding of elections at some time in 2025 and, indeed, in listening to the voices of those who have been affected by the violence over July and August, and of the Hindu minority community.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
A number of members of the Hindu community in Mid Buckinghamshire have contacted me to say that they are deeply concerned about the situation in Bangladesh, and I urge the Minister to take every diplomatic step possible to protect Hindus in that country. Does she believe that Bangladesh’s constitution, which guarantees equal status to religions, and equal rights in the practice of religion, provides a reliable legal basis on which to domestically prosecute cases of religiously motivated violence?
Catherine West
We stand ready to assist Bangladesh as it goes forward with its difficult road map towards eventually holding elections. Today’s urgent question is so important, because law and order is crucial at this fragile time. We are there to be friends, to be supportive and to provide any legal assistance that we can offer the country going forward.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Can the Minister reassure the House about the importance of religion and belief in Bangladesh and all nations across the world, particularly for minorities? She will appreciate the long-standing, deep ties between the Hindu community in the UK and Hindus in Bangladesh. Can she please detail what engagement she has had with the UK’s Hindu and Bangladeshi communities on this issue, and does she believe that such engagement is important? Those communities are appalled at what is going on.
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. When I was in Bangladesh, I was able to speak specifically about law and order, and about concerns raised in this House at our cross-party engagement event. I commit to doing another one of those, to explain the exact content of my discussions in Bangladesh. Let me respond on how I have been learning in my role. I was delighted to go to the London borough of Brent to visit the Neasden temple and learn about Diwali; I had an exceptional visit with the British Asian Trust and learned so much. That was a prelude to Diwali. After going to Bangladesh, I went to India. I am on a wonderful journey—I am falling in love.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her commitment to addressing issues of religious freedom and human rights. Over 16 days, 2,010 people reported incidents, including attacks on 69 Hindu temples. The homes of 157 families were attacked, looted, vandalised or set on fire, and nine Hindus lost their life. What steps can the UK take to work with the Bangladeshi Government and international partners to promote the rights of religious minorities in Bangladesh, to ensure accountability for these heinous crimes, and to promote the fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief for all? Will the Government consider raising these issues at the UN, or through direct diplomatic engagement, to ensure a swift and decisive response?
Catherine West
There can be no greater champion of freedom of religion or belief than the hon. Gentleman, who worked closely on the issue with the former Member for Congleton in the last Parliament. He rightly monitors every single event and details them here. I undertake to write back to him on the instances that he mentions, and will leave a copy in the Library for other Members to look at.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Some of my constituents from the growing Indian community in Winchburgh are increasingly concerned about the accounts of horrific acts of violence towards the Hindu community in Bangladesh. Does the Minister agree that violence against Hindus, or any other religious minorities, is entirely unacceptable? What reassurance can she provide to my constituents that the UK Government are supporting all efforts to protect the freedom of religion and belief?
Catherine West
I commend my hon. Friend, a new Member, for calling for freedom of religion or belief, including the freedom not to have a belief; it is so important to our work on this issue. I can reassure her not only that the matter was at the top of my agenda when I visited Bangladesh, but that we continue to monitor any instances of violence and lack of law and order, and continue to offer support where we can to the interim Government of Bangladesh.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for her response. She will be aware that a significant number of members of the Bangladeshi Hindu diaspora in the UK, including in my constituency, have expressed concern about the attacks on the Hindu community in Bangladesh. She may be aware that several Bangladeshi Hindu community organisations in the UK have recently written to the Foreign Secretary requesting a meeting. What efforts are she and the Foreign Secretary making to engage with the community, and are they willing to attend a meeting to discuss their concerns and the action that the Government are taking?
Catherine West
I am very happy to attend a meeting, as I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be. As part of learning about this brief, I intend to visit a number of places of worship to emphasise the importance of minority faith groups, and to reassure them that in our work abroad, not just at home, we talk about the importance of freedom of religion or belief, or no belief.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Several of my constituents have been in touch who are incredibly concerned about family members in Bangladesh. Those family members have been living in extreme fear for some time, but particularly since August, and reports of increasing violence against the Hindu community are disturbing. How do the Government intend to support human rights in Bangladesh, and to support the Bangladeshi community in my constituency as they go through this difficult time?
Catherine West
I thank the youngest Member of the House for his concern about Bangladesh and the minority communities there. His constituents can be informed through the meeting that I will hold as the Minister responsible for this brief; I will invite all Members to it. If anybody would like to bring specific examples, we will have a desk there, and we will be able to answer any questions that are forthcoming.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question. I will now suspend the House for 10 minutes so that we can all read the statement, which we unfortunately did not have. It has rightly been previously acknowledged by the Home Secretary that it is totally unfair to bounce the Chamber into a discussion. In future, we must get statements on time.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Let me apologise, Mr Speaker. I did check that it had been sent at a quarter to, to make sure it was here with 45 minutes to go. If it did not reach you, I apologise, but that was the information I was given.
Mr Speaker
Not only was the information wrong, but we did not get the statement until four minutes to 4, and the Opposition did not get it until almost 4 o’clock. That is totally unfair, and Ministers need to get their act together. This should not happen. I am suspending the House for 10 minutes.
Migration and Border Security
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the record, I draw the attention of those on the Treasury Bench, and all Members, to paragraph 9.5 of the latest addition of the “Ministerial Code”, which states that a copy of the text of an oral statement should be made available to the Opposition and to the Speaker’s Office at least 45 minutes before the statement is to be made. It is clearly highly regrettable that that did not happen today. I note the Home Secretary’s previous apology made shortly before the sitting was suspended. I call the Home Secretary to make her statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on net migration, asylum and border security, and on the collapse in controls that took place over the last five years, the damage done as a result, and the action we are now taking to turn that around.
Last Thursday’s official statistics show how over the last five years controls in the immigration and asylum systems crumbled, legal and illegal migration both substantially increased, the backlog in the asylum system soared, and enforcement of basic rules fell apart. Net migration more than quadrupled in just four years to a record high of nearly 1 million people, and it is still more than three times higher than in 2019. Dangerous small boat crossings rose from 300 people in 2018 to an average of over 36,000 a year in the last three years—a hundred-and-twentyfold increase. In just a few short years, an entire criminal smuggler industry built around boat crossings has been allowed to take hold along the UK border.
The cost of the asylum system also quadrupled to £4 billion last year. In 2019, there were no asylum hotels; five years on, there are more than 200. Returns of those with no right to be here are 30% lower than in 2010, and asylum-related returns are down by 20% compared with 14 years ago. That is the legacy we inherited from the previous Government, one that former Ministers have themselves admitted was shameful.
We should be clear that this country has always supported people coming here from abroad to work, to study or to be protected from persecution. That has made us the country we are—from the Windrush generation to the Kindertransport; from international medics working in our NHS to the families we have supported from Ukraine. But that is exactly why the immigration and asylum systems have to be properly controlled and managed, so that they support our economy and promote community cohesion, with rules properly respected and enforced, and so that our borders are kept strong and secure. None of those things have been happening for the last five years. The scale of the failure and the loss of control have badly undermined trust in the entire system, and it will take time to turn things around.
Let me turn to the changes that are needed in three areas. First, on legal migration, recent years have seen what the Office for National Statistics calls
“large increases in both work-related and study-related immigration following the end of travel restrictions and the introduction of the new immigration system after the UK left the EU.”
Conservative Government reforms in 2021 made it much easier to recruit from abroad, including a 20% wage discount for overseas workers. At the same time, training here in the UK was cut, with 55,000 fewer apprenticeship starts than five years ago, and the number of UK residents not working or studying hit a record high of over 8 million. This was an experiment gone badly wrong, built on a careless free market approach that literally incentivised employers to recruit from abroad rather than to train or to tackle workforce problems here at home.
This Government are clear that net migration must come down. We are continuing with the visa controls belatedly introduced by the previous Government, including the higher salary threshold, the 20% discount and the restrictions on dependant visas for students and care workers, but we must go further to restore order and credibility to the system.
Since the election, we have set out new plans to ban rogue employers who breach employment laws from sponsoring overseas workers; we have reversed the previous Conservative Government’s decision to remove visa requirements for a number of countries from which large numbers of people arriving as visitors were entering the UK asylum system instead; and we are reviewing visas further to prevent misuse.
However, we also need to overhaul the dysfunctional UK labour market that we inherited, including by bringing together the work of the Migration Advisory Committee, Skills England, the Department for Work and Pensions and the new Industrial Strategy Council to identify areas where the economy has become over-reliant on overseas recruitment, and where new action will be needed to boost training and support. That work will be at the heart of our new White Paper, showing how net migration must and will come down, as we set out new ways to link the points-based system with new requirements for training here in Britain.
Let me turn to the asylum system. Last week’s figures showed how the previous Government crashed the asylum system in the run-up to the election. In their last six months in office, asylum decisions dropped by 75% and asylum interviews dropped by over 80%, so only a few hundred decisions were being taken every week instead of thousands. Caseworkers were deployed elsewhere and the backlog shot up. We have had to spend the summer repairing that damage, getting caseworkers back in place, restoring interviews and decisions, and substantially boosting returns. It will take time to deal with the added backlog and pressure on asylum accommodation that that collapse in decision making caused, but the swift action we took over the summer has prevented thousands more people from being placed in asylum hotels, saving hundreds of millions of pounds.
Today I am also publishing the full spending breakdown of the previous Government’s failed Rwanda partnership. In the two years that the partnership was in place, just four volunteers were sent to Rwanda, at a cost of £700 million. That included £290 million paid to the Government in Kigali, and almost £300 million for staff, IT and legal costs. The result of that massive commitment of time and money was that 84,000 people crossed the channel from the day the deal was signed to the day it was scrapped. That so-called deterrent did not result in a single deportation or stop a single boat from crossing the channel. For the British taxpayer, it was a grotesque waste of money.
Since the election, we have swiftly redeployed many of the people who were working on fantasy planning for the Rwanda scheme to working instead on actual flights to return those who have no right to stay in the UK. That has helped to deliver nearly 10,000 returns since the election. Enforced returns are up by 19%, voluntary returns are up by 14%, illegal working visits are up by approximately 34%, and arrests from those visits are up by approximately 25%. I can tell the House that this new programme to tackle exploitation and ensure that the rules are enforced will continue and accelerate next year.
Let me turn to border security. Six years ago, fewer than 300 people arrived on dangerous small boats. Since then, an entire criminal industry has taken hold and grown, with routes stretching through France, Germany and beyond, from the Kurdistan region of Iraq to the money markets of Kabul. The criminals profit from undermining border security and putting lives at risk, and it is a disgrace that they have got away with it for so long.
Since the election, we have established the new Border Security Command, announced £150 million over the next 18 months for new technology, intelligence, and hundreds of specialist investigators working; struck new anti-smuggling action plan agreements with the G7, and bilateral agreements with Italy, Germany, Serbia and Balkan states; and increased UK operations with Europol and the Calais group. In recent weeks, international collaboration has led to high-profile arrests and shown the smuggling gangs that we will not sanction any hiding place from law enforcement.
I can tell the House today that we have gone further, with a major new international collaboration. The Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government share our concerns about the people traffickers operating through their country who have helped to transport thousands of people across Europe and across the channel, but joint action to tackle those problems has previously been far too weak. That is why last week I visited Baghdad and Erbil to sign new co-operation agreements on border security, migration and organised crime. As part of those agreements, we will invest half a million pounds in helping the Kurdistan region to enhance its capabilities on biometrics and security, and in training Iraqi border staff to tackle organised immigration crime. We have also made new commitments on joint operations, information sharing, pursuing prosecutions and disruptions, and with further work on returns. Those landmark agreements are the first in the world for an Iraqi Government focused on playing their part in the world.
Most people in Britain want to see strong border security and a properly controlled and managed migration and asylum system where the rules are respected and enforced; one where we do our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution, but where those with no right to be here are swiftly returned; and where it is Governments, not gangs, who decide who can enter our country. For five years, none of those things has happened, and people have understandably lost faith in the entire system. We now have the chance to turn that around: to fix the chaos, bring net migration down, tackle the criminal gangs and prevent dangerous boat crossings; to restore order, control, and fair rules that are properly enforced—not through gimmicks, but through hard graft and serious international partnerships. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for ensuring that we had the proper time to consider the statement.
The Home Secretary seems to have a great deal to say about the last Government and rather less to say about her own record since the election, but fortuitously there was a large release of data last week that gives us an insight into her first five months in office. Having looked at that data, I can see why she is so silent on her own record. Let me start with small boats. Yesterday marked 150 days since 4 July, and in that time a staggering 20,110 people have made the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossing—over 20,000 since this Government were elected. That is an 18% increase on the same 150 days last year, and a staggering 64% increase on the 150 days immediately prior to the election.
Why have those numbers gone up so much? Let us turn to what the National Crime Agency said last year. It said that no amount of funding or action against people smugglers would end crossings on its own, and went on to say—and I quote—that “you need an effective removals deterrence.” After the Labour Government were elected, they cancelled that deterrent—the Rwanda deterrent—before it had even started. The first flight was due to take off on 24 July this year, but they cancelled it. Had that flight taken off as planned, we would not have seen the 64% increase in crossings that we have seen since the election, exactly as the National Crime Agency foresaw. It is not just me and the National Crime Agency; even Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has called for European member states to implement an offshore processing scheme, a proposal that 18 member states are said to support. As such, my first question is whether the Home Secretary will agree with the National Crime Agency and do what Ursula von der Leyen has urged, and re-establish that scheme.
As a consequence of the Home Secretary’s failure to reduce small boat numbers, the use of asylum hotels—which Labour promised to end—has gone up by 6,066 in the three months following the election. The asylum backlog, which the Home Secretary had a great deal to say about, has gone up by 11,000 in the three months following the general election, something that she did not find time to mention. She did talk a bit about her deal in Iraq, which spends £500,000 with the Iraqi Government. That is not a great deal of money—it is what would probably be spent on a road surfacing scheme in any of our constituencies. I am afraid that the idea that spending £500,000 is going to stop people smuggling from Iraq is naive and fanciful. What might have helped smash the gangs is life sentences for people smuggling, so perhaps the Home Secretary could explain why in the last Parliament she voted against a Bill that contained life sentences for the people-smuggling gangs she says she wants to smash.
On the question of legal migration, I agree with the Home Secretary that the numbers have been far too high for many decades under successive Governments. It is welcome that the numbers for the most recent year have come down by 20%, but that is not far enough—we need to go further. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to maintain most of the measures introduced by the last Government that led to that 20% reduction. We have also seen the number of visas go down, which of course are a leading indicator of net migration. Work visas are down by 28% year on year, student dependant visas are down by 84%, student visas are down by 19% and care visas are down by 84%, all thanks to measures introduced by the last Government.
However, I would like to know why this Government have decided to suspend the planned increase in the dependant visa salary threshold up to £38,700 which was due to take effect next April. If they are serious about reducing net migration, as the Home Secretary says, why have they suspended the measure announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) last December? If they are really serious about reducing net migration, as we are, what we really need is a hard cap on the numbers, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and me last week. Will the Government follow our suggestion and introduce that hard cap?
Behind all the bluster and all the chat about previous Governments, we see the Home Secretary’s record and her Government’s record: a 64% increase in small boat crossings since the same period before the election, 6,000 extra people in hotels and the asylum backlog up by 11,000—all since 4 July. We see the Rwanda deterrent, which the National Crime Agency and even Ursula von der Leyen say is necessary, cancelled by this Government before it even started. I call on the Home Secretary to think again on those issues, to introduce in April the measures that the previous Government announced and to introduce a hard cap. If she is serious about combating illegal migration and getting the net legal migration figures down, she will adopt those measures.
Yvette Cooper
If anyone had believed that flights were going to go off to Rwanda this summer, the Conservatives would not have called the general election when they did. They would have hung on hoping that it might happen. However, we saw just the same thing time and again: they kept promising and kept saying it was going to happen, and everybody can now see that it was a total failure. The policy ran for over two years, and they kept promising that the flights were going to go off, but they never did. They just spent £700 million instead. So much do they know that this was a total failure that their newly elected leader will not even promise to reinstate it, because she knows the whole thing was a con.
Let me remind the shadow Home Secretary that in the first half of this year—the last six months of his Government—crossings hit a record high for that season. If that trend of a record high had carried on and the increase for the first half of the year had carried on through the summer, we would have been dealing with thousands more crossings. Instead, because we had an increase in the number of people arriving from Vietnam, this Government introduced a major charter flight—a return flight—to Vietnam, and we have been working with the Vietnamese Government to make sure that the number from Vietnam comes down. We also had to deal with the total collapse in asylum decision making that the Conservatives left us with, which meant that we have had to get caseworkers who they had deployed elsewhere back in place. The Conservatives also let the backlog soar.
The shadow Home Secretary wriggles a little around the net migration figures, which have gone up to a record high of 900,000 because of the rules that the Conservatives —his Government—introduced in 2021. Who was the Immigration Minister who brought in those rules? It was the shadow Home Secretary.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
At a time of hugely stretched resources across the Government, thanks to the mess left in the public finances by the Conservative party, I welcome the additional money announced for investment in the Border Security Command, and in strengthening our wider intelligence and enforcement capabilities against the smuggling gangs. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is a far better use of taxpayers’ money than paying people to go to Rwanda?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. If we go back just six years, there were barely any boat crossings. This criminal infrastructure was not in place along our borders, but we have seen it take hold, and be allowed to take hold, for several years and to build and grow. Those gangs are getting away with undermining our border security and putting lives at risk, and we should not be allowing them to get away with it. That is why the co-operation in place, led by the Border Security Command, going after the gangs and pursuing prosecutions and disruption, is so vital to saving lives and strengthening our borders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Conservatives trashed our immigration system, and now it is time to pick up the pieces—[Interruption.] A period of quiet reflection on some Benches might be appropriate for the next couple of minutes. Their chaotic approach of making and breaking targets shattered public trust and left the system in a right shambles. The words “Rwanda,” “small boats,” and “asylum hotels” took on new shameful meanings under the previous Conservative Government. Net migration figures hit record highs on their watch, skyrocketing, particularly after they took the UK out of the EU. Yet still the Conservatives’ arbitrary rules make it nearly impossible for some sectors, such as hospitality, to recruit the workers they need.
Change is desperately needed. We need to rebuild an immigration system that works for our country and our economy—a fair, effective system that welcomes the workers we need. I am thinking about the senior surgeon who undertook the kidney transplant that my dad had and that kept him alive. That surgeon came here as an immigrant. We also need a system that clearly and properly enforces the rules, and that sees our university sector as a jewel in the crown, welcoming students from overseas, and as a way of using the UK’s soft power for good. It is right that the Government are taking steps to make it easier to recruit British workers to fill vacancies, and a thorough workforce strategy is sorely needed. Will the Government consider implementing Liberal Democrat calls for a carer’s minimum wage to help address the well documented needs of the social care sector?
I am pleased that the Home Secretary talked about how we will have to work closely with our international partners to stop the dangerous channel crossings—something the previous Conservative Government made it harder for us to do time and again. International co-operation is crucial, but our response to the criminal gangs, who are profiting from some of the most vulnerable people, must go further. We must crack down on modern slavery here in the UK, as that is how those gangs make a big chunk of their money. I hope the Government will cut off the power of the gangs at its source, by providing safe and legal routes for genuine refugees. The Government have a mammoth task ahead, rebuilding not only an immigration system that works, but importantly rebuilding the public’s trust in the process.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome many of the points that the hon. Member has made. She is right to point to the lack of trust and confidence in the system as a result of the chaos of the last few years, as well as to the loss of controls and practical measures in place. She raised migration for work, which quadrupled in the space of four or five years, at the same time as we had drops in the number of adults in training and apprenticeship starts. That is a system that is broken. I agree that we should support fair pay agreements in social care and a proper workforce strategy around that, to ensure that we can better recruit and support care workers who are UK resident. I have also asked the Migration Advisory Committee to look particularly at the engineering and IT sectors. We have had persistently high levels of recruitment from abroad in those sectors, and frankly we should have had far better and longer standing training here in the UK.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the public are right to be angry about the state of public services, and that the blame lies squarely with 14 years of cuts and mismanagement by Conservative Governments, not with migrants who contribute to their new home? Will she stand up to attempts by Conservative Members to distract from their own failures and divide the country by scapegoating people who just want a better life for themselves and their families, as we all do?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that in 14 years the previous Government did deep damage not just to our public services but to our economy, and they have to take responsibility for that. We have a history going back through generations of people who have come to the UK to work, study, and get protection from persecution, but it is because those systems are an important part of who we are that they also need to be controlled and managed. That is why alongside the damage that the previous Government did to our economy and public services, we have also seen damage to the relationship between the migration system and the labour market, which has ended up with a loss of control.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The estimated spend on the agreement with Iraq is around £800,000, which compares with, I think, the £476 million being spent on our agreement with France. Has the Home Secretary made an estimate of how much she expects that money will contribute to reducing the numbers crossing the channel?
Yvette Cooper
What we have found in our discussions with both the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan regional authority is that they want to tackle organised immigration crime in their country. They are concerned about not just people trafficking and people smuggling, but drug trafficking, to which the same gangs are sometimes linked, and money laundering. We found a strong willingness to work with us; the most important thing will be to get the co-ordination, co-operation, information sharing, standards and intelligence in place. That will be the start. This is the beginning of a partnership, and the funding that we have set out will be for the first step in that partnership, to get better biometrics, better training capabilities and better border security in place. We see it as an important partnership that needs to grow.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
As an international liaison prosecutor, my job was to facilitate international co-operation, working with the NCA and overseas authorities. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is the key to smashing the criminal people smuggling gangs, not gimmicks such as the Rwanda scheme?
Yvette Cooper
I completely agree. Spending £700 million just to send back four volunteers was the most astonishing, shocking waste of money. My hon. Friend is right. The criminal gangs operate across borders, but law enforcement across borders is far too weak. It has been far too much a case of each country looking inwards rather than getting co-operation in place, so the gangs are able to run rings around law enforcement in far too many places across the world. We have to strengthen the co-operation across borders in order to tackle the gangs.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with the Home Secretary that the failure of the last Government to control immigration was unconscionable, and our new leader has rightly apologised for our failure. Some of us on the Back Benches warned the Government at the time, but there we are—that is the past. Looking to the future, I agree that we all want to return illegal migrants to where they came from, but will the Home Secretary list the countries that human rights lawyers say are so unsafe that people cannot be returned to them? What is the deterrent for people from those countries if we do not have an offshoring policy?
Yvette Cooper
Obviously, each individual case needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It has been agreed through the courts that, for example, some people could be safely returned to Iraq, but the process, or the bureaucracy, is extremely slow. Many people are currently in the immigration enforcement system. The previous system was just not following up and taking action, which is why we have been able to increase the returns substantially in a short period. Of course, each case has to be looked at on its merits, but we can do substantially more to ensure that the rules are properly respected and enforced.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I ask my question in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also thank her for talking about the UK’s strong history of welcoming people who are trying to escape persecution. We should not forget that at the heart of the organised people smuggling into this country are people being exploited and dying. The last Government were reduced in their final days to sloganising about people coming on boats, and about the Rwanda scheme, which brought shame on our country. I was appalled to hear the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) try to defend the scheme, and shocked to hear him describe the drop in the number of students coming to the UK as something to be celebrated.
Yvette Cooper
Clearly the Rwanda scheme failed, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that it failed. That is why she does not want to reinstate it, contrary to the views of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who seems to want to spend another £700 million over another two years to send another four volunteers to Rwanda. The criminals who organise the boats are incredibly dangerous. We have seen children crushed to death and people drown as a result of these flimsy and dangerous boats, and the gangs are making profits of hundreds of millions of pounds. We should not be letting them get away with it. That is why we need to work across borders to go after them.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Migration plays a significant part in our economy. In the Lake district, 66% of hospitality and tourism businesses report that they are failing to meet demand because of a lack of workforce capacity. Migration is part of the answer. Will the Home Secretary listen to leaders of the Cumbria hospitality and tourism economy and meet them to discuss options such as a youth mobility visa scheme? It would enable us to shore up our workforce, which is brilliant, but far too small.
Yvette Cooper
All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that there are some deep and fundamental problems in the UK labour market that we have inherited. He is talking about workforce shortages when net migration has quadrupled and when overseas recruitment for work has quadrupled. I think that shows that there is a much bigger challenge in the workforce, where we have a huge drop in training and where we do not have proper strategic approaches to the workforce. That is what we should be putting in place instead. We have to look at the issues around training, pay and conditions and at the key sectors to make sure they get support, rather than continually looking to increase migration instead.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The former Conservative Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has said that the country is “right to be furious” about his party’s record on immigration, and that the Conservatives need to own their failures and change. What is there, in the Conservatives’ obsession with their failed and costly Rwanda programme, to show that they have heeded his warning and changed their approach?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. The former Immigration Minister and now shadow Justice Secretary also said that the net migration figures were
“a day of shame for the Conservative Party.”
They might need a little bit more shame on the Opposition Front Benches.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary set out how many hotels have been moved into housing asylum seekers since 4 July? Will she commit to updating the House regularly as to which hotels have been repurposed for that use?
Yvette Cooper
I know that the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), has already answered some of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. He is right to express concern about asylum hotels. There are now 220 asylum hotels in use. He will know that his Government opened 400 asylum hotels. We have had to deal with the collapse in asylum decision making. In the last few months before the general election, the Conservatives went down to just a few hundred decisions being taken a week, rather than thousands of decisions each week. That was deeply damaging, and we have had to deal with it, so that we can turn things around by clearing the asylum backlog and ending hotel use.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
It is clear that my right hon. Friend inherited a chaotic immigration situation from the last Government, and I commend her on the work she is doing. She rightly focused on international co-operation, but principally on removals. Does she accept that, in a world as interconnected as ours, migration can no longer adequately be managed by treaties that are now more than 70 years out of date? We need to co-operate with our international partners, to create a new structure and a new settlement for managing global migration.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes important points, because countries do need to work together and to look far more at some of the causes of migration. That is why we set out at the European Political Community summit an additional £80 million fund to look at earlier prevention work and how we address some of the causes of migration in the first place, as well as the law enforcement response that we need to go after the criminal gangs.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The absurd and chaotic Brexit—fully supported by those on the Government Front Bench—was supposed to finally satisfy this obsession, but ending free movement has only increased the numbers of people coming here. What is the point of their Brexit, and why has it so spectacularly failed to manage to get a hold on immigration to the UK?
Yvette Cooper
The previous Conservative Government made a decision in 2021 to launch what was in effect a free market approach to immigration. They made it much easier to recruit from abroad and they incentivised employers to recruit from abroad by introducing a 20% wage discount at the same time that they were cutting training and support. The consequence is that, since 2021, we have indeed seen a massive increase in overseas recruitment. As the same time, we have seen a drop in people getting training and support to work in the UK.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the frankness that the Government have brought to their assessment of the situation and the setting out of clear measures. As we have heard, criminal gangs are causing untold misery to people all around the world. Will the Home Secretary expand on the measures that we are taking with European neighbours in particular to crack down on these criminal gangs once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
We have been working with other European countries. We have a new agreement in place with Italy to go after the illicit finance that underpins many of the criminal gangs. The work that Prime Minister Meloni has done already has helped to significantly reduce Mediterranean crossings. We are working with Italy, and we think that work is important.
We are also working with Germany on supply chains and with Bulgaria on supply chains, including on how boats and engines are being moved across Europe. We are of course working with France on tackling the organised gangs, including some of the Iraqi-Kurdish gangs operating in northern France, so that we can pursue those gang networks to prevent dangerous crossings.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The asylum hotel in Cheshunt in my constituency is already putting pressure on strained public services, including local GP surgeries. The Government’s manifesto committed to closing asylum hotels. Can I ask the Secretary of State when she will honour that promise, or will the list of broken promises to the British people get longer?
Yvette Cooper
We are determined to clear the backlog so that we can end asylum hotels. In 2019, there were no asylum hotels, so it was the previous Government who increased and opened about 400 of them. There are still around 220 asylum hotels in place.
We have had to deal with the shocking crashing of the asylum system. Just before the election, the previous Government effectively stopped a whole load of caseworkers from making decisions on asylum cases and pushed the backlog up—we also had to clear that over the summer. That means that we can make progress on bringing the backlog down, so that we can start to clear hotels and ensure that we save money for the taxpayer. We have already saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds this year.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Was the Home Secretary as surprised as me to hear that, as part of the £700 million spent by the previous Government on the failed Rwanda scheme, the package of support that the four volunteers who went to Kigali received included five years of free housing, free food, free private healthcare, free university education and free vocational training, all at a cost of £150,000 per person? Does she agree that Rwanda was in no way a deterrent but a colossal waste of money?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. It was a total, shocking waste of money to send just four volunteers—and the Government had 1,000 people working on the Rwanda scheme. That was 1,000 people who could have been working on enforcement, returns or clearing the backlog, or taking action to pursue the criminal gangs. Instead, they were working on a scheme that ran for two years and sent just four volunteers.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I agree with the Home Secretary, who was right to highlight that 2023 was a year of shame for a Government who had repeatedly promised net migration of tens of thousands a year, not nearly a million; perhaps they will never be forgiven for it. But I also see that in 2023 asylum claims were made by 84,000 people. Everyone talks about the small boats and yet 69% of those 84,000 did not come across the English channel in boats. Will she tell me, please: where did they come from? Were they overstayers? Were they on student visas? Who were the 69%?
Yvette Cooper
We are clear that net migration needs to come down after the huge increase. We also need to restore order to the asylum system. Part of that is going after the criminal gangs who are undermining border security and putting lives at risk, and tackling the small boat crossings. There is also an issue about the increase of in-country asylum applications. We have instigated a review into that, to get to the bottom of what is happening and why. We found that the previous Government’s decision to remove visa requirements for visitors led to a significant increase in asylum applications from people coming as visitors. We have reversed those changes made by the previous Conservative Government and reintroduced visitor visa requirements for those countries.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recent visit and the agreements that flowed from that. Does she agree that support from the UK and allies for the Kurdistan region in Iraq across all spheres, plus the efforts of our own Government and allies to strengthen relationships between Baghdad and Erbil, fosters greater prosperity and stability, helps to reduce corruption and thereby helps to alleviate some of the push factors that cause migration to this country in the first place?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I thank the Kurdish Regional Government for their hospitality and welcome, and the Iraqi Government for their welcome and support for my visit last week. We had important and serious discussions with both the regional authorities and the Iraqi Government on a range of issues such as tackling organised immigration crime, but also the positive work that both the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish Regional Government want to do to support economic prosperity. They repeatedly made the point that security is the foundation of economic growth. That is why they are so keen to tackle organised immigration crime and other forms of organised crime that can end up undermining their security and economic opportunities.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given the promises made at the general election, the opening of more asylum hotels is deeply regrettable. As the Home Secretary seeks alternative accommodation to be able to close down those hotels, will she assure the House that she will not overdo her requests of other Government Departments, in particular the Ministry of Defence, which historically has been very helpful in finding surplus accommodation to house migrants? I hope that she agrees that enough is enough, and that she will not disadvantage service families in their accommodation needs.
Yvette Cooper
I agree about the importance of supporting our armed forces, including housing for armed forces families. That will always be important. The number of asylum decisions had dropped by 70% in the space of just six months—a massive drop. That crashing of asylum decisions increased the backlog over the summer. We have now managed to get asylum decisions back up to where they were, and the asylum caseworkers back in place and taking those decisions rapidly. That puts us in a position to be able to get the backlog down so that we can take action on asylum hotels, and we are already saving hundreds of millions of pounds this year compared with the previous Government.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In the run-up to the summer general election, my constituents were hugely concerned about the number of small boats crossing the channel; and little wonder, because the Conservative party left office in the middle of the worst year ever for small boat arrivals—18% higher than in 2023, 5% higher than in 2022 and more than double the level in 2021. The Labour Government came into office just under five months ago, and the number of arrivals is now lower than in 2021, more than a third lower than in 2022, and only 15% higher than 2023, rather than the 19% that we inherited. Does the Home Secretary agree that that all sounds like pretty decent progress?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. The first six months of the year saw a record high for that season; of course, we know that crossings are seasonal, but it was a record high for the first half of the year. If we had carried on at that record high level—higher than 2023, 2022 and 2021—we would have thousands more people in the asylum system right now, and we would have had to deal with thousands more dangerous boat crossings. When we took office in the middle of the year, some independent projections said that there could have been as many as 50,000 crossings this year, and that has not happened. That is no real consolation, though, because so many lives are still being lost, and so many gangs are still making huge profits, which is why we have to take action on the gangs. We have to strengthen border security and prevent so many lives being put at risk.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Effective technology is at the centre of an excellent asylum and immigration system. I was at the Minister’s drop-in on e-visas, which I am sure many of us welcome, where there were assurances that those who are transitioning from a paper visa but have not yet had their e-visa would not be disadvantaged. However, we have seen reports today suggesting otherwise, which is of particular concern to the Afghan community, and particularly to those who have come to the UK since the rise of the Taliban. Can the Secretary of State give the assurance that people will not be disadvantaged if their e-visas are not processed by the end of January?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady will know that the Minister with responsibility for e-visas is working immensely hard to ensure that any concerns are dealt with. We are clear that no one should be disadvantaged by the transfer to the new electronic system, which will strengthen security and the information that people rightly have. We need to ensure that the transfer happens as smoothly as possible. I urge the hon. Lady to continue to keep in touch with the Minister so that we can ensure that every issue within the system and with the transfer to e-visas is properly addressed.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
When the truly shocking net migration figures were published last week, the shadow Justice Secretary and former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said on Twitter—now known as X—that it was a
“day of shame for the Conservative Party”
because it had
“let the country down badly”
and caused immense, lasting harm with immigration policies that have left Britain poorer. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is better to train our own people in this country than to repeat the failed Tory policies that left us all poorer?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We need a complete overhaul of the way that training and support for work takes place to get UK residents back into work and give them the training they need, and to ensure that we do not have this chaos in the net migration system. I think the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), also said that the Conservatives will only rebuild trust once they own up to their failures—perhaps a little more owning up is what we need to hear today.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
In the previous Parliament, Labour consistently voted down stricter border laws and signed bleeding-heart letters trying to prevent the deportation of criminals from this country. In government, they have cancelled restrictions on family routes and removed the offshore processing options. I therefore confess that I am deeply sceptical that Labour will be successful in controlling immigration. The Iraq deal sounds promising as a headline but, truly, what difference will £500,000 to the Iraqi Government make to the volume of channel crossings?
Yvette Cooper
I say to the hon. Lady that we are establishing new co-operation and networks not just across Europe, but beyond. We know that significant Iraqi-Kurdish gang networks operate in northern France, which the Kurdistan regional authorities and Iraqi Government are particularly concerned about. They are concerned about the routes back into northern Iraq, and about both the impact such activity is having on their country and the impact that we are concerned about—that it is happening in the channel. That is why getting law enforcement working in partnership together is at the heart of this agreement, and that is what we can now build on. This agreement is the first that Iraq has made with any country to tackle organised immigration, crime and border security. I welcome Iraq’s support for this agreement, and its determination and commitment to it. We need to work in partnership with Iraq on it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Residents in Portsmouth North are concerned about the rising cost of housing asylum seekers. Although it is not what we would have wanted as a Government, it is good that we have been open and apologetic about having to house, on a temporary basis, these people because of the inactivity of the previous Government. Does the Home Secretary agree that this is in stark contrast to the previous Government, who never explained and never apologised, even when there were more than 400 hotels, costing £9 million a day? Can she say when we expect the cost of housing asylum seekers to reduce?
Yvette Cooper
We are already saving hundreds of millions of pounds this year from the asylum accommodation budget as a result of the decisions we have taken to restart asylum decision making and get the system working again so that we can start clearing the backlog. Had we not done so, and had we carried on with the previous Government’s policies, those costs would have soared further. That is unfair on the British taxpayer, as well as being the sign of a broken asylum system. We will continue to do that work. We expect to make hundreds of millions of pounds more in savings next year. In total, the assessment is that over the next few years, we will save £4 billion from the previous Government’s failed schemes.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What deterrent will the Home Secretary implement for those asylum claimants who have destroyed their papers and purport to come from regimes to which they cannot possibly be returned?
Yvette Cooper
One of the reasons we are talking to the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan regional authorities about biometrics and supporting biometric roll-outs is that they make it easier to prevent people delaying either asylum claims being resolved or returns being agreed by not having papers. Where there are biometrics in place, it makes things much faster. That is why we should be working to extend them and why we are working to establish stronger returns arrangements with other countries. That is what we have been doing throughout the summer and why we have seen such a substantial increase in returns this summer, as a result of our putting in the additional resources that were failing to achieve anything when they were put into the Rwanda scheme. We are now putting them into doing practical things as part of returns and enforcement.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
In his response, the shadow Home Secretary said that £500,000 was not a lot of money. That is probably because he thought that for £100,000 more you could give free education, housing, university education and vocational training to just four volunteers going to Rwanda. What an absolute waste of money! Does the Home Secretary agree that it is a far better deterrent to actually process people and send them abroad, or should we continue with the fallacy that as a nation we should be bribing people to send them over to Rwanda?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is certainly right that the £700 million for four people is absolutely not good value for money at all. We will always make sure that we are looking for good value for money, as well as getting results.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The previous Administration cannot, Pontius Pilate-like, wash their hands of this immigration mess that has placed intolerable burdens on mostly disadvantaged working-class communities, but the Government now have responsibility for this matter. They cannot pass it back again: they have responsibility. What I would like to hear from the Home Secretary today—despite what has happened since July, with 20,000 more immigrants coming into the United Kingdom, hotel places up and foreign criminals still waltzing through the courts claiming human rights to stop themselves being removed—is what she intends to do to remove the pull factor that encourages people to see Britain as an easy touch.
Yvette Cooper
One of the things we are doing is cracking down on illegal working and the exploitation by employers of people coming to the UK who are often not here lawfully and as a result are being exploited by employers. That has been too easy for employers to do for far too long. That is why we saw an increase of more than 30% in illegal working visits over the summer, a significant increase in the number of arrests as a result of those visits, and a consequent significant increase in penalties for employers. We will continue to take much stronger action, such as removing the ability to sponsor workers from any employer who is breaching important employment laws. We need to ensure that every bit of the system is being tackled and addressed, so that we can have a system that is fair and has public support.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Home Secretary ended her statement by saying that she wanted “serious international partnerships”, but when pressed on that by the shadow Home Secretary, she seemed reluctant to say whether she would explore removal or processing agreements with third countries, as advocated by the President of the European Commission. Who is actually serious on this question: this Government or Ursula von der Leyen?
Yvette Cooper
We have been very clear about the importance of working with other countries, both on tackling gangs and on addressing some of the wider issues that we face. We have always said that we will look at anything that works, and we will look at practical measures. We have recognised that different approaches are being taken by different countries. The Italy-Albania agreement, for example, provides for a fast-track returns arrangement, enabling those from predominantly safe countries to be moved to Albania. We think it is possible to introduce similar fast-track arrangements that have not been properly in place in this country for a long time, and we should be considering those as well.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
More than 210,000 Ukrainians have been hosted in the UK since Russia’s full-scale invasion, which is a testament to the generosity of British hosts, but the millions of Ukrainians who have left Ukraine for Europe are just a fraction of the number who might flee across Europe if Russia were successful in breaking through and occupying all of Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State consider it to be in the UK’s own national interest that we confiscate all Russia’s frozen assets, offer the proceeds to the defence of Ukraine and prevent further displacement?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Member will know, we strongly support Ukraine, given what it has had to endure and go through. We continue to condemn the Putin Government for the things that they have done and the impact that they are having on Ukraine, and we will continue to support Ukraine in every way possible.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
A constituent wrote to me recently asking if I could get a hurry-up on his application under the EU settlement scheme. It turns out that he is subject to a deportation order, and that we actually did deport him in 2018, but he managed to get back into the country somehow and to make his application under the EUSS. The Home Office told me last week that it could not deport him until his EUSS application had been played out, including all the appeals. He made the application in 2020, and it is now nearly the end of 2024. In a spirit of bipartisanship, may I suggest that the Home Secretary should change the rules with a stroke of her pen, and that anyone who is subject to a deportation order should simply be deported? In a similar spirit, may I suggest that if she can get it done by Friday, I will gladly drive him to the airport myself?
Yvette Cooper
The last Government had 14 years—or at least four years, since the EU settlement scheme was introduced—to deal with some of these issues. We take very seriously the need to speed up and improve enforcement of returns for those who have no right to be here. The immigration system and the asylum system can only work and command public confidence if the rules are respected and enforced. That means that if someone does not have a right to be here, there should be proper enforcement. We are working to speed up enforcement, which is why there was a significant increase in returns over the summer, but we will continue to do so, and we will continue to consider what further amendments can be made to improve matters.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Home Secretary has quite rightly lambasted the absolute failures of the last Government on mass immigration, but could she comment on whether people in the Home Office will be held accountable for allowing systems and controls to crumble in the last five years, and on whether people in the Office for National Statistics will be held accountable for getting their numbers wrong by almost a quarter of a million people in just one year?
Yvette Cooper
Conservative Ministers made policy decisions that they asked Home Office officials to implement. Fundamentally, the Conservative Government need to take responsibility for policy decisions that they made in 2021, which led to a big increase in migration for work, for example, and a big increase in the net migration numbers, at the same time as training was being cut in the UK. That has had damaging consequences for confidence and trust, but also for the functioning of the UK economy and labour market, because we should be doing far more to train people in everything from engineering to construction. There are a whole series of different areas where we should increase training here in the UK.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary confirm how many country deals are being worked on to ensure that people can be returned to their country of origin, and when does she expect them to have a material impact on the level of migration to the UK?
Yvette Cooper
Some of the work that we are doing with different countries is about speeding up existing returns arrangements, which sometimes do not work effectively enough. Sometimes it is about relatively practical improvements to existing arrangements that take far too long or have too many hurdles. We are already doing that, which is why we had a significant increase in returns over the summer. It is why we organised a series of charter flights, including the three largest charter return flights in UK history, which have all been organised since the general election as part of the practical work that we are doing, step by step, to increase enforcement and returns.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
While we are reassured by the previous answers that the Home Secretary is committed to increasing the processing of asylum claims to clear the backlog, the Liberal Democrats would push her to go further and faster. Will she consider our calls to end the ban on asylum seekers working, and reduce the time limit to three months so that they are able to contribute to their cost of living, integrate into society and start to pay a fair share within the communities that they wish to join?
Yvette Cooper
No, I do not think that is the right thing to do. We need to clear the backlog, speed up decision making and ensure that those who do not have the right to be here are swiftly returned. Where we have had people arrive from Ukraine or Hong Kong, we want to see them working, being part of the economy and being able to support themselves and their families, but where somebody does not have the right to be here, the important thing is to make the system work and make sure that they can swiftly return.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Villages such as Datchet in my constituency are bearing the brunt of the fact that 6,000 more illegal economic migrants are staying in asylum hotels since this Government came into office. These single adult males represent something like 2% of the village’s population, so what assessment has the Home Secretary made of the extra pressures on vital local services, particularly GPs and dentists? What assurances can she give my constituents that they will not miss out on vital appointments as a result of the sudden demographic change?
Yvette Cooper
We think that using asylum hotels is the wrong way to respond to the system that we have, which is why the increase in the backlog as a result of the previous Conservative Government’s collapse in decision making has been so damaging. That is why we now have additional caseworkers in place and asylum decisions back at the levels that they were previously, so that we can clear the backlog and make sure that we do not need to use asylum hotels. The previous Government opened 400 asylum hotels and quadrupled the cost of the asylum accommodation system. That has a shocking impact on the taxpayer, and we are already saving money by bringing the costs down.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
We need a firm but fair and compassionate approach on immigration, as I think everyone in the House would agree. Human rights non-governmental organisations have warned that people being returned to Iraq could be at risk of human rights abuses, so can the Home Secretary tell us what reassurances she has had on that point? Will human rights always be a red line when she is striking migration deals in future?
Yvette Cooper
The agreement that we reached and signed with the Iraqi Government explicitly commits to support for international law, international humanitarian law and human rights, and this was one of the issues that we discussed as part of the meetings. The hon. Gentleman will also know that every decision in the asylum system is made on its individual merits to ensure that, where somebody is being rejected from the asylum system and is being returned, it is safe and appropriate to do so. But we do believe that there are many people currently in the immigration enforcement system who should be safely returned to their homes, and that is why we have increased the process around enforcement and returns this summer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sure that this is a thrill for everybody. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. The failures of the previous Government may undoubtedly be a reason for this uncontrollable migration number, but my constituents in Northern Ireland—who have had their winter fuel allowance removed and who are seeing an increase in the cost of living that is pushing many working families towards the poverty line at warp speed—are interested not in a blame game but in getting immigration sorted and the boats stopped.
What will the Government do to achieve a reasonable immigration policy? How they will deal with those who have not come here legally and who do not deserve to be here ahead of the families from Afghanistan, who were instrumental in the war effort there and who are still waiting in the correct procedural queue rather than jumping off boats?
Yvette Cooper
Enforced returns for those with no right to be here were up 19% this summer, and voluntary returns are up 14%. We think that those should increase. On the overall immigration system, we will be setting out in a White Paper new proposals to better link the Migration Advisory Committee, the skills bodies across the UK and other organisations to identify stronger controls that are also linked to stronger training requirements, so that as well as having the visa controls in place, we also have clear requirements to train here in the UK to ensure that we can tackle the big increase in net migration for work that we saw over the last five years.
I think the hon. Member would probably agree that most people across the country want to see strong border security and a properly controlled and managed immigration and asylum system. We have not had that for too long, but those are the proper controls and fair systems that we need to get back in place so that we can fix the foundations and everybody can have confidence in the system for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is the end of that statement. I will give the Front Benchers a few moments to shuffle over quickly and quietly.
North-West Syria
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Hamish Falconer)
Last week, we witnessed a major new offensive by opposition groups in north-west Syria. On Wednesday 27 November, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—HTS—along with several other opposition forces started to move towards Aleppo. By late Friday night, they were in control of the majority of Aleppo city. They had also captured Saraqeb, which intersects Syria’s most strategic motorways. As I stand here, we do not know if HTS will succeed in pushing further south towards the city of Hama, which sits approximately 100 km south of Aleppo. What we do know is that these developments mark the biggest shake-up of the conflict lines in Syria since 2020.
In response, Russian airstrikes have increased on Idlib province—HTS’s heartland—and on Aleppo. There have also been reports of Iranian-aligned groups moving into Syria to back up the Assad regime. Events are moving quickly, and the trajectory is unclear. My primary concern, in the immediate term, is the impact on civilians and, of course, the delivery of humanitarian assistance. It will be particularly worrying if we see more large-scale attacks against civilians by the regime or Russia. I call directly on all actors involved, including Iran and Russia, to act in accordance with international humanitarian law, and not to target civilians or civilian infrastructure, including health facilities. Humanitarian actors should be granted full humanitarian access on the ground.
In response to recent developments, we have been rapidly engaging key partners and interlocutors to assess the situation and co-ordinate responses. I spoke earlier to my Turkish counterpart, and I reiterated my concern about the potential for new escalation and the impact on civilians. I will be travelling to the region this weekend, where I plan to engage with a range of partners on the latest developments, and on Wednesday I will be speaking to the UK-funded White Helmets, a Syrian organisation operating in north-west Syria, to better understand how it and other non-governmental organisations are responding to the situation and supporting people on the ground.
The UK issued two statements over the weekend, including one with the US, Germany and France calling for de-escalation and the protection of civilians to prevent further displacement and disruption of humanitarian access. This is the right focus as the situation develops, but the current fighting underscores that the situation in Syria is not sustainable.
Thirteen years into the conflict, no side has won or can decisively win on the battlefield, including Assad. A frozen conflict is not the same as peace. Syrians continue to flee the country, drugs and arms smuggled from Syria threaten the region, and Iran and Russia continue to exert influence, propping up the Syrian regime. The underlying reasons for this conflict remain unaddressed.
Recent developments in the north-west only underscore the urgent need for a Syrian-led political solution to the conflict in Syria, in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254. We urge all parties to re-engage with this process and the efforts of UN Special Envoy Pedersen.
I recognise that this escalation raises other questions. First, on consular assistance. I make it clear that my Department’s long-standing advice is against all travel to Syria due to the ongoing conflict and unpredictable security conditions. Consular support is not available within Syria, and all British embassy services in Damascus are suspended. I reiterate our long-standing advice: any British nationals in Syria should leave the country by any practical means.
We are closely monitoring the wider humanitarian situation. In north-west Syria, 4.1 million people, 80% of whom are women or children, were already in need prior to this escalation. There is currently no humanitarian corridor for those fleeing, which increases terribly the risks to their safety.
The UK has spent over £4 billion since 2011, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. In October, we announced a further £3 million to provide lifesaving emergency assistance and healthcare to the most vulnerable citizens fleeing the Lebanon conflict into Syria. Many of them will be in north-west Syria.
Too many Syrians have tragically been displaced multiple times as a result of conflict. They bear the brunt of horrific violence. Sadly, more still will be displaced by this latest escalation, and I underline my concern about what we might see should Russia or the Assad regime start a campaign of bombardment on the area.
The UK has stood by the Syrian people, and we will continue to do so. Our assistance aims to improve humanitarian conditions for those in the direst need. We work with local and international NGOs and UN organisations to provide health, nutrition, child protection, water, sanitation and education services throughout Syria, including in the north-west.
As the situation develops, we are working closely with humanitarian actors on the ground to understand the impact and the need created by the latest escalation. We call on all parties to ensure full and unhindered humanitarian access throughout the affected areas and to protect civilians. For too long, the Syria conflict has been considered frozen. But if we have learned one thing in recent years, it is that there is no such thing. It is incumbent upon us to use this moment to find new momentum for the political track and to address the underlying causes of this conflict.
I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. These developments in Syria are deeply serious and threaten further brutality and terror in a region under enormous pressure and suffering. We have seen an extremist rebel group make rapid progress and take territory in Aleppo, and the first Russian airstrikes in Aleppo since 2016. We know that there has been fighting in Idlib and Hama too. Civilian lives continue to be lost and homes continue to be destroyed.
As the Minister says, there has been more than a decade of turmoil and tragedy for the innocent people of Syria, which is beyond disturbing. With the eyes of the world focused on other conflicts, we cannot forget the brutality, the loss of life and the destruction that has taken place in Syria, or its consequences. More than half a million people have already been killed, with millions injured or maimed, with some being victims of chemical weapons. How many more innocent lives must be sacrificed to a savage dictator’s thirst for power or at the whim of bloodthirsty terrorists?
The civil war in Syria was one of the most harrowing issues I had to deal with in government, and right hon. and hon. Members who have been in the House since 2011 will know from our debates how this conflict has disrupted the region and contributed to the global migration crisis. Like other Members, I have met Syrians in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon who spoke of their fear, concern and trauma. Both countries are under great pressure right now, particularly Lebanon.
People’s lives have been turned upside down by this conflict, with those caught on the berm between Jordan and Syria facing terrible atrocities. The calculated and cruel barbarism of the Assad regime and the brutality of the terrorist groups have been horrifying at every stage of this conflict. They have held our belief in tolerance and freedom in contempt, and we should never turn a blind eye.
I have been very clear that when red lines are crossed in this conflict, the UK must be part of a firm response. We are in a dangerous place once again, and the situation could become even more severe. I saw the statements issued by the Government and our partners in America, Germany and France over the weekend, and I hope the Minister can answer some of my questions, as we need an honest assessment of this conflict.
Can the Minister tell us his assessment of the real threat that Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham poses to our interests? In his statement, he commented on the drugs and arms smuggling through Syria, which we have known about for some time. Our dear friends and allies in Jordan have been raising this issue, so can he tell us what action he plans to take with international and neighbouring allies to address this?
With further instability and conflict in Syria, there is also a risk that criminal activities will proliferate. Instability also fuels extremism, and not just abroad but here at home too. Can the Minister therefore outline the risk that dangerous extremists in Syria pose to the security of prisons in the area? And can he confirm that there is cross-Government co-ordination to review the security and defence implications and the terrorism risks?
The House will know that the UK has been in the vanguard of the humanitarian response, of which we should all be proud. The previous Government invested £4 billion in support that has reached millions of people, saving lives with food, shelter, water, medicines, vaccinations and improved sanitation.
Can the Minister explain what this Government will do to ensure that aid gets into the hands of the right people, not the wrong people? I remember the day when we saw an aid convoy blown up, which disrupted aid when there was no humanitarian corridor. What is he doing to leverage our aid budget to respond to these new and recent developments? Can he also tell us whether aid is getting into the areas affected by the current surge in violence? How could this new escalation impact on the migratory pressures in Syria, and what will that mean for neighbouring areas?
We know that the Assad regime has been bailed out by the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah, but with Russia now focused on its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and with Iran’s presence in the region now depleted, what is the Minister’s assessment of how this will affect the dynamics of the current insurgency? Finally, does he have a vision for what future we should now be discussing with regard to Syria, and for how we can get there?
Hamish Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. She raised a lot of issues and I will endeavour to address as many as I can.
The right hon. Lady asked what regional co-ordination is under way. We are talking to partners in all the regional capitals, as she would expect, but let me be clear about who we are not talking to. We do not talk to HTS, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation—it is proscribed for a reason and remains proscribed, and we are concerned by many of the public statements it has made. We are not talking to the Assad regime; the right hon. Lady paints well the horrors that Assad and his regime have perpetrated across Syria. However, we are talking to all those with an interest. As I said, I will travel to the region at the weekend and undertake further consultations. I am talking to NGOs and other actors on the ground.
The right hon. Lady asked whether access is sufficient. As she will have seen, the frontlines are moving very quickly and we are concerned that practical access for aid agencies will be difficult to maintain. We are working with our partners to try to maintain access through established humanitarian corridors, and to ensure that a population that is already at great risk will be provided with the assistance it needs. At a moment of such quick changes, that is difficult, but we are working day and night to ensure that happens.
The right hon. Lady asked about cross-Government co-ordination. We are very alive to the terrorist threats that could emanate from Syria, not least from Daesh, which may be down but is not out. We continue to monitor those issues very closely, including the status of prisons, which she referred to.
On the dynamics in the region, clearly the region is in very significant flux. The position of Iran and Russia is in flux, which is why I call on them and say clearly that they must not conduct the large-scale attacks on civilians that I fear are their go-to in such a situation.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
During the Syrian civil war, millions of Syrians moved to Turkey and southern Lebanon, so they have already been displaced once. In Turkey, Erdoğan has been encouraging them to go home to Syria, and in southern Lebanon they have had to move back into Syria to flee from the invasion. Multiple traumas have been suffered by multiple innocent families, who have no guilt in any of this but are simply victims again and again. When families face such multiple traumas, what assistance are the British Government able to give them?
Hamish Falconer
It is incredibly difficult to provide appropriate and sustained care in north-west Syria. As my right hon. Friend says, many people have been displaced, not necessarily by the current conflict but by the Lebanon conflict, which we have discussed in the House recently. People who have been displaced on multiple occasions are in a situation of acute vulnerability. Whether they have been displaced by the Lebanon conflict or the conflict in north-west Syria, we are extremely concerned and we will do what we can. The assessments are ongoing.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I join hon. Members across the House in expressing our deep concern at the toll of the latest outbreak of conflict on the innocent civilians of Syrian. They have borne the brunt of more than a decade of horrific conflict, and we should not forget the devastating impact of the 2023 earthquake on parts of the country as well. I offer my support to the Government in urging all parties to uphold international law. It is vital that the Government do all they can to prevent a deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria, and in the region more broadly.
I spoke this afternoon to the Jordanian ambassador to the UK. He underscored the potential impact of this conflict on his country, with its long and porous border with Syria. With an estimated 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and another 1.3 million in Jordan, providing necessary support to neighbouring countries that host those refugees is crucial. Yet thanks to successive cuts to the international development budget, including by the new Government, too often we approach such crises with one hand tied behind our back. Will the Minister set out what new development assistance we are providing in response and whether he is seeking additional emergency funds from the Treasury?
It appears that the fighting reflects interference in Syria by both Iran and Russia, as the Minister has said, each seeking to serve their interests during a period of instability. There is a very real risk that this new conflict in the north-west of the country may create a vacuum in the south of Syria that allows terrorist groups such as al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and Daesh to re-establish. Does the Minister share that concern?
The UK must hold others to account and press for an end to the use of proxies that show no regard for the rights of civilian populations or the role of international law. Will the Minister say how the UK is using its influence in international organisations and with our allies to achieve that?
Hamish Falconer
We are conducting rapid assessments about where the needs will be, in a situation that is rapidly changing. As I mentioned, we announced further funding for north-west Syria in October. It is not yet clear what further allocations will be required. I will update the House when those assessments are complete and our plans are clearer.
On counter-terrorism, I agree with the hon. Member. As I mentioned in my response to the shadow Secretary of State, there remains an extant threat from Daesh and other groups from Syria. We will continue to monitor those issues very closely. Our first responsibility as a Government is the safety of British nationals; that will continue to be the case and we take our responsibility seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I cannot process that this conflict has been going on for 13 years. From where I am sitting, I have a direct line of sight to the memorial shield for our former colleague from Batley and Spen. When she came to the House, she did so much to draw hon. Members’ attention to the plight of civilians, but things have only got worse since then. It is already the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, with nearly 17 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and 90% of families living in poverty. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the most recent escalation on the levels of need of those in Syria and those who have fled? Will the UK urge the UN to activate its emergency response plans? And—this is the bottom line—are the Government prepared to increase official development assistance on humanitarian support?
Hamish Falconer
We are talking to the United Nations about its plans. I will not give undue comment on operational matters, but the UN’s system is under strain in north-west Syria, as my hon. Friend would expect. In the coming days I hope to be able to say more about what assessment we have made and what actions we will take about whether there will be an increase in ODA; that will be a question more properly for the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who is in the region now. I am conscious that there are significant needs across the middle east that we are trying to meet as best we can.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Assad and his family have reportedly gone to Moscow, which is probably significant. Let us hope that he stays there; they deserve each other. However, HTS is very much worse. As HTS takes territory, people will be on the move in very large numbers. Historically, the United Nations has managed the situation in northern Syria and triaged those who are claiming asylum. This country has been generous in taking refugees, particularly from the most disadvantaged groups: old people, women and children. What discussion has the Minister had with the United Nations and will that process continue, because I feel sure that the British people will want to continue to be generous?
Hamish Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about minority groups. I underline to all parties to this conflict, whether they are proscribed in the UK or not, that minority groups across north Syria, of which there are many, deserve to be protected and have a right to exist. We are looking closely at the actions of all conflict parties, regardless of whether we have direct contact with them, and it is incredibly important that minority rights in northern Syria are protected.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the United Nations, to be frank there is, at this moment, panicked movement across frontlines. It is probably too early to be able to address the kinds of questions he raises, but I am sure we will be talking about this in due course.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
My mind also turned to the former Member for Batley and Spen, my friend Jo, and the cry she made in this Chamber to do something to help the people of Syria. Back then, we saw the widespread use of chemical weapons in the last moment when Assad’s regime was under pressure. What steps are the Government taking to monitor any war crimes taking place in this moment? By way of deterrence now, will the Minister reaffirm that the British Government still believe there should be accountability for the use of chemical weapons a decade ago in Syria?
Hamish Falconer
I recognise the work of the former Member for Batley and Spen, our friend Jo Cox, and my hon. Friend himself, who has been involved in these issues, including accountability, for some time. I agree there must of course be accountability for the use of chemical weapons by Syria. I met as Minister the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to ensure that proper measures are in place and to assist it in its efforts to ensure that treaty conventions are upheld. In August, I instructed UK officials to join an expert-level working group convening a geographically diverse group of states, academics and technical experts to explore international legal mechanisms that could pursue individual criminal responsibility for chemical weapons use. I call on all parties in north-west Syria at the moment to be mindful that we are watching questions of chemical weapons use incredibly carefully.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Syrian Democratic Forces have been an incredibly important ally to the United Kingdom and many other countries in pursuing and degrading Islamic State over a long period of time. Will the Minister assure the House that we will continue to give them as much support, including humanitarian support, as possible to establish and continue the stability that there has been in north-east Syria as a result of their work?
Hamish Falconer
The Syrian Democratic Forces are a member of the global coalition against Daesh, and they play an important role. We engage with them regularly—both the SDF themselves and the democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria—and we will continue to do so.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and particularly the emphasis on protecting civilians. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) in paying tribute to Jo. I am convinced that if she was still with us, British policy on Syria would have been markedly better than it unfortunately has been over the past few years.
A particular concern over that time is that debates in this Chamber and beyond have not had Syrian voices. I was grateful to hear that the Minister, and the International Development Committee, will meet the White Helmets, which is fantastic. Would he also agree to meet me and the Syrian British Consortium—a group of Syrian activists in the UK—to discuss our policy towards Syria and how their voices can shape the debate going forward?
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I would like to build on the question posed by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Between 2014 and 2020, almost all Syrians who were given asylum in the UK applied from the region. The vulnerable persons resettlement scheme did not require Syrians to make it to the UK before applying; the small numbers who were successful had to apply through Syria’s neighbours, such as Jordan. Does the Minister recognise that this safe and legal route encouraged asylum seekers to apply from the region, and it also deterred them from making their way across Europe to the UK?
Hamish Falconer
I am sorry; I am not sure I followed the question. Perhaps the Member can have another go.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The best thing would be to ask for the question in writing so that the Minister can respond—I have done it on your behalf, Minister.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I would try to repeat the question, but I did not catch it myself.
I hope that it is recognised how interconnected the conflicts are in the region, which includes connections to Russia, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and even further afield. This escalation creates serious risks not only for the population of the immediate area, but for regional stability. How can we recognise that in our security and diplomatic policy? What measures are the Government taking to look at this collective series of risks that are increasingly interconnected?
Hamish Falconer
My hon. Friend is right that the security situation in the region is interlinked. Clearly, what is happening in Lebanon, in Iran and, indeed, in Moscow, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) mentioned, is having an effect in north-west Syria. I am concerned by reports of militia groups reinforcing the Syrian regime from Iraq and by reports of Hezbollah’s actions in Syria. I assure my hon. Friend that we take a regional approach to these issues. I am the Minister responsible for all these areas, and we view them in the round.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Stephen Gethins, whose question will no doubt be very clear.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; hopefully I will be clear in my question.
I concur with the Minister’s reflection on the devastating humanitarian consequences over the past 13 years. On the interconnectivity of conflicts, he mentioned the Russian attacks, which he will agree are of a similar nature to those we have seen elsewhere targeting civilian infrastructure. As such, what discussions has he had with European partners in particular, given the lack of reliance we may soon have on the United States, when it comes to a common approach on any political process, the targeting of disinformation, such as that rightly highlighted by the White Helmets, and a humanitarian response to international agencies?
Hamish Falconer
We issued a statement jointly with the French and the Germans over the weekend. We remain in close co-ordination on humanitarian matters and, as I think the hon. Member was alluding to, on the importance of ensuring that the Russians understand that there is a common European position and that we are appalled by the kind of targeting of civilians we have seen in north-west Syria and in so many other places by Moscow.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I spoke today to a contact in the moderate Syrian opposition. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view of my contact’s assessment that the Assad regime appears weak without its allies’ backing, that many malign actors have noticed that events in Aleppo indicate greater regime fragility than imagined, and that problems will continue while the regime persists. Though recent events are somewhat unexpected, could he expand on how the British Government, working with allies, can foster much-needed democratic transition for the Syrian people?
Hamish Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on issues in the region over many years. We are calling for a resolution of this conflict in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254. It is vital that there is a political resolution. Assad’s regime has been demonstrated on this day, as on many other days over the last 13 years, not to be the answer. It is not a sustainable position for the Syrians. We call on all parties to re-engage with the political process in line with the Security Council resolution.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Once again, we find the people of Syria squeezed between two vicious regimes: the Assad regime and the terrorists. We know from what has happened in the past that they will again be subjected to barrel bombs and find themselves cowering in basements, that they will be denied basic medical facilities and so on, and that they will flee. Are we pre-empting where bases and camps might be set up based on what we know from the past about the kinds of routes that people are likely to take? More importantly, given that minorities have been persecuted in such camps, have we put in place arrangements to safeguard them, and, as was suggested earlier, to assess asylum claims in those camps, rather than forcing people to flee across Europe in the hope that they get asylum once they reach the coast?
Hamish Falconer
As the frontlines move in north-west Syria, it is hard to work out where vulnerable people will settle. We are worried that this latest round of conflict will drive further displacement, and that that displacement will head towards Europe. Earlier, the Home Secretary spoke a little about the measures that she is taking to ensure that those movements towards Europe are done in the most managed way as possible. I share the right hon. Member’s concern about the benighted people of Syria, particularly in north-west Syria, who are under the most extreme pressures. We are undertaking rapid assessments of how best to assist them.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This appears to be a completely intractable situation, but I wish the Minister well on his trip. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made clear, Iran has its fingers in many of the conflicts and tensions right across the region. I am sure that we all stand in complete solidarity with the ordinary Iranian people. I can only conclude that sanctions are not working.
Hamish Falconer
Let me talk about two sets of sanctions—and I apologise to my hon. Friend if I talk about the wrong ones. First, we have extant sanctions on Syria. I was recently in the House to amend them so that they do not unduly press on humanitarian agencies. Let me take this opportunity to say that we are doing everything we can to ensure that our own sanctions regime—vital and important as it is to signal and take real action against the Assad regime—is sufficiently flexible to enable humanitarian work. Secondly, our sanctions on Iran continue to play an important role in responding to Iran’s malign actions across the region, including in Syria.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This scenario is one in which we are considering the lesser of two evils in Syria, and I do not have enough information to gauge which that may be. However, as always, my concern is about what steps the Government are taking to secure food and water for 4 million women and children, and to provide freedom from sexual abuse and depravity. What more can we in this House do collectively to help those in need?
Hamish Falconer
I regret to tell the hon. Member that the Syrian people have to choose between more than two evils. There is a multiplicity of actors in the region, and that multiplicity makes humanitarian access particularly complex at the moment. We are focused on ensuring that there are routes for humanitarian aid into north-west Syria—that was one of the topics of my discussions with my Turkish equivalent earlier today—and we are keen to ensure that there are humanitarian routes out for those who might be affected, including the minorities who I know are on the minds of the hon. Member and others across the House.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Christian minority families find themselves facing jihadist terrorists and Russian airstrikes. The family of my Acton constituent Waheba fled to Aleppo 10 years ago from their original city of Al-Tabqah. She wonders whether there could be some kind of Ukrainian-style resettlement scheme for Syrians with blood ties here.
Hamish Falconer
In these early days of the conflict, we are focused on events in Syria, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with details about what else we might do.
Points of Order
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise to the House for my failure to declare an interest when tabling a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on 26 January 2024. When I tabled the question, I inadvertently neglected to declare my interest of a fact-finding trip to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which was paid for by the Turkish chamber of commerce. That was a breach of the rules. I apologise to the House for that error. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for his time and care in rectifying this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on that issue.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek the assistance of the Speaker’s Office. On Friday 29 November, I received an email from the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command regarding the honeytrap situation that hit Westminster. Unfortunately, in that email several other victims were named. It was then leaked to journalists and released from that point onwards. I have received a phone call and an email from the Met to apologise, but I would be grateful if Mr Speaker raised this significant issue with the Met to ensure that lessons are learned and that it does not happen again.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving us notice of his point of order. As he knows, we do not discuss security matters in the Chamber, but I share his concern, and I can assure him that Mr Speaker will raise the matter with the appropriate people.
Deputy Speaker's Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we begin the main business, I wish to make a short statement on behalf of Mr Speaker about the House’s sub judice resolution. I understand that the Court of Appeal has recently handed down a judgment on three cases relating to motor finance. Since the lenders involved have sought permission to appeal those cases at the Supreme Court, they remain sub judice. Mr Speaker is exercising his discretion to allow reference to those cases now and in future proceedings where necessary, as they concern a matter of national importance.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report.
We will never forget the 72 lives lost as a result of that fateful night seven years ago, or the family, friends and neighbours they left behind—some of whom are with us today in the Public Gallery. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them. It is thanks to their awe-inspiring tenacity that we have got to where we are today. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report laid bare the truth of what happened. That day of truth must now lead to a day of justice. They have waited too long for both, and justice delayed is justice denied. There must be full accountability for the failures that led to the biggest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. The Metropolitan police will continue to have our full support as they carry out their independent investigation.
What we do know from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report is that this tragedy was entirely avoidable. The bereaved survivors and the immediate community will have to live the rest of their days with the knowledge that they and those dearest to them were so comprehensively failed. The report makes for the most shocking reading, shining a light on the systemic failures over decades. Those who manufactured and sold building products; the British state; the local council; the tenant management organisation; the London Fire Brigade—every single institution failed to recognise and protect the residents of Grenfell. Reading the report, I was disgusted by the extent to which profits were put before people and by the systemic dishonesty of some of the manufacturers, which had catastrophic results. The families were not listened to—everyone dismissed their concerns.
The No. 1 priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. On the day that the report was published, the Prime Minister apologised to the families on behalf of the British state for the catalogue of failures that led to the disaster. He committed to respond to all 58 of the inquiry’s recommendations within six months. To the bereaved families, the survivors, those in the immediate community and those who are with us in the Chamber today, I reiterate that apology and that commitment. As the Prime Minister said, bigger change is needed. We need system change—reform of a system that is not delivering the safe homes it should deliver—but where we can start to make immediate change, I will not wait, and neither will the Government. We are boosting the collective efforts to make homes safe, expecting leadership and action from industry, enforcing against landlords where necessary, and providing support so that leaseholders and residents can get on with their lives.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on her words—they are the words of us all in this House. We welcome those words and the constructive way in which they have been implemented today.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that action will be taken to hold to account those companies that are guilty? Secondly, when it comes to the findings of this report, will the Deputy Prime Minister share with the devolved Administrations everything that is being put in place? There are lessons to be learned everywhere. To the Deputy Prime Minister’s left and right are two of her Ministers, the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who have conveyed that commitment in the past. It would be good to have it on the record from the Deputy Prime Minister.
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was speaking to families of the bereaved earlier, and I made sure to reiterate that, while this Chamber might not be full, I think I speak on behalf of the whole House when I talk about making sure we continue to learn the lessons of Grenfell. As for working with the devolved Administrations to learn those lessons, that is absolutely important. We have seen other fires internationally, across Europe—some of the survivors and the families have told me this. It is not just here, but abroad too, that people are in this situation, and we need to make sure that we continue to keep our residents safe here.
I can announce today that we have published our response to the emergency evacuation information sharing plus consultation, which provides details of our new residential personal emergency evacuation plans policy to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in high-rise and high-risk residential buildings. Under those proposals, residents with disabilities or impairments will be entitled to an assessment to identify necessary equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation. Fire and rescue services will also receive information on vulnerable residents, in case they need to support their evacuation. We have committed to funding next year to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their tenants. Future years funding will be confirmed at the upcoming spending review, and statutory guidance has been updated to provide for evacuation alert systems in all new blocks of flats over 18 metres. This means that, with our most recent move to provide sprinklers in all new care homes—strengthening protections for some of the most vulnerable—we have now addressed all of the recommendations made by the Grenfell inquiry to the Government in its phase 1 report.
The Prime Minister and I, and the rest of this Government, are determined that industry will deliver real change. As the Government, our role is to ensure that that change is delivered—a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country. We now need leadership from industry to step up the pace on cultural change across the construction sector, but more crucially, we need a cultural shift that is about empowering people so that we put people and safety first, not profits. That is what needs to change. It is in that spirit, inspired by the Grenfell community’s incredible strength and tireless campaigning, that we will continue to push industry to deliver the necessary changes. Let me be crystal clear: we will be holding industry to account as closely as we need to. I know that Members across this House share my desire that this report be a catalyst for change.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on the point about industry’s responsibility. It is right that social housing tenants and leaseholders should not have to bear the burden of rectifying these buildings. Individual developers and the development industry have been financially held to account, at least to a significant degree, but the one part of industry that has got completely away with it so far is the product manufacturers. So far, they have not been asked to pay anything towards rectifying the buildings, and as the Grenfell inquiry showed, they are responsible for a lot of the problems. Will my right hon. Friend indicate what consideration is being given to a scheme to make sure the product manufacturers pay their fair share of the costs?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to see what measures we can take, and I have taken nothing off the table. I am working with my officials to make sure that those who are responsible are the ones who pay, not taxpayers.
Important progress has been made since 2017. Fire and rescue services are better trained and better prepared for large-scale emergencies, improvements have been made to local authority building enforcement, and a poor culture among tenant housing associations is being tackled through regulation. However, we must go further. If you speak to those who live in unsafe buildings, it does not feel like there has been progress—it does not feel like progress to them. They still feel trapped, powerless in the face of a system that is not designed for them, so this Government are acting.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As my right hon. Friend has just said, many of my constituents feel very trapped, so I welcome the acceleration of action. However, does she have any timeframe—or will her Department be working up a timeframe—for when that action will have an impact on constituents? Some of mine will be facing bankruptcy because of the challenges they have been facing. I should declare for the record that I am a leaseholder.
Angela Rayner
The absolute deadline we have put forward as part of our remediation acceleration plan is 2029, but we want to go much further. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), and I have met with developers and others, and we continue to push really hard on this issue—it has been one of our No. 1 focuses.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on the way she is introducing this debate. There is another group of people who I do not think have been properly considered yet: those who have lost their property, or could not remortgage it or sell it at the market rate, because they had cladding issues. My constituent Crawford Wilson invested his life savings in a property, unaware at the time that it had cladding problems. This meant that he could not secure a remortgage and could not sell it for anything like the market value. It was finally repossessed, and he lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result. What advice could the Deputy Prime Minister offer my constituent, and what is she going to do to try to ensure that that situation is put right?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which shows how the damage caused by the organisations that cladded those buildings and their systemic failures have had a real impact. That is why, since we were elected in July, my No. 1 focus has been trying to make sure that those buildings are safe and that remediation takes place. Seven years on is far too long for those buildings to still be unsafe, and later in my speech I will come on to some of the issues we are trying to resolve, including the people who are paying exorbitant insurance rates at this time.
Seven years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, thousands of people across the country still live in homes with unsafe cladding. The toll that this has placed on thousands of people is, I know, intolerable, with the financial worries, the impact on mental health and the lives put on hold. People have been unable to plan their futures, and may fear going to sleep in case something happens in the night, as it did in June 2017. This is a scandal. It permeates every aspect of the lives of those who live in unsafe buildings—buildings bought or rented in good faith—and it is completely unacceptable.
People must be and must feel safe in their homes, and we are taking a major step towards that with the statement laid in the House today. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out our ambitious measures to fix buildings faster, identify those still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. We are committed to getting homes fixed faster through the remediation acceleration plan. We aim to do that remediation by 2029 at the latest on all residential buildings of 18 metres or over with unsafe cladding, through a Government-funded scheme. By the end of 2029, every residential building of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties.
We will introduce new legal obligations on landlords to remediate unsafe cladding, with severe penalties, including sanctions for inaction. We are backing this up with new funding and new guidance for regulators to drive remediation forward. We have a plan to tackle the remediation needed in the social sector to support social landlords to ensure that their stock is safe. The building safety levy and developers’ repayment of Government funds will ensure that the cost of fixing these buildings does not fall on the taxpayer. Above all, we will take measures to protect residents and leaseholders, who are the innocent parties in this, during remediation. This is our plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley, will be able to share more of its details at the end of this debate.
Developers must play their part in accelerating remediation. They have already committed to fix or pay to fix unsafe buildings at an estimated cost of more than £3.4 billion, but progress has been too slow. Works have started in fewer than half of developers’ buildings known to be unsafe. That is why we have agreed a new joint plan with developers to accelerate remediation and improve the experience of residents, which we are publishing today. For the first time, developers are committing to achieve ambitious stretch targets to assess all their buildings by July 2025, and to start or complete remedial works on all their unsafe buildings by July 2027. To meet these stretch targets, developers will need to more than double the pace at which they have been assessing buildings and starting remediation work so far this year. Already more than 25 developers have signed up to the plan, bringing more than 95% of the buildings that developers need to remediate into scope, which is encouraging.
We are often reminded just how crucial decisive action to replace unsafe cladding is. Just last week, a fire at the Quadrangle building in Greater Manchester, a building that was remediated in 2021 through the ACM private sector cladding remediation fund, thankfully did not turn into an emergency situation. If the building had not been remediated, that situation could have been much more serious. To keep residents safe in their homes until remediation work has been carried out, we are extending the waking watch replacement fund until the spring of 2026. I will confirm the long-term plans at the end of the next spending review.
Too many leaseholders in buildings that need remediation face unaffordable insurance premiums, and this cannot continue. I can confirm that from today we will start working with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of the remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities to lower the high insurance bills that leaseholders face. As part of our commitment to minimising unfair costs to leaseholders, I can also announce that we are tackling the problem of the unfair charges from those managing buildings insurance, and we have launched a consultation on that today.
I want the message to go out loud and clear that we expect the industry and those who build and maintain our homes to lead the way in creating a culture that puts the safety of residents first. Money is available to make buildings safe, but, incredibly, some landlords are still failing to act. Through their inaction, they are preventing homes from being made safe. It is outstandingly neglectful and a dereliction of responsibility. We will not stand for this any longer.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
The Secretary of State may be aware that my constituency has the highest number of high-rise buildings in the entire country. My constituents want reassurance on whether the scope of penalties and sanctions for landlords that do not comply and do not follow the remediation acceleration plan will include preventing them from expanding their portfolios and continuing to build in the manner they are, thus ensuring accountability and that the harms they have caused are not reproduced.
Angela Rayner
I have been very clear with developers by asking why somebody would want to purchase a home from a developer that is not seen to be taking action on remediation. That is why we have got many of them round the table to sign up to this acceleration plan. I do believe that they want to remediate this problem. It has been too long and things need to change. We are clear that there will be consequences for landlords for failing to act. With the support of Parliament, we will put in place legislation to ensure that they do.
The London borough of Tower Hamlets recently became the first local authority in England to successfully obtain a remediation order, and I expect to see many more in the future. To ensure that regulators can act, we will provide £33 million in the next financial year to local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Building Safety Regulator, so that they can tackle hundreds of cases per year. We will provide a further £5 million to the recovery strategy unit to increase its capacity to act. Let me be clear that this includes, where necessary, pursuing landlords in the courts. The industry must act now to fix the thousands of unsafe buildings that must be made safe. It must take seriously its obligations to remediate buildings and to design, construct and maintain buildings safely.
If you own an unsafe building or you are a landlord who is not fixing a building, this Government will make sure that you do, and we will propose legislation to ensure that you do. There can be no more delay, no more excuses and no more obstruction. To make the change that this Government and the Grenfell inquiry demand, we must build effective services that command public trust and confidence, and that are fit for the 21st century. Those who flout their responsibilities will have nowhere to hide. We will take direct action to hold to account those who are failing to meet their obligations. That is why we have committed to a system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, and why we will consult on robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities against manufacturers.
I can update the House that we have made good on our pledge to write to organisations identified by the inquiry for their part in this tragedy. Organisations will hold different levels of responsibility, but I can announce that we will publish guidance early next year to support the first set of decisions that will stop the most appalling companies from being awarded Government contracts.
As I have said, the system itself needs reform. Statutory guidance on building regulations covering fire safety and building design is now subject to continuous review by the Building Safety Regulator, but I want to go further. I can announce today that I have asked the regulator to undertake that a fundamental review of the building safety regulations guidance will be produced, updated and communicated to the construction industry, because we must get this right.
Mr Betts
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way once again. To go back to the issue of the product manufacturers, I am really pleased to hear what she says about Government contracts for the worst offenders, but will she consider giving guidance to local authorities and other public bodies, such as the NHS, to make sure that they are also aware of the need not to award contracts to these companies?
Angela Rayner
Yes, I am happy to look at that issue. The spirit I am trying to get across is that we have to have a cultural shift, and everyone has to play their part in ensuring that that happens. I am willing to look at anything the Government can do to make it happen.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is making an excellent speech, and I wholeheartedly welcome the measures she has announced. In my constituency, one challenge is that, sadly, there have been some poor examples of workmanship—or workpersonship —and some sloppy building that has opened up residents to a risk of fire: poorly built compartmentalisation, fire safety walls not built properly, gaps, the use of wood where wood should not have been used—that sort of risk. Will she ask her officials to look into such matters, and for better guidance to be provided?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Cladding is one element of what many tenants face with unsafe buildings, and we are looking at how we can strengthen measures to ensure that action is taken. Some local authorities have already started to take enforcement action, and I have pushed hard to ensure that we continue to do that. If a building is unsafe, people should not have to live in it, and it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
We are bringing local authority leaders and Ministers together through the new leaders’ council to work through these issues. I thank them all for their engagement today, including our mayors. The resilience review announced in July will continue to bring together the devolved Governments, local leaders and experts to consider where things are working well and where there could be improvements, to ensure that the UK is prepared for the risks we face. We must work with those in industry to ensure that buildings are safe, to raise professional standards, and to create a culture that puts the safety of residents first.
Fire and rescue services need to do more to develop high quality leadership, and support learning and professional excellence. We are carefully considering the inquiry’s recommendation to establish a college of fire and rescue. We expect all firefighters to have access to the vital education and training they need to save lives, and to be the best they can be. Culture and integrity in fire and rescue services are vital. Poor culture, a lack of integrity and bad practice can risk public safety, as was highlighted by the Grenfell inquiry. That is unacceptable and a culture change must begin immediately.
Our response to the Grenfell inquiry report must be a watershed moment not just for safety and quality, but for a new vision of housing that gives every resident a voice and the respect that they deserve—a change in culture that truly empowers people. As I said earlier, the failure to do that with Grenfell residents, who repeatedly raised concerns and were repeatedly ignored, stands out starkly. Everyone deserves a warm, decent home. They also have the right to be treated with dignity, and to have access to redress when things go wrong. That includes the millions of people living in social housing, which is why we have introduced a stronger set of consumer standards that applies to all registered social landlords. Routine inspections of large landlords have already started, and the Regulator of Social Housing has published the first set of judgments.
Many landlords must do more to improve the quality of their buildings and communicate better with their tenants. When it comes to quality and tackling unacceptable housing conditions, we will legislate to introduce Awaab’s law in the social rented sector as soon as possible, setting a requirement for landlords to investigate and repair serious hazards with specific timeframes. We will also extend Awaab’s law to the private rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill. We will bring forward regulations to set standards for the competence and conduct of staff in the sector, and enable residents to request information about their landlords through new access requirements that will apply to housing associations. We will monitor the new regime and its effectiveness closely.
While we are doing more to raise the bar for social landlords, we are also empowering tenants and giving them a seat at the table, relaunching our communications campaign on how people can raise complaints, and extending that work so that all residents know their rights and can hold their landlords to account. To hear at first hand what matters most to social tenants, this week my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning will join our relaunched social housing residents panel. Changing the culture in our social housing system will take time, but those are important first steps.
In conclusion, the reforms I have set out are about much more than new regulation and legislation. Indeed, the Grenfell inquiry made it clear that those things alone are not enough, and that nothing less than a shift in culture that puts people and safety first, not profits, will do if we are to turn the page on the shocking failures exposed by the Grenfell report. Accelerating the pace of remediation and empowering tenants are important steps in the right direction, because no matter who someone is or where they live, a good life starts with a safe, secure, decent home and a strong community. We owe it to the Grenfell community, and everything they stand for and have fought for, to make sure that everyone can count on that. To the Grenfell community I say this: we will continue to work with you to build a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government will support you now and always, in memory of the loved ones who were lost so tragically.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Kevin Hollinrake.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Grenfell Tower fire was an unthinkable tragedy that claimed 72 lives. It is one of the few moments in life when we all remember exactly where we were when it happened. Our thoughts are with those who lost loved ones, the survivors who endured unimaginable trauma, and all those who were affected by that devastating night. The state failed them in its duty to protect, and we must ensure that such failures are never repeated. We will work collaboratively with the Secretary of State and the wider Government in the interests of everyone directly and indirectly affected by this tragedy, and I very much welcome today’s announcement about the acceleration of remediation.
Following the tragedy, the Conservative Government took decisive action to uncover the truth, initiating a public inquiry to learn lessons and implement changes to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. The right hon. Lady may remember that we served briefly together on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee which, under the extremely capable leadership of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), led much of the thinking and debate following the tragedy. We successfully campaigned for a banning of combustible materials on the outside of new buildings over 18 metres, and for a Government remediation fund for existing buildings. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) who was the first to properly grasp that nettle as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor, and Prime Minister. More than £5.1 billion has since been allocated for building remediation, and we have acted to strengthen regulations and implement recommendations from the inquiry’s phase 1 report.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s predecessor, the former Member for Surrey Heath, for his work in this area, not least the establishment of the building safety levy, which is the source from which much of the funds will flow. However, publication of the phase 2 report in September 2024 revealed the scale of failures that occurred over decades and across multiple sectors, making clear that much more remains to be done, as the right hon. Lady set out. Even those of us who have followed the inquiry closely find the report truly shocking to read. The phase 2 report, chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and supported by panel members Ali Akbor OBE and Thouria Istephan, makes 58 recommendations to improve fire safety and address systemic issues within the construction industry. Crucially, the report concluded that the Grenfell Tower fire was the result of decades of failures by Government, regulatory bodies and the construction industry to act on the known dangers of using combustible materials in high-rise buildings.
One of the most alarming findings was the role of systemic dishonesty in the construction industry. Companies engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate safety testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. For instance, the insulation product Celotex RS5000, used on Grenfell Tower, was found to have been sold using manipulated test results—incredibly, with the Building Research Establishment complicit in those practices.
Mr Betts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the work of the Select Committee. On product safety and product testing, what the Hackitt report, as well as the Select Committee, found was the extent to which product manufacturers were going from one testing place to another until they found one that agreed that their product was safe. Products often failed the tests, but those failures were never in the public domain. Does he think that there ought to be a change of process, so that when a product fails in one testing place, that failure is made known publicly?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did during much of our work on the Select Committee. One of Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations was exactly that: that all test results should be published, not just the ones that support the safety of the product. That would go a long way towards ensuring that the true safety of the products is established.
The BRE findings highlight a shocking betrayal of trust, and a callous disregard for public safety, driven by financial gain. The report also identified severe leadership and management failings within the London Fire Brigade. It described a chronic lack of effective management, an undue focus on processes, and a complacency among senior officers regarding the brigade’s operational efficiency. Those weaknesses hindered the brigade’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis, and underscored the need for systemic reform and improved leadership in fire services.
To address those failings, the phase 2 report made far-reaching recommendations, including the establishment of a single construction regulator; centralising fire safety responsibilities under one Secretary of State, to end fragmentation across Departments; regular updates to approved document B, to keep fire safety regulations current; and the creation of a chief construction adviser and a college of fire and rescue to ensure high standards in fire safety training and practices. We fully support those recommendations and urge the Government to implement them swiftly and effectively. We will scrutinise their progress to ensure that the necessary reforms are delivered without delay.
Some have questioned the pace of the remediation efforts. I think the Secretary of State was right to do so. I emphasise that the remediation efforts prioritised the highest-risk buildings, and by July 2024, 98% of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous, Grenfell-style ACM cladding had either completed or started work. On the remaining buildings, enforcement action is being taken against non-compliant owners. The complexity of the buildings and legal disputes over responsibility have caused delays. Nevertheless, all building owners must step up, take responsibility, and act swiftly to address the issues, or face the consequences of their inaction. It is important to note that the building regulations regime was established under the Building Act 1984, and fire safety reforms were introduced by other Governments in previous decades, as the Secretary of State acknowledged.
From 2010, the coalition Government sought to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, but fire safety and building safety were explicitly excluded from those reviews. The inquiry acknowledged that key safety regulations, including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 were excluded from deregulation initiatives. Under our leadership, safety was never treated as red tape. Nevertheless, as the report confirms, mistakes were made by Ministers and officials on our watch. The frequency of changes under Governments of different political stripes, and the frequency of changes in housing Ministers and Secretaries of State, would not have helped. I hope that Parliament may learn that lesson for the future. Since 2017, the Conservatives in Government led comprehensive reforms of building compliance and fire safety. Measures introduced include the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which created the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stricter compliance with standards.
Dame Meg Hillier
One issue that arose at an early stage, about a year after the tragedy at Grenfell, was the need for fire safety surveyors. These people are experts and take about three years to train. In retrospect, does the hon. Gentleman not think that a lesson for future Governments of any colour is to look at such issues at an early stage, because we still have a shortage of those people now in 2024?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree. Mistakes were made—there is no doubt about it. As the phase 2 report recommends, there should be greater oversight and regulation of people who proclaim themselves to be experts in these fields. I agree with the hon. Lady’s points.
Accountability must remain a cornerstone of our response. Those who knowingly cut corners on safety to maximise profits must face justice. We call on the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue criminal charges against those responsible, be it through a deliberate act, a willingness to look the other way, or gross incompetence. Companies implicated in such wrongdoing should not receive future public contracts. Let us be clear: this was not the responsibility of any single Government, Minister or official. As the report sets out in its opening paragraphs, failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations of all political colours. We must approach these difficult questions with the honesty and determination that they deserve, ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past to protect lives in the future.
While we have made significant progress, the journey is far from over. As we look to the future, we must acknowledge the hard questions raised by the report about past governance. Those failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations led by Labour, the coalition Government, and Conservative Governments. This was a systemic failure, which requires an open and honest response. Our party’s record demonstrates our commitment to making things right. We took swift action after the tragedy to establish the public inquiry, launch the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and allocate significant resources to remove unsafe cladding from high-risk buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 implemented recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, and the Building Safety Act 2022 overhauled existing regulations, setting up the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stringent compliance measures.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Bournemouth East constituents, such as Katie from Queen’s Park in Charminster, have been in touch, horrified about the Grenfell Tower tragedy and desperate for a turning point. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to reach such a turning point? We need justice for those who were let down by the last Government. Does he also agree that we need to get rid of the social housing stigma, which has made so many people in social housing feel like they live in shame?
Kevin Hollinrake
There are so many lessons that I hope will be learned across the House. The report is clear that there has been failure by Governments of all stripes over the years, in terms of both building safety and social housing. With the Regulator of Social Housing and the new fire safety regulatory regime, it is hugely important that we turn the page, but I do not think that we will win back the trust of the people affected by this scandal, or by the cladding scandal in other areas, until we have made progress, completed the remediation, and put in place a regime that is seen to be working and bringing about the cultural change to which the Secretary of State referred. It is hugely important that we make that progress.
The actions that we have taken have made strides towards addressing safety concerns, but we recognise that more is needed. I welcome the Labour Government’s pledge to respond to all 58 recommendations within six months and to provide annual progress updates to Parliament. This is a critical moment for accountability and reform, and we stand ready to support all proportionate and necessary measures to protect public safety. Does the Secretary of State agree with the recommendation of a single construction regulator, with one Secretary of State holding end-to-end responsibility, and will that be her? Does she also agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East about product manufacturers being held responsible for remediation costs, too? It is her stated policy to continue the use of the CE marking scheme for construction products in the UK, but those standards were set in 2015, three years prior to the post-Grenfell standards revision in the UK. How will she ensure that all products sold in the UK meet the post-2018 UK standard? That issue has been raised on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is next to me on the Opposition Front Bench.
I recently met campaigners, including Steve Day, who raise the case of the 1.7 million leaseholders who do not currently qualify for the Building Safety Act 2022 protections and who still suffer from higher insurance premiums, higher mortgage rates and an inability to sell their homes. Will the Secretary of State meet him and others to see what additional measures need to be taken? Can she share with the House when announcements will be made on the future memorial on the site? Indeed, can the renovation of properties in the Grenfell community be accelerated? Can we get a target for when that will be completed? Accountability must be at the heart of the response, and those who knowingly cut corners on building safety must face justice.
Grenfell was a tragedy of unprecedented scale, but it must serve as a turning point. We owe it to those who lost their lives, to the survivors and to the public to ensure that their legacy is one of justice, reform and safety. Let us move forward with determination to build a safer future for all.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It is now more than seven and a half years since 72 people lost their lives at Grenfell Tower in my constituency in north Kensington. It was a greater loss of life than any terrorist attack in London’s history. That is seven and a half years of no justice, and seven and a half years of no meaningful change. It was a tragedy that was entirely preventable, and entirely foreseen. To our shame as a country, and as the recent fire in Dagenham showed, it could happen again today.
As the Grenfell inquiry sets out, the fire occurred because individuals and organisations were systematically dishonest, put profit before lives and were part of a system and culture that too often denies agency and power to those living in social housing in this country. I pay tribute to the next of kin, bereaved, survivors and our community, many of whom have joined us here today, for their resilience and strength in continuing to fight for truth, justice and change. I know that with each hearing, each story, each Government announcement and each new promise of change, they are forced to relive the horrific events of that night, and I know that today will be painful, too. Their voices must remain at the heart of this Government’s response and of all future decisions about Grenfell. I hope I speak for the whole House when I say to them that justice will only truly be served when there are criminal prosecutions and those responsible pay the price.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology on 4 September on behalf of the British state, and I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the whole inquiry team. The report is an important step in uncovering the truth of what happened that night, who was responsible and what must be done to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated, but the path to justice is long and we are far from the end. In recent meetings with the then Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander) and the Metropolitan police, I have been clear that our community is watching and waiting. I urge all involved to remain focused on expediting the process as much as possible.
I fully understand the frustration that it has taken this long. On 24 June 2017, then Ministers Alok Sharma and Nick Hurd wrote to bereaved families. They said:
“The inquiry will not delay the conclusion of the Police inquiry…If criminal proceedings result from these investigations…we would not expect them to be delayed by the establishment of the public inquiry.”
That has clearly not come to pass. Justice has been delayed, but it must not be denied. While we wait for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to complete their work, there are actions that must be taken now. Companies identified in the report, such as Arconic, Rydon, Kingspan and Celotex, must be excluded from public contracts while criminal investigations are ongoing. I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to that, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) that local authorities across the country should be encouraged to follow suit.
Justice is about more than contracts and criminal charges, and it goes beyond Grenfell. Across the country, up to a million people are still stuck in unsafe buildings. They are victims of the building safety crisis. The National Audit Office has just reported that, on current trends, it will take until at least 2037 before the last unsafe building is remediated, at a cost of £16.6 billion. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement today that they will speed up the remediation work, that developers will be forced to double the pace of fixing the crisis and that building owners who sit on their hands will be subject to severe penalties. That is right, because while residents wait, they also pay the costs.
In a block of flats in Earl’s Court, just two miles south of Grenfell, a recent fire inspection found flammable rendering. The insurance premium has gone up from £15,000 a year to £375,000 a year, meaning an extra £400 a month in service charges for leaseholders. While leaseholders face this increasing cost of living crisis, and the fear of living in buildings that are unsafe, the insurance industry has so far failed to tackle the problem. The Association of British Insurers committed to bringing down costs, but the experience of my constituents shows that it is not working. I am delighted that the Government have committed to working with insurers to consider urgently how bills can be reduced during remediation programmes. That cannot come soon enough. I know that Members from across the House will have their own horror stories of leaseholders who cannot sell and cannot move on with their lives, who are caught in the middle between freeholders, developers, managing agents and all levels of government. My test of this Government’s plan and whether it will be deemed a success is whether it brings this merry-go-round of buck-passing to an end.
I know that the Government are also considering their formal response to the inquiry, including ending the chaotic and fragmented regulatory system. Accountability for building regulations should be streamlined under a single Secretary of State. We need one regulator—a high-quality, well-resourced public body reporting directly to that Secretary of State—and we need robust product regulation. Currently, only a third of construction products are regulated. Instead, all construction products should be subject to regulations to ensure safety and public trust.
This inquiry is just one of many recent high-profile public inquiries into state injustices, whether that is Hillsborough, the Post Office, Windrush, infected blood or LGBT veterans. I welcome the Government’s resolve to righting the wrongs of the past and tackling the injustices that the previous Government largely failed to budget for. Time and again, we have seen a pattern of inaction and too many lifesaving recommendations from public inquiries and inquests ignored by corporate bodies and Departments, and that failure to act has had fatal consequences. Had the coroner’s regulations following the Lakanal House fire, which claimed six lives, been implemented, it is likely that the Grenfell Tower tragedy would have been prevented.
The previous Government dragged their feet on implementing personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people in phase 1, so I welcome the Government’s announcement today on the next steps to protect disabled tenants. Such examples have convinced me that we must consider an independent oversight body, answerable to Parliament, to track the implementation of inquiry recommendations and prevent avoidable deaths. I welcome the commitment to passing the Hillsborough law duty of candour to ensure that public authorities and officials act in the public interest, with openness, honesty and transparency about their actions, decisions and failings.
Nowhere is the need for candour and oversight more evident than with the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which failed residents in the years leading up to the Grenfell fire, on the night of the tragedy and in its aftermath. The inquiry determined that RBKC bears
“considerable responsibility for the dangerous condition of the building”,
highlighted a
“persistent indifference to fire safety”,
and found that RBKC’s response was
“muddled, slow, indecisive and piecemeal”,
with it
“ill-equipped to deal with a serious emergency”,
exposing a complete failure to protect and serve the community for whom it was entrusted to care. Even today, many north Kensington residents still rely on community groups for essential support and services. In stark contrast to the failures of RBKC, the community acted decisively and heroically on the night of the fire and in its immediate aftermath. I am proud of how our community responded to the fire and continues to support residents across north Kensington.
But this is not just about one council; it is about a culture of neglect and disrespect that impacts millions of people living in social housing across the country. Some 60% of my casework in Kensington and Bayswater relates to slow repairs, damp, mould, overcrowding and poor communication from landlords. On Saturday, I visited a council estate close to Grenfell and spoke to many residents, including a woman who has been in temporary accommodation for 19 years out of the borough and who has had to chase relentlessly to get her move back home, and a resident with an extractor fan that has been broken for years, despite multiple surveyors coming to assess the job.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. What he has described reflects all our inboxes. Does he agree that to address residents’, tenants’ and leaseholders’ concerns in a timely manner with good customer care does not cost any money?
Joe Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The waste of councils’ and housing associations’ precious resources and the waste of people’s time in taking time off work and disrupting their lives to deal with the inefficiency and repairs is something that we have to fix. I am really hopeful that incoming legislation such as Awaab’s law will help with that.
The case study from Saturday is a good example. A constituent is forced to open the windows to prevent mould coming into her home, which means that she has paid thousands extra in energy bills over the past few years while she waits for the council to fix the fan. On the Lancaster West estate, where Grenfell is located, there are concerns that the promise from all levels of government for a modern 21st-century social housing estate will not be fulfilled.
It is essential that RBKC, residents and Ministers agree a plan to complete the refurbishment with transparency and accountability on budgets and timelines, because those residents have been living on a building site for far too long. It is not enough just to talk about change. Until the tenants of RBKC and the housing associations in my constituency are treated with respect and have access to what they are entitled to as a right, they will lack trust in the institutions that are meant to serve them. Just last week, the regulator found one of our major housing associations, Notting Hill Genesis, to be non-compliant after an inspection revealed governance failings and poor health and safety outcomes for tenants.
I do not want just to criticise; I want to help RBKC and our housing associations to find solutions. In the new year, we will be launching a new campaign on social housing quality in Kensington and Bayswater, because I want our community to be a trailblazer on how to implement Awaab’s law on damp and mould, how to enforce the new decent homes standard and how to break people out of the doom cycle of endless emails, phone calls, missed appointments and subcontractors even to get simple repairs done. If we cannot get it right in Kensington and Bayswater given Grenfell, given our amazing community organisations and given that we are on the frontline of the nation’s housing crisis, what hope does the rest of the country have? Central to the campaign will be the voice of tenants. I extend an open invitation to anyone who can help to join our campaign and make a practical difference for the community.
It has been over seven years since the bereaved, the survivors and the local community endured a tragedy that changed their lives forever. I will continue to advocate in this place for truth, justice and lasting change, and for Grenfell bereaved and survivors to be heard. Their dignity and resilience have held up a mirror to us as a nation, forcing us to confront a fundamental question: do we truly give everyone an equal voice in how this country is run?
The opportunity is for the Government—a mission-led Government—to focus on service and give people a real say in decisions that affect them. We cannot afford to continue with nearly a million people sleeping in unsafe buildings. We cannot afford another Grenfell Tower. True justice means criminal charges for those responsible, a complete culture change with respect for every tenant, and every child in the country growing up in a safe and decent home. That must be the legacy of Grenfell.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Like Members across the House, Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the many bereaved and their immediate community of family, friends and neighbours as they mourn the 72, including children, who tragically lost their lives in June 2017. In this debate, surely one thing matters more than anything: that their memory must be respected. But, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 report on the underlying cause of the fire graphically lays bare, they were cruelly let down by the systems, companies, Governments and government bodies that should have protected them.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to address all the recommendations in the report, and the Prime Minister’s promise in response to the phase 2 report to take the necessary steps to speed up the rate at which unsafe cladding is removed from buildings and to ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored. However, the National Audit Office has said that the pace of remediation work is behind where it should be and called for the onus to be placed on developers to pay for the work. Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s figures show that works have begun in 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding, it is deeply worrying, seven years on, that 66% are waiting and that thousands of people in the UK are still living in buildings with dangerous cladding. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcements about accelerating progress.
As the National Housing Federation has pointed out, 90% of Government funding for the work so far has been received by private building owners, but many have passed the costs of remediation work on to tenants and leaseholders, putting many, quite unfairly, in serious financial peril. Leaseholders have struggled under the cladding crisis, buying properties they believed met safety standards, which they realise now do not, and suffering from huge increases in insurance premiums, as we have heard. We therefore call for the removal of all such dangerous cladding as soon as possible without tenants and leaseholders—including non-qualifying leaseholders —having to pay. After all, they placed their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down, so they should not have to pay a penny towards that work. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, product manufacturers surely should be paying.
The whole picture points to the need to create a legally enforceable order to remediate premises so that they are safe on pain of criminal sanction. I welcome what the Deputy Prime Minister said about that a few moments ago. Seven years on from this scandal, it is time for justice both for the victims and all those living with potentially unsafe cladding.
The inquiry report clearly establishes lessons to be learned for every authority in the land. The “pathway to disaster”, as Sir Martin called it, is chilling. It is incumbent on all of us in the House and everyone connected with the built environment and fire safety, not least those in my own professions—as an architect and town planner, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to ensure that change happens and to take forward the report’s recommendations. The Architects Registration Board, working with the Royal Institute of British Architects, has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to monitor the training and development that architects complete throughout their careers. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this year it is mandatory for all architects to complete training in fire safety.
But there is one factor that comes through in the fateful chain of events that led to the fire in 2017, and it is one that had a devastating effect on the lives of so many: the promotion of gaining commercial advantage at the expense of building and fire safety. The inquiry said that the Building Research Establishment—originally a public body but privatised in the ’90s—exhibited in its testing of dangerous cladding
“a desire to accommodate existing customers and to retain its status within the industry at the expense of maintaining the rigour of its processes and considerations of public safety.”
The inquiry reports says that the supplier companies
“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. In the case of the principal insulation product used on Grenfell Tower, Celotex RS5000, the Building Research Establishment…was complicit in that strategy.”
Since the privatisation of building inspectors in the 1980s—a move with which even the most commercially minded partners at the practice I worked in a few years later strongly disagreed—they have also faltered as a result of commercial pressures, with a resultant unacceptable blurring of responsibilities. Sir Martin’s report concludes that the privatised inspector NHBC
“failed to ensure that its building control function remained essentially regulatory and free of commercial pressures. It was unwilling to upset its…customers”.
The report goes on:
“We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest.”
It is also clear that NHBC practices exposed what remains of local authority building control to similarly unscrupulous competition, and has driven down standards there as a result.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech. Does he agree that a lot of problems have arisen from the poor funding of local authorities, where building control services have been severely undermined?
Gideon Amos
I very much agree. It is clear from my time in the profession that the exposure of local authority building control to private competition, with which it is difficult to compete, has led to a race to the bottom. In fact, hon. Members should not take my word for it; expert witness Professor Luke Bisby summed it up:
“A culture shift in building control had gradually occurred, from one of building control actors ‘policing’ developers to one of them ‘working with clients’ under commercial duress. This resulted in a ‘race to the bottom’”.
Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support the recommendation for the Government to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process. We would go further and say that the evidence to the inquiry is such that commercial interests cannot be in the public interest, and that both the Building Research Establishment and building inspectors should be brought back under public control. We also urge social housing providers to pay particular attention to their new requirements under the Social Housing Act (Regulation) 2023, and to the need for better inspection and timely remediation of defects.
We also strongly endorse the need for a recognised profession of fire engineer. It is important, too, that our local fire services are properly funded. I was concerned about the reduction in the number of appliances at Taunton fire station, and I have written to the Treasury on behalf of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority, asking the Government for flexibility in funding and tax-raising powers. It is vital that no further reduction of appliances at stations such as mine go ahead.
We support all 58 recommendations in the report, whether for local authorities, the fire brigade, tenant management organisations or local authorities, or on personal emergency evacuation plans being put in place —it is good to see the Government establishing that today—or indeed for the Government themselves. Since what has turned out to be the fatal folly of promoting commercial interest above building and fire safety in the decades from the ’80s and ’90s, Governments of all persuasions have let down some of our most vulnerable citizens. The situation has been reviewed many times over the years by Governments of all stripes. It is now time to put safety once again before profit.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on outlining the concerns of his constituents. In the short four-and-a-half months that he has been here, championing their cause has been central to his role as an MP.
This evening a number of colleagues will touch on the technicalities outlined in the report. I want to focus my remarks on the survivors and victims of Grenfell. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), said that we all remember where we were on 14 June 2017. I remember very well where I was, because my son was just a week old—he was born on 7 June. As a new mum, though a second-time one, I was sitting up nursing him through the night. I remember my husband coming into the room and asking “What are you watching? Why’ve you still got the TV on? What film is this?” It was not a film; it was real life. I sat there during the night, which many Members probably did as well, just watching that fire. Remembering back to that scene, things were dropping that we might have thought were items, but they were people. Today’s debate has to be about the victims of Grenfell, their families and the 72 people who died.
In May 2023, I went to the Serpentine gallery to watch a short film produced by Steve McQueen. It is a 24-minute film that follows a drone or a helicopter coming in from way out near Heathrow. It is an aerial shot, and quite silent—at first, you can hear the sirens and the noise in the background, but as it gets closer and closer to Grenfell Tower, there is just silence. That aerial shot gives a good overview of just a tall, charred building. As the helicopter goes around the building, you can see inside—the debris, the remnants and the forensic cases. But what is glaringly obvious in that film is blackness. You can almost smell the burning as you watch the film. I challenge anyone who has not seen it to try to watch that film.
I think about the families and the victims, and their long battle for justice. We are now going into the eighth year. This is a fight that they should never have had to endure in the first place. We as a House must have the courage to deliver a fairer society for them—one where the pain they feel can never be inflicted on anyone again. I cannot imagine the anger they feel at the deep failures outlined in the phase 2 report. It outlines over a decade of missed opportunities to identify the risks associated with combustible cladding. The shadow Secretary of State quoted it, as did the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), and I will quote again. There were “deliberate and sustained strategies” from cladding providers
“to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”
Shame on them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
That was compounded by a complete failure of oversight within the Government at every level, and the local council, which ignored residents who raised those safety concerns. The Grenfell disaster represents nothing less than a catastrophic failure of the duty to provide people with even the most basic level of safety. Yet here we are, more than seven years down the line, and those responsible for this tragedy have still not been brought to justice.
As a slap in the face, thousands of people up and down the country still go to bed every night knowing that their building is wrapped in this unsafe cladding. Can you imagine the mental toll? We asked those same people to sleep in their homes and not leave during the covid pandemic, knowing full well that if their building went up in flames, they could not escape. Many of those people are my constituents in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. Like many other Members of this House, I have had conversations with constituents who are caught up in the cladding scandal through no fault of their own, with the ripple effects of this crisis ruining their lives to this day. We must solve this as a national emergency.
I was shocked that the National Audit Office said that we could not expect an end to the remediation until 2035, which would be 18 years after Grenfell. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to step up the pace and finally set a deadline of 2029 for the completion of the remediation. I also welcome the fact that the Government adopted measures to improve fire safety standards on 2 September, and that they have promised the House that they will address the recommendations of the phase 2 report within six months of its release. As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I look forward to that, and will be holding Ministers to account. However, as important as those steps are, we cannot pretend that these announcements do enough—they do not address the systematic failures that led to the Grenfell disaster.
I urge Members to read part 4 of the report, if they have not already done so. It outlines how residents felt that the tenant management organisation was an uncaring and bullying overlord that belittled them, marginalised them and regarded them as a nuisance. That behaviour is something that I saw growing up on a council estate, and it may feel familiar to others who grew up in social housing: we know the stigma we faced and the assumptions made about us; we know the disdain we faced from housing providers; we know how often we are ignored, despite knowing our communities better. I take on the challenge raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in putting the question of how we address the systematic culture back to the Government. Like I said, it does not cost anything for someone to respect their constituents or customers.
We must not ignore how this systematic discrimination against people and treating them as a box-ticking exercise leads to tragedies such as Grenfell. While there are no recommendations on the TMO and tenant relationship in this report, I urge Ministers to look closely at how such relationships work, and at how we can swing the pendulum back to ensure that tenants are listened to.
While it is not mentioned in this report, we must acknowledge that those killed in the fire were disproportionately from black and minority ethnic communities, which suffer from racism and the hostile environment. I want to speak specifically about disabled people, too; they were failed by a basic lack of safety provisions at Grenfell. They have also been failed by delays to the implementation of personal evacuation plans, which leaves disabled people with no clear escape route in a fire, unable to evacuate with everybody else—left to simply hope, pray and wish that the fire does not reach them. I first raised the issue back in 2022 with the then Prime Minister, and nothing has changed since then. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment today to deeper information sharing between the authorities and emergency services on the requirements of disabled residents. However, I am concerned that Ministers are falling short on four of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. I will be following this up with the Department.
These are people who were never listened to back in 2017, and they are not being heard now. They could not hold their local authority to account when their problems were not dealt with, and some of them still cannot do that today. I urge the Government to act on the findings of the phase 2 report in full, but they must go further to address the inequalities at the heart of the Grenfell fire disaster.
It is more than seven years since 72 people lost their lives. If we are honest as a House, the problems faced by Grenfell victims are still faced by people up and down the country today. This will be fixed only if the Government look beyond targets to address the toxic culture in our housing sector that Grenfell so tragically exposed. This work demands a lot from all of us, but we can and must ensure it never happens again.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who both spoke very movingly on behalf of the victims of this tragedy who want to see justice done. I venture to suggest that what they want above everything is to know that nothing like this will ever happen again—that whatever happened that night, there will be some glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel and that some good will come of it.
I praise the Secretary of State for recognising that it is the system itself that needs the most fundamental reform, and that the failures of individuals—whatever incentives existed and whatever conflicts were unresolved—were system failures. The cultural shift will come about as a result of a systemic review—a system change.
Hon. Members might well ask why I am taking an interest in this debate. I do not think I represent any community in a high-rise building with cladding problems in leafy Essex. The only interest I have to declare is that it turned out that my late mother was living in a block with unsafe cladding, so, to a very limited and minor extent, my family are suffering the loss of being unable to sell her flat. That is very small beer, but I put that down as an interest I should declare.
I have long taken an interest in safety management systems—ever since I was shadow Secretary of State for Transport at the time of the Ladbroke Grove disaster, when I took an interest in what was being submitted to the inquiry and made a submission of my own, recommending that there should be a systemic approach to the safety system. That resulted in the formation of the rail accident investigation branch of the Department for Transport, with the result that no inquiry into a rail accident has ever taken place again.
Similarly, as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I took a close interest in patient safety because we received the reports from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. We had Mid Staffordshire and all the maternity scandals, and we had public inquiry after public inquiry, until somebody suggested that there should be an investigation body accountable and answerable to the Secretary of State to look at why things go wrong in patient care and investigate the causes of incidents—without blame, incidentally—to find out what went wrong in order to make recommendations and put it right. Those are the lessons drawn from all the effective safety regimes in other industries, which should perhaps be applied in this case.
I co-authored a submission to the Grenfell inquiry with three others. The first was former Labour Housing and Fire Minister Nick Raynsford, who, at the time, was chairman of the Construction Industry Council approved inspector’s register—CICAIR—which relates to the private sector building control surveyors the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke about. I will come on to that conflict, which the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about.
Another co-author was Kevin Savage, a leading figure in the building control profession; he happens to be a constituent of mine, but that was a coincidence. The third was Keith Conradi, the former chief investigator of the air accidents investigation branch of the Department for Transport—who, as it happens, became the first chief investigator for the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which, as a result of the inquiry conducted by my Committee, is now a statutory body. He helped set that body up; he is now retired. He helped with the submission.
Keith Conradi in particular enabled us to understand building safety management as a safety management system. The events leading to the Grenfell disaster were not just the random failings or crimes of individuals. Where there is culpability, prosecutions must certainly follow, but that is not the main point. Grenfell and previous fires, such as Lakanal House, demonstrated that there was a comprehensive failure of the safety system that should exist to keep buildings as safe as possible.
We made our submission in September 2021. After seven years—a disadvantage of public inquiries is that they take a very long time—I was disappointed that the inquiry did not really find time to engage with our recommendations. It did publish our submission, but from the recommendations, I think it is fair to say that a number of issues have been handed back to the Department to be resolved. Paragraph 113.58, entitled “Implementing change”, simply suggests that the London Fire Brigade should
“establish effective standing arrangements for collecting, considering and effectively implementing lessons learned from previous incidents”.
That is an odd recommendation when we think about it, because the London Fire Brigade was itself very, very severely criticised in the report. That it should be left responsible for marking its own homework and making recommendations about itself underlines that the lacuna in the recommendations is the lack of an investigation body. There were two other paragraphs about building control that I shall come to: paragraphs 113.37 and 113.38. Those were our two urgent priorities to be addressed in our submission.
By the way, I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting our request for a meeting, which the Prime Minister promised on the Floor of the House when he announced the outcome of the inquiry. We had a very good meeting with the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention. I think she was taken with our recommendations but I think that they fall to the Minister’s Department, so I look forward to meeting him later this week.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The delays in addressing the fire safety issues that pertain to the Grenfell tragedy are having significant consequences for those who reside in buildings that are not being remediated in a timely fashion, particularly in my constituency. For example, the residents of Johnston Court have faced more than four years of uncertainty following a B2 rating, and the progress of remediation has stalled due to disputes between the developer and freeholder. The deadlock has left residents unable to sell, remortgage or feel safe in their homes, so we need faster action and accountability from all parties involved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s actions and interventions will be critical to ensure that disputes do not keep delaying this urgently needed work, and that, as he is discussing, this is fundamentally about leadership?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements today about accelerating all of this and ensuring that action is taken much more quickly. I hope that that will result in much quicker action for his constituents.
I was addressing the first major recommendation in our submission to the inquiry, which is that there should be established an independent building safety investigation branch of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, reporting directly to the Secretary of State. That removes any possible conflict that investigations have with any other part of the system. The idea that the Health and Safety Executive or the new Building Safety Regulator should be conducting investigations is absolutely fine, but we can never guarantee that they will not come across a failing of their own and be conflicted in that investigation. The public will not have confidence in any investigation that they conduct unless there is an independent investigation that looks at all the elements of the system. The Hackitt review rather overlooked this issue. It failed to underline how future fire incidents would be investigated. This is a gap that is still to be addressed.
The current system of resort to public inquiries, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green confirmed, takes far too long. I feel for those who were caught up in the tragedy directly. They have waited far too long. An air accident investigation rarely takes more than a few months because the capability exists. In the Grenfell case, the Housing Ombudsman still felt that
“residents’ complaints were dismissed and devalued.”
I think the inquiry was overwhelmed with so much material and so many different elements. In a way, its terms of reference were too wide to be able to capably come up with a comprehensive set of safety system recommendations.
It is also notable that although there was an inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we had another inquiry into Grenfell. Public inquiries do not seem to resolve problems. A building safety investigation branch would transform that. It would operate independently, modelled on similar bodies for air, marine and rail. These bodies have proven their worth in both the rail and aviation. No public inquiry has taken place into an aviation accident since 1972 and there has not been a public inquiry into a rail accident since the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, because people have confidence in the new independent arrangements. They conduct rapid investigations. They focus not on blame, but on understanding failures and issuing binding recommendations for the future.
Dame Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time in this House thinking about how systems work. Does he not think that there is now an argument for the Government to have a proper review process of all coroners’ recommendations and all public and other inquiry recommendations, so they do not just get responded to in the moment and then not followed up in the months and years that follow?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am sure that may be a very good suggestion, but the point I am making is that we need an apex to our safety system. Whatever else the Government do to remediate the safety system as it exists at the moment, they need an independent safety investigator as the apex of the system, which is like a guardian angel over the whole system. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater said there should be—I think I quote him correctly—an independent oversight body. Well, this is the body he seeks. It would be constantly looking for risks in the system, not just investigating accidents, and following up directly with the Secretary of State to say, “This has not been done.”
Crucially, the independence of the bodies is what commands public confidence. They also provide a very significant capability that no other regulator can do—a safety investigation body is not a regulator, of course. They provide a legal safe space where anybody can go and say anything without fear or favour. Witnesses have protection and, if necessary, anonymity, so they can openly speak without fear of retribution of being sued or the words they give in evidence being used against them in court. This creates a culture of openness that accelerates the learning process while maintaining accountability.
The introduction of a BSIB would not trespass on any other part of the safety system, such as the HSE or the Building Safety Regulator. It is an essential additional capability which needs to exist, otherwise we do not have that ultimate check over the whole system. Regulators, if necessary, can still run their investigations, as I was saying before. The safe space in the safety investigator does not protect anyone from legal culpability, as we saw when the air accidents investigation branch investigated the Shoreham air crash. It passed a file to the police, because it believed there had been negligence. The pilot was prosecuted. The safe space does not protect someone from wrongdoing.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will give way once more, but I have rather a lot to say and I do not want to take up too much time.
Mr Bailey
The fundamental difference between an air accident investigation and a public inquiry is that as culpability is identified it is then passed on for action. This lies at the heart of the problem, which is the slow pace of bringing about justice. An extended period for a public inquiry has prevented and inhibited the delivery of justice for the people of Grenfell. Does the hon. Gentleman—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be pithy and short.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I have got the point. The problem with a public inquiry is that it starts from ground zero. It assembles a group of people who may be expert, but most of the lawyers will not be expert and will have to learn everything from scratch. The advantage of a standing capability is that there are experts who are permanently employed and who really understand everything about building safety, as it would be in this case. There would be human factors analysts, structural engineers, architects—key people with key skills, fully knowledgeable about the safety system that exists. They would start immediately after a tragedy, and they would conclude much more quickly on the basis of much better expertise.
I had hoped that the inquiry would adopt this recommendation, as did the Cullen inquiry into Ladbroke Grove, and also the inquiry into offshore safety following the Piper Alpha disaster. It now falls to the Government and Parliament to get this right.
The second recommendation in our submission is for a comprehensive reform of building control. Building control is the inspection system which should ensure that building regulations are followed, but Grenfell demonstrated its failure. I accept that there has already been some reform here since we wrote our submission. Much has been said, as we heard earlier, about how private sector building inspectors are endemically conflicted because they are appointed and paid by constructors and others, but that misses a horrible truth about the Grenfell case. Ironically, it was the building control function of a local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, that failed so disastrously in Grenfell’s case. Despite that, everyone’s emphasis still seems to be more focused on restricting private sector involvement than on reform of the whole building control sector.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One of the facts that the phase 2 report has established is that the system is too fragmented, and needs to be brought together under a single construction regulator, as he recommends. Does he envisage the functions that he has described, involving investigations of incidents, not falling to the responsibility of that regulator?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
No, because a regulator is a part of the system, whereas a safety investigation body stands above the system. It is very simple. If you are a regulator, you are a participant. You are capable of making mistakes, and you need to be independently investigated, or checked, to confirm that you are not breaching rules, or failing in some way—through no fault of your own, perhaps. Everyone makes mistakes. Most bad things happen because of human error, not because of bad people doing bad things.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so many times. Is it not the case that when you set profit-making companies against local authorities, you end up with a race to the bottom, across the board? Is that not the evidence from the inquiry? I had cause to look at the report of the original debate, in the 1980s, about bringing in private inspectors. A less than entirely left-wing organisation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, said that it was opposed to building control being taken away from local authorities.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am not in favour of taking building control away from local authorities, but if we go down the route recommended by the hon. Gentleman, we will not succeed in making buildings safer, not least because of the shortage of capacity in the sector. If it is decided that there cannot be any private sector building control surveyors, there will be even less capacity, and remediating all this will take even longer.
An approach that relies entirely on local government or a state body of building control risks worsening a situation that we are already experiencing. The building control workforce is ageing, and recruitment struggles to keep up with demand. Restricting private sector competition would exacerbate these problems, driving skilled professionals not back into local authorities—because they cannot afford them—but into consultancy roles in which they would be working for the construction companies directly, not inspecting what those companies are doing. Rather than narrowing the pool of inspectors, we should be raising the standards of building control across the board.
Private sector approved inspectors were already subject to a strict licensing regime through the Construction Industry Council approved inspectors register, with a code of conduct, regular auditing and a complaints process. Moreover, the local authority, not the private sector building control sector, was responsible for the problem at Grenfell. Our recommendation suggests a fully integrated building control service involving both local authorities and registered building control approvers working to common standards within a framework designed to promote continuous improvement. That, I think, is the right answer. To deal with high-rise blocks, multidisciplinary teams would be set up to perform the building control function, recruited on the basis of proven skills and experience from both public and private sectors on a level playing field without the choice being biased in favour of the former. That, I submit, should be the Government’s objective.
We welcome the steps taken to require all building inspectors, whether working for local authorities or registered building control approvers, to be individually registered by the BSR, but further steps can and should be taken to drive up standards and to maximise much-needed capacity. However, recommendations 113.37 and 113.38 in the final report of the inquiry could undermine this process. Implicit in recommendation 113.37 is the assumption that it is inappropriate for private sector commercial organisations to be involved in building control work at all, although no evidence is advanced to support that assumption. It is an assumption that many people make, but there is no evidential basis for it. Recommendation 113.37 proposes that there should be a panel to consider the matter, which I hope will happen, but if it decided to ban private sector building control, that would seriously aggravate the capacity problem.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will certainly give way, because this is a crucial point.
Joe Powell
I simply wanted to ask for a clarification. Surely the issue, which was raised earlier, is that there is a conflict of interests when you are paying to have your product assessed. As we know from Sir Martin’s report, there was a cover-up of testing results. If you accept that, how do you get around the “conflict of interests” issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not going to admonish the hon. Member for using the word “you”, but, Sir Bernard, you have now spoken for longer than both Front Benchers put together, and many other Members wish to get in.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will be as quick as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, because that was a failure of regulation. The crucial point is this. In other safety-critical industries, such as the civil aviation, rail and marine sectors, there is no ban on the private sector being selected to perform inspections. Employees of airlines, of aircraft manufacturers and of aircraft engine manufacturers perform the inspections, but they are independently regulated, overseen and certified by the Civil Aviation Authority. The fact that they are employed by the airlines or by commercial interests does not make them incapable of objective judgment. The whole aviation sector flies incredibly safely on the basis of aircraft being inspected not by Government inspectors or public employees, but by the private sector.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
My experience in the aviation industry includes overseeing and being part of the record-keeping process for inspections. Does the hon. Member agree that the requirement to record and store all successful and unsuccessful testing results would resolve some of the issues that we saw in the Grenfell disaster, where unsuccessful test results were hidden and not made accessible to the public?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I completely agree. The record keeping of airlines, air engine manufacturers and aircraft maintenance companies has to be absolutely meticulous. It is inspected by the CAA, but the information originally comes from inspections conducted by people who are employed by the private sector. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees that we need to tackle the regulation, not indulge in shorthand for saying that anybody making a profit must be guilty. I abhor the idea of people making a profit at the expense of safety, but that is not what happens in other industries.
The success of independent accident investigation and safety investigation branches in other sectors speaks for itself. Aviation and rail safety has much fuller public confidence and a lower accident rate under such models, delivering safety improvements faster, more effectively and at lower cost than traditional public inquiries. Reforming building control would ensure that all inspectorates operate under consistent and rigorous oversight, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sectors.
Our proposals are not just about learning from the Grenfell tragedy, but about preventing the next disaster. The inquiry shows the systemic failures in building safety and regulation that led to an avoidable tragedy. I regret to have to warn the House that if we do not get this right, and do not finish working on what the inquiry has presented to us and fill in the gaps, there will one day be another Grenfell, just as Grenfell was a repeat of earlier safety failures. We have an obligation to get this right finally for the Grenfell community, for the memory of those who died and for future communities. The Government now have the opportunity to follow up the inquiry, to build on its findings and to put in place institutional arrangements that will embed learning and safety improvement in residential building management in a comprehensive safety system that matches those of other safety-critical industries.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Seven and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, it often feels that we are no further forward than the last debate, silent walk or stage of the inquiry. There have been no prosecutions, no accountability and insufficient movement on remediation of buildings, including those with flammable cladding.
In the last seven years, a lot has happened—the Windrush scandal, Brexit, four changes of Prime Minister, a new monarch and a global pandemic—but little has changed for the families and survivors of Grenfell Tower. They are still waiting for justice and for answers, and their trauma endures. That trauma, which each of the survivors bears, is incomprehensible to those of us who have never experienced such a horrific event in our lives. Children who lived in the tower have said that candles and bonfires trigger their fears, and they worry about the safety of even ordinary electrical items in their home. Those worries should be far from a child’s mind but, unfortunately, they are ever present and lasting. We are simply not doing enough to prevent this tragedy from happening again. That in itself is retraumatising to those who know at first hand how devastating a fire in a tower block can be.
The Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the appointment of the Building Safety Regulator were all steps taken by the previous Government in response to phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, but gaping holes in safety regulations still remain. Phase 2 of the inquiry asked for a more cohesive approach. It points to the confusing situation of multiple Government Departments holding responsibility for fire safety, and to the need for a unified response to regulation under a single construction regulator. In order to learn from mistakes, we cannot allow another situation in which warnings are missed, accountability falls through the cracks and responsibility is denied or passed on. However, although the phase 2 recommendations seek to fix the gap in fire safety to prevent future deaths, we must not lose sight of justice for the victims of the fire and for the survivors, who await the identification of those responsible.
The delays to prosecutions are increasingly unacceptable. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, has said that the biggest barrier to justice is the precarious state of our criminal justice system. He estimates that criminal trials for those responsible for the Grenfell fire may not begin until 2029. We cannot accept that. I am pleased that the Chancellor has provided an uplift in the budgets of both the Ministry of Justice and the Law Officers in order to fix our justice system, but the conversations I have had with the senior judiciary on visits with the Justice Committee show that the backlogs in our courts continue to delay justice. I know that the Lord Chancellor is committed to fixing these issues, but we have to make haste, and I join survivors’ calls for criminal and civil trials to be expedited. The victims of Grenfell should not have to wait as long as the victims of Hillsborough for justice.
I will talk briefly about the site itself, where the tower stands to this day. Many Members have spoken about its retraumatising impact on the community, as the tower stands as a monolithic reminder of the tragic and horrific events of that night. It is visible from all across west London, including from high-rise blocks in my constituency and from those that have experienced fires—thankfully, without fatalities. The report drawn up by the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission shows what needs to be included and what design choices are important to the bereaved. I understand that a competition to design the memorial is running until spring next year, and I would be grateful if we could have on the record a commitment from the Government that once they have the plans of the approved design in front of them there will be no further delays. The completion of the memorial will give bereaved families and survivors a place to gather and remember their loved ones. It is important to the community that we get this right, but we must also get on with it.
I want to mention remediation—another delayed and underfunded response to the findings of phase 1 of the report. Under the previous Government, social landlords were excluded from Government funding for remediation to buildings that were deemed to have unsafe cladding. I never understood the justification of that decision by the former Levelling Up Secretary, and I am pleased that the Chancellor committed to a further £1 billion investment for remediation in her Budget, and that social landlords will no longer be excluded from financial assistance. There is also a commitment to go faster with the works, which is very welcome, as there remain 4,000 buildings across the country with unsafe cladding. However, there is still concern that the money allocated does not meet the reality of the costs for social landlords, which are estimated to be around £6 billion.
Those who currently live in unsafe social housing deserve to be safe and to feel safe. To find the money, social landlords have made cuts, which have unfortunately come from future building programmes. As a result, national figures show that affordable housing starts have fallen by 39%. A number of housing associations have had to merge or have been taken over, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) that even very large associations, such as Notting Hill Genesis, find themselves in financial trouble.
In the social housing sector, funding is currently available only for buildings over 18 metres with ACM cladding, and for buildings with combustible cladding that are over 11 metres and house leaseholders. That often means that social tenants are the only people footing the bills for remediation work through their rent, because private developers have much easier access to funds to fix their buildings, and leaseholders are eligible for the Government scheme. Using rental income to fund building safety works means that there is little money left over for social landlords to carry out routine maintenance, which is a lose-lose for social housing tenants, many of whom are vulnerable and low-income families.
In the light of the time available, I will not go into as much detail as I would like, but I want to commend some of the briefings that we have had in preparation for this debate, including from the Royal Institute of British Architects and from Rockwool. They talk about the need to fireproof buildings, perhaps through retrofitting them with sprinklers or ensuring that they have two fireproof staircases. I do not know why buildings over 11 metres are not included. I do not know why all buildings that contain vulnerable residents, such as care homes and schools, are not included in having no combustible cladding allowed. I find it extraordinary that we are still allowing some buildings to be built with combustible materials on them, in the light of what happened at Grenfell.
I also want briefly to mention the causes of fire. In July this year, there was a fire—the latest in a series of fires—in a high-rise block in my constituency, caused by the failure of a battery pack on a converted e-bike. Thankfully no one was killed, but the outcome could have been much worse, had the London Fire Brigade not acted as swiftly as it did. The batteries in those products are lithium ion and if they catch fire, there is a high chance of an explosion. We know the Grenfell Tower fire was started by a faulty fridge freezer. The year before, there was a very serious fire at Shepherds Court, a high-rise block on Shepherd’s Bush Green, less than a mile from Grenfell, which was caused by another electrical device, a tumble dryer. Hundreds of these fires are happening every year.
I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are committed to justice in this matter, to building safety and to a proper memorial at the site. They have shown their commitment to justice for the bereaved families and survivors through the Hillsborough law, they have made positive steps to fund remediation works and I am convinced that they will move swiftly on plans for the memorial site. I would ask also that they look at the recommendation from the organisation Inquest that we should have a national oversight mechanism so that recommendations such as these—there are 58 from this inquiry—are followed up and implemented, and that goes for both public inquiries and prevention of future death reports issued by coroners. It is all very well having good recommendations, but if they are not pursued, they become worthless. We must move more quickly and more decisively, and continue to keep the survivors and bereaved families at the forefront of our minds, so as not to prolong the trauma and heartache of a community that has already been badly let down time and time again.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a leaseholder. I welcome this debate and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister’s considered, sympathetic and empathetic contribution. I agree with her wholeheartedly that the Grenfell disaster was caused by systematic failures across the board, including in the Government—or Governments—and in the private sector, where commercial gain was prioritised over people’s lives while a broken system allowed unfettered competition to bulldoze through what little regulation was in place.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) said, we all remember where we were that evening. It was the month of Ramadan and we were coming home from evening prayers. My heart broke twice that evening. Once was when I saw the victims in front of me on my television screen and mobile phone. The second was knowing that those victims were going to have to wait an age for justice. Even I did not perceive that it was going to take this long. The 72 people who died on that terrible night, their relatives, the bereaved and the survivors, deserve justice, and it can happen with real change to the building safety system from top to bottom. That is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to putting into place all 58 of the recommendations, but it has to be done as soon as possible.
Furthermore, we welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s expediting the remediation of the unsafe cladding. This has simply taken too long. On 9 September, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), said in answer to a parliamentary question:
“Speeding up the remediation of buildings is absolutely critical. Seven years on from Grenfell, action has been far too slow and the fire in Dagenham is a horrific reminder of the risk unsafe cladding still poses to far too many people.”
For the 49 private tenants of Abbey House, an eight-storey block in Leicester South with dangerous cladding, that remediation cannot come too quickly. However, they are caught between a bureaucratic rock and a commercial hard place. The freehold of that block is owned by Leicester City Council, but in 2015 the mayor granted a 150-year lease to a private company to refurbish the block as private rented accommodation. As the block contains no individual leaseholders, it is not eligible for any Government funding for cladding remediation. This is clearly intolerable for the residents of that block. While the to-ing and fro-ing goes on about who should remediate the block, the residents are living in constant fear that their block is unsafe, and the lack of resolution just makes it worse.
As the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned, if the Government are truly serious about making homes safe, ownership issues such as those at Abbey House cannot be allowed to get in the way of removing unsafe cladding and other materials. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is now essential that Government funds are made available across the board urgently, to make all our buildings safe? Once that is done, issues of who is responsible and how to reclaim the costs can be resolved.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I will start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). He is the voice of his community, and he has given a moving tribute today. As we have heard, it is now more than seven years since 72 people lost their lives in the devastating fire in Grenfell Tower. Our thoughts are with the bereaved families, the survivors, the residents and the local community. That this tragic fire happened in modern Britain is a scandal and it should fill us all with deep anger and fear. Every single person was let down by the failure of almost every institution that existed to serve them, and by decades of failure by the state.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) spoke powerfully of the moment she first saw the tragedy. I will never forget seeing those images as I travelled past not even 48 hours afterwards: the embers, the smoke, the smell—that memory will stay with me forever. The Grenfell community has demonstrated enormous strength and courage in giving evidence to the inquiry and campaigning tirelessly for justice—justice for the victims and families of Grenfell Tower, and justice to ensure that such a tragedy never befalls another community.
My Stratford and Bow constituency sits between the two boroughs with the highest number of high-rise, cladded blocks in the country. Tower Hamlets has more than 400 buildings with unsafe cladding, and Newham has more than 200. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement that Tower Hamlets was the first to obtain a remediation order, but there is still so much more to be done.
There are thousands of residents in my constituency who, through no fault of their own, find themselves caught up in the cladding scandal. I have been inundated with messages from constituents who feel unsafe in their own homes. I have sat with them as they told me deeply personal stories, through tears and anger—of being unable to move to be with their mother who is dying of cancer; of the mental health impacts; of being unable to start a family; and of having their life savings trapped in un-mortgageable properties. The scale of anger, distrust and betrayal felt by my constituents, who are caught in this situation through no fault of their own, sits heavily with me. I share their frustration, which I can feel across the House today. It is frustration at the pace of remediation works, which are already long overdue and, for many, still feel years away.
It is shameful that, seven years after Grenfell, remediation has been completed on less than 50% of mid-rise and high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding. We have recently seen a terrifying fire in Dagenham, which is why residents across the country, including in Stratford and Bow, live in fear of what might happen to them in the event of a fire.
But this is not the end of the matter. Many leaseholders, including shared owners, feel trapped in properties that they are unable to sell, facing significant financial uncertainty and distress. In my constituency, residents in East Village—the site of the former Olympic athletes’ village—have been left in a protracted legal battle between stakeholders over who is liable for remediation costs, which has delayed essential works.
Residents of Thomas Fyre Drive are still waiting for work to start, despite their service charges going up, and some are stuck in the leasehold trap because they cannot sell their property. Many feel that saving face and saving costs have been prioritised over their safety. The distress and frustration are palpable, and the situation is becoming untenable for many.
I know that the Government share my view that every person deserves to feel safe and secure, and be safe and secure, in their home. Sadly, too many of my constituents —and too many people across the country—fear being the victim of yet another Grenfell-style tragedy.
Will the Minister meet me to discuss the cases in my constituency, as we have the most high-rise, cladded blocks in the country? I acknowledge that he has inherited a shameful situation from the previous Government, and it is scandalous that remediation has been so slow. I welcome the work that this Labour Government are undertaking to put it right, particularly today’s announcement committing to the remediation of all high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding by 2029 through a Government-funded scheme. I am also pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister has said today that we want to go much further.
At the election, we promised to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding. Today, we are acting on that promise. However, too many leaseholders in my constituency have had to pay the price of removing unsafe cladding that they had no role in putting up. I welcome the reforms announced today to give tenants, including social housing tenants, a seat at the table, but I urge the Minister to make sure that remediation costs do not fall on leaseholders. We must take account of all the views and give everyone a seat at the table.
We must truly mean it when we say, “Never again.” We must learn the lessons of Grenfell so that the tragedy is never repeated. I join colleagues in urging the Government to act in full on the findings of the phase 2 report, and to address the inequalities in housing—inequalities that we see due to class, race and disability. There is still so much more to be done, and I look forward to working together to ensure this never happens again.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) in recognising the pain, grief and hurt caused to so many connected to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 lives were lost. I have heard the sombre comments in this debate and mean no disrespect by raising a specific matter relating to the understanding and interpretation of the legislation passed subsequently—namely, the anomaly of non-qualified leaseholder status, as it affects some constituents of mine.
My constituents own a one-bedroom flat in north Somerset. It is not a penthouse or anything luxurious; it is simply a home. They purchased it in 2015 with a 999-year lease, and it was a new build, so it was theoretically covered by the NHBC 10-year guarantee. They believed it would be an ideal long-term rental property, without too many maintenance issues ahead.
A neighbouring flat went up for sale in August 2024, and the buyer’s solicitor asked for an up-to-date fire risk appraisal. This prompted the management company to organise an assessment of the external walls, and the report strongly recommended cladding remediation work. My constituents would have known none of that, had it not been for the seller keeping them in the loop.
The new financial protections in the Building Safety Act 2022 apply to leaseholders in buildings above 11 metres, or five storeys in height, with historical safety defects. From 28 June 2022, qualifying leaseholders in England could no longer be charged for cladding remediation, and there are legal protections for non-cladding costs. The accompanying secondary legislation came into force on 20 and 21 July 2022.
The Government are clear that developers must pay to fix buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing, even when they no longer own the building. That seems right. The Act ensures that building owners who are, or are associated with, the developer must pay for the remediation of historical defects. The courts have been granted new powers to extend liability to associated companies, ensuring that civil cases for claims against defective buildings can be brought against companies associated with a developer, preventing the use of complex corporate structures to avoid that liability.
Qualifying leaseholders are protected from all cladding system remediation costs. Those whose property is calculated to be worth less than £175,000 outside London, or £325,000 in Greater London, or whose building owner has a group net worth of more than £2 million per relevant building as of 14 February 2022, are exempt from all historical safety remediation costs. The Act also includes a robust package of measures designed to ensure that those responsible finally put right the buildings they have contributed to making so dangerous, and that leaseholders are firmly protected from the unfair costs of remediation that they previous faced. No one could disagree that, on the face of it, that is fair.
Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to notify any leaseholders, qualifying or non-qualifying, of the implications of the Building Safety Act 2022, which came into force on 28 June 2022. However, four months ago, my constituents had no knowledge of the non-qualified leaseholder status that had been bestowed on them. Without any prior notice or consultation, my constituents’ legal rights as leaseholders had been significantly changed, backdated to 14 February 2022. That is because, as of that date, the threshold for non-qualified leaseholder status cuts in at ownership of four properties.
It is very hard to find definitions of non-qualified leaseholder status on the Government website. There is plenty about qualified leaseholder status, but very little about non-qualified leaseholder status. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), has confirmed that, weirdly, under the previous Government’s legislation, a couple can own five properties, provided that they own their primary home jointly and two other properties each. However, a couple who own four properties jointly become non-qualifying leaseholders. Who on earth can think that is fair? That will discriminate against couples and families as compared with sophisticated business entities, which are probably the intended target of the legislation.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Grenfell Tower inquiry has laid bare the failure of successive Governments in their duty of care to their citizens and revealed a catastrophic culture of carelessness that has caused untold suffering? Does she agree that the Government must act urgently to assist all leaseholders, including those currently excluded, such as non-qualifying leaseholder residents, like my constituents, who are unfairly left in financial and emotional turmoil through no fault of their own?
Tessa Munt
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to some of those issues.
Sophisticated business entities are probably the intended target of the legislation, so there is good news for people who have divided their property assets, and bad luck for those who jointly own their property investments, which is a terribly random criterion. It was shocking enough for my constituents to find out that the nine-year-old building in which their flat sits had a cladding issue, but due to the fact that they jointly owned four properties on 14 February 2022, they were left largely unprotected. They are not like the developers or cladding suppliers. Not only that, but their status as non-qualifying leaseholders has been attached to their flat in perpetuity. Even after all the remediation work has taken place, centuries have passed—currently, this is another 990 years on the lease —and they have departed this world, every future owner of their flat will inherit the same diminished lease, while neighbouring flats are protected from the costs of making the building safe.
The impact of the legislation is profound. Solicitors are advising their clients not to buy any flat with the non-qualified leaseholder status attached, even after the fire safety work has been completed. Lenders are refusing to lend on properties of that status. The values are expected to reduce considerably, possibly by as much as 50%. Estate agents realise that trying to sell properties with this status is pretty much a lost cause. Non-qualified leaseholders cannot sell their flats—they are mostly flats—and cannot mitigate the risks they have been exposed to. If a leaseholder has a 75% mortgage and the value drops by 50%, it is easy to see how financial crisis can hit ordinary people who saved hard, invested in bricks and mortar and are providing homes for rent all over the country, helping alleviate our housing crisis. Insurance premiums are sky high. If this continues, it is likely that lenders will not want to take possession if there is a default on the mortgage, because they themselves would become liable. Leaving a flat with this status in a will may expose family and friends to long-term problems associated with its status, as they will potentially inherit a liability not an asset.
The legislation has removed a whole tier of property from the ever-increasing number of young buyers and those who want to downsize, such as older citizens. It is clear that without the support of surveyors, agents, solicitors and lenders, it will become increasingly hard to secure one’s first or last home. Whatever one’s political ideals, surely we all agree that there is a terrible shortage of affordable homes, and the affordable end of the market often comes in the shape of a leasehold flat. I cannot find the path of logic through this legislation. I have no idea who tried to think this one through—I recognise that it was not the Minister. It seems deeply unfair that someone’s legal rights can be different from those who own flats in the same building, just because my constituents had four or more properties in their ownership on 14 February.
Will the Minister try to explain the logic, though I recognise he did not write the legislation? It would be nice if his opposite number, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would have a crack at trying to tell me how it works—I just do not get it. It is a bit like someone having their car recalled for a safety issue and having to pay to correct the problem and any other safety problem in the future due to the fact that they and their family have three other cars between them, and they might want to sell the car once the safety fault is fixed. This is madness.
The Minister is on the record as having confirmed that the Building Safety Act 2022 was written to safeguard the health and safety of those who lived in the affected buildings. If a non-qualified leaseholder has a leasehold flat as their principal flat, they are protected. What about the tenants who live in the flats owned by private landlords who are in this trap? Are they not important enough to be protected, too? The Minister further confirmed in a letter last month that once the property is brought up to standard and safety remedies are completed, in the years ahead
“the expectation is that the qualification point should essentially become moot”.
There is plenty in the Government’s guidelines about non-qualifying leasehold status remaining with the property in perpetuity. I can find absolutely nothing about it becoming moot. I wonder how the Minister sees that being legislated for.
On the subject of Government guidelines, they are so complicated and hard to interpret that solicitors are at loggerheads over their ramifications. My constituents’ management company initially confirmed that they would be liable for all the costs associated with cladding remediation works, even if the building were accepted into the cladding safety scheme—that is, until my constituents were able to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to them confirming that they would be protected under the cladding safety scheme. However, it fell to my constituents to get proof and to convince their management company.
Worse than that, the Department advises owners to contact LEASE—the Leasehold Advisory Service—to establish their rights. LEASE confirmed both on the phone and in writing that my constituents did not qualify for any help or support in the cladding safety scheme. They were advised by others in the same predicament to contact the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister confirm who should indicate whether non-qualifying leaseholders are covered by the cladding safety scheme?
These Government Departments are set up to help and guide people such as my constituents, yet they are giving completely conflicting advice. That situation has caused my constituents anguish, sleepless nights and constant worry about the possible life-changing financial burden that may be heading their way. If the Government do not sort that out so that advice is clear and consistent, we are all lost. Will the Minister meet my constituents and me to further discuss non-qualified leaseholder status as soon as possible?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. As the House will have realised, many Members wish to speak in the debate, so in order for us to help each other, I am afraid that I will have to impose a four-minute limit on speeches. I call Ben Coleman.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fully understand the challenge that you face, so I will do my best to keep to four minutes. It is an honour to follow the Deputy Prime Minister and so many hon. Friends and hon. Members, and to have so many people sitting up in the Public Gallery listening patiently to the debate, having suffered so much over the years.
I begin by recalling, as others have, the 15 disabled people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire. There was no plan in advance to ensure that they could be evacuated in a crisis. I am pleased that the Government have announced today, in publishing their response to the consultation, that they will introduce a set of measures on residential personal emergency evacuation plans. However, I agree with Grenfell United that personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled residents must be mandated—that is essential.
Let me turn to other matters that my hon. Friends have set out so well. The report is scathing about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and its tenant management organisation. What leaps out in page after page of the report is the council’s absolute lack of respect for so many of its residents—how it refused to listen to people living in social housing when again and again they raised concerns about the problems with the Grenfell building that eventually contributed to the terrible fire; how it treated the most dissenting voices as enemies; and how, once the fire had happened, it treated its own residents.
At the time, I was a councillor in the neighbouring borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The day after the fire, our council became aware, purely by chance, that Kensington and Chelsea council had placed Grenfell residents in hotels in our borough, because some of those residents happened to wander down to the local West Kensington and Gibbs Green estate, where they were given food, shelter and clean clothing. They happened to mention that they had been placed at the Holiday Inn Express in Fulham, and our council leader got council officers to go to all the hotels in the borough, which we discovered were full of Grenfell residents. No one from Kensington and Chelsea council had tried to tell us. The report talks about the council’s response being “muddled” and “piecemeal”, but perhaps another word is “cruel”.
Teams from Hammersmith and Fulham council kept a close eye and visited every week to look after the residents as best we could. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) came and sat with Grenfell residents on the grass at the West Ken and Gibbs Green estate. They asked, “Are you really a Member of Parliament? Because no one official from our borough has been to see us at all.” I cannot speak highly enough of how the community responded. I am keenly aware that where Kensington and Chelsea council failed, the community got it right.
The council in Kensington and Chelsea says that it is determined to learn from what it got wrong. That is very welcome, as is the fact that the scope of its review is going to explicitly consider racial as well as social discrimination—I look forward to that being the case. However, I still have serious questions about whether that council really gets it, because thousands of my Chelsea constituents live in social housing, and time and again they say that they do not feel that their voices are being heard, or that the culture has changed.
The Friday before last, I decided to call a meeting on the World’s End estate to talk about some serious crime issues—sadly, a man from another estate had been stabbed in an altercation and had died. I invited all the residents to come and have a conversation with me about it. To my surprise, senior councillors from the Conservative Kensington and Chelsea council tried to dissuade me. They said that they had already engaged with residents and that another meeting would bring no more benefit. In the event, more than 50 residents came. We had a great conversation; not everyone agreed with each other, but everyone had a chance to speak and to be heard. Only one thing really shocked me, which was the number of residents who said at the end of the meeting, or even during the meeting, that they had lived on that estate all their lives or for decades, and that this was the first time they had ever been to a meeting like this on the estate—one where they felt listened to.
To sum up, I hope that residents will be listened to. If I may, I hope that we will have a debate like this every year, so that we can look at the recommendations. I request that Front Benchers enable that to happen. I am grateful for your time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I, too, start by joining the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing my sincere condolences to the families tragically impacted by this avoidable disaster. I welcome her statement and the positive steps and actions she has outlined to address the findings of the inquiry.
I welcome the plans to introduce heavy penalties for those who fail to meet repair deadlines, but I share the concerns of campaigners that the timescales for making properties safe are way too long. The Deputy Prime Minister may say that the Government are taking “decisive action”, but the building safety fund was first opened for registration in 2020. The 2029 target must not be for the first building to be remediated—it must be guaranteed to be when the last one will be.
For over seven years, residents and leaseholders have continued to live with the mental anguish that the properties they and their families go to sleep in every night are unsafe, aware that what happened to the residents of Grenfell could well happen to them. As we have heard, residents also face extortionate home insurance bills and rising costs for repairs that should be the sole responsibility of the developers, while leaseholders face ruin, financially trapped in properties that they bought in good faith but were built in bad faith.
To widen the argument and the issue at hand, the picture of property developers cutting corners to make a profit and disregarding human life in the process is one that, before Grenfell, we wanted to believe belonged to a bygone era. Unfortunately, it is very much the reality of 21st-century Britain; a culture has become embedded where corporate bosses think they can get away with cutting corners in the pursuit of profit. We have seen the ugly imprint of that culture again and again, whether it is Government lobbyists scamming the public purse during the covid crisis, water companies polluting our rivers, the blatant disregard for truth and basic decency in the Post Office Horizon scandal, or people being burned alive in buildings that are not fit for purpose.
The only way to root out that culture is regulation to protect the public from those who seek to exploit them, and I am concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister does not go nearly far enough in that regard. We know that the property industry in general is rife with profiteering, and I am concerned that we will see more of the same as property agents hike up fees, earning hundreds of millions of pounds in the process by charging administration fees on works to make buildings safe. In opposition, the Labour party committed to preventing this by calling for the nationalisation of the process of fixing high-rise flats to eliminate administration fees, and I encourage the Government to pursue that policy.
I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to consider applying the risk assessment to buildings of under 11 metres as well. Campaigners are right to say not only that a comprehensive risk assessment must apply to buildings of all heights, but that building safety crises go far beyond external cladding and a holistic approach must give equal consideration to non-cladding defects—
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech, and I associate myself with her words. She reminded us that we should once again remember the victims, the survivors and those left behind after the tragedy of the 72 entirely preventable deaths in Grenfell Tower. There are many lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and residents in Southampton Itchen, especially those in the 46 blocks still affected by unsafe cladding, are looking on anxiously to see if we learn those lessons. These are some of the people who know far too well and far too personally just how slow the progress has been of making all buildings safe.
As this Government embark on our ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes, we and, importantly, those who will call those houses their homes, need to know that they are safe. Sadly, however, such peace of mind is not yet felt by many residents in my constituency, where an unacceptably high number still live in buildings affected by cladding or fire safety risks. Some remediation has happened, and that is to be welcomed, but in too many places it is not happening fast enough, or leaseholders are paying the price, as in the countless examples we have heard. They include those who live in blocks that do not meet the 11-metre threshold, and who are getting unexpected bills for tens of thousands of pounds through their letterbox.
I recently held a public meeting with constituents awaiting fire safety works. Among the many who came to share their experiences, Ellie has seen her service charges soar from £1,600 a year to over £6,000, and she has no idea how she will afford it. In the same block, Stewart told me he feels as though no one cares after the same service charge hike left him and his family trapped in a property they have outgrown. Just down the road, Daniel is not only facing escalating service charges of £3,000, but his insurance now tops £4,000 on top of his rent and on top of his regular bills. James happens to live in one part of a taller development in which his building is under 11 metres, yet he is facing remediation charges of between £15,000 and £30,000. Those responsible cannot yet decide how much they are going to charge the residents, and this is simply not acceptable.
Others have told me about the changes they want to see implemented, so in the time left I want to make my constituents’ views and voices heard in this place. They want a clearly defined single construction regulator that can channel efforts to drive change, and I am sure they will welcome today’s announcements. Many are stuck in unsellable flats, and they could not tell us who exactly is responsible for keeping them safe. That needs to change. They want to see a much clearer role for managing agents. What exactly are their responsibilities, and what standards will they be held to? They want to see improved regulation of insurance and service charges—again, that is touched on in the report—so they are not charged for remediation works through the back door, which is simply not fair. With an eye to the future, people want us to move away from the feudal system of leasehold, which this Government are committed to delivering. They want much better-quality housing, so they can move into places where they know they are safe. In short, people want, need and deserve a way out of this mess.
The remediation action plan shows that this Government are taking these issues seriously. I would just urge Ministers, even where deadlines are set, to move even more quickly, where possible. We have begun the crucial work to put right this scandal, and we must not rest until that is done in full.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I am here to talk about the people, their treatment and their rights, and I am sorry I do not have more time to do the topic justice. I had been a London Assembly member for one year in 2017 when the Grenfell disaster happened, and it had such a huge impact on my work and on me personally. I will never, ever forget the many things that I saw and heard. I will never forget the smells, the burned debris on garden hedges, the community’s shock and heartbreak, and its spirit as it called me and many other elected representatives down there to try to deal with the issues that they themselves were dealing with and identifying. The people around Grenfell, the victims, the 72 people killed that day—they are constantly in my heart when I work on any related issue. I was also a councillor in Camden, and a few days later five of our blocks had to be evacuated due to related issues, so I have a perspective of dealing with a non-fatal but nevertheless disruptive evacuation and incident.
Let me rattle quickly through a few of the recommendations relating to people, and to these issues. I am desperate on behalf of the residents I represented then, and those I represent now in Brighton Pavilion, where we have a huge number of medium and high-rise blocks that need work. For no good reason I still see many of these issues emerging in relation to the treatment of residents in blocks, the information they can get out of their landlords, the slowness of the action, and the fact that substandard work is still being done on many people’s blocks—I should not still be doing this so long afterwards.
Let me start with the recommendations related to management. The way that the TMO treated its residents was abysmal. We have seen much evidence for that, but the report gets to the heart of it when it states that however “irritating and inconvenient” it may have been to deal with those residents,
“for the TMO to have allowed the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent reflects a serious failure on its part to observe its basic responsibilities.”
The housing ombudsman echoed that, speaking of gross imbalances of power. Residents who ask questions, or who start to organise their neighbours to have some kind of collective voice that might get things done, are still talked about as troublemakers, as militants, or as a nuisance. I am still encouraged not to listen to those residents when there are issues, which is not correct.
I also want to focus on transparency of information—these things are the basic building blocks on which resident trust can possibly be built. In 2017 I was having trouble getting fire risk assessments from Camden council. I went to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which responded in a fantastic way. She was clear that councils needed to publish those assessments proactively, yet here I am representing residents in Brighton, and it has taken 18 months. My predecessor, Caroline Lucas, first asked the council to publish its fire risk assessments when she realised that it was not complying with the ICO’s recommendations. I wrote to the council about the issue back in September when I realised that was the case, and finally last week I was told that some assessments would be published imminently. That is just not good enough from councils. I do not even know where to start when trying to get information about non-council landlords. It has been ridiculous on behalf of so many residents. Finally, I want to talk about the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its recommendations, which are tremendous. The humanitarian response on the ground was nowhere near good enough—
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), and others, and I very much welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s written statement today, and her speech highlighting why the Government are acting and what they are doing.
We know that this was a systemic failure over many generations and across many parts of Government. In fact, in 2018 the late James Brokenshire issued a ministerial direction to civil servants to ensure that the original money was spent to remove the most dangerous cladding. I spoke to the senior civil servant who had had to go back and speak to predecessors about what had gone wrong, but no one had seen this coming. So I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that if there is a bigger lesson in this, it is about how the Government manage risk and watch for the unintended consequences of actions. Even with all the problems nobody intended that such things would happen, but that is what can happen if we do not keep our eye on the ball, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take that back to the heart of Government.
The impact in my constituency has been immense. Hackney as a borough has the second largest number of unsafe buildings in London, with the London Fire Brigade showing that 93% buildings in Hackney are at high risk—a larger figure than all other London boroughs except Tower Hamlets, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). We have 72 buildings that are over 18 metres tall. Together, Hackney and Tower Hamlets in the heart of east London account for almost a quarter of the buildings in London with fire safety failures. I invite the Minister to meet us in any of our constituencies, or indeed in this place, to talk about what can be done across east London, because the impact is terrible. Insurance premiums have gone up massively. Many of my constituents who are leaseholders face bankruptcy. The mission to achieve change by 2029 will be too late for some. There is also disruption to their lives. They are unable to move on, and are putting off having a family. Their lives are on hold while they wait for the matter to be resolved.
I concur with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about housing associations, but in the interests of time I will not repeat them. Some of these properties are owned offshore or have opaque ownership. That is one of the reasons that James Brokenshire issued a ministerial direction. He realised that one of the buildings with the worst cladding had had 89 owners since it was built. If there is one thing that the Government can do, they can stop our homes becoming vehicles for offshore finance. That is why 2029 is a challenge.
The National Audit Office report that has been cited says that we will not see changes until 2035. With the construction industry in its present state, and all the other pressures that the Government will face when trying to invest in infrastructure, I would love to hear from the Minister how we will ensure that we have the right construction skills in this country and, if it is what is required, that the Government will allow migration in order to ensure that we have the right skilled people in place.
Finally, I will highlight a wider issue about how we support families affected by fire. On 5 June this year, during the election campaign, a fire gutted a building on Dalston Lane in the Pembury Estate, with 36 households escaping with just the clothes on their back. Of those households, 10 are still in temporary accommodation—the Peabody housing trust did a good job in the early days of getting them housed—and many are still living in hotel rooms. Someone who is in her 90s is trying to be offered a place by an estate agent. Today, I launch a campaign, which other Members are welcome to join, to require landlords to have a wider set of plans to help tenants in the aftermath of a fire or other crisis. Yes, there is the immediate challenge—happily, there were no fatalities on Dalston Lane—but the ongoing impact on residents is immense, with mental health challenges, disruption to their lives and trauma. We need a holistic approach to supporting tenants and residents in those situations, and every landlord should be required to have that model.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, who did well to capture the tragedy that we all experienced so many years ago. The tragedy of Grenfell Tower will forever remain in our collective memory. On the devastating night of 14 June 2017, 72 lives were lost and many more were impacted forever. The events of that night left a deep wound in London’s history, physically and mentally. I extend my deepest sympathies to the victims, the families and all those affected. The fire changed their lives in unimaginable ways.
Seven years on, justice for the victims is painfully overdue, yet thousands in the UK still live in buildings wrapped in dangerous flammable cladding. Of the nearly 5,000 buildings identified as having dangerous cladding, less than half have begun work and only a third have completed it. Between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings are still unidentified, highlighting the absolute failure of the last Government to get a grip on the crisis. That failure leaves an alarming number of buildings and residents still at risk. Just days before the publication of the final report in August, a fire broke out at a tower block in Dagenham. Thankfully, there were no fatalities, but more than 200 firefighters battled flames that spread rapidly due to non-compliant cladding.
These unsafe buildings are ticking time bombs. Residents in London live in constant fear of another disaster. Across London, including in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, tower blocks still possess non-compliant cladding, which could pose a serious risk to residents. The previous Government mandated that local authorities must make these buildings safe; however, crucially, they provided no funding to support that, at a time when local authorities were already facing severe underfunding. As a result, millions of pounds were added to council housing revenue accounts as an unplanned financial burden. Worse, Government assistance through various schemes was exclusively directed towards leaseholders, leaving local authorities and tenants without support.
Although I welcome this new Government’s commitment to the replacement of all flammable cladding by 2029, urgency is of the utmost importance. It is essential that all dangerous cladding is removed as soon as possible and that leaseholders should not be required to pay a penny towards these necessary safety improvements. This work is as a result of the failure of builders, product manufacturers and regulators to ensure that the buildings that residents live in are safe. The report is utterly damning on the failures of the industry and the criminal negligence as a result of the failed safety tests that were hidden. The industry focused on contrivance and profiteering, instead of residents’ safety. We must all work to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. Another Grenfell must never happen. This tragedy will always serve as a stark reminder of the devastating consequence of neglecting safety and justice for local authority residents. Justice for the victims of Grenfell means a commitment to immediate action to implement the 58 recommendations of the phase 2 report. That is not just for them, but for every community still at risk.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
In the short time available I want to say to the survivors and the next of kin—some of whom are here today; some will be watching from home—that I am sorry they have been so severely let down by the previous Government and by their council. I hope that the words of the Deputy Prime Minister today have given some comfort.
Brent East is just next door to Grenfell, and we watched the fire unfold. They say that 72 people died, but the reality is that we do not really know the exact number, as people from Kensington tell me. Every time we say that this disaster was preventable, we have to be honest about what happened in the system. Some 85% of people were black and a minoritised group. That is why they were not listened to and were ignored. Grenfell United and Grenfell Next of Kin have been fighting for more than seven and a half years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said, they are still not being listened to. They have been so badly let down, and there needs to be an investigation into what happened, how the council used Grenfell to get funds and what happened to those funds. There is so much that needs to be discussed.
I also notice that Kwajo is here. He is a housing campaigner and activist. That is an indication of how much people of colour are not listened to when they try to say that there is an injustice. Why was the cladding put on the building? The residents did not want it. It was so that it looked pretty and nice to the more wealthy residents down the road. We have heard about the profits, the greed and the deregulation that caused this catastrophe. If we want it not to happen again, we have to be honest about why it happened in the first place.
My thoughts are with the bereaved families and survivors. Every year, we go on the silent march. I remember speaking to a little girl who is a little bit older now. She said she was studying for her GCSEs and that the day after she was taking them, which she passed. She said that was what she was focused on, but what are the families and survivors focusing on now? It is justice, which they have not got. Until they have justice, none of us should rest, and none of us should feel comfortable—this may well happen again—because justice delayed is justice denied. I pass Grenfell on my way home most nights, and every time I pass that building, I say a prayer for everybody who died, everybody who survived and all the names we will never know.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
On 14 June 2017, the country watched in horror as images of the fire engulfing Grenfell Tower emerged. I felt it in the pit of my stomach as the true scale of the devastation and loss of life became apparent. This tragedy should never have happened. I will call it out for what it is: a national scandal.
I hope that the family, friends and community affected by the fire can find some peace in the fight for justice, but as I stand here I am reminded of another disaster: the Summerland fire in 1973, with combustible cladding, critical matters of safety of life ignored and disregarded, and a catalogue of failures. Fifty people died in that fire, including 11 children, and many more were injured. Those events were 44 years apart but the parallels are all too clear.
Speaking in 2013, a photographer called Noel Howarth, who captured pictures of the fire as it engulfed the Summerland leisure complex, said:
“Unless we learn from history, we will repeat the mistakes we made in history”.
Whether it is 2017 or 1973, justice must be served and lessons must be learned. Both campaigns for justice have my full support.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I might only be five months in as an MP, but I have heard every Government promise to cut red tape. The thing is, regulations keep people safe in their homes and in the workplace. There are organisations and people who should have faced a trial over Grenfell by now. The criminal process should have happened simultaneously with the inquiry. There is plenty of evidence—plenty of proof—but the survivors of Grenfell are still waiting for action and justice. When we look at Orgreave, Hillsborough, infected blood, the Women Against State Pension Inequality, Horizon and Grenfell, we see that the list of injustices that impact working-class communities goes on and on.
These are shared struggles, because Grenfell is not about cladding. Grenfell is about how the state has repeatedly treated the working class with utter disdain and contempt. In reality, there has been a lack of urgency around implementing lifesaving changes so far. The inquiry must change things. Time is of the essence, because how many Lakanal Houses or Grenfell Towers must there be before things really do change? We can all talk in sombre tones in the Chamber, but why are people still going to their beds surrounded by flammable cladding tonight?
Grenfell survivors deserve justice, and firefighters and every community across the country deserve a properly funded fire service with the equipment they need to save lives and keep themselves as safe as possible. For example, firefighters deserve proper decontamination units to reduce their risk of getting cancer while at call-outs. Funding, rules and regulations do save lives. Our fire service and our working-class communities across the country need to be invested in, not stripped bare, hollowed out and failed by the state.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech. I put on record my deepest sympathies to all the families affected by this terrible tragedy and thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for their emotive and powerful speeches.
Group Commander Rod Wainwright served for 26 years. He had a distinguished career of service in the London Fire Brigade. He said:
“I was not on duty that night, 14 June 2017. The fire brigade did not have the correct team on duty and called me to assist with the incident but never recalled the correct team or number of staff required to be effective from Gloucester. That team should never have been outside of the M25 leaving London unprotected. I was called around 1 am. I spent 15 hours on the scene and was never relieved or given the assistance that was required.
I had counselling from LFB counsellors on three different occasions but it wasn’t effective. I asked for specific PTSD counselling from a specialist and for the brigade to pay. They said ‘no’ and to use the in-house option again. The specialist would have cost around £2,000, but I was told”—
by the director—
“that it wasn’t suitable and sent the wrong message. I was diagnosed with complex PTSD and subsequently medically retired with no recognition, thanks or acknowledgement from senior management.”
As I have told the House before, Rod blames himself for not saving more people that night. However, in my view, he too is a victim of failure. I will say again that people like us in suits in this room are to blame for the tragedy of Grenfell, not heroes like Rod Wainwright. The executive summary to the phase 2 report makes that clear. It makes grim reading to us all. It describes the systematic dishonesty of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products. They allowed customers to continue to buy products in the UK despite knowledge gained from fires in Dubai in 2012 and 2013. I repeat: systematic dishonesty.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) because this was in his constituency, but briefly, in another early MP surgery I was visited by Claire Newman, who told me of the story of her mother Daphne Holloway and her neighbour Ivy Spriggs, who died in their beds during a nursing home fire around the same time as the Grenfell disaster. The nursing home had no sprinkler systems. I welcome the commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister that all new care homes will be given sprinkler systems, but I ask for some consideration, as Claire is asking for, of putting in sprinklers retrospectively. Although care homes do not meet the 18-metre requirement, I also ask that they be included on the higher risk register.
On that terrible morning in 2017, 72 people died in their homes. Families were broken. Lives were destroyed. Let us please learn lessons from that tragedy.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests.
First of all, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), plus all the London MPs who have brought home what Grenfell meant in their constituencies. However, the consequences of Grenfell are felt right across the country, and they have gone on for far too long for the residents of my constituency. Had the previous Government proceeded at pace with the confidence to take on developers with legal obligations and severe penalties, my residents would not still be stuck in buildings that have not had the remediation required. Each year since Grenfell, thousands of people in Milton Keynes have been left worse off, impacting their financial and mental health.
A woman in my constituency—we will call her Angie—bought her flat with her husband in order to downsize, and be mortgage free and financially secure in their retirement. Unfortunately, she lost her husband, and with her single pension she cannot afford the 600% increase in insurance costs that she has seen in the past seven years. She is accumulating debt that she will never be able to pay, and she cannot sell her flat to prevent further debt. Her plan for a secure retirement has turned into a nightmare that she cannot get out of. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement today to challenge that practice by the insurance industry, and to promise to act if the insurance industry does not. Has the Deputy Prime Minister had discussions with the industry about any retrospective reductions for those who have been affected by those huge insurance hikes?
The Grenfell report rightly identifies the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for its many failings, but not all local authorities were slow to respond, such as my own in Milton Keynes Central where two council housing tower blocks were dealt with within a year of the tragedy—well within the guidelines that the Government recommended, and with no financial support from the Government. I would welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s views on whether the councils that took action, at huge cost to their housing revenue account, should be rewarded for their proactive attention with help to build more council homes.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting local authorities at the heart of the solution, but developments are still being put forward that might not meet building control requirements, especially the permitted development of office conversions to flats. That is not currently a material consideration, so local planning committees have no choice but to pass it. Will the Secretary of State review the planning rules so that no building, new or converted, is unsafe for its residents? Will she also consider whether building control should be fully in the hands of local authorities, so that developers can no longer use their favourite private building control to sign off developments? The privatised BRE and its role in ensuring new materials has been brought up by many. Will the Minister consider renationalising the BRE, so that there can be no question of any company influence over the safety of new building products?
Finally, it is not just tall buildings that have been affected. For far too long, those in buildings like Backus Lodge in my constituency, which has been rated B2 under the EWS1 framework since March 2022—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the final contribution from the Back Benches.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, which shows that she cares and is resolute in seeking redress. The essence of how our country is run with regard to public safety is at stake, so I hope my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members will agree that, for public confidence and for the deterrent effect to grow, not only must we ensure that justice is not denied by being delayed; it is also for us to ensure that justice—in the form of individuals, organisations and companies being properly held to account—happens at all. That is important because, as other hon. Members have alluded to, in previous cases of egregious state and business failure, there has been insufficient justice of this kind. We owe this to the Grenfell victims, to the survivors and indeed to wider society.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This evening’s debate has been appropriately serious and wide-ranging, and I will open by thanking the many who have enabled it to be just that: the excellent journalism of the BBC, which has ensured that not just the initial fire, but the inquiry and the lessons learned from it have remained at the forefront of public debate; and the survivors, the supporters of Grenfell United, some of whom are here tonight, and the many others who contributed to the inquiry process and to ensuring simply that Grenfell remained at the forefront of the public mind. I also thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick, who chaired the inquiry. I know it was the subject of some criticism when he was first appointed, but when we read the phase 2 report and consider everything that led up to it, we can see that it is a serious piece of work that puts us in a position to make good decisions about what needs to change.
It is our parliamentary duty to consider these most serious of matters. We need to ensure that we get it right for the sake of the survivors and the families of victims, but also for all the other people who have been spoken about in the Chamber this evening: those who live with anxiety about their own personal safety and circumstances, and those with a stake in the system, who need to ensure that the legislation that has flowed since the tragedy, and the actions that the new Government will need to continue, are fit for purpose. To that end, I confirm that the Opposition will support the Government to implement the proportionate and necessary measures that are required to keep the public safe.
Many Members across the Chamber have said that those who have intentionally cut corners on building safety need to be held to account, and the Opposition agree. While it has taken a long time, the inquiry process has gathered really good evidence, which will provide the Metropolitan police and others that may be involved, including the Crown Prosecution Service, with the beginnings of the evidence base needed to hold specific individuals to account through criminal charges and to pursue action against those developers and contractors who we now know clearly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for their own financial gain. It has been said very clearly that we also need to ensure that the bigger businesses—the big corporates—that may have condoned that action need to be excluded from profiting from future public sector procurement activity.
There will be further lessons to learn from the inquiry. I pay tribute to a number of Members who made very serious and considered speeches. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) talked about the rise of the tenant management organisation. That is example of where there will be difficult questions for all parties and Government Departments to consider. The purpose of the previous Labour Government in introducing arms-length management organisations was to create a mechanism by which additional funding could be put forward to enable a higher standard to be achieved in the social housing sector.
However, I also know—the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation is a good example of this—that that created an additional barrier of governance between the local authorities, which in most cases were the freeholders of the properties in question, and the tenants, who in theory gained additional control through the creation of boards to oversee what happened in their buildings. However, as the phase 2 report spelt out very clearly, effective governance often failed to materialise. Instead, there was often mutual finger pointing, with each thinking that somebody else was responsible for the critical fire safety issues. Those lessons about governance, however difficult they may be for both sides of the Chamber, must not be glossed over.
It is clear, as has been set out, that the Government intend to take robust action. It is the Opposition’s contention that they have solid foundations to build on. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) set out, James Brokenshire—the then Minister, since sadly deceased—set out swiftly after the fire, once some initial information about its causes was available, that £400 million funding was to be made available to social housing providers and local authorities in 2018 to ensure the swift remediation of social housing settings with the most high-risk cladding on the exterior.
That was followed with legislation: the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Social Housing Regulation Act 2023. Each was designed, as the process of inquiry was progressing and as other evidence came to light, to ensure that we were addressing, as far as we could, those things that we were legally able to do at each of those stages, first on the basics of fire safety, and then on to the broader lessons emerging about building safety and ensuring that social housing regulation—in what is a diverse sector—was fit for purpose.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I want to repeat the point I made earlier, to see if I can get a response this time. We knew at various stages that there needed to be skilled people, from surveyors to contracting, to carry out the remediation work. Looking back, does he regret that perhaps some of that effort was not put into developing those skills earlier, so that constituents of ours who are still waiting for remediation could perhaps have had it done more quickly?
David Simmonds
The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the lack of capacity as a huge issue in the sector. Those who have been interested in housing for a long time will know that the remediation of risks can be incredibly complex. The Bison blocks, which many of us will have in housing built in our constituencies and across London, were supposedly made safe in the 1980s in response to particular gas safety risks, and we know that other structural risks have subsequently emerged. Making sure there are people with the detailed knowledge and technical ability to address those risks effectively is critical.
We welcome the plans that the Government are setting out to accelerate the work that was under way to remove dangerous cladding. We will be scrutinising and working with the Government to ensure that that continues to progress. The previous Government made available over £5.1 billion to remove unsafe cladding from buildings identified as high and medium rise, and therefore most at risk, given the inherent risk to residents of it being on buildings with a higher number of floors. We need to ensure that that work is completed. It is positive news that, according to the Government’s figures, on 98% of the high-rise buildings with the most dangerous styles of cladding, the work to remove it had been either started or completed by July 2024, but we know that that comes in the context of many other risks about which our residents and constituents will be concerned, and we must ensure that those are addressed effectively.
When we look back to previous debates about building safety, we see that, as a number of Members have mentioned this evening, we cannot simply focus on the issue of cladding and materials and set aside issues such as the effectiveness of fire-stopping and fire doors, which have often come to light during inspections subsequent to Grenfell as being deficient in all manner of buildings. We should bear in mind the debates between the technical experts about whether sprinklers or misters are the most appropriate means of fire suppression in different types of settings, about the need to provide effective sources of water for the fire brigade, and about whether dry risers or wet risers are the most effective. Issues involving access for rescuers and fire safety operatives, and also the ability of residents to escape—again, those have been highlighted this evening—also need to feature in our thinking.
As a number of Members have pointed out, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the emergence of new risks, such as much larger numbers of lithium batteries driving electric bikes that are being charged in residential premises, are now at the forefront of the thinking of our fire brigades, as they look not just at the historical risks, which we know about and can take action to mitigate, but at the emerging new risks. They need the equipment, the technology and the capacity to ensure that they can deal with those factors, should they encounter them in a context in which there is a risk to life.
Other Members have highlighted the importance of dealing with the problems of, in particular, constituents who may not be able to benefit from the funding already in place for social and council tenants because they are leaseholders—in some cases, leaseholders in investment properties. They find that their properties are uninsurable, and that it is very difficult to obtain a mortgage. People want to purchase those properties to be their homes or to be part of a pathway that will give their families access to the size and quality of housing that they need. Those pathways must be reopened, and people who are trapped by some of those issues must see them addressed. In all those respects, we undertake as an Opposition to support the Government in ensuring that fully effective measures are in place for the future.
While much of the debate has focused on the role of the suppliers of products used in construction, it is important to acknowledge the need to ensure that our existing estates are safe and fit for purpose. Local authorities, social housing providers and other landlords have a multitude of legal obligations, but I am conscious, from my experience as a local authority councillor, that not all occupiers wish to engage with that process. The local authorities that serve my constituency have to go to court from time to time to gain access to properties, simply in order to carry out safety checks for which they are responsible as landlords and which are an element of keeping the bigger building of which those individual homes are a part safe for the benefit of all the residents. We must ensure that those local authorities, social housing providers and other landlords have effective tools, so that the expectations we are setting for them can be realised without compromising the safety of residents, and that means being able to gain access expeditiously. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), in what I thought was a very thoughtful and considered contribution, henceforth we must have a more effective, more independent system for managing all those risks.
When the phase 2 report was published, Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, who is now the leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, set out, in a way that I think deserves credit, her acceptance of failure, on behalf of her local authority—I should make it clear that she was not in charge of housing before the Grenfell fire, although she was a serving member then—a willingness to take responsibility, and the ownership of that improvement journey, in response to the detailed recommendations in the report.
Clearly, the response to Grenfell has now spanned two Governments of different parties. We can be broadly proud of our record. We have passed those pieces of legislation and allocated substantial sums of money, which has built the foundations to ensure that public and private housing in this country is safer for the tenants and residents of the future. The baton has now been handed over, and it is the Government’s job to ensure that everyone else in the system is doing their job to the highest standards and in accordance with the law. The Government can count on the Opposition’s continued support in the delivery of that, but they should also expect to be held to account, because it is the interests of everybody in this country to ensure that it is achieved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
This has been an important debate on the findings and recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. As the inquiry’s phase 2 report and today’s debate have made clear, fundamental change is needed to make our homes secure and safe, both now and in the future.
I said in a building safety debate a few weeks ago that, like other colleagues, I reflect on where I was on that night seven and a half years ago. It was a poignant moment. Having sat on the other side of the Chamber, I think that if we had said then that we would be where we are now, we would have been exceptionally surprised and disappointed that not enough progress has been made. It now behoves the Government of the day to move at much greater pace, building on the inquiry’s recommendation to move at speed.
The inquiry’s findings on the causes of the tragedy tell us something about a building safety system that was fundamentally broken, that had baked-in deficiencies and that went unchallenged by authorities across the piece, and about the relentless dishonesty of individuals. But it also tells us about Britain and the country in which we live. The consequence was buildings with unsafe cladding and 72 people losing their lives, which was devastating for their families and for the community. As the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have said, we apologise on behalf of the British state. We cannot say sorry enough.
As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are considering our response to the report and have committed to come back within six months with our response to the recommendations, as well as to give Parliament the opportunity to debate it at that time and on an annual basis. I say from the bottom of my heart that this has been an important debate for shaping the Government’s response to the report. I have some points of my own to make, but I will major on the points made by colleagues, because there have been a lot of important questions and comments that need a reply at this stage.
I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who shaped both the spirit and the content of the debate. He spoke with purpose, but I could detect quite a lot of anger as well. When I speak to bereaved people, the next of kin, survivors and the immediate community, it is clear how angry they are with how little progress has been made, how tired they are of telling people like me their story, how much pain it causes them to tell their story again and to hear it played out in our nation’s Parliament, and how angry it makes them that we cannot say that this tragedy will not happen again, which is shameful for our country. My hon. Friend talked about the merry-go-round of blame. Let me tell him that the report’s recommendations provide a chance for a single response, owned singularly by the Government of the day, to break that merry-go-round.
The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), spoke with characteristic power. What I took from her contribution, and what I suspect will be the work of her Committee, is the need for more systematic action. We have said that we will address the recommendations within the timeline to which we have committed, but we understand that systematic challenges in the building safety industry have been highlighted by the inquiry report, the Morrell-Day report and the Hackitt review, all of which we will pick up as part of the process, because the whole system needs reform.
That takes me to what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said. He is coming to see me in the next few days to discuss his thoughtful ideas about safety investigations that have worked in other industries, and the Government are all ears.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green talked about manufacturers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Prime Minister has committed that we will take action against culpable manufacturers. As the first step in that process, the Cabinet Office has written to organisations named in the inquiry who bear different responsibilities for these failings. For those found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, this is the first step in stopping them being awarded Government contracts. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government intend to publish guidance to support this first set of decisions early next year to stop the most egregious companies getting Government contracts.
A number of colleagues mentioned issues relating to leaseholders, and I shall start with leaseholder protections, which came into force on 28 June 2022. Qualifying leaseholders are protected from the costs of legal or other professional services relating to the liability or potential liability incurred as a result of a relevant defect. The Building Safety Act 2022 also provides for remediation contribution orders, which allow interested persons to apply to the first-tier tribunal for an order requiring building owners to pay to fix unsafe buildings, but I am struck, as a Minister, by how often colleagues tell me that these things are not happening. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is no longer in his place, mentioned Abbey House, which I am keen to talk to him about. I will also meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) to understand how this is manifesting itself for her constituents.
My hon. Friends the Members for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) talked about insurance for leaseholders, and it is impossible not to be struck by the financial and emotional impact that high insurance premiums are having on leaseholders. Affected leaseholders have been burdened with paying high premiums for too long, and as part of the remediation acceleration plan, we have announced that we will work with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities in order to reduce the high insurance bills that leaseholders are facing. We have also launched a public consultation today on our plans to prevent excessive buildings insurance commissions for landlords, for property managing agents or for freeholders being charged to leaseholders. Our intention is to replace those with a fair and transparent fee.
I have mentioned qualifying leaseholders, which takes me to the point about qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders that the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) raised in this debate and earlier in oral questions. She invites me to set out a path of logic for the distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. I would maintain that, in principle, the difference between what we would consider an ordinary resident and what we would consider a business owning perhaps very many properties is a distinction that we would want to draw when providing public relief. At some point we have to draw a line. The hon. Lady spoke with great eloquence about how that has manifested itself for married couples, and I know from my conversations with many others that there are similar edge cases. We will look at those edge cases, and I am keen to meet her because she spoke with great power about one such case in her community.
With your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to correct something that I said during oral questions earlier, because it is an important distinction. I talked about the need to find the balance between those who built a building and those who live in it, but in reality, the balance we need to find is between those who have financial interests in a building and those who live in it. That is slightly different. I will correct the record formally, but I did not want to miss this first public opportunity to do so, given the importance of the point that was raised.
The question of justice was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). Speaking to survivors, to the next of kin and to the immediate community, it is impossible not to be struck by their anger and their entirely natural need for justice. I have to say, as building safety Minister, that to some degree this is the element of the entire piece that I find most challenging because, quite rightly, the police and courts are independent of Government. We of course speak with the authorities, and I know that they hear very clearly from those affected about the need for pace. The Metropolitan police have said that it will take time, that it is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations they have ever conducted, and that they have 180 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation.
A question was asked about court capacity, which colleagues will know is of great importance to this Government. We are working very hard to relieve the pressure on Crown courts to ensure they are not the point at which justice is prevented.
An hon. Member whose name I have not noted asked about memorialisation, and it is important that I make it clear on the record that no decision has been made about the tower’s future. This matter is being led by the Deputy Prime Minister, who recognises the importance of listening to the community on this sensitive issue. She is actively doing so, and it is right that the bereaved, the survivors, the next of kin and the immediate community are at the heart of this conversation. It is part of a process, and there is unanimity across all involved, including in this place, on the need for a fitting and lasting memorial. We salute the important work of the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and will support it in any way we can.
Colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), mentioned the role of local authorities. As the shadow Minister said, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has admitted that it failed in some of its most basic duties: to keep residents safe; to listen to and act on their concerns; and to respond effectively when disaster struck. The Government will work very closely with the community to hold the council to its commitments to improve its services for residents. I will shortly meet the council leader to discuss a number of issues that residents have asked me to raise—we will work very closely.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East both spoke about the importance of transparency. Transparency is always important in local government, but it is crucial when rebuilding trust after a tragedy has laid bare such failings.
In that spirit, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke powerfully about Rod Wainwright, the brave firefighter on duty that night. The actions of the London Fire Brigade have been referred to the independent inspectorate, which is very important. However, with the Fire Minister sitting beside me, I assure the House that the Government are responsible for overall oversight of fire and rescue services, and for ensuring public safety more broadly. We will work with the inspectorate, the Mayor of London and the LFB to support the brigade’s continued progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch spoke about skills. Seven years on, it is clear that we have missed an opportunity. Young people should want to go into the house building industry, as this is skilled, well-paid and important work. The Government are working with the Industry Competence Committee to make sure that we have a competent house building workforce capable of delivering safe, high-quality homes, which is especially important in the light of our commitment to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
In the autumn, the Government launched Skills England, which will work closely with employers and other key partners to identify and address priority skills gaps, including in construction. The Budget made more money—£300 million—available for further education, including in construction.
Today, I have had a conversation with mayoral combined authorities and elected mayors about how they can use their locus on skills to promote this industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asked whether we would be willing to lean on the shortage occupation list, if needed. That would not be the Government’s preference, of course, but it is a commitment that has been made.
I will use my remaining time to talk about the remediation acceleration plan, because a number of colleagues have talked about the importance of quicker remediation. I am grateful to the Opposition and the Select Committee for their warm sentiments, but I am clear that success is never in a plan’s publication. As the shadow Minister said, we expect to be held to account for the commitments we have made today.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about the need to be quicker and, again, 2029 is not when it will start but when it will be resolved. Our commitment is that by the end of 2029, all residential buildings 18 metres and over with unsafe cladding in a Government-funded scheme will have been remediated, and every residential building 11 metres and over with unsafe cladding will have either been remediated, have a date for completion or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties.
Our plan has three objectives. First, it will fix buildings faster. I am pleased that we, as a Government, have secured an important commitment from developers to accelerate their pace. Secondly and crucially, it will identify all buildings with unsafe cladding. If we talked to ourselves seven and a half years ago and said, “In seven and half years’ time will not even be able to say how many buildings there are with unsafe cladding, but the best range we will be able to give the House is somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000”, that speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) that that clearly is not good enough. Finally, it will support residents.
On acceleration, our plan has set a clear timeline and we will actively pursue the landlords of buildings who refuse to act. We will ensure better co-operation between regulators. We are working hard with metro mayors to provide localised plans, because often the buildings are in combined authority areas, so we need to work in partnership.
On identification, we have set up a “tell us” tool through the cladding safety schemes, so residents can tell us directly. We are working very hard going through Ordnance Survey maps and doing all the line-by-line work needed to assess 175,000 building records by April—540,000 in total—to ensure we find all the buildings that have cladding defects, so remediation action can take place.
I know there is a lot of interest in protections for residents, which I have talked about a little. I hope what I have been able to say about insurance is welcome. We look forward to making good on that. If the market will not deliver, we will work closely with developers to change commissioning.
I will draw my remarks to a close. Today’s debate has been very important and has highlighted just how far we have to go, as the inquiry shows us. We still have thousands of buildings with unsafe cladding. We need a complete reversal if we are going to put people and safety first, ahead of profits, empower residents and hold those responsible for the safety crisis to account.
We have committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament, which our country desperately needs, but they must be safe, secure and decent homes. The package of measures we have set out today through the remediation acceleration plan will help us with that. As has been mentioned, residential PEEPs will improve fire safety and evacuation of vulnerable people in high-rise and high-risk buildings. I have not had time to talk about the replacement of waking watch, but we are extending the waking watch replacement fund, so that leaseholders can access that and get an alarm in place.
All of our work takes place with those 72 lives held at its heart, and in our hearts. They were failed by the system at all points and failed by this country to all degrees. We are so sorry for what happened, but I know the people involved have heard those apologies and those words from people like me too often. We can do only one thing to make things better: deliver. The inquiry has helped us on our way and our plans are developing. I am grateful for the contributions colleagues are making, but now we must deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report.
Business without Debate
Medical Aid During Conflict
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Civilians always pay the highest price in conflict. Medical aid during conflict is critical to saving lives and, more importantly, is protected under international law. Yet, in recent conflicts, much of that lifesaving aid has been denied. Not only does that shame all of us on a basic human level, but as a surgeon where healthcare and aid have been at the forefront of my professional life and, notably, where I have been directly involved in providing aid, I feel that as a particular pain.
I secured this debate to highlight the fact that civilians and medical aid workers are impacted by armed conflict. Everyone caught up in conflict has an inalienable right to aid, and it is not the gift of any country or anybody else. I note that under international human rights law, the rights of the wounded and the sick must be respected in all circumstances, and attempts on their lives and violence against their person are strictly prohibited. Wilfully killing them or causing great suffering or serious injury to their bodies or their health constitutes war crimes, as grave breaches of the Geneva conventions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who I spoke to beforehand, for bringing forward such an important issue. Does he not agree that even during the worst of the world wars, and there have been some terrible wars over the past few years and there still is, the red cross symbolising medical aid was always a signal of ceasefire, and that that must still be the case today? Does he agree that we must further encourage all our allies and friends across the world to ensure that medical aid is never prevented from reaching those who need it most?
Dr Ahmed
I thank the hon. Member for putting that so eloquently, and I wholeheartedly agree with every word and sentiment.
It is not just those typically physically injured by conflict that medical aid supports; it is those who need insulin for diabetes, dialysis machines to keep their kidney function working, and antibiotics to treat life-threatening bacterial infections. People who need basic medical support are caught up in the struggle. The figures support this: in Lebanon, 74% of people over 50 have two or more chronic conditions, so are at increased risk during times of conflict.
The same rate of aid is clearly not getting through in current world conflicts. Those suffering in Gaza are not receiving the same aid. Since April 2023, the escalation of armed violence in Sudan has resulted in famine and displacement. To our credit, in November 2024, this UK Labour Government increased aid to Sudan by £113 million, including medical aid. That has provided medical staff, out-patient consultations, emergency room admissions and access to feeding programmes for children and adults. Of course, there is lots more to do.
Since Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, the UK has given £5 billion in non-military contributions and a total of £457 million in humanitarian support, including medical aid. That is in addition to what people are doing locally on the ground in every city in this country, including my own city of Glasgow, where my friend and surgical colleague Mr Vladyslav Shumeyko, a consultant surgeon at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, has personally sent tons of medical aid to Ukraine. I pay tribute to his tireless, selfless work and that of other charity workers, whose contributions have saved thousands of lives.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this fantastic debate. The whole House will benefit from his medical expertise and political commitment to this issue.
I had the great honour last week of hosting a meeting in Parliament to hear the heartbreaking testimony of Professor Nizam Mamode, a good friend and former colleague of my hon. Friend—he is a great transplant surgeon. Professor Mamode explained how during his work in Gaza this year for Medical Aid for Palestinians he treated child victims of drone strikes and snipers’ bullets. He said he had worked in war zones around the war, but nothing had been as horrific as what he had seen in the repeated, regular attacks on children in Gaza by the Israel Defence Forces. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Israeli Government are allowed to get away with what they are doing in Gaza under international law, other regimes around the world will see it as a green light for thinking that civilians and medical staff are a legitimate target in war zones?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. That highlights this country’s adherence to the international rules-based order. We must always comply with international law, even—and perhaps particularly—when that may seem difficult.
I acknowledge the important work of organisations such as Islamic Relief, which operates in my Glasgow South West constituency, throughout the UK and across the world. Since October 2023, Islamic Relief has provided over £30 million in aid and delivered over 51 million hot meals in Gaza alone—and that does not include its work in South Sudan. Despite that, medical aid is severely restricted in Gaza. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency and other agencies have been unable to deliver essential medical equipment—including medical swabs to stem bleeding and lifesaving medications such as penicillin—and essential vaccine campaign roll-outs have been delayed. That has all been compounded by this weekend’s events.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and pay tribute to him for securing this important debate. As well as providing valuable aid to various areas of conflict and need, does he agree that the UK and organisations such as the UN should do more to enable its delivery and to take action against the looters and oppressors who stop it getting to the people who need it?
Dr Ahmed
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments. Aid should not be impeded by anyone, be they state actors or individual criminals.
At the moment, further aid in Gaza has been suspended following an Israeli airstrike that killed five humanitarian workers employed by US-based organisation World Central Kitchen. The UN has said that it is necessary to stop the delivery of aid into Gaza because of the threat posed by armed gangs. UNRWA’s final decision comes after the latest airstrike. According to the Famine Review Committee, there is a strong likelihood of famine in Gaza. My conversations with colleagues on the ground in the region have confirmed how scarce food is, with very limited meat, cheese, snacks, fruit and vegetables. I understand that people are now surviving on rationed rice. What conversations has the Minister had with international partners to ensure that famine does not break out in Gaza?
As an international actor, it is imperative that the UK ensures that international law is upheld and medical aid reaches people caught up in conflict everywhere. International law dictates that people who are providing medical tasks must always be respected and, more importantly, protected. Medical professionals in the region are risking their lives to treat the injured and ill. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned my colleague Professor Nizam Mamode, who recently returned from a month performing surgical operations in Gaza. He told me when he was there, and on his return, of the lives that he tried to save in increasingly difficult circumstances. He described it to me as hell on earth. What discussions has the Minister had with regional actors, including the Israeli Government, about ensuring the safety of those delivering medical aid in Gaza?
Ambassador Barbara Woodward, the UK permanent representative to the UN, recently said to the UN Security Council:
“There is no justification for denying civilians access to essential supplies. The Government of Israel must do more to protect civilians, civilian infrastructure, and allow aid to be delivered safely and at scale.”
I am sure that those words are wholeheartedly endorsed by all Members of this House. I am proud that this Labour Government restored funding to UNRWA, providing £21 million to support its work, and have given £5.5 million to UK-Med to support its lifesaving work in Gaza. That funding and aid is necessary, but I wonder whether it goes far enough. Our concern now is how we ensure that the correct amount of aid reaches the people of Gaza. What discussions has the Minister had with the Israeli Government to allow aid convoys to enter safely into the region?
Children in Gaza are dying and suffering needlessly. According to the UN Human Rights Office, nearly 70% of people killed in Gaza are women and children. That report has found unprecedented levels of international legal violations, including of the right to medical aid. This includes children now having complex medical needs without access to the requisite specialists in any other nearby country. What discussions could be had with regional actors and the UN about potentially bringing such children to the United Kingdom for treatment, as some of our international partners have already started to do?
I will conclude by reiterating the salient point that anyone caught up in conflict has the right to aid—it is not a gift or an act of benevolence by anyone else. We must now ensure that our record on this issue is one that future generations in this House can look back at, not with regret or contrition, but with pride.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
We have had an excellent debate, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I congratulate him on securing this debate, on his work in the national health service, on his ongoing commitment as a surgeon, and on his deep expertise in this issue. I am also grateful for the interventions of other Members present, and I will try to respond to the points raised.
This debate takes place at a timely moment, because the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), is actually in Cairo as we speak. She is at the Gaza humanitarian conference, discussing—among other issues —the importance of ensuring that aid workers, including medical workers, can operate effectively and that civilians have access to the services they need. The Foreign Secretary, alongside his French and German counterparts, has also written this week to the Government of Israel to urge stronger action.
I begin by paying tribute to the extraordinary work that aid organisations and health workers are doing in some of the harshest conditions around the world. As Members would expect, the UK firmly supports all efforts to prevent conflict in the first instance, but where conflict does occur, those affected must have access to medical services. Medical workers and facilities must be protected in line with international humanitarian law. Access to medical services includes routine care for pregnant women, safe delivery of babies, child vaccinations and primary healthcare for all. Those services are always important, but they are especially so when people are desperate to reach a safe place; when food and clean water are scarce; and when sexual violence is an increased threat, as is so common during conflicts. The tragic loss of life among health workers, including in Gaza and Sudan, is a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who deliver lifesaving medical assistance during conflict and crisis.
Let me now turn to how the UK is helping. In short, we are acting on three key fronts. First, we remain committed to promoting compliance with international humanitarian law and encouraging all parties to armed conflict to respect it. We are working to minimise impacts on civilians by protecting health workers and medical facilities, by working with the United Nations and the Red Cross to ensure that those affected by the conflict have access to the help they need, and by signing up to the political declaration on strengthening the protection of civilians from the humanitarian consequences arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. We reaffirm long-standing and ongoing efforts to protect civilians in this regard.
Secondly, we are targeting our aid towards those most in need, whether by providing medical supplies, helping to train medical staff, or ensuring that those medical staff have safe access to patients.
Iqbal Mohamed
Can the Minister inform the House how much of the aid provided by the UK is actually getting into Gaza, and to the people who need it?
Catherine West
The most recent figure in open sources from the weekend is that, of the usual 500 lorries going into Gaza, about 67 got in. That was in the press at the weekend. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West talked about the importance of aid getting in. We have redoubled our diplomatic efforts in imploring that access be improved, so that we can get aid in. We have tripled the aid, but what is important is that we gain access. That is the case whether it is in the Gaza conflict, in Sudan or in helping desperately ill people in Myanmar. All across the globe where that is an issue, we are making access a key issue in our diplomatic work. Sometimes we are more successful at that than at other times, but we try to work across international organisations to ensure that crucial access for patients.
The FCDO is also funding partner organisations within countries, such as the World Health Organisation, UN agencies and the Red Cross, to help them to prepare for and respond to conflicts effectively. We are supporting a range of specialist non-governmental organisations and local partners to deliver critical medical services at the frontline, especially where no other partner can deliver. The key strength of locally led organisations is that they are staffed by people from the affected areas and the communities themselves.
The third way we are helping is by deploying specialist medical teams on the ground, of which my hon. Friend has a great deal of knowledge.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for securing this Adjournment debate? He will be too modest to highlight his considerable skill and knowledge on this subject, but before taking his place in this House, he practised as a transplant surgeon in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire and my home town of Clydebank, where he worked in the Golden Jubilee hospital. Does the Minister agree with me that the situation in Gaza is catastrophic, that Gazans are in desperate need of food, shelter and medical support with the onset of winter, and that the UK should be the lead voice in ensuring real world humanitarian solutions?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the expertise of our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Very modestly, our hon. Friend also mentioned another colleague from Scotland. It is these professionals who make such a difference on the ground, and I know the whole House is thankful to them for their work. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) is excited to have these experts in his constituency.
We know that there are times when the health system of a country is so depleted during conflict that there simply is not the capacity to help people despite international support. That is why we invest in the UK’s official emergency medical team, so we can deploy specialist medical staff to help save lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West will be aware, the team are made up of highly qualified medics from around the UK and beyond our shores. They are trained to deliver high-quality surgical and specialist rehabilitation care to save lives and reduce disability. For example, the British emergency medical team have recently started providing services in Lebanon, treating patients with burns and other injuries. The same team have helped alleviate suffering in Gaza this year. Until now, they have provided 275,000 patient consultations across a wide range of medical services. He mentioned the winter, and there is a new term in the world of aid, which is winterisation, where aid organisations club together to address the specific issues that come up at this time of year.
I am sure hon. Members will agree that this is an extraordinary accomplishment under the most challenging of circumstances, yet perhaps one story captures the impact of all strands of our work better than anything else. I would like to share with the House the story of a three-year-old girl called Razan from Gaza. In the early morning hours of 1 September, a bullet passed through the thin fabric of the family’s tent. It went through her mother’s hip and lodged in the neck of her child. The child was rushed to a hospital run by UK-Med and funded by the FCDO, and the mother was taken to another facility for her own life-threatening injury. The little three-year-old girl was in surgery for three hours in a tented field hospital surrounded by fighting, fear and uncertainty. Miraculously, the bullet had narrowly missed her spinal cord, and thanks to the skilled work of the UK surgical team, it was removed and she has recently been discharged. That is only one story among a quarter of a million patient consultations seen by the British team, and it brings home the importance of the trained medics, critical supplies, and safe access that we talked of earlier.
Let me respond specifically to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) about evacuations. We all know that the plight of sick and injured people in Gaza is deeply distressing, but we have tried to work closely with Israel, asking it to engage with partners urgently to establish sustained safe and timely passage for patients who need medical or surgical interventions that are not available in Gaza.
We recently announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, delivered through WHO Egypt to support medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza, because it is close to the region. The UK is also supporting the provision of essential healthcare to civilians in Gaza, including support to UK-Med for operating its field hospital. There are provisions that allow Palestinians to come to the UK for private medical treatment under the immigration rules. Where a relevant application is made, consideration will be given to exceptional circumstances, or where there are compelling or compassionate grounds. The Government are keeping all options under review in response to events in Gaza.
In conclusion, the UK remains fully committed to protecting medical workers and ensuring that people have access to medical aid during conflicts. While those actions are making a tangible difference on the ground, there is of course more to do. That is why we will continue to advocate for the protection of the most vulnerable, address barriers to accessing medical services, and strengthen our own medical and surgical capabilities to deploy in conflicts.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Scottish Rates of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Scottish Rates of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Sir Roger. The draft order enables the calculation of deficiency relief to take account of the introduction of the Scottish advanced rate of income tax. Deficiency relief reduces the tax that some individuals are required to pay when certain life insurance policies come to an end. It applies in unusual circumstances in which the policyholder would otherwise be taxed on more than the actual economic gain they made on the policy. That might include when a tax charge arose on an earlier withdrawal.
On 22 February this year, the Scottish Parliament introduced the new Scottish advanced rate income tax band. That means that, from 6 April 2024, the former Scottish higher rate income tax band was split into the Scottish higher rate and the Scottish advanced rate income tax bands. The current deficiency relief rules do not take account of the new tax band. This reduces the amount of deficiency relief available to a small number of Scottish taxpayers from 6 April 2024.
The order applies from 6 April 2024, and ensures that the new Scottish advanced rate of income tax can be included in the calculation of deficiency relief. At the same time, the Government are taking the opportunity to simplify the wording of the legislation. The order ensures that the calculation of deficiency relief takes account of the new Scottish advanced rate of income tax.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and her brevity in setting out what the draft order does.
The new rates introduced by the Scottish Parliament mean that the higher income tax band is 42% and the Scottish advanced income tax rate is 45%. The order will avoid disparity, and we will not seek to divide the Committee—although that was tempting before the reinforcements turned up on the Government Benches. It is worth highlighting that the Scottish Parliament’s changes have made their tax system more complex; there are now six rates compared with three across the rest of the UK.
I will ask the Minister some questions, as we have all gathered here. What is the impact of deficiency relief payments on Exchequer revenues? How many taxpayers in Scotland will benefit—she referred to a small number—and what will the impact be on revenue? Given that the measures relate to changes from the beginning of this tax year in April, will she confirm that she will seek to bring in such provisions in response to changes more rapidly than the six months that this has taken?
In conclusion, although this order is needed due to the increased complexity of the Scottish Government, thankfully, these provisions actually simplify the effect in legislation.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation and for commenting on the lateness of some of the people behind me—I am sure that the Whip will have taken notice of that, but not me, because that is not my job.
Only Scottish taxpayers who are entitled to deficiency relief and who pay tax at the Scottish advanced rate of income tax will be affected. The measure only affects Scottish taxpayers who claim deficiency relief and whose tax is taxable at the Scottish advanced rate of income tax. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute number, but the criteria apply to people whose income is taxable at the Scottish advanced rate of income tax, as he referenced.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that guidance is available. The “Insurance Policyholder Taxation Manual” from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs contains guidance on deficiency relief. It will be updated to reflect these changes, so people can refer to that, and it is available on gov.uk.
I will answer a question about the order applying retrospectively, because I think the hon. Gentleman alluded to that. The Scottish advanced rate of income tax applies from 6 April 2024, but applying these provisions from the state ensures that no taxpayers are adversely affected. I hope that those answers are satisfactory—[Interruption.] I am being handed another piece of paper, which I will read. Oh, the number affected is fewer than 10, and the Exchequer impact is less than £5 million per annum. I hope that satisfies him.
This order ensures that the calculation of deficiency relief takes account of the new Scottish advanced rate of income tax. I am glad that the Opposition will not oppose it and are in agreement. I commend the changes to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Wealth tax in the Autumn Budget
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
Children and Bereavement
(1 week, 3 days 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
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 636718 and 624185 relating to children and bereavement.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This is my first time opening a debate as a new member of the Petitions Committee; I am delighted to speak to the two incredibly important petitions. Before I begin, I want to thank the House of Commons staff for enabling me to engage proactively with the petitioners, charities, advocates, representatives and supporters involved in both petitions. I feel privileged to stand here today as an advocate for the campaigners who have worked tirelessly for years to get results on these vital matters. This debate takes place during National Grief Awareness week, which is run by the Good Grief Trust, who chose this year’s theme: shine a light. That is exactly what I hope to do today in this debate.
First, I would like to set out the two matters at hand before I make the case for each. Crucial in all of this is that both petitions go hand in hand in with the same diagnosis and cure, which I will describe. I will delve into it further towards the end of my speech. I want to start with the petition entitled, “Record the number of bereaved children to ensure they are supported”. That might not be something we would consider every day, but currently we do not know how many bereaved children there are in the UK right now. The petition argues:
“If we don’t know the true scale of childhood bereavement, the services that exist to help are unable to proactively offer the support that children and their families need to cope with their grief. Without support, unresolved grief in young people can lead to an increased risk of youth offending, family breakdown, underachievement in education and employment and long-term mental health conditions.”
I want to thank Winston’s Wish and its inspiring ambassador, Mark Lemon, for the work that they have done submitting the petition and campaigning for it over the years. One of the fundamental reasons why I am in favour of it is Mark’s own personal story, which I am deeply grateful to be able to share on his behalf today. At age 12, Mark experienced the horrific murder of his father. With nothing registered and no real support around at the time, Mark received no help to cope with that traumatic incident or adjust to the massive impact that the loss had on his life until his 20s. Mark is here today, and he argues that recording the number of children in the household when a death is registered could help thousands of bereaved children and ensure that services can better plan, reach out to families and offer much-needed support. Mark is working hard to make sure that no child faces the isolation he did after such devastation, which is hard for any of us to fathom even as adults.
Setting aside the emotional aspect of the argument, I support the practicalities of the proposal. From service delivery to charities, local councils and schools, how can anybody work to tackle the consequences of childhood bereavement if no one knows where it is occurring in the first place?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I concur exactly with everything the hon. Member has said. It is a cause close to my own heart. In fact, I have a private Member’s Bill on this very subject due to be considered in July. Does he agree with me that this is something the Government should look at and help to happen, because it should not need legislation?
Kevin Bonavia
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Obviously, there are things that can be done through law. There are things that are done through good practice and guidelines, and I am sure we will hear from my hon. Friend the Minister in due course as to what can be done. If it needs legislation I am sure she will consider that, but we should do all that we can to encourage the Government to take whatever steps they can to help achieve the aims of the petitions.
On the first petition about collecting data, a simple change would be to support registrars to collect the data when a death is registered while protecting the anonymity and data of the family. That seems achievable without being overly invasive. After all, it would simply be an option, and it would indicate where bodies need to target their support. Winston’s Wish, the child bereavement charity, has regular get-togethers with young people so they can share their stories of grief with one another. Imagine how that data could transform where it allocates its resources, time and effort. It could be transformational for our kids.
From speaking to colleagues across the House, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who brought a debate on this subject to Westminster Hall earlier this year, it is clear that such a move could attract cross-party consensus. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister what legislation would be needed to enact the change permitting registrars to collect data on the number of bereaved children at the point of registering the death. If enacted, what support and training could be given to registrars so they can direct families who register bereaved children towards charities and bodies that can help?
The previous Government essentially said, “We won’t do this, because it is not the done thing,” and pointed people towards the support that schools and charities can give. Let us make it the done thing, because it would help schools and charities to do their jobs in the first place.
The second, and equally important, petition argues that we should add content on death, dying and bereavement to the national curriculum. It states that, under compulsory relationships education, schools should be required to provide age-appropriate education to help children understand death as a part of life:
“Talking about death can be helpful for children and issues of bereavement should be compulsory learning for children in preparation for life as an adult. Children are taught how life begins through the national curriculum and similarly we should not hide from equipping children with the skills to comprehend death. Children must be provided with the skills to comprehend loss and to prepare for the emotions and feelings that accompany a bereavement which at some point, we all have to face.”
I commend the research, testimony and briefings from the childhood bereavement network and the National Children’s Bureau, which have compelled me, emotionally and logically, to support these changes. I also want to highlight the work of the petition creator, John Adams, past president of the National Association of Funeral Directors, whose membership includes more than 4,000 funeral homes. He has used his story of grief as a young child as a motivator to call for these changes, which will help all other children in need.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On that point, I want to give credit to my constituent, John Adams. He did not let the death of his mother, Maria, hold him back in life. He was determined to see change, and he should be championed for all the work he is doing.
Kevin Bonavia
I wholeheartedly agree, and I commend John and others who have used their experience to help other people. There is nothing better than a person’s own experience for reaching out and supporting people.
Every day, an average of 111 children in the UK lose a parent. After charities, schools, local authorities and family members and friends have stepped in, how many of those children fall through the net and have no one to talk to or cope with? Our job is to level the playing field. Not everyone has a fantastic teacher who goes the extra mile, working within parameters of the curriculum, which could allow the teaching of bereavement through links to other topics, such as the family. Not everyone attends a school that has a bereavement policy or a pastoral support team that identifies and supports bereaved children. Not everyone has access to a phenomenal organisation such as Winston’s Wish or Stand-by-me in my constituency of Stevenage—a local childhood bereavement service that launched a “Contact-me” bereavement programme, which offers a whole-school approach to supporting bereaved students. Stand-by-me now has children who have experienced bereavement as young ambassadors. For example, Evie received support from the charity and has helped three other children in her class with similar experiences. There is nothing like the peer-to-peer support of a person who helps somebody they know who feels the same way as them. I thank Evie and the many other children like her who support others in the same situation, but not everyone has a network of family and friends who can step up and find out how to get the right help.
Let us stop the postcode lottery and bring grief education into the school curriculum. That will guarantee that at least one effort is made with every child across the country to break the stigma of bereavement. It will foster healthy discussions about what has happened and what is to come, and make those affected feel that they have a network of support they can access safely.
I do not believe bereavement education would add a burden to already pressurised schools and staff, because as I have learned in the past few weeks, resources from all the organisations I have spoken with on the petition are ready to do the job. We must be proactive, not reactive. We should not take the risk that a single child in 10 years’ time will tell a story like Mark or John’s. I ask the Government, what is the latest guidance following a recent curriculum review? Can bereavement education be included if that is not already the case? The previous Government left the matter up for review, stating that it could be taught in school if schools wanted that. No more “could”; let us move to “should”, or even “must”.
I want to end where I started. The matters in the two petitions are inherently linked, one perfectly complementing the other. With a register for who needs support, alongside the guarantee of intervention in our schools, we will be making an active choice to see all the invisible bereaved children in the UK today. Let us turn isolation into embrace, and do whatever is possible to enshrine both petitions in law and practice as best as we can.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), who opened so eloquently, setting the tone for what is an important debate.
Benjamin Franklin said that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes. We certainly spend enough time in this place discussing taxes—as I am sure we will do later this week—but not enough time discussing death. We even try to educate children and young people about taxes and finance, but we do not do that with death at the right level in the national curriculum. It is a subject that many find hard, so the easiest way to deal with it is to not talk about it.
I pay tribute to John Adams, who is in the Public Gallery. He is a funeral director from Bridgnorth in my constituency. He has been a champion for adding death, dying and bereavement to the national curriculum, and he has done tremendous work. John is leading that work both nationally and internationally, and I believe he has been asked to go to Australia next year to speak there and help them. What we are doing here is pioneering, and that is good to see.
John has worked within the industry on this issue as the president of the National Association of Funeral Directors, as well as with Child Bereavement UK. There is an excellent video of John being an ambassador for The Good Grief Trust, where he shares resources to support education on the subject. He is also working in the education sector, as well as with many other organisations. He is certainly spending time doing everything he can, and it is to his credit that we are here today to speak about the subject.
John is committed to making the necessary changes to get the best outcomes for children, young people and their families—it is important to remember the families—when dealing with death and grief. That is no small thing; it is not an easy topic to pick up and run with. I was delighted to speak to John, who is one of my constituents and pioneered one of the petitions behind this debate. During our conversation, John told me of his personal experience of losing his mother Maria when he was 12. For John to pick himself up, not let life get him down or stop him talking about it, and decide that other people should not have to go through his experience, is excellent. Maria is the reason we are here today, so I give credit to John for the work he has done.
John told me that adding a standalone provision for grief education to the national curriculum will strengthen families when they need it most. It will improve resilience in school communities, and mitigate the impacts of bereavement as an adverse childhood experience. It builds on recent research that shows that children who are educated about grief before a traumatic experience can discuss grief and have less anxiety about the death. I know that from personal experience. My father Samuel died when I had just turned eight, and my mum was left alone with my two younger brothers and me. My father was only 37, and it happened in the school holidays. I remember going to school later in the day, because the teacher had to tell my class, “Stuart’s dad has died. Nobody mention it to him.” That was how it was dealt with. Even with the teachers and the children, nobody knew what to say. My friend told me what the meeting was about and what had been said, but nobody discussed it. If I misbehaved it was put down as, “Oh, he’s lost his dad—don’t say anything,” or, “How can we leave Stuart out?” If something went right or wrong nobody knew how to deal it, from the teachers to the students.
It was almost as if the event had never happened, and it was through other circumstances—I have spoken about this in the main Chamber—that I discovered the impact that it had on me. It took me many years to deal with it myself, but if I had had that education and awareness, and it could have been spoken about openly.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I worked as a mental health nurse in the NHS for many years and saw many people struggle with their mental health due to traumatic experiences, including family bereavements that happened many years ago, and they were never able to deal with it. Does the hon. Member agree that not addressing traumatic episodes at a younger age can lead to long-term damage to people’s mental health later in life?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. I agree 100%, but it is not always a single significant point. I lost my dad at eight, and I was shot at 17 in the military. For me, it was a culmination of different things. I have spoken openly about how I ended up with post-traumatic stress disorder, with all those different things, and spent 15 years living a nightmare, wanting to take my own life. All those things had built up, but if we deal with children’s mental health earlier—it is really hard to deal with—there is a way to come through. The way to do that is to grieve at the time, and to talk and discuss it.
I do not think that the weight of that should just fall on the parents. The school should support and work with them, because the children are at school for a long time. It is not just me, John and others who have commented on this. This goes across South Shropshire—the old constituency was Ludlow—as we have almost 2,000 signatures, so I know how important this is locally, and all the credit goes to John, who has been raising awareness of the issue.
As we are here to speak about these experiences, the previous Government launched a review about whether bereavement content is needed in statutory guidance, and pledged to consider the points made in the petition. The consultation ran until 11 July. The general election was called before it finished. I ask the Minister whether her Government can take up the work that was begun and look at putting this into the national curriculum, so that when other children face this—because they will—they have the right support. People will know things from other children in the class and that can teach us how to deal with this. It is not resource intensive—it could run alongside relationship, sex and health education or something similar—and it is not a financial burden. Investing time in the children, as the hon. Member for Stevenage said, will save far more time by dealing with things that become problems further down the line.
Having personal experience of this, and having been inspired by the work that John has done for all these years as a voice, not just in the UK but internationally on such a hard and difficult subject, I fully support what he is doing to put it in the right context. I urge the Minister to align with me and look at how we can put this back into the national curriculum and honour the work that John has done after losing his mother Maria all those years ago.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. It is a privilege to be part of a debate that reflects Parliament and politics at its best, which happens when we see the injustices and the suffering that have befallen those whom we represent, and we seek to make sure that they never happen again.
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for eloquently opening the debate, to Mark and John, and to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). Time passing does not make it easier for them; it makes it more important that we have not yet dealt with the situation that they are in. I am grateful to have heard about their experiences and to contribute to this debate with those experiences at the centre. We are speaking for thousands of people in this country, of all ages, who have lost a parent.
In my short contribution, I will raise with the Minister some examples that I have dealt with as a constituency MP. They are the cases that nobody ever wants to see. When a young child comes through our door in that position, it takes all our courage not to burst into tears when we hear their heartbreaking story, but that becomes even more of a challenge when we realise that services are not built to wrap around them. It seems so obvious that we must do everything we can for this young person, because an awful thing has happened to them, but that is not a given.
Sadly, I have dealt with several children who, as Mark lost his father, have lost their parents to murder—horrific, public murders in my local community. It seems obvious that those children would be traumatised. One child was there when it happened, but we are still struggling to get them counselling; it is not a given. The school does not have any understanding of what needs to provided. That does not mean that people at the school do not want to help, but it is so out of their worldview that that could happen, so counselling is not in place. The family have been trying to push for it for some time, but it is still a work in progress. Ironically, we have now discovered that a child can get counselling if they view a murder or are a witness, but not if it has just happened to a member of their family or to a parent.
This petition tells us about the need to recognise that children are traumatised in that way—they are traumatised by the loss of a parent whether they see it or not—so we must get counselling in. That seems so obvious, but it is not consistent. The counselling services are there, so it is a question of joining them up. I hope that the Minister can take that back to her Department.
I have also seen, for children who have lost parents to terminal illness, that counselling is not an expected part of the conversation about what we can do. It has come up only in relation to whether we can keep the child in school, but that seems too late. I would wager that the hon. Member for South Shropshire feels that, in his experience, one reason he got to that point was that nobody intervened early enough; indeed, they tried to stop the conversation rather than recognise how traumatic it would be for him. It is therefore not just about providing counselling when something horrific has happened, but about recognising how horrific it is to lose a parent at such a young age—full stop. That would make a real difference.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Even in the Ministry of Defence, the UK armed forces have recognised that an annual MOT of mental health to discuss death, dying and bereavement, and their impact, gets a far better performance out of the soldiers who will face them. Why on earth do we not have that discussion earlier in schools too?
Ms Creasy
One of the reasons it is important to have counselling in schools is that, when I think about the partners who I have worked with who have lost somebody, we want to try to take as many burdens off their shoulders as possible and recognise that they are dealing with grief too. This debate focuses on children, but there is a need to join up the welfare system to support families. They have lost somebody—they have lost an income provider—and often, the time that the remaining parent wants to spend with their child is taken away because they have to work to try to make up the loss of income. We should be able to join that up.
I first became involved in many of these issues when I worked with the brilliant Widowed and Young with parents who were not married, where the impact was that families would lose an income provider who was not recognised. The children were clearly suffering, but in those cases the mums, and in one case the dad, were having to think about all the practical things, such as bills and how to keep a roof above their head. They did not have as much time to be with their children, which in itself caused grief and harm to them. We managed to get the allowance for bereaved widows extended to non-married partners, but we did not really look to challenge the idea that somehow, after 18 months, a child and a family should have recovered to the extent that there would be no impact. That affects our ability to help children.
There is another scenario I want to raise with the Minister, which addresses the first petition about data. I recently had a case that really floored me, of two children who lost their mother and then, shortly afterwards, their father—it was just extraordinary. We relied on their family members to help them, but because those family members did not have immigration status here in the UK, the children, who were British citizens, lost all their rights and were living in absolute, abject poverty. My community in Walthamstow brilliantly picked them up to try to help them while we resolved their immigration status, but the children’s rights here were gone as soon as their parents died. It got me thinking about how many other families might be in that position.
I asked the Ministry of Justice about children who have legal guardians, because that was what these family members had become for those children. It was sorting out their status that then opened up doors for the children, which took far too long—more than a year. We do not have a record of how many orphans are in this country. Think about the worst thing that could possibly happen: someone loses one parent and then the second, or maybe even loses both together. The state does not know how many of those children there are, so I asked the Ministry of Justice about the numbers of children being allocated a legal guardian because both parents had passed away. The Ministry of Justice told me, in answer to a written question, that while it thought that the information was held in court records, it was not uniformly gathered. That means the Minister’s job is doubly difficult, because she will not know how many children have no guaranteed guardian to pick any of these issues up, whether that is counselling or their financial position. It seems obvious that, as corporate parents, we ought to know how many children are in the position of sadly losing both parents.
I make a plea that we make counselling a given. It must not be something to be asked and fought for and sought out, whereby hopefully the local Member of Parliament knows about Victim Support or another charity, even though those charities do brilliant things. We must organise counselling for every child who loses a parent and do that through schools, partly to take some of the weight off the parent who is grieving. We must also start to act as corporate parents and record how many orphans there are. I hope that the number is infinitesimal, but for the two I came across in Walthamstow, I have never felt more impotent as an MP. We were trying to stop them living in horrific circumstances in which they had lost all support, funding and assistance, while we as a community were gathering together school uniforms for them and the foodbanks had to be there every single day.
I would be horrified if there were more children in that position, but since we do not know, we must do more to gather basic data to understand what is happening to some children in this country. We hope that it is a scenario we never have to deal with, but we sadly know that it is not the case. That is why it is so important that the House, as it does at its best, hears the stories and sees the reality of the messiness of human life, and acts. These petitions call on us to act on scenarios that sadly happen more than we might realise, and which we do not know the full extent of. I know the Minister shares my concern and compassion for people in that position and will want to do all she can. We must help her in lobbying her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice for a better dataset of the children in that position. I know that is a view we hold across the House. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage for introducing the petition so eloquently.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for opening the debate. I would like to acknowledge all the people who have signed the petition, and Mark and John for all their work—it is good to see them in the Public Gallery.
I speak as someone who has, unfortunately, very personal experience of the issue we are debating today. My husband, 22 years ago, was diagnosed with terminal cancer, when my daughter was two and our baby was just five months old. He died a year later, a week before Ellie’s fourth birthday, when Laura was just 17 months old. They are now brilliant young women, and I am extremely proud of them. But it has been a long journey, and I can say from the bottom of my heart that grief lasts a lifetime. Bereavement issues come and go and change as the children grow up. The grief is quite strange when you are three; you don’t know where daddy has gone. When you are 17 months old, you cannot even speak. I think she could just about say “Daddy”; she was babbling a bit. It is very difficult to explain to a child of that age, so the other parent has to explain again and again, at different stages of life, as the children grow up.
One thing we read about in books, which is true, is that for bereaved children it is an issue that keeps coming back. They will be okay for a few years and then they will move school and suddenly it starts all over again. I remember that when both my girls started secondary school there was a conversation: “What do I say? Do I go in and say on day one, ‘Oh, my dad’s dead,’ or do I keep it quiet?” I remarried many years later, and then there was another question: “Do I call him Stuart or do I just say to my friends that he’s dad?” The girls just used to refer to us as “Our parents”, because that was easier. They did not want to have to keep explaining.
Retelling the story at school, over and over again, was very difficult. Ellie started school six months after her dad died. I had some brilliant friends who came to the house on day one of school, and we all went together because I knew she would be one of the only kids there who did not have mum and dad at the school gate on day one. It was like that every time: at every school carol concert, every play, every parents’ evening, every sports day, for years, there was a feeling that there should have been someone else there. One thing that was really hard was that I felt every year that I had to tell the class teacher; it was not a whole-school experience, so I had to keep retelling and re-explaining. When children go to secondary school and have lots of different classes with lots of different teachers, it is really quite something that, if things are difficult, we have to keep explaining it again and again.
The petition is so important. Perhaps things have changed a bit in the last 21 years, but the fact that no national data is collected is a sign that we still have not got to grips with this issue. The Childhood Bereavement Network estimates that more than 46,000 children in the UK experience the death of a parent every year. That is 127 children who are going through this every single day. We collect data on so many aspects of children’s lives, from school performance to health statistics, and even the number of children affected by divorce, but when it comes to bereavement children are invisible in terms of policy, planning and support, and that absolutely has to change. Bereavement is one of the most difficult experiences that any child can face, yet we have no clear plan or pathway to support children.
We know that the impact of bereavement is lifelong and can present emotional and psychological challenges. I remember phoning Winston’s Wish more than once as a parent to ask for some advice when things were kicking off and not going very well, and that organisation was absolutely brilliant. Shortly after—about a year after—Nick died, we joined Widowed and Young, and I eventually went on to chair Widowed and Young for a couple of years. It is an absolutely brilliant organisation and I could not have survived without it.
We used to go away for weekends with WAY. I had lots of friends who all had small kids, and I remember the kids were chattering away in the back of the car one day and one of them said to the other, “What’s a brain haemorrhage?”, and the other one explained. For them, it was so normal that all their dads had died. They just talked about it. It was so important for them to be able to connect with other children who had experienced the same thing and they felt able to talk to. Yet at school, it was not part of the conversation. Their friends did not know how to talk about it; they did not really understand. My daughters have often said, “Oh, my friends never mention it; they never talk about it.” It is just brushed under the carpet because they feel awkward.
Education about this issue should be on the curriculum. We do not talk about death enough in this country. We have talked about it a lot in this House over the last couple of weeks, but Friday’s debate was also an indication that we really do not have these conversations in Britain. We feel awkward about it, and it is really important that death becomes a much more normal thing to discuss.
I am going all over the place, but I will go back to the issue of data, which I have written down. If registrars were required to ask about the number of dependent children at the point when a death is registered, we could at least begin to understand the true scale of the issue. Local authorities could then use that data to make informed decisions about the resources required to support grieving families in their area. Nationally, it would help to make the case for a co-ordinated response to childhood bereavement and ensure that bereaved children get the support they need. Registrars could also signpost people to useful organisations if they knew there were children involved. Believe me, a bereaved parent needs all the help they can get, and knowing there are people out there who understand is really important.
The collection of data would also identify children who are not receiving support and would allow local services to monitor whether the services available are meeting the needs of bereaved children, and whether enough children are receiving the help they need. It would also allow us to ask the important question: are our systems reaching these children, and are they getting the right kind of help? Without that data, we cannot ensure that our services meet the scale of the need.
On educating children, we cannot expect them to process such a significant loss on their own. We also cannot expect teachers to navigate these issues without proper training and support. There are organisations out there. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, a lot of this stuff has already been done, and the resources are there to support teachers. By giving children a space to understand death—what it is, what it means and what it is all about—we provide an opportunity for a bereaved child not to feel quite so alone and different. Children need to be able to express their grief and to be supported in doing so, and teachers need to feel empowered to address this difficult subject, to ensure that grieving children do not feel isolated or misunderstood. If such education were part of the curriculum, we could ensure that teachers and support staff have the tools and knowledge they need to support children at the most difficult time in their lives.
Grieving children need to feel safe, understood and supported. The impact of losing a parent can be devastating; it affects every aspect of a child’s life for a lifetime. Without understanding the scale of the issue, and without having the right data and systems in place, we are leaving bereaved children to navigate this experience with little support, and leaving their parents to do a really difficult job on their own, without the wider support network they need. It is time that we recognised the needs of bereaved children. I urge the Minister to see what we can do, as fast as we can do it, so that more children get the support they need.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This is something like the fifth debate on this subject that I have taken part in since I became an MP in 2017, and it is more than two years since I asked the then Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on it. During those two and a half years, I have repeatedly asked the Government to look at a register for bereaved children, because it was suggested to me by Winston’s Wish.
I first thought about and became aware of this issue in a conversation with my sister over lunch. My sister, who is now 50, said to me, “Do you remember how when dad died”—when she was eight—“we never really saw anybody from social services? Nobody came to see us and nothing happened.” I said, “Yeah, that’s right, because we had never been in contact with social services. They didn’t think we needed them. Do you know it’s still the same?” I think a friend’s partner had died and I realised that nothing had changed in 40 years, and I thought that was ridiculous.
I spoke to staff at Winston’s Wish and they said, “Yeah, the problem is that we know how many children are bereaved every year. We know they are out there and we have the support networks to help them. We have the facilities. We have peers they can talk to who will appreciate it”—as the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) said—“but the charities and organisations do not know how to get in touch with the children because it is not recorded where they are.” The families do not know how to get in touch with the support networks because, when they go to record a death, no one asks, “Do you need help for a child?” It should be simple. That is why I think that a record, as the petition calls for, is the best way forward.
To turn briefly to other subjects, it is vital to teach about bereavement and loss in school—that is the role that schools have played—but, with respect to Members from the previous Government, they seemed to think that only schools should have responsibility. I do not think that is what children or their parents want. Children who have lost a parent, a grandparent, a friend’s parent or a sibling need help at times when the school is not available—at night, when they are lonely or upset, or when they are a teenager and do not know who to turn to for advice. That is when they need their peers. Often, they do not want to talk to the school, or they might move school and not know many people.
The idea is to have a register, a simple box-ticking exercise to say, when a death is recorded, that there is a child who may be affected, with paperwork handed out —the leaflets, the contacts—and that would not mean letting that data be public. There would never have to be any publication of the data; it would simply be putting people who need the help in touch with the people who can offer that help. If we do not do that, we face the situation that the hon. Member for Stevenage talked about: adults who went through a traumatic experience as a child never getting the help they need to get over it fully, so that it comes back when they are adults. That can get them involved in crime or drugs, or give them difficulty forming personal relationships.
When I spoke to one of the charities involved with adults bereaved as children, one of its psychologists said to me, “You do realise you could be opening a whole can of worms for yourself. You might not have dealt with this quite as well as you thought you did.” I think she is wrong, but we never know—it does come back in later life. It can contribute to the burden on the NHS or problems in the economy. If we will not look only at the huge moral and compassionate case for having this register, we should look at the economic one and see that that backs up the moral and compassionate case.
I thank the hon. Member for Stevenage for how he introduced both petitions, and I say to the Government: please, before my private Member’s Bill comes before the House in July, may we come up with a way of saving so many children in this country going through any more long-term pain? The help is there for them—charities such as Winston’s Wish want to help them, but they just do not know where those children are.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for opening the debate so eloquently, and for representing the views of many people who are present in the Public Gallery. I thank Mark and John for allowing their experiences to be shared today and for their campaigning on this incredibly important issue.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for speaking so bravely about their personal experiences. It is never easy to talk in this place about personal experience, in particular when talking about the death of a loved one, a parent or spouse. That is incredibly difficult and it was a privilege to hear their stories—I thank them.
It is estimated that in the UK a child loses a parent every 20 minutes or so. In that moment, a child’s life is changed forever. The estimate does not include other losses, such as the loss of a sibling or a grandparent, which can be equally painful. I think back to the time of the covid pandemic, when talking to teachers and headteachers in schools in my constituency. They were dealing with an awful lot of grief, with children losing relatives they were close to, and they were having to cope with that grief in the school setting. Little data is collected on children’s suffering from such a loss, and I will come back to that in more detail.
Losing a loved one is devastating, no matter what age you are. However, particularly when you are young, still growing and perhaps unable properly to understand the concept of death, grief can be especially difficult to manage. Bereavement can have an impact on every aspect of a child’s life, including their wellbeing, education and overall life outcomes. For this reason, it is critical that children get the practical and emotional support that they desperately need.
Unfortunately, that is not currently the case for all children. There are no official statistics on the number of children who have been bereaved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, we do not know how many children are in that situation or where they live. It is important that both local and national services are aware of the scale of the problem and can identify the children who need our support.
Like those who signed today’s petition and the Members who have spoken in the debate, the Liberal Democrats would like to see the establishment of a national register for bereaved children. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West for her campaigning on this issue. So many children slip through the net, and only some schools provide the support that pupils need. As we have been talking, I was reminded that 30 years ago, almost to the month, a girl in my class at school was killed with her family in a car crash. I remember that we came back after the Christmas holidays—they were killed while on holiday—and our class teacher brought us all together to have a conversation about it. I think back on how important that was. The school continued to work wherever possible with the girls who were closest to the girl who lost her life.
As we have heard from the stories that hon. Members have shared, that certainly is not universally the case. It is important that we recognise the schools that do this work, but so many do not. There is no national mandate from the Department for Education for schools to have a bereavement policy in place, nor is there any national policy to support schools with this. That needs to be rectified, and I hope that the schools Minister will take that away to her Department.
A number of national and local charities are trying to fill the gaps and support children and their families through grief, but lots of children are not being matched up with organisations that could provide them with support, and families are left scrambling. It is a difficult time. Other family members and parents are trying to deal with the grief too, so it is a stressful period. That is why my hon. Friend’s campaign, through her private Member’s Bill, for a legal duty for children to be informed of the support available to them following a loss is so important. I hope that the Minister will take my hon. Friend up on the offer to get this sorted before she has to bring it to the House yet again. The changes would help to improve join-up and ensure that the correct support was available as soon as it was needed.
Even though not every child might choose to take up the support or feel the need to do so, it would still provide a much-needed safety net. Although we do not have the data to know for certain, it is estimated that one in 29 children and young people have lost a parent or sibling. That is almost one child in every classroom. Every child will be affected differently, and we know that many will struggle with their mental health as a result of the loss. Grief is messy and complicated. It does not go away, and it can affect children at different stages of their life. Studies show that some children may have a seemingly mild reaction following a loss but will struggle in subsequent years as the reality sinks in. That is why it is so important that mental health support is available continuously for bereaved children, not just immediately following their loss.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said about ensuring that specialist bereavement counselling is available for children, but one reason why the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for years for a dedicated mental health practitioner in every primary and secondary school is to ensure that all children, including those who have been bereaved, have access to mental health support. There should also be community hubs available for children and young people right up to the age of 25, meaning that they can access support as and when they need it, on their own terms.
After a loss, not only do families face significant emotional challenges, but they may also face a financial one. Overnight, a household income can shrink by half, or potentially even more if the person who died was the main breadwinner in the family. Alongside grieving for their partner, many widowed people suddenly have to pay their household bills and childcare costs, or put food on the table, with a sudden loss of income. Bereavement support payments can be a lifeline for families during that time, providing a source of income that might not be found elsewhere. However, in 2017, the previous Government cut funding for those payments by around 50%. Especially in a cost of living crisis, those cuts have been devastating to many families who have suffered a loss.
According to the Childhood Bereavement Network, more than 75% of families are worse off than they would have been under the previous arrangements, with some going into debt and poverty as a result. That is why for some time, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned to double the funding for bereavement support payments. We would use the extra funding not just to increase the size of the payments, but to extend the period of time for which families receive them, giving those suffering from loss much-needed stability.
I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who has talked very openly about his own loss—first he lost his father as a child, and then he nursed his mum as she died of cancer in his teenage years—has campaigned so vociferously on this issue. I am pleased that he worked with other hon. Members to pressure the previous Government to extend bereavement support payments to cohabiting couples.
Caroline Voaden
I add my voice to the calls to extend bereavement support payments. I was very lucky—well, not lucky—because I was bereaved before those changes were made, and I had bereavement support payments for quite a long time. I want to say a couple of things on that. The reason why someone gets bereavement support payments is that their partner who has died has paid national insurance contributions. My husband spent 20 years paying national insurance contributions, and he would never get a pension. To get some kind of payment as a bereaved parent is only just, because the state will never pay out that pension later on.
As I have previously said, grief does not just stop after 18 months. A bereaved parent of young children is left to pick up the pieces, look after their children and go back to work, because they have lost an income—quite often the main income of the family. It is important for the state of the NHS, our economy and everything else that a bereaved parent is as balanced and stable as possible so that their children can remain balanced and stable. It is good for the family and society as a whole. The more help we can give a parent—perhaps to work part time, so that they can be more available to their bereaved children—the better. Sorry, that was too long; excuse me, Mrs Harris.
Munira Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; she put across her points far more powerfully than I could, and I urge the Minister to listen. I hope that she and her fellow Ministers in other Departments will look at increasing the funding for bereavement support. At the very least, I hope they uprate it, because it has depreciated hugely in recent years. They should also increase the time period over which it is paid, because we have heard how important that is. I know that finances are stretched, but we are talking about a small number of children who have experienced the most horrendous loss.
The implications of a loss can be especially complicated for certain families, especially single-parent families where the caring parent dies. The loss of a parent or guardian can often leave children with no one to look after them, and as a result, family members may step up overnight to take care of them. Such a situation accounts for almost one in 10 children living in kinship care. That was the case for my constituent, April—I call her that to anonymise her. She suddenly became a kinship carer for her nephew, who had no one else to look after him after his mum passed away from cancer. His stepfather had left the family shortly after his mum’s diagnosis. At the council’s request, April stepped up at very short notice to provide a caring and loving home to her nephew, but that came at great personal cost to her and her family.
The Minister will be aware that I have long campaigned to ensure that kinship carers have the right support. Kinship carers such as April do their utmost to look after the children in their care, but they often need additional support because of sudden changes in their living arrangements, and because of the traumatic circumstances. Too many children in such situations simply cannot access the support they need, so we should provide better access to therapeutic support. We should also extend pupil premium plus funding to kinship children so that they are on a par with looked-after children and can access the support and wraparound care that they desperately need, inside and outside school. Unfortunately, too many kinship carers are desperately trying to get their children support, but to no avail.
These problems affect not just the children but the carers. Talking about her family’s experience, kinship carer Levette said:
“When my daughter passed away all I could focus on was keeping the children emotionally stable. Losing their mother was a traumatic experience for them and I wanted to make sure they were able to grieve. I wasn’t able to find time to grieve myself”.
No one should have to feel that way after the loss of a loved one. Although we cannot take away a child’s pain and grief, as a society we owe it to them to do all we can to provide emotional, practical and financial support. That starts with having a register, ensuring that schools have policies for teaching about grief and bereavement in an age-appropriate and sensitive way within the curriculum, and addressing the lack of financial support. It is crucial that we give children in difficult circumstances the best possible chance to overcome their challenges and thrive, so I hope the Government will implement the changes that I and many others have outlined today.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I too thank Mark and Winston’s Wish for their work with bereaved children and all the practical help they provide. I also thank John Adams, who is trying to make something good come out of something absolutely terrible. I am grateful to everyone who signed the petitions that brought about this important and sobering debate.
When we think about these issues, we naturally think about people we know who are either going through or have been through terrible bereavements. I have a family friend with two boys the same age as my children; they are dealing with the loss of a wife and mother, and they all deserve a medal just for getting through the day. We also think about the ways that people overcome the adversity of these situations. I have a friend who life was shaped by losing his father at a young age, but he has made his life more extraordinary; he has become a wonderful, very strong person as a result of that early terrible experience.
Hon. Members shared similar examples. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) was incredibly open and told a compelling story about her experiences. She has been there; she is trying to take those terrible experiences and make something good out of them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) has had an extraordinary life in many ways and is an incredible person; he too has taken a hard thing and made something good of it.
I pay tribute to all other Members who have taken part in this important debate. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) did a brilliant job of setting out the situation. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) made some compelling points, particularly about the joining up of data, and the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) made really important speeches.
To give a bit of a sense of hope, I want to mention some of the changes that have happened in recent years. The 2017 Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health set in train the provision of more support in schools. That included the offer to every state school in England of a grant for a senior mental health lead to start the process of improving mental health support in our schools. That was then built on in more recent years by the rolling out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges in England, helping more young people access that incredibly important support. When we left office we had got to about 400 mental health support teams in schools and colleges across England. I know the current Government will want to continue to roll out that support more widely.
I remember from my time as a Health Minister the way we were changing the treatment of mental health—first the commitment to give it parity of esteem with physical health and the mental health service standards, and then a 50% increase in the amount of money that we spent on it between 2018 and now. I do not take away from the fact that the demand is ever growing—there is still unmet need out there—but one of the important things that comes from this debate, of course, is that the resource is of no use unless we can connect it to the young people in need. The hon. Member for Walthamstow gave powerful examples of children who have literally seen their parents murdered. It seems the most obvious thing in the world that support would swing into action at that point, but it does not because we do not have that joined-up approach to data.
That was something that the last Government was working on from 2016. There were ongoing efforts to try to build a unique child identifier. I know that the current Government—this is not something we have any ideological disagreement about—want to finish that work and give us a joined-up approach. Through the private Member’s Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, we have the opportunity. The Department has the exciting opportunity of primary legislation, if it is needed, to make things happen. We can start to bring together the things that it seems so obvious should happen. We can bring together the knowledge that is dispersed through different bits of the public sector in our schools, our coroners and so on into a proper structured approach to help young people going through a hellish situation.
I pay tribute to the people who signed the petition to make this debate happen and to all the people, some of whom are here today, who have worked on this for many years to provide transformative help and who have excellent ideas, which I know the Government will want to take up. We will support them and the Government in doing that.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I thank the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for introducing this timely debate on an incredibly important subject in National Grief Awareness Week. It really is an honour to respond to my first Petitions Committee debate, a Committee I formerly chaired, from the position of a Government Minister with responsibility for issues that the petition raises. I have great respect for the work of the Petitions Committee and its importance in giving voice to people from across the country and the political spectrum to provide opportunities for important issues to be debated in a respectful way. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate, particularly those who have shared so openly and powerfully their experiences of dealing with bereavement.
I want to state my deep admiration and thanks to Mark Lemon for his tireless work to support children and families going through bereavement, including his work as an ambassador for Winston’s Wish, and his tireless efforts to ensure that the difficult conversation on bereavement can be helpful, open and constructive. It has brought about the discussion that we are having today. Bereavement touches everyone, but its impact is unique to everyone. It cannot be avoided—it should not be. It is crucial that those affected by bereavement receive the support that they need throughout their period of bereavement. It is particularly important for children and young people who lose someone close to them because it can have a profound impact on children and young people, and can affect their long-term health and wellbeing, particularly if left unaddressed.
I have unfortunately seen and experienced the challenge that childhood bereavement can present at first hand. I know how important it can be to have the right support available in a timely way and to be given the space and time to process it, as so passionately and eloquently described by the hon. Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). Many would say that it is brave, but I say that it is a real gift to share such powerful, personal testimony. Not only does it give a strong voice to the issues we are debating today, but it will be of immense help to others going through similar experiences to hear from hon. Members in this place in such a powerful way.
I agree that we all have a role to play in supporting bereaved children and young people. There are so many fantastic charities and community groups: the Childhood Bereavement Network, Hope Again, the Anna Freud Centre and the Ruth Strauss Foundation, to name just four. They all play a vital role and I want to put on record our thanks for everything that they do. Government also have a clear role to play and are committed to improving the support that all young children should receive in a variety of difficult and challenging circumstances that they may face.
Given my role as Minister for School Standards, I want to focus my remarks on the support that can be offered through schools to pupils going through a period of bereavement. But responsibility for bereavement and support does not begin and end with the Department for Education. Within England, numerous Whitehall Departments are crucial to that, and many have been mentioned in the debate: the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health and Social Care. Three of those—the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care—continue to work together to address the recommendations in the report from the UK commission on bereavement, “Bereavement is everyone’s business”.
That report put the spotlight firmly on bereavement and the gaps in support, and the impact that can have on bereaved people. The Department of Health and Social Care continues to lead the work on implementing the report’s recommendations and chairs the cross-Government bereavement working group, on which the Department for Education also sits, to improve bereavement support. It is important that they continue to look at the options for how we improve support for bereaved children and young people right across Government, including the issues around data collection and improving it, which has been one of the key asks today.
Going back to schools, they do a brilliant job at supporting their students, including through difficult times, but school staff cannot be expected to be experts in mental health. Teachers do a fantastic job in picking up on the needs of their students and identifying when support might be needed, and that is why the Department for Education provides a list of resources for schools on supporting mental health and wellbeing. That includes support from the Childhood Bereavement Network and Hope Again, and resources hosted on the website of Mentally Healthy Schools for mental health leads, which will include supporting children dealing with loss and bereavement where that is needed.
Our manifesto was clear on the priority we place on improving mental health support for all children and young people, because we know that is key to helping young people achieve and thrive in education. We know we can do more to improve mental health support within schools, and how crucial it is to breaking down the barriers to opportunity. That is why we will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. We will also be putting in place new young futures hubs, including access to mental health support workers, and recruiting an additional 8,500 new mental health staff to treat both children and adults. The Department has already offered all state schools and colleges a grant to train a senior mental health lead by 2025 to help schools to develop an effective approach to mental health and wellbeing, including for any child going through bereavement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage for his questions on the curriculum and potential legislation around that. I want to touch on relationships, sex and health education within schools because it has a vital role in supporting children and young people to look after their emotional and physical health and build supportive and successful relationships. What is taught as part of relationships and health education helps children to prepare for a range of experiences that they will have during their lives, both happy and sad, and through love and loss. It is important that children and young people feel comfortable and see school as a safe place to talk about their feelings, for them to be able to identify where they might need support and know how to ask for it, and for schools to know where it can be found. It is vital that difficult issues such as childhood bereavement are not shied away from but are talked about, as the hon. Member for South Shropshire put incredibly powerfully when sharing his own experience. Teachers need to know about common adverse childhood experiences, which can include bereavement, and understand how they might affect pupils both while they are at school and in the longer term, if they go unaddressed.
Through the mental wellbeing topic in health education, pupils are taught about a range of content, including dealing with bereavement. That teaching includes recognising their emotions and accessing how they are feeling. There is a whole range of external expertise and materials, so that teachers can tailor their lessons accordingly. For example, the Anna Freud Centre provides valuable support to children and young people dealing with loss and bereavement.
We continue to look for opportunities to improve the teaching of relationship, sex and health education in schools. We had a consultation, which started under the previous Government, that ended in July, and we are currently reviewing the RSHE guidance, which sets out the content of what children and young people are taught. We want to ensure that children’s wellbeing is at the heart of the guidance that the Government offer. We are looking carefully at responses, consulting relevant evidence and talking to stakeholders. We will set out next steps to take forward the RSHE guidance, and this debate will contribute to the thinking on that.
Beyond schools, the Government are committed to supporting families through the most difficult times. Family hubs do great work, helping families across vital services to improve the health education and wellbeing of children, young people and their families. As has been mentioned a number of times, to support a child or young person is to support their family too. The 75 most deprived local authorities received around £300 million from the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care between 2022 and 2025 to set up family hubs with integrated Start for Life services. Following the October Budget, we confirmed an additional £69 million from the Department for Education to continue the delivery of family hubs in 2025.
Family hubs are important because they offer a single access point for families. They reduce the stigma around accessing services because they provide a whole range of services, including parent and infant mental health. They have a focus on relationships and whole-family working, so they harness the power of networks and bring that together under one roof. They provide thousands of families with access to support when they need it, including potential bereavement support. All 75 of those local authorities have opened at least one family hub in their area, creating a welcoming space for families with children aged 0 to 19—or 25, where they have a special educational need or disability. They are effective in bringing together a wide range of services for families. There are now 400 family hubs across 75 local authorities.
It is important that we consider how to improve access to existing support for bereaved children when they need it, and when their families have made a conscious decision to find that support. The cross-Government bereavement group is looking at how to better improve access to support, as well as options around improving data collection. We are considering whether a legislative solution is the right approach, ensuring that there is an evidence base that it is the best way to support children and families and that it would not have any unintended consequences. We need to consider any potential negative impact of collecting data at such a sensitive time. All those factors need to be considered, which is why the cross-Government bereavement group will consider the existing roles and responsibilities of registrars in signposting support to bereaved children and their families. We will continue to look at whether and how that could be improved, including potential training and guidance for registrars, so many of the issues outlined today are certainly part of the considerations.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage for bringing forward this matter, and I thank all those who have contributed to this debate. It takes great courage to be so candid about experiences of grief and loss. Although we will all experience bereavement in our lives, we will all grieve in our own way. We have a role to play, however, in ensuring that children and young people get access to the support that they need, whether in or outside school, and get it when they need it. I particularly thank all those who work across education, the health and care systems and the charitable sector in the interests of children and young people who experience bereavement and their families and provide them with much-needed support.
Kevin Bonavia
The motion is that we have considered the petitions before us, and I hope everyone will agree that we have considered them well. Let us hope that there will be beneficial progress as a result of today’s discussions. I once again thank the petitioners.
I add my thanks to everybody who has spoken in the debate. This issue clearly has resonance across the whole House and across parties, and we have learned a lot from the personal experiences of Members. We heard from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) about his own experience of child bereavement, from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) about the experience of a bereaved parent, and from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the experience of the friends of children losing their parents. They are all big personal experiences.
I was not going to mention my own personal experience, but hearing from others today reminded me of what happened 26 years ago, when I lost my father to throat cancer when I was 20. At the time, I had a younger brother in his teens and a mother who had to cope for the family. This debate made me think, “What if I had the support that many people have today, and what if that was there for everyone?”, so I am grateful to hon. Members for sharing their experiences. How many hundreds of thousands of experiences like those are out there?
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for sharing the experiences that MPs hear in their surgeries all the time. They were very harrowing, and we must take them as best we can, but we must learn from them and think about how we can join things up. As she said, the state, in all its forms, is a corporate parent.
I also thank the other Members who spoke. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), whose cross-party approach I appreciated.
I thank the Minister for having such an open mind on this issue and for confirming that the Government will take forward what we have heard today in both the cross-departmental working group and her own Department. I will monitor that work and will help the petitioners to do that too.
Finally, I thank the petitioners themselves. They have put this issue on the agenda, and we are all grateful to them for doing so. As Members of Parliament, we will do what we can to keep it there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 636718 and 624185 relating to children and bereavement.
Written Correction
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne
…We will still encourage adult smokers to switch to vaping through Swap to Stop in England, and I am delighted that localities have asked for over half a million starter kits so far. On advertising regulations, of course the consultation will take place after Royal Assent, but I hope that I can assure the hon. Member for Harrow East that we will take away his point about ensuring that the NHS can still advertise Swap to Stop under those regulations.
[Official Report, 26 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 736.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne):
Andrew Gwynne
…We will still encourage adult smokers to switch to vaping through Swap to Stop in England, and I am delighted that localities have asked for over half a million starter kits so far. On vape regulations, of course the consultation will take place after Royal Assent, but I hope that I can assure the hon. Member for Harrow East that we will take away his point about ensuring that the NHS can still promote Swap to Stop under those regulations.
Written Statements
Online Advertising: Taskforce Progress Report
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
The online advertising taskforce is publishing today its progress report 2023-24, summarising work carried out since the publication of its action plan last year.
The online advertising taskforce brings Government and industry together to help tackle harms associated with paid-for online advertising and improve transparency, accountability and trust in the online advertising supply chain. Its primary focus has been on tackling illegal advertising and minimising children being served advertising for products and services illegal to sell to them.
The taskforce action plan brought together and built on work that was in progress to strengthen evidence, minimise harm and protect consumers and businesses, including promoting and extending industry initiatives which address in-scope harms associated with paid-for online advertising.
In response to the action plan, six working groups were formed, each with a specific focus on an area identified within the plan. Some focused on pre-existing industry initiatives that could be enhanced, while others focused on particular issues affecting transparency and accountability in online advertising, and the development of responsive strategies. These groups have been key drivers of action, enabling closer collaboration and development of more detailed insight, and there is further work that these groups can take forward to build on the achievements so far.
Alongside this report I am also publishing an online advertising experiences survey commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and carried out by Ipsos. This report covers perceived exposure to illegal and misleading advertising online, including parental perception of child exposure. It provides insight into the type and scale of exposure, impacts, and any follow-up actions taken. It was commissioned to provide a baseline understanding of how people understood the risks online, particularly those associated with online advertising. While this report provides useful evidence and takes us a step further in understanding online advertising behaviours, the research working group, under the taskforce, will assess how we can build on this evidence.
I chaired a further meeting of the taskforce on 4 November, at which we agreed updated terms of reference and a renewed focus for the next year. The continued work of the taskforce and its working groups will be very important to help us understand and address the issues facing the online advertising sector, particularly those around trust and transparency. This will allow for further work in this area, with the work already completed enabling a sharper focus moving forward.
The progress report and research are published on gov.uk today and copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS272]
Defence Industrial Development
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Today I am announcing plans to develop a new defence industrial strategy that will be published in late spring 2025. I have published a statement of intent setting out the focus of the strategy and invitation to consultation on gov.uk.
The UK faces acute and growing threats to our national security: Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the threat of escalation against NATO allies; conflict in the middle east; tensions in the Indo-Pacific region; and rising geopolitical instability.
The deteriorating security environment means we need a new era for defence: to restock our armed forces for today and the future; enact a deep reform of Ministry of Defence procurement; add urgency and co-ordination to our efforts to support Ukraine; and develop a new defence industrial strategy that is aligned to the Government’s growth mission, creates new partnerships with industry, innovators and allies, and is matched to the urgency of the situation.
The Government’s primary mission is to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7—with good jobs and productivity growth in every region and nation in the UK. Defence has a significant role to play, and the Government have confirmed defence as one of the eight priority growth sectors in its new industrial strategy.
Our aim is to produce a better, more integrated, more innovative and more resilient defence sector: a defence industry that can innovate at speed to help Ukraine defeat Russia; with the resilience to deter aggression by our adversaries; able to seize the opportunity presented by the technologies of the future, while growing our share of today’s market through a new focus on exports.
The statement of intent published on gov.uk outlines the proposed framework we will adopt and provides an early signal of our approach. It also sets out the priorities for this strategy which will inform extensive consultation with the defence sector.
I invite all stakeholders to respond to this statement of intent and consultation questions, either publicly or privately, by end of February 2025.
[HCWS273]
Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner: Annual Report
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today publishing the annual report of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner. The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner is an independent statutory role. They are appointed by the Home Secretary under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The report covers the exercise of their statutory functions over the reporting year from April 2023 to March 2024.
This was the first and final report by Tony Eastaugh before leaving his post on 18 August 2024. I am grateful for his contribution to this important area of work and will be seeking to appoint a new commissioner to fill this position as soon as possible. The report has been laid before the House and will be available from the Vote Office and on gov.uk.
[HCWS276]
Emergency Evacuation Consultation and Policy
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am today publishing the Government’s response to the emergency evacuation information sharing plus consultation, which provides further detail of our new residential personal emergency evacuation plan policy.
This policy, which was previously announced in a written ministerial statement on 2 September 2024 HCWS62, which can be viewed at : https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-09-02/hcws62 introduces new measures to improve the fire safety for vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-risk residential blocks of flats, and represents a milestone in addressing the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, a key priority for this Government.
Following publication of this Government response, subject to parliamentary approval, we will move to lay regulations to implement the new policy.
A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and it will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS271]
Building Safety
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
More than seven years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, too many buildings in England still have unsafe cladding and the speed with which the problem is being addressed is far too slow. Only 30% of buildings identified in England with unsafe cladding have been fixed, with potentially thousands to be identified. As the remediation process drags on, residents continue to face distress, uncertainty and rising costs as they wait for action. This situation is completely unacceptable and must change.
For the first time, we have set firm targets for this important work. By the end of 2029 all buildings 18 metres and above with unsafe cladding in a Government-funded scheme will be remediated, and all buildings 11 metres and above with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a completion date, or the landlords will be liable for severe penalties.
To drive this progress and ensure we meet these targets, I am today publishing our new remediation acceleration plan which sets out decisive measures so that buildings with unsafe cladding are fixed faster, remaining buildings still at risk are identified and residents are supported throughout the process. The remediation acceleration plan will be deposited in the House Libraries.
Many of the highest risk buildings are known to us. We must ensure they are urgently fixed. We intend to introduce new legal obligations on landlords to remediate unsafe cladding, with severe penalties, including criminal and civil sanctions for inaction. We also intend to provide further powers and resources to regulators so that bad actors are held to account.
We recognise the power of collaborative working and will drive co-ordination between regulators including through empowering metro mayors to lead local acceleration plans. Work is already under way with mayors being supported to play a new crucial role in driving remediation progress by leading local remediation acceleration plans alongside partners in local government, and this Government are determined to support and work effectively with mayors and combined authorities, who know their areas best, to deliver for residents.
Our plan sets out measures to accelerate cladding remediation in the social housing sector. From April 2025, we will also increase funding for social landlords applying for Government remediation funding so that remedial works can start sooner. We will work with social housing providers and regulators to agree a long-term strategy for social housing remediation, to be announced in spring 2025.
We are also publishing a joint plan that commits developers for the first time to stretch targets to assess all of their buildings by July 2025, to start or complete remedial works on 80% of their buildings by July 2026, and on all their unsafe buildings by July 2027. To meet these targets, developers will need to more than double the pace at which they have been assessing buildings and starting works so far this year. At least 28 developers have already endorsed the joint plan, covering over 95% of the buildings that developers need to remediate. We welcome the commitment that developers have made.
Developers have also agreed to expedite their work with social landlords to resolve contributions they should make towards works to make social sector buildings safe. This will mean that remedial works on affected social sector buildings will start sooner.
We will also ensure that the burden of paying for fixing historical building safety defects does not fall on leaseholders or further burden taxpayers. We intend that the building safety levy will come into effect in autumn 2025 and will be charged on all new eligible residential buildings in England. The levy will raise around £3.4 billion for remediation and help to ensure that those who are responsible for the building safety crisis help pay to put it right.
There is a long way to go to be confident that all buildings with unsafe cladding have been identified. Those responsible for their buildings’ safety are failing to come forward to make their buildings known. There is a requirement to register buildings above 18 metres, but there is currently no single register that records all relevant buildings, and so identifying these buildings is a complex task. Through this plan we intend to introduce new legislation to drive action from those responsible for their buildings’ safety by tightening building assessment requirements and to create a comprehensive building register so that all relevant buildings can be more quickly identified.
However, we cannot wait for this change to start to make progress. We expect to have reviewed 175,000 Ordnance Survey building records for potential buildings at 11 metres in height and above by the end of March 2025. Through this approach, we expect to have reviewed 80% of the 11 metre-plus building stock, contacting responsible entities for those we believe might have a cladding risk concurrently, with plans to increase this to over 95% by late 2025.
We will share data with metro mayors, combined authorities and local regulators so that, when required, they can take action locally to ensure buildings are identified and remediated quickly. Residents who believe that their building may be unsafe can report this to regulators, or directly to us through the “tell us” tool.
This Government are clear that much more needs to be done to better protect blameless residents. All remediation projects should adhere to and evidence their compliance with the code of practice for the remediation of residential buildings.
We will introduce new measures to support residents with the costs they face.
This includes new shared ownership guidance allowing leaseholders to sub-let their properties at market rates so that they are no longer penalised for issues that are no fault of their own and an updated process to limit the number of valuations that shared owners have to pay for when selling their homes. Social landlords continue to have the option to buy back homes where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues.
Buildings insurance premiums are unacceptably high for too many leaseholders in buildings with fire safety issues. The Government will therefore work with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of remediation programmes, Government might support the industry to reduce fire-related liabilities in order to reduce the high insurance bills leaseholders are facing. We are also launching a public consultation on the introduction of a fair and transparent fee for leaseholders to pay to those who manage insurance for their buildings.
This Government have already reopened the waking watch replacement fund which has provided alarms in 346 high-risk buildings. We estimate the fund has saved affected leaseholders on average £172 per calendar month and it has played a role in preventing residents being evacuated from their homes. We are extending the waking watch replacement fund until the end of the next financial year, and will confirm long-term plans at the next stage of the spending review to protect leaseholders from costs while they wait for remediation to take place.
Finally, we are taking several actions that address criticisms the Grenfell inquiry report made of the manufacturers of cladding and insulation products. This includes action towards preventing the most egregious companies, found to be part of the horrific failings that led to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, from being awarded Government contracts. It also commits to system-wide construction products reform, including proposals on liabilities, robust sanctions and penalties against manufacturers.
The remediation acceleration plan marks a pivotal moment in addressing the building safety crisis in England. We are taking decisive steps to fix buildings faster, identify all buildings with unsafe cladding, and ensure residents are safe and protected. We will work tirelessly to this end with resident groups and industry. I will provide an update in summer 2025.
[HCWS274]
Personal Injury Discount Rate
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This morning, I notified the London Stock Exchange Group that I would today lay a statutory instrument to change the discount rate applicable to personal injury lump sum compensation payments in England and Wales to 0.5%. The new rate will come into force on 11 January 2025, in line with the statutory timelines set out in the Damages Act 1996, as amended by the Civil Liability Act 2018.
As Lord Chancellor, it is my statutory duty under the Damages Act to periodically determine the discount rate which courts must consider when awarding compensation for future financial losses in the form of lump sum payments in personal injury cases. This rate is commonly known as the personal injury discount rate.
On 15 July 2024, I met the requirement to review this rate at least every five years when I commenced a review and consulted both HM Treasury and an independent expert panel for their advice. I have now received their advice, for which I am very grateful, and considered it alongside the responses to two recent calls for evidence, as well as further advice, evidence and analysis which has been made available to me. It is on the basis of this evidence, and having followed the review framework set out in the Damages Act, that I have determined that a single rate of 0.5% is the appropriate determination for me to make in this review.
A full statement of reasons, explaining how I have decided upon this rate, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It will also be published on gov.uk, alongside the full advisory report that was provided to me by the expert panel.
[HCWS275]
Northern Ireland Act 1998: Consent Process
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Schedule 6A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and article 18 of the Windsor framework provide Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly with the opportunity to consider whether articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework—concerning the trade in goods—should continue to apply.
The upcoming vote is a decision for the Assembly, in accordance with the law. However, under the terms of schedule 6A, where an MLA other than the First Minister and Deputy First Minister tables a motion on democratic consent, I am under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to provide MLAs with such explanatory materials as it is reasonable to provide in order to assist them when deciding the question.
In recognition of the short time window within which the motion would be tabled and the vote held, I have written to the Speaker of the Assembly today and enclosed explanatory materials that would discharge that duty. These materials have been published on gov.uk and I shall ask that a copy be placed in the Library of the House for the record.
More broadly, the Government have also set out our commitment to resetting relations with the EU and negotiating new agreements which can remove unnecessary barriers to trade for businesses in the UK trading with the EU. In the Government’s view, only the Windsor framework arrangements in place under articles 5 to 10 provide a credible basis to pursue those negotiations while also respecting Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and its place in the UK’s internal market. The Government will listen carefully to the result of the vote, meet our legal duties flowing from that, engage fully with business, civic society and political leaders in Northern Ireland as that work continues, and update the House in due course.
[HCWS277]
Grand Committee
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, the draft order was laid before Parliament on 22 October. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, otherwise known as the 2020 order, as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.
We have brought forward this SI to enable several important changes and improvements to the scheme. It resets the UK ETS cap to be in line with the top of the net-zero consistent range. The cap sets a limit on how many allowances can be created over the trading period, which runs from 2021 to 2030, and in each year. That level reduces over time to drive down total emissions. When this scheme was established, the cap for the legislated period of the UK ETS, from 2021 to 2030, was set at 5% below the UK’s expected notional share of the EU ETS cap for the same period. However, this was not consistent with the UK’s net-zero trajectory for the traded sector. This instrument brings the overall UK ETS cap in line with our net-zero target and carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.
This statutory instrument also reduces the industry cap, which is the total number of allowances which can be made available to existing installations for free, if no cross-sectoral correction factor mitigation is applied. This SI reduces the absolute level of the industry cap while increasing its proportion of the overall cap. While the share of allowances set aside for this purpose will increase from 37% to 40%, the reduction in the overall UK ETS cap means that the industry cap will fall. That will help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage across participating sectors while maintaining an effective incentive to decarbonise.
The statutory instrument creates a flexible reserve of allowances for maintaining market stability and sufficient carbon leakage mitigation. In addition to allowances specifically created for this reserve, unallocated free allowances from the industry cap and designated free allowances that are returned by operators due to changes in participant eligibility or activity level reductions will also stock the flexible reserve. The flexible reserve can be used to increase allowance supply for market stability purposes, if the cost containment mechanism is triggered. The flexible reserve can also mitigate application of the CSCF through a uniform reduction to all eligible existing participants’ free allocation if the eligibility for free allocation exceeds the industry cap.
Under current legislation, carbon dioxide released through flaring in the upstream oil and gas sector is included in the UK ETS, as it is within the scope of the regulated activity of combustion. This SI introduces CO2 released through venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the UK ETS for installations already covered by the scheme. That means that such emissions will also be subject to a carbon price.
The controlled processes of venting and flaring can sometimes be essential for safety purposes. They are also used in more routine situations where the oil and gas hydrocarbons are unable to be used, exported or reinjected without the CO2 being removed. The removed CO2 can then be released in the process of flaring, when waste gas—including the stripped-out CO2, as well as combustible elements—is ignited, or venting, where unignited gas is released through a vent. The legislation will remove a perverse incentive whereby operators could routinely vent gas that contains carbon dioxide without it being subject to a carbon price, even though it would, if flared, constitute reportable emissions for the purpose of the scheme.
In line with the original policy intent, the instrument extends legislative amendments made by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023 to Northern Ireland. The amendments include capping aviation free allocation at 100% of emissions, clarifying the treatment of carbon capture and storage plants, and amendments to free allocation rules for electricity generation.
In 2022, a memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the Swiss Government was signed, setting out the intention to include flights from the UK to Switzerland in the UK ETS. Flights from Great Britain to Switzerland were brought into the scope of the UK ETS on 1 January 2023 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022. The statutory instrument before us extends the scope to cover flights that depart from an aerodrome in Northern Ireland and arrive at an aerodrome in Switzerland.
On enforcement and penalties, scheme regulators are responsible for enforcing compliance, including operational functions such as issuing penalties. The statutory instrument makes a number of amendments to the levels of scheme penalties to ensure consistency and proportionality of enforcement for all operators. It also introduces a new deficit notice, with an associated penalty, to strengthen enforcement of the fundamental scheme obligation to surrender allowances equal to an operator’s annual emissions.
Finally, this instrument makes several corrections and clarifications to existing legislation. The changes follow appropriate and comprehensive consultation with stakeholders. In the Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) consultation in 2022, the UK ETS Authority considered proposals on changes to the rules for sectors covered by the UK ETS to ensure that more greenhouse gas emissions were covered by the scheme, along with changes to the cap.
The authority’s response to this consultation was published in two parts: in August 2023 and July 2023. A majority of respondents agreed with the UK ETS Authority’s proposals on creating a flexible share reserve of allowances; on bringing venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the ETS; and on the addition of a new penalty and deficit notice. Several respondents expressed concern regarding the reduction of the cap and the changes to the industry cap.
An assessment of these responses informed the decision to set the cap at the top of the net-zero consistent range. Between 23 February 2024 and 8 March 2024, the UK ETS Authority ran a targeted consultation on the minor penalty amendments. The responses to this consultation were in broad agreement with the proposals or noted that they were not affected by them. The authority’s response to this targeted consultation has been published in advance of the laying of this statutory instrument.
In conclusion, the changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS Authority and improve the operation of the scheme. The alterations to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They show that we will take action to extend and improve the scheme where necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the contents of the instrument so concisely but comprehensively. I support it but have a number of questions. Obviously, the issue of flaring would arise if the Government were to introduce a policy of fracking—hydraulic fracturing. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have a moratorium on fracking? It was a very real issue in North Yorkshire when I was still a Member of Parliament there; it caused real concern among the locals. It would be interesting to know the answer because flaring would be an issue there.
Secondly, I see that an impact assessment has not been prepared on this occasion because it is not a regulatory provision, but in fact one was done already in 2023, and before that in 2020. Can the Minister confirm that the costs in light of the change to the cap will not be deemed wildly different from the results of those impact assessments in 2020 and 2023, which I understand were different in nature in each case?
It is interesting that the Minister, the instrument and the Explanatory Memorandum refer to the amendment to include flights from Great Britain to Switzerland within the scope. Why was this excluded in the first instance? Were there no flights from that airport? Have they suddenly increased in capacity? Out of interest, which flights are included? In the normal scheme of things, would all major airports and flights to the European Union and Switzerland be included? I imagine they would be, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in the main, I support the changes that this statutory instrument enables to the previous scheme. It resets the UK ETS cap to be in line with the top of the net-zero consistent range. The cap is the limit on how many allowances can be created over the trading period, which runs from 2021 to 2030, and in each year. The cap is set to reduce over time to drive down total emissions. When the scheme was established in 2020, the cap was set at 5% of the UK’s expected notional share of the EU ETS cap. The statutory instrument now brings the overall ETS cap in line with our net-zero target and carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.
I was a little confused on one point. Why has the previous scheme come to be so out of line with the UK net-zero trajectory for the traded sector? Was it really a question of our leaving the EU and its schemes and setting our own national standards, or is there something else going on? An explanation on that would be appreciated.
The SI reduces the industry cap, which is the total number of allowances that can be made available to existing installations for free. The SI reduces the absolute level of the industry cap while increasing its proportion of the overall cap. The share of allowances set aside for the purpose increases from 37% to 40% but the reduction in the overall UK ETS cap means that the industry cap will fall. It is argued that this will help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage across participating sectors, while maintaining an effective incentive to decarbonise.
We welcome that this SI expands the scope of the ETS to the venting of CO2 in the upstream oil and gas sector for installations already covered by the scheme. This means that such emissions will also be subject to a carbon price. The SI removes what is described as a perverse incentive whereby operators could routinely vent gases that contain carbon dioxide without being subject to a carbon price, even though they would, if flared, constitute reportable emissions for the purposes of the scheme. It also extends the scope to cover flights departing from aerodromes in Northern Ireland to arrive at one in Switzerland. My understanding is that this change reflects the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its ability to consider legislation.
The SI makes a number of amendments to the levels of the scheme penalties to ensure consistency and proportionality in enforcement for all operators and introduces a new deficit notice. It makes several corrections and clarifications to existing legislation following consultations in August 2022 and July 2023, mainly on small penalty amendments. It also reflects a reduction in the cap on allowances and strengthens enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, including by introducing a deficit notice. It accounts for a reverse price for stability during excessive market volatility.
What actions are the Government taking to improve the monitoring of venting and flaring? Do they hope to bring forward plans to move that forward or are they sticking with the date previously announced? What estimates do they have of the associated costs of upstream venting and flaring that this SI might impose? While we welcome that the proposed changes will bring in a cap consistent with net zero, we call on the Government to do more to support a just transition, particularly for the North Sea oil and gas sector, to ensure that companies have adequate resources and help, particularly training, for their staff to transition to other industries.
What other industries and sectors are the Government considering bringing under the ETS and what are their plans to do so? Are there any plans for further convergence with the EU ETS on carbon leakage? Do the Government feel this could help stop further carbon leakage? Finally, I note that there was no impact assessment for this SI, though I understand that the Government conducted a number of consultations. Can the Minister say why?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I support this instrument. This order will expand the scope of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme to include carbon dioxide venting in the upstream oil and gas sector. It will introduce deficit notices to allow regulators to penalise operators for failing to surrender allowances by a set date and makes technical changes to penalties. There is no doubt that climate change is an issue that any Government need to take steps to tackle. That is why the Conservative Government introduced the UK ETS, to ensure that businesses monitored, reported on and surrendered allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. We are glad that the Government recognise the benefits of the scheme and are taking steps to continue to use it.
However, this Government have prioritised their climate policy above financial and economic concerns. While we understand that there must be trade-offs to reach our net-zero targets, I caution them on raising taxes consistently on the North Sea oil industry—they are now running at 78%. This could put significant costs on companies already navigating a complicated regulatory environment. We must remember that net zero by 2050 does not mean zero hydrocarbons. We will still have about 25%. However, as this ETS will provide support by removing venting and flaring, we can have clean hydrocarbons. We must also consider the impact of the hydrocarbon companies in investing in renewables and the people required in the transition to net zero.
With that being said, I will ask the Minister one question that was left largely unanswered in the other place, to do with the impact of the carbon price rise to £147, as highlighted by NESO. What will the impact be on employment, industry and households, and will there be an impact assessment on those key areas?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their general support for the order, which is much appreciated. I will seek to respond to the points raised but will follow up if I am unable to answer everything.
Clearly, the emissions trading scheme is a key pillar of our climate and net-zero policy regime. It sets a cap on emissions in the sectors covered—currently around a quarter of the UK’s emissions. In doing so, it guarantees that the sectors will reduce their emissions in line with our net-zero target. We see maintaining a strong UK ETS playing a key role in making Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering our mission of secure and clean electricity by 2030, and having a positive impact on bills.
I very much take the point about the impact on industry. In relation to the North Sea, in particular, I understand that noble Lords are concerned to make sure that the transition is as effective as possible—something that we are very much committed to doing.
On the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, regarding ETS expansion, we see the scheme continuing to remain a key driver of decarbonisation. Our intention is to expand it further. We have recently consulted on proposals to expand the scheme to energy from waste incineration. We are also currently consulting on expansion to maritime operators and on a regulatory framework for integrating non-pipeline transport for carbon capture, usage and storage. We are exploring options to build the UK ETS into the world’s first integrated market for carbon emissions and carbon removal; subject to consultation, our intention is to include engineered greenhouse gas removals. We see that as supporting the new technologies we will need to meet net zero while providing a sustainable path for industry to decarbonise and to encourage that process.
To refer to the impact assessment and the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I think I can reassure her on fracking. We have no intention to permit fracking. As for the impact assessment, it was published alongside the decisions in the response to the report on developing the UK ETS authority. We stand by that assessment as the best assessment of the implications of our policy changes, and therefore we do not think it necessary to do any further work in that area.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right that, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it was not possible to make changes to the UK ETS order that extended to Northern Ireland using an affirmative procedure. It is a very good thing that we have made progress in Northern Ireland and are now able to make that provision.
I should say too that the UK ETS authority agreed that the UK Government should amend the UK ETS auctioning regulations to give partial effect to the agreed policy of reducing the cap, and that the authority would pursue a legislative programme in line with the decisions and intentions made in the main UK ETS authority response, including for the cap, set out in the response for 2026 and beyond. As stated there, the authority is now taking the necessary steps to finalise that legislation, and the IA is being relayed alongside that legislation to support parliamentary scrutiny.
Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 28 October. They form an important part of the Government’s commitment to accelerate the deployment of the low-carbon electricity technologies that are critical to achieving the Government’s clean energy mission.
The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generating projects in Great Britain. Contracts for difference are awarded through annual, competitive auctions where the lowest-priced bids are successful. The sixth allocation round, which ran earlier this year, was the largest round ever and more than double last year’s round held by the previous Government. It awarded contracts to 128 clean energy projects across Great Britain, capturing 9.6 gigawatts of renewable capacity and generating enough electricity to power the equivalent of 11 million homes.
We must, though, ensure its continued success and evolve the contracts for difference scheme to drive progress towards 2030. So, building on auction round 6, we want to update the scheme through this instrument to continue our march towards a low-carbon power system. We propose, first, to extend the option of phased contracts for difference to floating offshore wind projects and, secondly, to enable the eligibility of repowered onshore wind projects to apply for a contract for difference.
On the first point, the Government have committed to radically increasing the UK’s offshore wind capacity, including floating offshore wind. As an emerging technology with less than 250 megawatts of capacity deployed worldwide, the floating offshore wind construction process is yet to be industrialised. Floating wind projects are likely to have a slower buildout rate than established fixed-bottom offshore wind, for reasons including limitations on suitable port capacity and increased sensitivity to adverse weather.
Phasing in the contract for difference allows projects to be built in multiple stages. It was designed to provide support for early fixed-base offshore wind projects by mitigating the specific commercial risks inherent in offshore project construction. Extending this policy to floating offshore wind projects will allow for greater flexibility in the construction phase, allowing delivery to more realistic timelines and providing more certainty and confidence to the wider supply chain. This reduction in project risk will, in turn, increase investor confidence in the UK’s growing floating offshore wind sector.
On the second amendment—to enable repowering for onshore wind—our analysis suggests that approximately 1 gigawatt of onshore wind will come to the end of its operating life between 2027 and the end of 2030. Repowering can help ensure that renewable generation capacity is not lost from older projects. It also provides an opportunity to increase the renewable generating capacity of existing sites through improvements in technology and more efficient use of the site. Enabling access to the contract for difference for repowered onshore wind projects offers them revenue certainty, encouraging retention and expansion of existing capacity. This supports our ambition to achieve clean power by 2030 and make Great Britain a leading place for onshore wind investment.
We have ensured a balance between decarbonisation, consumer value for money and security of supply objectives by enabling repowering only for projects which align to the fundamental contract for difference case for intervention, including high upfront capital costs, and which have reached the end of their operating life. At this point, this applies only to onshore wind. These principles will help enable us to protect the consumer, ensuring we intervene only when and where needed and where it is cost-effective to do so.
The consultation for these policy interventions sought views and supporting evidence on specific changes proposed for allocation round 7. We received a range of responses from across industry, including developers, electricity traders and suppliers, businesses operating in the offshore wind sector, and consumer and environmental groups with an interest in the electricity sector. Most respondents agreed with implementing phasing for floating offshore wind and repowering for onshore wind. Respondents also provided input on how the department should implement these policies. The department continues to engage closely with industry in the development of contracts for difference.
The instrument facilitates the evolution of the contracts for difference scheme by amending two statutory instruments made under the Energy Act 2013. It amends the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014 and the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014. The amendments will have two effects. First, they will expand the existing phasing policy to floating offshore wind projects. The allocation regulations will be amended to allow floating offshore wind contracts for difference units to be constructed in accordance with phasing rules. The second effect is to permit repowered projects to apply for a contract for difference. The contracts for difference scheme did not previously have a formal policy in relation to repowering applications. The amendments ensure that certain generators who repower eligible generating stations can be eligible for the contract for difference. They also remove barriers which would prevent repowering applications being made.
To conclude, we think this is an important step forward in delivering clean power. It builds on the existing success of the contracts for difference scheme, which is evolving to better reflect global market realities and drive progress towards clean power targets. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to this one. We are happy to support the amendment.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that consumers continue to get value for money from these contracts? Secondly, is the Minister certain that the repowering process is treading the right path between getting value for money for the Government with these contracts, while not impeding further development of onshore wind energy?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support His Majesty’s Government’s draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024. These regulations will enable further construction of wind sites and will increase investment in the wind sector by increasing the options for using contracts for difference. The regulations will extend the option to phase projects under the contracts for difference to floating offshore wind and for repowering onshore wind farms, as well as allowing onshore wind projects to apply for contracts for difference.
We on these Benches recognise the importance of using CfDs in the renewable sector to allow for increased investment in projects that have high upfront costs but long lifetimes and low running costs. Investment must be at the core of our green energy plans to ensure their financial viability. As it stands, CfDs are the main scheme for supporting new low carbon electricity generation projects across the UK, and these measures will derisk the construction process for offshore wind and to repower onshore wind.
The Government introduced the CfD scheme in 2014 to support the UK’s journey to net zero and, by 2022, projects managed under contracts for difference generated the energy to power 7 million homes and mitigated over 5 million CO2 emissions. Therefore, we welcome this Government’s continued use of these important and helpful schemes. We support the increased use of contracts for difference and, as such, support these regulations to increase the use of wind power to reach net zero targets while maintaining the importance of investment in the sector.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their support, which is encouraging. I readily acknowledge that we are building on the work that the last Government undertook, and I think we are entitled to say that this has been very successful. It is very good to build on it.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that obtaining value for money is clearly an important issue. The clearing price for ONW was £50.90 per megawatt hour, meaning that it was our second-cheapest technology after solar. We think that the repowering policy will likely increase the amount of ONW bidding into the contracts for difference. This will increase competitive tensions further—unlike the resulting lower bid prices, which should lead to consumer savings. Generally, as I said, upwards of 1 gigawatt of onshore wind is clearly due to reach the end of its operating life at the end of government support by the end of 2030. It makes sense that we try to ensure that this is extended.
To hark back to the nuclear question, we are obviously awaiting EDF’s formal announcement about an extension of life, potentially, for some of the existing nuclear power stations. I take this as a whole and, where it is right to do so, some support for extending the life of some of these operations is worth while.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations will add four pieces of legislation, known as “enactments”, to the list set out in Section 17(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, so that those enactments can be temporarily modified as part of the financial market infrastructure sandboxes.
A financial market infrastructure sandbox is designed to provide a regulatory environment in which existing legislation and regulation are temporarily removed or modified. Firms that participate in a financial market infrastructure sandbox are able to test new and developing technologies and practices that would otherwise be inhibited by existing legislation. If an activity in a financial market infrastructure sandbox is successful, the Treasury can make permanent changes to legislation—only after laying a report before Parliament.
The Treasury was granted the power to make provision for financial market infrastructure sandboxes by Section 13 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and the list of enactments that the Treasury can temporarily modify is set out in Section 17(3). The Treasury also has the power to add further enactments to this list, set out in Section 17(6) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. This is because the testing of new technology and practices, by its nature, evolves over time, and the list of legislation in scope would likely need to be added to. The ability to add further enactments to the list is therefore a way of ensuring that the financial market infrastructure sandbox regime can be used to its full potential, ensuring that the testing of new technologies and practices can continue to take place as new legislative changes are identified.
This statutory instrument exercises the power set out in Section 17(6) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 so that new enactments can be added to support two financial market infrastructure sandboxes; namely, the existing digital securities sandbox and the future private intermittent securities and capital exchange system—known as PISCES—sandbox. The digital securities sandbox will enable firms to test new and innovative technology across financial market infrastructure activities, while the PISCES sandbox will allow private companies to have their shares traded on an intermittent basis on a new type of stock market.
This statutory instrument will bring the following legislation into the scope of the power to make temporary modifications in future financial market infrastructure sandboxes: the Stock Transfer (Gilt Edged Securities) (CGO Service) Regulations 1985, which I will refer to as STRs; the Government Stock Regulations 2004, which I will refer to as GSRs; the Money Laundering Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, which I will refer to as MLRs; and Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council, also known as the prospectus regulation, which we inherited from the EU.
Temporarily modifying the STRs and GSRs will enable us to support a digital gilt issuance through the digital securities sandbox. The MLRs will be modified to facilitate an exemption from the MLRs crypto asset regime for digital securities sandbox participants; this is on the basis that digital securities sandbox activity will involve regulated securities and conventional anti-money laundering legislation will be applied. The new UK prospectus regulation will be modified as part of the PISCES sandbox so that prospectus requirements can be disapplied in favour of bespoke disclosure requirements in the PISCES sandbox.
I should note at this point that this statutory instrument does not make any temporary changes to the enactments themselves. Under the procedure stipulated by Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, this will be done as part of further negative SIs to be laid before Parliament, which will provide all the relevant explanatory information for the changes being made to each enactment. For example, the Government published a draft of the instrument that will set up the PISCES sandbox in November for public comment. Similarly, the digital securities sandbox has already been established by a statutory instrument laid last December, although changes to the MLRs will require a further statutory instrument.
In closing, this statutory instrument will make changes consistent with the powers established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 and will support the continued development of the digital securities sandbox and future financial market infrastructure sandboxes, such as the PISCES sandbox. The Government believe that this will help support innovation through each of these financial market infrastructure sandboxes. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support these regulations and their objectives. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the more times I read this statutory instrument—even after writing myself a cheat sheet on its alphabet soup of acronyms—the more I realise that I lack the expertise in the digital financial services and crypto space to really understand what is happening, the context and the implications. However, I have always supported the sandbox approach as a creative way for the regulator to understand innovations in financial services and how to appropriately regulate them.
This is a high-level SI that will, as the Minister said, be followed by detailed—although negative—SIs to address specific cases. I am a bit concerned that we will need to spot these cases in order to question them, but I have no intention of opposing the regulations before us today. PISCES is a slightly different issue but, frankly, without seeing the new prospectus regime, I have absolutely no idea how to comment on the changes contained in this SI.
I do, as always, have a few questions. First, I want to understand how this SI and what lies behind it ties in with the competition and growth objective. Are the Government taking the view that future growth in financial services is largely linked to digital business models, including blockchain infrastructure and crypto assets, and that shaping the FCA to be a benign regulator will make the UK a leading player in designing, holding, trading and marketing new instruments? Or are the Government concerned that digital and crypto create a new potential for market manipulation, mis-selling and money laundering, such that the FCA needs to find ways to counter, with different approaches to monitoring supervision enforcement? In other words, are the Government playing offence or defence? I would like to hear the Minister’s view.
Secondly, and related to that, with this instrument and the related activities, are we ahead of the curve, with the curve or behind the curve compared with other international regulators? I am afraid I do not have the global reach to understand, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us.
My lack of knowledge in this area led me to contact a friend in the industry to seek advice, and I was stunned by the response. In summary, I was told that the innovators who bring new and innovative models to the regulator’s sandbox are the smartest people in the room, but the regulator views the sandbox as a means to decide on monitoring procedures, compliance algorithms and approaches to enforcement. The innovators, by contrast, use the sandbox to identify the regulator’s points of weakness and then build them into their models to escape regulatory control. Innovators in the sandbox explore the regulatory perimeter, for example, to design products that will fall just outside; the mini-bonds are an example. They identify transaction sizes that will slip under the radar and coding approaches that will prevent multiple transactions that are essentially identical to be linked together and therefore escape both supervision and action. Those are just examples, but, increasingly, the industry seems to regard observing the intent of the regulator as purely voluntary. Does the Minister have any concerns that the regulator is outmanoeuvred, underpowered and underresourced?
I will end on my hobby-horse, which applies very much in these circumstances. Does the Minister recognise that, in this very fast-changing world, when so much is global and so much is digital, an effective whistleblowing system is absolutely vital, and our current system is a serious weakness?
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to address the Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024. These regulations serve to bring various legislation under the remit of the financial market infrastructure—FMI—sandbox. The sandbox regime is an important part of the Financial Services and Markets Act, giving expression both to good prudential regulation and economic growth by supporting innovation.
As we heard, the regulations being transferred to the FMI sandbox are: the STRs, or stock transfer gilt-edged securities regulations 1985—the digital gilt area that is likely to be an enormous focus of the government team in the coming months; the GSRs, or Government Stock Regulations 2004; the MLRs, or Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017; and the UK prospectus regulation, Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Since our departure from the European Union, the British Government have pursued an ambitious programme of reform to establish a regulatory framework that is better tailored to the strengths and opportunities in UK financial services. These regulations further enhance our ability to adapt and thrive in a competitive global financial environment. The instrument is more than a technical adjustment; it is a demonstration of our commitment to dynamic regulation in financial services and support for innovation. The instrument ensures that our laws continue to reflect the highest standards of probity and innovation while giving the financial services sector clarity and confidence.
As Conservatives, we believe in the power of free markets, tempered by fair rules and effective oversight. These regulations are a testament to that philosophy, and they ensure that the UK remains the jurisdiction of choice for global financial institutions and investors, which in turn helps the country secure tax revenues needed to fund public services. By updating and expanding the scope of the Act, we are aligning our regulations with emerging opportunities including advances in financial technology, green finance and digital assets—areas in which Britain has already established itself as a global pioneer.
The FMI sandbox scheme commenced under the previous Conservative Government and was a success, with the digital securities sandbox—the DSS—proving useful to business. Three of the pieces of legislation being brought into scope would facilitate activity in the first FMI sandbox, known as the DSS: the STRs, the GSRs and the MLRs. Bringing the GSRs and the STRs into the scope of the FMI sandbox powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 would facilitate the possibility of sovereign debt issuance, using distributed ledger technology, under the DSS.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, for their contributions and their support for this measure. The noble Baroness spoke about its complexity and the alphabet soup. I have huge sympathy for that perspective, I must say; as such, I will do my best to address the questions she asked. If I am unable to cover any of her questions, I will, of course, write to her.
The noble Baroness asked whether we are watering down regulation. I assure her that this instrument will not lead to the watering down of any regulation. All modifications in the DSS are intended to achieve the same regulatory outcomes while allowing for flexibility when new or developing technology or practices might meet the same outcomes in a different way.
The noble Baroness also asked about the changes to the prospectus regime for PISCES. I fully accept that she is unable, at this point, to comment on the detail. I can let her know that the Treasury intends to modify the prospectus regulation, which this SI is bringing into the scope of the FMI sandbox powers, and the Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2023, which is already in scope of the powers, in order to ensure that placing shares on PISCES does not trigger a requirement to produce the prospectus.
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, asked about the timing of that. Further detail on how this will be done will be set out when the final SI is laid in May 2025; that will provide the legal framework for the PISCES sandbox. Similarly, the FCA intends to consult in due course on the processes for taking part in a sandbox and the rules that will apply to firms. Once the PISCES sandbox is established, it will be up to commercial firms to apply to the FCA to operate a PISCES platform.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about tokenisation. The use of tokenisation in digital assets has the potential to be genuinely transformative for financial markets. This could include improving existing processes by making markets more efficient, transparent and resilient. It is important, though, that markets are able to realise the benefits in a safe manner, preserving existing regulatory outcomes.
The noble Baroness asked about money laundering. Potential applicants to the digital securities sandbox will need to submit an application to, and be assessed by, the regulators. Even after activity in the sandbox is exempted from the crypto asset regime and the money laundering regulations, activity in the DSS will continue to be subject to the existing anti-money laundering regime for non-crypto markets. The DSS excludes unbacked crypto assets and is focused on regulated activities. The Government will lay in the new year a negative SI that puts in place the changes to the MLRs, and will provide further information and a de minimis impact assessment as part of that.
The noble Baroness also asked whether I consider the regulator outmanoeuvred and underpowered. As I think she would expect me to say, no, I do not accept or believe that.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, asked whether the Government will bring more legislation into the scope of these powers. At the time these powers were granted to the Treasury under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, it was envisaged that additional legislation would likely be required to be brought into the scope of Section 17(3). This is because the testing of new technology and practices is uncertain, meaning that new issues that necessitate new legislation being brought into scope may be identified. Future FMI sandboxes may also have a different focus, again requiring changes to legislation not previously considered.
I hope that I have addressed all the points made. If not, as I said, I will write to noble Lords.
Road Transport (International Passenger Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Road Transport (International Passenger Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations will amend existing domestic legislation to underpin the UK’s intended ratification of the regular and special regular protocol—I shall refer to it in future as the RSR protocol—to the Interbus agreement.
The Interbus agreement is a multilateral agreement that outlines the market access rules for bus and coach operators running occasional services, for example one-off holiday coach tours to, from, through and between its contracting parties. The UK became a contracting party to the Interbus agreement in 2021, having previously been a member when part of the European Union. In addition to the UK and the European Union, there are nine other Interbus contracting parties, including Ukraine, Moldova, Turkey and certain Balkan states.
The regular and special regular protocol—the RSR protocol—extends the Interbus agreement to cover both regular and special regular coach services. Regular services are timetabled routes while special regular services are timetabled routes for a specific category of people, for example school buses. I will refer to these types of journeys as RSR services. The RSR protocol was laid before Parliament as a Command Paper on 24 October this year. The International Agreements Committee welcomed the ratification of the protocol in its report of 20 November 2024.
These amending regulations are necessary to replace the temporary market access arrangements for RSR services between the UK and the European Union, which currently sit within the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA. These will expire after 31 March 2025 as a consequence of the protocol having come into force for the EU, Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina on 1 October 2024.
If this instrument is approved, the UK will be able to ratify the RSR protocol in early 2025 in order to bring it into effect for the UK from 1 April 2025. Without ratification, UK bus and coach operators would lose the right to run RSR services to the EU. They would also not be able to benefit from the right to run RSR services to other Interbus contracting parties that have ratified the protocol.
The instrument and our ratification of the RSR protocol will thereby allow UK coach and bus operators to continue to run RSR services to the EU without interruption. The key difference is that the treaty basis of these UK-EU arrangements will shift from the TCA to the RSR protocol. That requires consequential changes to UK legislation, which the instrument will implement. Ratification of the protocol will also enable UK operators to run RSR services to other non-EU Interbus countries that have also ratified the RSR protocol, the number of which is expected to grow over time.
The amendments will apply to legislation in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enable operators from all parts of the United Kingdom to continue running these coach and bus services internationally. The instrument includes amendments to the journey authorisation process for RSR services, as well as to offences to enable enforcement by the relevant authorities.
This instrument will revoke certain assimilated EU regulations from UK law, aligning entitlements of EU passenger service operators in the UK with those of UK operators in the EU. This instrument does not, however, affect the four additional rights secured under the TCA, including, most notably, rights that enable cross-border bus and coach services on the island of Ireland, which will continue.
The following provisions will remain even when the temporary TCA provisions expire. First, occasional services will still be permitted where they transit through one party to reach a non-contracting party to Interbus. An example of this is UK coaches that transit through the EU to reach Switzerland. Secondly, RSR services will still be permitted to start in one party and transit through the other party to reach a different part of the first party—in this case, Great Britain to Ireland to Northern Ireland.
Two important enduring provisions specifically relating to the island of Ireland will also remain. These will allow operators in one party to operate occasional services on the island of Ireland, picking up and setting down passengers on the territory of the other party. An example of this is a UK operator running a coach tour picking up and setting down passengers in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. This instrument will also allow an operator from one party to undertake cabotage in the other party for RSR services running between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Approval of this instrument will enable the UK’s bus and coach operators to continue their international RSR journeys as they currently do, without a gap in market access provisions. Such a gap would be particularly sensitive on the island of Ireland. If approved, this legislation will ensure that the UK meets the required timescales outlined in the TCA, thus contributing to our positive and co-operative relationship with the European Union.
I turn to a summary of the instrument’s content. There are five key changes resulting from this instrument to note. First, it updates Great Britain and Northern Ireland law by including new references to the RSR protocol. These will replace references to the temporary RSR provisions in the TCA from 1 April 2025.
Secondly, the instrument updates existing references so that the other market access provisions of both the Interbus agreement and the TCA concerning international bus and coach services are retained. This will ensure that the range of additional access rights between the UK and EU will remain in effect. These include the right for occasional services to transit the EU to reach non-Interbus contracting parties, such as Switzerland, and, most notably, the special arrangements for cross-border services on the island of Ireland.
Thirdly, the instrument includes updates to transfer the treaty basis from the TCA to the RSR protocol for the authorisation process and documentation that operators must hold to run RSR services. This will allow current processes to continue once the RSR protocol comes into force.
Fourthly, the instrument updates existing offences and creates new ones to align them with the requirements of the market access arrangements of the RSR protocol. This will enable enforcement agencies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue to take action against non-compliant international operators that breach these market access requirements when driving in the UK. Enforcement action includes the issuing of fixed penalty notices. In more serious cases, operators may be prosecuted and subject to fines if found guilty. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has confirmed that it issued 32 on the spot fines to non-GB passenger service operators in 2023, including EU operators. These penalties will have been issued for enforceable offences, such as breaches of the drivers’ hours rules.
Finally, the instrument revokes assimilated EU Regulation (EC) 1073/2009 and assimilated Commission Regulation (EU) 361/2014 from UK law. These regulations governed the market access arrangements for international public transport services in the UK while the UK was part of the European Union. The practical effect of revoking these assimilated regulations is the removal of existing passenger transport cabotage rights for EU operators. This means that, from 1 April 2025, EU operators will no longer be able to use EU-registered vehicles to run coach services that both start and end in the United Kingdom. This will level the playing field for UK passenger transport operators, who are not able to undertake cabotage in the EU. It may also create opportunities for UK operators to provide such services domestically. However, the special provisions for the island of Ireland, including cabotage rights for passenger transport, provided under the TCA will not be impacted.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction. There is a long background of negotiations on this legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum says that this SI
“will in effect maintain the status quo”—
that status quo was very hard fought in the days after the Brexit referendum. We have spent many hours in this Room debating the fallout from the detail of that situation.
Paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument will
“update the UK’s domestic … legislation by removing assimilated EU legislation”
on road passenger transport. Of course, UK bus and coach operators will continue to operate within the context of the framework of EU and international legislation generally. As the Minister said, there are three types of commercial bus and coach services: the occasional, the regular and the special regular services carrying specified categories of passengers, such as pupils.
It is good news that there is now a right for bus and coach operators to transport passengers through the EU to Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are new signatories to the agreement likely to come on stream in future? This is a fairly limited market as it stands.
The key change in this SI relates to cabotage—the carrying of passengers in the UK by foreign-based operators. Paragraph 5.10 of the EM explains that international operators participating in the UK
“are currently permitted to undertake cabotage”
under assimilated EU law. This right is being removed. My second question is: how many services, roughly, are affected by this? How common is the operation of cabotage by EU operators? I assume that the answer is that it is not very common, because one thing that slightly surprised me was the fact that there was no consultation on this SI. I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Is this an important new right, or is it a marginal benefit?
As always, it is in Northern Ireland that the really intractable questions arise, following the Brexit vote and its implications. I am pleased that Northern Ireland operators will be able to operate cabotage within the island of Ireland, and vice versa. That is the only logical thing to do. I recall that, a few years ago, when I was a member of the EU sub-committee, we took evidence from a bus operator—although not in relation to this specific issue, of course. The bus operator said that his scheduled service crossed the border 13 times from one end to the other. The proposal at the time, from some enthusiastic Brexiteers, was that Britain should flex its muscles post Brexit by changing our clocks in the spring and the autumn on a different day from the EU. Businesses in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the Republic of Ireland, were very exercised by the practical issues, and the bus operator pointed out how impossible his timetable would become if we operated in a different way with time zones.
This is possibly not an SI of the greatest significance, but it is nevertheless one to be welcomed because of the common-sense approach in relation to Northern Ireland and the fact that British operators will now be in the same commercial position as EU operators for cabotage.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I have a question for the Minister about this generally positive instrument. It is about electronic travel authorisation. If a bus comes from Great Britain to the Republic and into Northern Ireland, electronic travel authorisation will be required, as I read it. Can the Minister confirm this? Many of us see this as a disincentive and an obstacle to tourism. People visiting Ireland from outside the EU and from outside Ireland need, as I read it, electronic travel authorisation to come into Northern Ireland—that is effectively a visa. Can the Minister confirm that? If he does not have the information available, he can write.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for arranging a helpful briefing with his officials this morning. This is, I imagine, one of those very rare occasions where I find myself more in sympathy with the proposal from the Minister than with the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who seemed determined to reopen all sorts of arguments about Brexit and who did what when.
This is, in my view, a sensible and necessary disentangling of our laws from the pernicious effect of EU legislation, so that we stand on our own feet with our own laws, making international agreements—such as the Interbus agreement—and adhering to, and adopting, in this case, its protocol relating to these coach services, which the Minister spelled out in considerable detail, with great clarity for such a complex subject.
The impact assessment for this instrument says that it has no impact and that that is the reason for not having any consultation. I welcome that; we should have more laws that have no impact. Most of the laws that set out to have an impact seem to have only perverse impacts and do not achieve what they are intended to at all. This one is deliberately intended to have no practical impact—with one exception that I will return to—because it seeks to maintain the existing situation but translate it into domestic law. As I say, this is not only desirable but necessary because the provisions of the TCA under which it operates will effectively expire at the end of March next year, as the other foreign parties join the Interbus agreement. So, on the whole, we welcome this instrument and are happy to support it.
On cabotage, it is of course possible—as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said—that there is some diminution of immunity to British travellers as a result of that. The Minister has been asked a question, and I certainly do not know the answer to it, but he may. It is possible that certain services currently operating start in, say, Paris and go to Edinburgh, stopping along the route, collecting passengers and dropping them off. Those services will no longer be able to operate in that fashion—picking passengers up and dropping them off along the route—once these provisions come into effect, which in practice will be on 1 April next year. As I say, that could constitute a diminution in services.
However, it is interesting that the noble Baroness focused on that, because the counterpart to that is that British coach operators will not have those cabotage rights in the European Union. I would have thought and hoped that the Liberal Democrats would be more interested in promoting the interests of British coach operators travelling abroad than protecting the business model of foreign coach operators operating in the UK. However, that appears not to be the case: her focus is on the latter—she did not mention the others at all.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
First, I thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their contributions. I will attempt to deal, either now or subsequently, with each of their points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that it was good news on the ability to travel to states beyond the European Union and asked whether there are more examples. The only information that I have is that Ukraine indicated in December 2023, at the last committee meeting of the Interbus contracting parties, that it was preparing to ratify the protocol. Of course, one hopes that the clarity these new regulations give will encourage other parties beyond the European Union’s geography to be interested.
The department has no information about the current level of EU operators using cabotage in the UK, which will cease, if these regulations are accepted, from 31 March 2025. I suspect that, in non-quantifiable terms, it does not occur very often but, as I know from my past life, this matter has been a subject of some concern for UK coach operators in terms of the imbalance of opportunity. I will come back to that.
The noble Baroness mentioned consultation. The Confederation of Passenger Transport, which is the bus and coach operators’ trade body in the UK, is aware of this matter and has no comments on it, which I think is satisfactory. Officials tell me that they will continue to be in touch with the CPT, as we call it, in order that they are fully abreast of what is going on. Of course, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that the principal effect is in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I can well believe that there are occasional, regular or special regular services that cross the border numerous times, because of the border’s nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about electronic travel authorisation. I will write to him on that subject so that we are absolutely clear on whether it will still be required.
I was delighted to discover that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has some sympathy with me—long may that continue. He mentioned the impact assessment. He is right that the instrument will have little impact, but it is important that UK bus and coach operators have some certainty about their future. As I just pointed out, the forthcoming ban on performing cabotage in the UK being passed to EU operators is a matter that has exercised some of their minds. They will welcome this instrument; there is no doubt about that. There might be some dislocation to UK passengers as a consequence, but I say to UK operators that, if they welcome the correction of this imbalance, it will be up to them to make the effort to capture some of the traffic that might otherwise be lost.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to enforcement. I did not say how many checks the 32 on-the-spot fines applied to because I did not know at the time I read the speech. I will look at that further and ask officials to speak to the DVSA so that it and its vehicle inspectors can take an informed view about this change and look out for these operators. It is not hard to understand that there are some obvious places to do that. These operators will enter the country through ports, and I think that enforcement operations are thoughtfully devised so that inspectors catch the right people, at the right time, in the right way.
The approval of this statutory instrument will ensure that the UK’s bus and coach operators can continue running services internationally, as they currently do and, most importantly, without any disruption or interruption from 1 April 2025. It will enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under the TCA by enabling the UK’s ratification of the RSR protocol, which will contribute to our co-operative and close relationship with the European Union. The statutory instrument is, of course, required now to ensure that we can ratify the RSR protocol in January 2025 to bring it into force so that it is ready after the temporary provisions of the TCA expire on 31 March 2025.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
This debate relates to another statutory instrument that was debated in Committee on 11 November. I therefore will not go into too much detail on this instrument’s context but will briefly remind the Committee that it relates to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This Act contained a wide range of reforms to reduce economic crime and increase transparency over corporate entities conducting business in the United Kingdom. This included reforms to enable targeted information sharing to tackle money laundering and remove reporting burdens on business. Additionally, the Act introduced new intelligence-gathering powers for law enforcement and reform of outdated criminal corporate liability laws.
The legislation also introduced reforms to keep pace with the use of emerging technologies to launder money and commit economic crime, including a new regime to tackle the use of criminal or terrorist crypto assets. The measure also introduced new search, seizure and detention powers when crypto assets are used illegally or for terrorist purposes. The legislation aims to remove criminal gains and disrupt the ability to use emerging technologies for illicit purposes.
I see a heavy Northern Ireland contingent here—it is like the old days, and I am very pleased to see colleagues here today. They will be particularly pleased to know that this debate relates to the order that came into force in Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales. As of the end of October, across the United Kingdom as a whole the new powers have been exercised in over 90 cases.
I will not cover the content of the powers, as they were debated extensively by both Houses during the passage of the Bill, but will outline briefly the purpose of the instrument, which is to establish a code of practice. The code of practice being brought into operation by this statutory instrument is the search, seizure and detention of property code for Northern Ireland. Codes of practice determine and clarify the circumstances in which powers may be exercised to ensure that they are applied consistently and proportionately. This is vital, given the broad range of law enforcement agencies to which the powers can apply. The guidance on the exercise of the powers in the code in this order sets out clearly, I hope, the required powers to safeguard against improper use.
The search, seizure and detention code is made by the Home Secretary to guide the exercise of search and seizure powers in the context of criminal confiscation investigations for specified officers who operate in Northern Ireland. The order sets out the officers and the circumstances, and it gives strong guidance on reserved powers.
This draft instrument is required to complete the cycle that we started with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It will ensure that all the necessary legislation is in place and that law enforcement can operate the powers proportionately and in accordance with the aim of the legislation. I expect and hope to get some questions from colleagues across the Committee, but I hope that that is a reasonably clear outline of the order and its purpose. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my registered interest as a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in which we considered this SI in some detail. I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. We well recall him serving as a Minister in Northern Ireland; in fact, I succeeded him in the Department for Social Development and I remember the handover meeting very well. The following day, he went off to be a Minister of State here.
I welcome this statutory instrument. It is important that we move to a normal society in Northern Ireland, that the proceeds of crime are adequately addressed and that people refrain from crime in Northern Ireland, where we have the association of crime with paramilitarism. They are two scourges in our society that must be eliminated.
I have certain questions for my noble friend. While this is a reserved matter, the code is to be published by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. When will it publish the code, and will it be by way of a statement in the Assembly? Maybe there has already been one. Is an assessment available of the success of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in Northern Ireland? I realise that will require a detailed answer, so I would be content if my noble friend could provide one in writing. I note that there is no impact assessment; can he indicate why? Will the police resourcing of the implementation of the code come out of the Northern Ireland block grant? There is a little difficulty there in that policing resources in Northern Ireland, in both funding and people power, are gravely overstretched.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, there is obviously a conspiracy here: the people running the Football Governance Bill have obviously decided to keep us all occupied here so that we are not dealing with them. Perhaps we should go into the Chamber later and see if we can make a contribution.
There are two sides to this: the devolved issue and the national issue. I want to explore the interface between the two and ask whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned, there is a resource implication. In other words, are any additional resources required? With crypto assets and so on, we are dealing with very sophisticated people who have access to complicated software and things like that. Are we capable of dealing with that as quickly as we can?
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support this draft instrument. It goes a long way in allowing the police and law enforcement agencies to seize and recover illicit proceeds of criminal activity. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland the threat from terrorism remains at “substantial”. Paramilitary organisations remain active and many former paramilitaries are heavily involved in criminal activity. They are highly organised and sophisticated in their activities. As we have heard, they are well versed in utilising modern technologies to their advantage.
In particular, cryptocurrency has increasingly become involved in almost every criminal activity that matters to anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing. Marketplaces on the dark web use cryptocurrency to facilitate the sale of drugs and unlicensed firearms, which provides a substantial monetary advantage to these criminals and paramilitaries. The Financial Conduct Authority’s marketing rules have brought crypto assets into the spotlight. Criminals can launder this money using clean intermediary pseudo-anonymous e-wallets and virtual private networks. Through a series of steps, they can withdraw cleansed funds, so it is important that the legal authorities have all the necessary powers to keep ahead of the criminals.
The measures contained in this order will go some way to combating illegal activity. Of course, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, these illegal activities can operate across borders and worldwide. I therefore ask the Minister: has there been any consultation and is there any co-operation with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland? Again, are our law enforcement and police properly resourced to carry out this new order?
I believe that this revised code of practice relating to the search, seizure and detention of property meets the right to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. I am sure that law enforcement will go about this in a proper manner, so I am pleased to support this order.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, first, I apologise for my earlier indiscretion; I thought my phone was on silent but it was not.
I am looking at the extension of powers in relation to restraint orders. I hope that it is as good as what it says here; in fact, I would like it to be even better because, in the past, we have often been the victims. In saying this, I am not casting aspersions on anyone sitting here today, but we have been the victims of political restraints. We often find that, if it is not politically expedient for things to happen, they do not happen. I hope that, as a result of what we are hearing here today and this draft statutory instrument, that will not be the case.
In paragraph 13 of the code of practice, which is headed “Extension of powers in relation to restraint orders”, we are told—I have no problem with this—that this measure will align Northern Ireland more with the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly said, we have too much unalignment at times. If this is implemented—it is a sincere piece of work—we can look to better days. In the past, in Northern Ireland, bordering the Republic of Ireland, there has always been this element of smuggling from one territory to another; some people have gotten very wealthy on it. I just hope and trust that, when this SI comes into force, there will be co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border to bring this scandalous activity to an end.
In the past, in terms of government, there has been too much of us turning our heads and looking the other way; it is a feature that happens here. I trust that that is going to cease and that we will no longer have to tolerate an activity that, to put it mildly and succinctly, is illegal criminality—as well as everything that goes along with it—happening on our borders. I hope that this instrument will go some distance, if not the full distance; I would like it to go the full distance but, if it does not, I welcome the fact that, as is mentioned here, there will be a genuine effort to stamp these criminals out and take them out of activity, no matter whom that hurts. In the past, it has perhaps not been politically expedient to do that, so I ask the Minister to assure us that that will not be given any account as a result of this instrument here.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I, too, will welcome the Minister’s reply. I regard him, as I have done for many years, as a friend; I am delighted, therefore, that he is here answering our questions. May I make a statement? First, it is so important to put anything that makes life more difficult for criminals on the statute book because no one should benefit from criminality, irrespective of where they may come from.
The truth is that criminals always seem to be ahead of the game and Governments always seem to be catching up. No matter how far you go, criminals’ skills and craft to carry on their criminal activity seem without bounds. Therefore, we have to do all we can to ensure that their programme is impeded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said that the code is not as yet drawn up, but I noticed that paragraph 5.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says, “The codes require”. If they are not drawn up, how can they require? It says:
“The codes require an officer who is contemplating using the powers to consider the impact on the community in their use, balanced against the public interest and the benefit the use of the powers would add to the case”.
My noble friend Lord Morrow, mentioned that point. This is what concerns me because, as my noble friend pointed out, we had this scourge in the past: if it somehow impacted on a particular community, you did not act. People were therefore not only surprised by the authorities’ inactivity but annoyed because it seemed that they could act if it was a different community but, in a certain community, they did not. I want the Minister to assure me that, when it comes to this statutory instrument, no officer will be compelled
“to consider the impact on the community in their use, balanced against the public interest”,
because criminals do not care who they impact on. Therefore, we have to ensure that their programme is impeded and that the proceeds of their crime are taken.
Paragraph 6.1 of the EM says:
“POCA provides powers to recover the proceeds of crime”.
Can the Minister clarify where the proceeds of crime go when they are seized? Who benefits from the proceeds that are seized? Knowing exactly where the proceeds go is important.
The last thing I want to draw attention to is paragraph 7.2, which says:
“On the codes generally, law enforcement agencies’ responses requested clarification of certain definitions in the legislation and additional guidance on the practical operation of the powers to seize cryptoassets and related items”.
I would like the Minister to clarify whether these clarifications on the definitions were requested by the people who responded. Has proper clarification of certain definitions in the legislation and guidance been given?
Finally, it is right to say that the resource implication is so important, because we know that we do not have sufficient officers to carry out policing on the ground in Northern Ireland. We are well below the target that was said to be necessary to police Northern Ireland. I do not want resources to be taken from that and put into this; rather, money needs to be given to ensure that we have the proper agency to tackle those who carry on with criminal activity.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I want briefly to bring noble Lords back to the whole issue of resources. I welcome this statutory instrument but I worry about resources. You will continue to hear the chief constable of Northern Ireland talk about the lack of resources. With these new powers, there certainly need to be additional resources.
As a former Minister in Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware that these criminal gangs sometimes work fairly freely, not only in Northern Ireland but across the border. These criminal gangs will have all the resources they need to do what they are doing. Unfortunately, the different agencies that have to deal with them do not have the resources to do what they need to do. That is more of a worry than anything else. I keep coming back to the chief constable: most times when he is interviewed, he says, “No, I don’t have the resources within policing to do what needs to be done”.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition welcome this order, and we hope that it will allow the police in Northern Ireland to seize the property of criminals who abuse crypto assets, ensuring that Northern Ireland has the appropriate measures in place to tackle illicit financial activity.
This order brings into operation a revised code of practice relating to the search, detention and seizure of property in Northern Ireland, making it easier for the police there to take control of and recover crypto assets under the powers in Part 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act. We request that the Minister provides the latest figures on the use of crypto assets in Northern Ireland. We need to ask: is there a specific problem related to crypto assets and criminal activity in Northern Ireland that he is aware of and that the order seeks to address?
Clamping down on the misuse and criminal use of crypto assets is an essential part of stopping crime in Northern Ireland. As much as we welcome this order, we must pose additional questions to further understand its scope. Can the Minister please outline roughly how many people he expects to receive a custodial sentence because of this order? How does the policy fit in with recent moves to release some criminals early? Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum notes that an agency
“requested that the definition of ‘control’ is given clear guidance”.
Will the Minister provide guidance on the use of this term in the legislation?
We welcome this order as a necessary evolution of our legislative response to economic crime, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to our questions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support for the order, and I will return to his questions in due course. I am also grateful for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Hay, Lord Browne, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. It feels like old times. I have not been a Minister in Northern Ireland since 2007. I had two fabulous years there, and it is good to see that scrutiny of government continues as it did when I was in Northern Ireland previously. It was good to hear the points that were raised.
I remind colleagues and noble Lords that the purpose of this order is to provide a code of practice to ensure that guidance is given, on a reserve basis, to officers who exercise the powers under the Act, in order to give proper accountability for the use of those powers by those officers. Colleagues and noble Lords will know that that includes scope on the search and seizure powers and limitations on the exercise of powers. It also provides for seeking senior officer approval and it gives reasonable grounds for suspicion, refusal of prior approval, limitation on the exercise of powers by immigration officers and a whole series of measures that are designed, in that code, to put a framework around the operation of the powers under the Act.
I will answer noble Lords’ points in a different order, but I hope we will cover them all. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, talked about the date of implementation and the discussion with the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the impact assessment and the impact of the Act. The Northern Ireland codes came into operation on 17 July 2024. Those codes have been published and are available. Northern Ireland ran a public consultation on its code and any citizen or organisation in Northern Ireland was able to comment upon this code. The codes in Northern Ireland have been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly on a cross-party basis.
The noble Baroness mentioned the impact of the Act. From April 2014 to the end of October, 90 cases have been exercised with this new power. Those figures are for Northern Ireland, England and Wales. I am not able today to give her and others a breakdown of the particular usage in Northern Ireland, as opposed to England and Wales, but the powers have been used 90 times. Noting what the noble Earl and other colleagues said, I say that the purpose of this order is to ensure that we take action against people who wish to use cryptocurrency for illicit criminal purposes. The code we are discussing is about putting in place the framework so that the powers are not open to challenge, so that there is clarity about how they are used and so that, when they are used, individuals have the ability to challenge them—but there is a legal back-up to ensure that, when bad actors are doing bad things, they cannot wriggle out of those bad things by saying that those powers were used improperly. That is the purpose of this code. I hope that answers the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Browne, and others, but, if not, please feel free to intervene. Again, these powers were subject to wide discussion and consultation generally.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, particularly raised what happens to the assets when seized. I am pleased to tell him that, when a court has been satisfied that the crypto assets are the proceeds of crime or are terrorist crypto assets, the asset holder—whoever that may be—will be permanently deprived of those assets. They will be sold and the proceeds will go into supporting the compensation of victims—that is an important aspect, to make sure that victims are at the heart of this—or they could be retained by the state and reinvested into tackling economic crime and countering terrorism downstream.
We want to stop the type of activity that is taking place. Seizing assets means that people are still trying to get some assets through. Hopefully, we can get to a position where this is a deterrent as well and stops people wishing to act with these assets. But, in the event that they do, that they are convicted and that there is an asset recovery regime in place, those assets will be used for the wider community at home.
A number of noble Lords asked about the impact assessment. We produced an impact assessment on the legislation, which was assessed and went through a number of routines—including on 11 November in this Room—and we finalised it very recently. I point out to the noble Earl and others that there is cross-party support for the legislation. It would have possibly gone through earlier had we not had the great event of the general election in July, which has propelled me from a quieter life back here. It also meant we had some delay in our cross-party discussions and agreements on the legislation.
We did not have a specific impact assessment on the powers in the code, but I hope they have been established in the way they have so that they can be operated and safeguarded. There was a consultation, which has come forward, although there was no impact assessment.
Another point noble Lords mentioned is the confiscation regime, which is largely for the Northern Ireland Assembly and devolved matters. I am repeating myself, but it is important to reflect on what we are discussing: the code is about how UK officials in immigration, Border Force or other named organisations in the code are held to account by a standard set by this House, the House of Commons and the UK Government on those devolved areas.
I think the points the noble Earl mentioned have been covered; if not, I am happy to reflect on Hansard in due course and any points that have been made by noble Lords and try to refer back to them. However, I think and hope there is a co-terminosity of agreement between us in this House, from His Majesty’s Official Opposition through to the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland.
We are trying to ensure that crypto assets under this legislation are deterred and, if they are found to be used for criminal activity, seized. There is a code of practice that monitors the use of officers for seizing those assets. If those assets are seized for criminal purposes, they are wound back into the community in a positive way. That sends a signal to both sides of the border in Northern Ireland in relation to the Administrations there that the use of crypto assets is not an acceptable way of financing criminal activity or terrorism.
I will check this outside of the Committee, but to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there has not been any formal consultation with the Irish Government on these powers because they are for the Northern Ireland Assembly, under the joint leadership of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Justice Minister and the Home Office, under the leadership of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I believe they are not areas that would cause concern as they are entirely matters for within the confines of the United Kingdom, with different responsibilities between the two different agencies.
With that, I hope the Committee can accept the order. If I missed any points, I will reflect on Hansard and write. If anybody wishes to intervene on any point I have not made, please do so now. I can see my noble friend Lady Ritchie ready to bungee jump into action, so I will let her intervene.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very detailed answers. Could he indicate whether any discussions have taken place with the Minister and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland? If not, will they take place on the implementation of the code and this SI?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the Minister responsible for this order, I have not had any discussion with Naomi Long or the Department of Justice on these matters, but I hope it will give some confidence to my noble friend to know that it is my intention to meet our counterparts in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has, I believe, already met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and I intend to do the same. I have a potential visit to Northern Ireland planned for the new year to discuss areas of mutual co-operation. I will make sure that this issue is raised as one of many items on the agenda of any future meeting in January. With that, I commend this order to the Committee.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Will the Minister reflect again on the resources issue? If he does not have any material to hand, he could write to us, which I imagine would be easily achieved.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Helpfully, I have had a chance to reflect on the points that the noble Lord made. I understand, genuinely, that it is important that agencies have the required resources to implement the new powers. That is why, as I mentioned earlier in response to questions, as well as to victims, there is the potential for the proceeds of crime to be recycled back into agencies under that system.
I cannot give the noble Lord a figure because, again, this is a relatively new area of work. Since April, we have had 90 cases; I do not know how many of them are reflected into Northern Ireland, but I have asked officials and I hope that we will be able to tease that out. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that today’s order is about a code of practice to put a box around the activities of people who might be using the Act, to enforce the areas of concern that we all have. I will reflect on the points he made and, if I can provide further information, I will of course do so.
House of Lords
Great British Nuclear: Modular Reactors
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress Great British Nuclear has made with its plans to deploy small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors, and what assessment they have made of the process for evaluating their design and manufacturing.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, Great British Nuclear is pushing forward the SMR competition for UK deployment and is now in negotiation with bidders, with final decisions to be taken in the spring. The Government are also actively exploring how we can enable alternative routes to market for advanced technologies, including AMRs, and we will set out our policy position in due course.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he explain exactly what has caused the damaging schedule slippage within GBN? Is it the shortage of staff, underfunding, underestimating the workload required or the many layers of approval—11 separate Whitehall approval committees at the last count—in order to allow GBN to announce the latest download of SMR technologies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will know the answer, because 16 months of the lifetime of GBN occurred under her party’s Administration. The fact is that we are working very closely with GBN. It has to go through considered processes. It has done two rounds of assessment and, as I have said, four technologies have been shortlisted, all of which are viable options for development. Crucial talks are now taking place. Companies will be invited to make final bids, and decisions will be made in the spring. I am confident that GBN will ensure that we get to that final decision as soon as possible.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister please consider how we might give good news to those sites in north-west Wales, principally the Wylfa plant in Ynys Môn—Anglesey—now dormant, and Trawsfynydd in Meirionnydd, now dormant? The communities around those great plants that generated nuclear power for Britain deserve consideration in so far as, throughout north-west Wales, skilled jobs with good wages and status are very rare and both communities have deserved investment from our Government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think I get the point my noble friend raises. He is absolutely right: new nuclear can bring many high-quality jobs, enhance our skills chain and help us grow the economy. He mentioned Wylfa in particular, and I well understand. He will know that Great British Nuclear has bought Wylfa, which is one of the sites identified in the planning statement in relation to nuclear. We are looking to make our siting policy more flexible to give us more opportunities in the future. We see new nuclear as having a hugely important role to play in our future energy structure.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. As the Minister will be aware, we currently have an issue with dependence on Russian fuel for our nuclear fleet. What progress are the Government making in bringing forward legislation for a near-term ban on Russian fuel imports, with all the attendant benefits for national security, for convincing others to move internationally and for our domestic industries?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have already agreed internationally to go for a 2030 cut-off. I have had correspondence from the noble Lord and I know that others would argue that we should bring it forward, as the US has wanted to do. We are in very serious discussions about that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will know about the global shortage of radioisotope supply for treating cancer. Is he aware that the Welsh Government, in co-operation with the Egino company, have financed a feasibility study into establishing a radioisotope production plant on the existing Trawsfynydd nuclear site, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred a moment ago, and for which an SMR would be highly relevant? Does he accept that such a project would help meet the UK healthcare needs, facilitate valuable exports, help the existing nuclear site to be managed and provide much-needed high-grade jobs? Please will he link up with colleagues in Cardiff to see what can be done on this through GB Nuclear?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the point the noble Lord is raising. My department is exercised by the advantage that could be brought. We are in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I cannot say at this stage whether we can bring this to a successful outcome, but I certainly see the merits in what he is arguing.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the importance of the agreement reached on the sidelines of the COP summit with the United States, which seeks to speed up the deployment of cutting-edge nuclear technology, helping to decarbonise our industry? The agreement aims to support information sharing on advanced nuclear technologies to help make them available to industry by 2030. How important is this agreement, and how will it help us to make sure that this technology is actually deployed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a very important agreement. We have a very good relationship with the US on all things civil nuclear, and this will enable us to enhance that. I should also say that at COP, six new countries joined existing countries in declaration of an aim to triple nuclear power globally by 2050. There are now 31 signatures, which is very important. It is an indication that globally we are seeing a renaissance in nuclear, in which this Government wish our own nuclear industry to be a part.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Last week, in answer to a question on COP 29 from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referencing GB Energy, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, suggested that the Government would look at nuclear energy, specifically small nuclear reactors. Can the Minister clarify whether that is indeed the case?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am not sure I understand the question, but if it is whether we recognise the importance of SMRs in this country and generally, the answer is yes. On the benefits of the use of small modular reactors, having a modular approach in which much can be assembled off-site brings huge advantages. Going forward, we see that SMRs have great potential, and of course UK companies themselves have great potential.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister clearly shares my frustration at the time taken in moving this issue forward under the previous Administration. At the same time, is it not a fact that we have a major nuclear reactor constructor in the UK that has been producing reactors for our submarines for over 60 years? Is it not enormously important for that constructor, and equally important for its supply chain, to be able to tool up and organise in order to produce? Is it not the unfortunate reality that the United States is moving ahead on this and has a full-spectrum approach to selling its modular reactors while we slip behind? What is the Minister going to do to speed this up?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I hope we are not slipping behind. Clearly, the process that GBN is going through will take a few more months, but I hope the outcome will be a satisfactory conclusion. I cannot comment on the companies involved in the appraisal and the discussions taking place with GBN at the moment, but I take the noble Lord’s point about our defence capability and the supply chain. We are increasingly seeing the civil nuclear and defence nuclear industries working more closely together, and I see that as a very important foundation for the future. I take the noble Lord’s point about the US; it is important that where we have a technological advantage, we make the best of it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness first, then the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister may have seen in New Civil Engineer in the past week the interview with King’s College London research fellow Ross Peel, who could be broadly characterised as a supporter of new nuclear and small modular reactors. He expressed concern that with the focus on safety, which is going to be a huge community concern, there has not been the focus that there needs to be on the security of the new modular nuclear reactors. A huge amount of spending has kept the current ones secure—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Are the Government going to consider security in the same kind of way?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, security is one of the key considerations not just on SMRs but on AMRs.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, there is a puzzle here. If the world acknowledges that SMRs and like designs can be built far more quickly than the larger-gigawatt traditional nuclear power stations, and if investors can be attracted to finance those SMRs—whereas the giants such as Sizewell, the so-called replica, will cost billions that will eventually fall on consumers and taxpayers—why are we not giving far more priority to ordering and developing SMRs and smaller reactors, as many other countries are doing? Many producers are finding that their order books are becoming full.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord paints too bleak a position. The UK is very well placed in relation to SMRs, and the programme that GBN is taking forward is being watched with great interest by a number of countries. In relation to investment, as the chair of GBN, Simon Bowen, told the energy Select Committee last week, of course there are issues to do with risk, timing and potential delays with first-in-class designs. But as we gain momentum and produce more modular reactors, the efficiency of the programme will get better and better. That is why we have to give support at this stage, and why we see huge potential.
NHS Plan: Consultation
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of London
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the consultation for the NHS 10 Year Plan reaches all communities, including those who have least interaction with the health service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we want to ensure that the voices and experiences of patients are at the heart of our plans to make the NHS fit for the future, especially those voices that often go unheard. We are working with charities, faith groups, health and care providers, local government and others to ensure that we hear from those that national government often fails to reach. We will monitor this closely and target underrepresented groups before the engagement exercise concludes in spring 2025.
The Lord Bishop of London
I thank the Minister for her reply, and I am encouraged by the Government’s consultation on the NHS 10-year plan. However, does she agree with me that, if we are to move from sickness to prevention, any engagement ICBs have with their communities has to be long term and systematic? If so, what are the Government doing to resource ICBs to make sure that their engagement with communities is long term and systematic?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. Integrated care systems, which are responsible for reflecting the needs of the community and its spending, must follow guidance, and it is important that we identify the seldom-heard groups. We have built into the consultation plans a “workshop in a box”—a toolkit to support discussion in local communities, which ICBs are rolling out. It is a good way of encouraging ICBs to talk directly to local communities.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the consultation be published in languages other than English, with proactive efforts to encourage responses from people whose first language is not English? Secondly, will the department make sure that it consults with public service interpreters working in NHS settings?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can confirm that both the online portal and the “workshop in a box” to which I just referred will be available in easy read and British Sign Language versions, and in other languages. Attention has been given to those for whom English is not their first language; in-person events can be tailored to their needs—for example, by having smaller groups. The staff to whom the noble Baroness refers are a major group being asked to provide input; indeed, they are taking part in online workshops and can respond online.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the groups that sometimes finds it difficult to interact with health service professionals is unpaid carers? Despite the huge contribution that they make, they often have their needs ignored by those providing services. Does she therefore agree that it is very important that the voice of the unpaid carer is heard in the consultation process?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend: we have to hear from unpaid carers, because that will strengthen the exercise. We are constantly monitoring which groups are responding and which are not, and that allows us to tailor our approach to the underrepresented groups who are not coming forward. If that includes unpaid carers, the consultation absolutely will make special, tailored efforts to reach them.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the life expectancy of people with learning disabilities is, on average, 20 years less than the general population’s. Research has shown that a major contributor to this is a lack of access to appropriate healthcare. What will the Minister do to ensure that this group of people will be not only consulted but listened to, and that the 10-year plan will provide appropriate services tailored to them?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is indeed one of the groups for whom we need to ensure absolute inclusion. As I mentioned, the work with integrated care systems will be particularly helpful in running the workshop. We train organisations to work with it, and it is designed so that it is easy to use. It can be used in events to reach the seldom-heard voices in communities, including those with learning disabilities. It is vital that we hear from them as we design an NHS fit for everybody for the future.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, one of the biggest causes of inequality is where you live in the country. If you live in the north-east or north-west, you live two, three or four years less than if you live in the south-west or south-east. Far fewer resources are available for people in those deprived areas: there are fewer doctors, nurses, physios, dentists and so on. What can the Government do to redress this gross imbalance?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend allows me to say—and I hope your Lordships’ House will agree with this—that our approach will of course focus on addressing the social determinants of health. The goal will be to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and the poorest regions. We are not just going to be moving from sickness to prevention as one of our three pillars, important though that is; we are also seeking, across government, to address the root causes of health inequalities. Again, that is being highlighted as part of the consultation.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
What special efforts will be made to speak to young people, who are often very far away from the health system—those leaving care, those who have just left prison and those from very poor communities? What effort will be made to hear their voices? They are often far away from the NHS because they do not need it yet, but they will in the future.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Yesterday, I was at an in-person event in Folkestone, and as with all such events up and down the country, it had used systems to find a wide range of people, including young people, who, as he rightly says, are often unlinked with the health service. I emphasise our continued monitoring and our efforts to reach the groups he speaks of. So far, we know that men, those aged under 35, and black Asian and black British people have engaged least with Change NHS. We are now stepping up our efforts.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister look at the role that pharmacists might play in any consultation? While they may not be an obvious source of reaching out, they are embedded in communities and talk to patients and users frequently. If they could be harnessed, it would much improve the consultation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very grateful to all those, including pharmacists, who have used all their networks and contacts to spread the word. That is why we have had over 60,000 responses and more than 1 million visits in what is the largest ever consultation in the history of the NHS. I call on all groups to continue their efforts to ensure that voices across all communities are heard loud and clear.
Lord Kamall (Con)
During the vaccine programmes for Covid, the NHS and the last Government put a lot of effort into looking at ways to reach people who are vaccine hesitant—often from some black and Asian communities and other excluded communities. What lessons have been learned by the Government and the NHS to ensure that the consultation on the 10-year plan reaches as many people as possible from these communities, so that their voices are heard?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The lessons that have been learned are that there has to be a whole range of ways of consulting: in person around the country; online, where people can access the website; and through toolkits such as the “workshop in a box”. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, the consultation also needs to be tailored to the needs of those who need to speak up. We are asking the public, staff and organisations what is important, and we want, as the Prime Minister said, their fingerprints all over the 10-year plan.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, people living with homelessness often have chronic and multiple health needs which go untreated, and they are also more vulnerable to substance misuse. Appreciating the difficulty, what are the Government doing to ensure that the needs of people living with homelessness are addressed and heard through this consultation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We have identified those who are homeless as one of the specific seldom-heard groups, and that is why we are working so closely with integrated care systems: to ensure that we reach them on their territory. The other groups include, for example, sex workers, young people, those with learning disabilities and some ethnic minorities.
Humanist Marriages
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they conducted an equality impact assessment following the judgment in R (Harrison & Ors) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] concerning humanist marriages.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
On behalf of my noble friend, and with her agreement, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, under the previous Government, the High Court found in Harrison a difference of treatment in weddings law towards humanists. However, it also found that the then Government had demonstrated that the difference in treatment was justified given the legitimate aim to address differences in treatment as part of wholesale reform. As a new Government, we need properly to consider these important issues and will set out our position in due course.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, when the High Court ruled that the lack of legal recognition for humanist marriages was discriminatory, this was surely an argument for the last Government to do something, which they failed to do. Is it not now time for this Government to go through the process of having an impact assessment?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we will assess marriage in the round, including humanist weddings, and we will announce when we do that in due course. I agree with the general point which my noble friend has made.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, just under 20 years ago, Scotland legalised humanist marriage. Remarkably, data from the National Records of Scotland show that more Scots now choose a humanist wedding than those who marry in all other religions combined—that is, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and all other religions and faiths. On present trends, humanist weddings in Scotland will soon overtake civil ceremonies as Scotland’s first choice. How can we any longer deny the humanist option to those who want to wed in England?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. Scotland was able to accommodate humanist weddings within its existing legislative framework for weddings because it operates an officiant-based model, whereby regulation of weddings takes place via the officiant. In contrast, in England and Wales, we have a buildings-based scheme. It is in that difference that Scotland was able to make this accommodation, and that factor will be taken into account in the review to which I have already referred.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, can I help the Minister? I am afraid I did not understand much of his original reply, but it seems to me that there is a problem that he has that they do not have in Scotland, Northern Ireland or in Jersey, where humanist marriages have been allowed. Indeed, Scientologists were allowed to marry almost 20 years ago. What specifically is the problem? If there is a problem, will he look to other parts of the United Kingdom for the resolution? They got it right; we need to do something about it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there are a lot of anomalies within weddings arrangements in England and Wales, and it is for that reason that we want to look at all of them. If we were to go down the route of secondary legislation for humanists, for example, that would create a further anomaly. We do not want to go down that track; we want to look at the whole system in the round.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, “in good time” and “in the round” are just not good enough. There is a gross unfairness in that couples wishing to have a humanist ceremony in England and Wales must also have a civil ceremony, which means additional cost and outlay. Will the Government, instead of giving excuses, move forward and commit to taking action?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I can say to the noble Lord only what I said to other questioners, which is we want to look at this question in the round. There are many other groups—faith and non-faith—who also feel they are not fairly treated by the current arrangements, and we want to take their views into account when we look at this.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, it may be an anomaly, but there are now 350 religious organisations in this country which are registered to conduct weddings. In 2013, an order was laid in Parliament that we could approve weddings for humanists. Why are we allowing this anomaly to continue? Is it not straight discrimination?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my answer is the same as that given to the previous questions, which is that there are indeed anomalies in weddings law within England and Wales; they cut across many religious and non-religious groups, and we want to look at the question in the round.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, just to change the angle for a little bit, humanists have a long tradition of conducting same-sex wedding ceremonies, with LGBT people much more likely to be non-religious than the population as a whole. Does the Minister agree that such a change in the law would be significant for same-sex couples?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The statistic that the noble Baroness cited is accurate from my experience. Yes, such a change would have a disproportionate benefit for same-sex couples, and that factor should be taken into account in the review.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, rather than an equality impact assessment, what are required are certainty, clarity and essential fairness in the law governing all marriages, religious and non-religious, in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission back in 2022? People now use a variety of ceremonies—religious and non-religious—and should, frankly, be confident of their status at the end of each ceremony. Surely, the Government can direct reforms to meet those requirements.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. The objective of the Government is to have clarity and fairness in relation to weddings within England and Wales. There were 57 recommendations in a 500-page report from the Law Commission, and the Government need to take their time to consider them all carefully.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, England and Wales are outliers on the issue of humanist marriages, with Scotland having applied legal recognition in 2005, Northern Ireland in 2018 and the Channel Islands at the same time. The Republic of Ireland has had it since 2012. To avoid my noble friend having to repeat the same answer, can I put it to him that this is an equalities issue, and it offers the Government the chance to extend laws that exist for some UK citizens to all of us?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Indeed, it could be seen to be an equalities issue, but the Government’s approach is to look at this matter in the round.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am afraid that my noble friend has been unsuccessful in getting a different answer, but I take the point he makes.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said “in due course”, but it has been more than two years since the Law Commission report. There are people still getting married in either domestic premises or religious premises that are not registered. They find out—it is usually the women—that they are not lawfully married only when it comes to their wanting a divorce that they then, of course, cannot get. Can the Minister put this somewhere into citizenship, so that people are aware that, if it is going to be only in due course, this injustice will be dealt with?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. In my time as a family magistrate, I often had people in front of me who were married in religious ceremonies but not married in the eyes of the law, and we had to unpick the arrangements for those separating couples. The noble Baroness has made a very good point.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand the concern on these Benches that the last Government used to use “in due course” to do nothing for long periods, sometimes years? Can the Minister start a different process, and give some indication of when this matter will come back to the Chamber and where the Government will take action?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Well, I have been advised by my Leader that I need to say “in the fullness of time”.
Food Security
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve food security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Labour Government have committed £5 billion to the agricultural budget over the next two years, which is the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our history. The uplift to £1.8 billion, in 2025-26, for environmental land management schemes will boost food security and accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector. We are also investing £60 million to support farmers who were affected by the unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
I thank the Minister for her Answer. As an agricultural adviser in a previous life, I observed at first hand the vital contribution of both research and investment to agricultural productivity, which is fundamental to domestic food production and food security. Yet both the NFU and CLA estimate that the recent changes to APR and BPR will lead to a substantial reduction in investment. Were the impacts of these tax changes on investment and productivity modelled with Defra before their introduction? If not, can His Majesty’s Government undertake such an impact assessment and make it available to Members of the House?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we are reforming APR and looking to do it in a way that protects small family farms and protects food security and resilience. The right reverend Prelate made some good points around this and the potential impacts of it. I will take his comments back to my honourable friend the Farming Minister, who is currently in discussions on those matters.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I asked a question some weeks ago about whether Defra had been consulted only the day before the Budget and that no impact assessment was given. The Minister promised to write to me—I still await a reply—but I read in the newspapers that that is the case. How can the Minister say that she is improving food security when the impact of APR will be to force small farms to sell their farms? They will be bought by corporates, as part of their ESG and greenwashing, which will further reduce the supply of land for food production, along with the madness of creating solar farms on good agricultural land. This Government are destroying food security, not enhancing it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I will answer a number of the noble Lord’s questions. We had a Question on solar farms last week; we are not building solar farms on grade 1 and 2—good-quality—agricultural land. On APR, Defra was in discussions with the Treasury to consider all the different changes for the spending review and is now in discussions on the next SR. The money that we are investing in farming is designed to support long-term food security in this country.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, under the last Government, just 4% of the ODA budget was devoted to agricultural assistance. Given the global growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change and the increasing propensity for food security to be weaponised in conflict, can my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government plan to increase the percentage of ODA being spent on agro-ecological measures?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there has been a growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change. I confirm that the FCDO’s ODA budget, which will be published in due course, will be £9.24 billion in 2025-26, and Ministers will consider the ODA allocations for 2025-26 over the coming months. We are committed to this; the Prime Minister committed to deliver practical support to communities facing hunger. This is backed by a £70 million package, including a new resilience and adaptation fund that channels climate finance to ensure that food-insecure households, in places such as Ethiopia, Chad and Bangladesh, can withstand extreme weather and other shocks.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, 40% of all food is now imported, which raises a serious security issue. However, can I specifically ask the Minister about BBC World reports this morning that some pureed tomatoes being imported into this country are made by Uighur slave labour? The report included examples of punishment beatings and electric shock punishments for those who fail to reach their quotas. What more can we do to at least prevent goods coming into the UK that are wrongly labelled—in this case “Produced in Italy”—and give consumers the right to choose what they buy and do not buy?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have seen the same reports as the noble Lord and they are extremely concerning. My understanding is that the supermarkets have said that they have not been purchasing tomatoes from these particular places, but clearly that needs to be robustly checked. We are looking at labelling as a way to better inform consumers and ensure that our food is from the kinds of sources we would all want to see and can trust.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. The NFU estimates that as much as 75% of British farming output comes from family farms that will now have to pay the family farm inheritance tax. Farmers already have to deal with increasing weather volatility and increasing input and output price volatility, leading to lower and less predictable farming incomes. Does the family farming tax undermine the Government’s own manifesto commitments to increase food security and champion British farmers and expose hard-pressed family budgets to the risk of higher food prices?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned previously, the APR changes are not designed to undermine small family farms and I know that both Defra and the Treasury have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss this matter further.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, families whose food security relies heavily on food banks may suffer nutritional deficiencies because so much of the produce is ultra-processed rather than fresh. Some 800,000 children are reported to use food banks on a regular basis. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on child health and development of sustained dependency on food banks?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, clearly it is important that we have good nutrition for our children, which is why we have worked with schools around breakfast clubs, for example, because it is very important that children receive nutrition, especially at a young age. This is something we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care on. One of the important things this Government are doing is working much more across departmental policy areas in order to ensure that we get the kinds of results that support the policy areas the noble Baroness referred to.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about food security and we have heard a number of issues raised about different challenges to it—there are in fact a huge number. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the weaponisation of food supplies. We know about disruptions to transport and about climate interruptions. Is not strange, therefore, that the national risk register put forward by the previous Government barely mentions food security, except in the context of contamination. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether this will be looked at, so the potential threats to food security in this country are looked at in the round, to coin a phrase?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely; my noble friend makes an important point. We look at overall household food security. In the financial year ending 2022, some 7% of households in the UK were considered to be food insecure. The Family Resources Survey 2022-23 found that the proportion of food-secure households decreased from 92% in 2019-20 to 90% in 2022-23. So this is something we do look at in the round.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, tenant farmers do not own their land but they do produce food. Can the Minister tell me what conversations she has had with her colleague the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on solar planning applications that have been called in that relate specifically to solar applications on tenanted land where the landlord is looking to evict the tenant farmer?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Regarding the solar panels, we have discussed this with Defra, DESNZ and the Ministry for Housing, which the noble Baroness asked about, because it is important, again, that we get this policy right as we develop our policy on housing and on energy. Clearly, this will be part of the land use framework. Regarding tenants, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that we have committed to appoint England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector to promote the standards outlined in the agricultural landlord and tenant code of practice. We hope that the commissioner will play an important role in this area.
Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 October be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Human Medicines (Amendment) (Modular Manufacture and Point of Care) Regulations 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Cryer
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (28 Nov 2024)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start today’s Committee, I point out to the House that this is day two of five days on the Football Governance Bill. We need to make significant progress on the groups today.
Clause 1: Purpose and Overview
Amendment 7
“(3) For the purposes of this Act, English football is sustainable if it—(a) continues to meet the needs of present fans without compromising the ability of future generations of fans to enjoy and benefit from the club, including through the club continuing to operate a team in club competitions, in a way that represents the unique heritage of the club as recognised by its fans, and respects the interests of these fans;(b) continues to contribute to the economic and social welfare of the communities with which regulated clubs are associated, including, but not limited to, direct or indirect positive effects on the income of local businesses, cultural enrichment, or the reputation of the local area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to create a more precise definition of the sustainability of English football.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 7 begins this group of amendments on this important Bill. It would expand the definition of,
“the sustainability of English football”.
On day one, we had a useful debate—although it was longer than the Committee Whip might have wished—about the purpose of the Bill and the limits of sustainability. As the Bill is drafted, the only definition of
“the sustainability of English football”
is, as the Minister pointed out to us in our debates on the previous groups, Clause 1(3)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) states that English football is sustainable if it,
“continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs”,
and paragraph (b) specifies that it must continue,
“to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
That is all we have to go on in the Bill. The criteria for the success of this important and novel Bill therefore rest upon these two simple lines.
Our contention is that these brief and rather vague statements of intent are not sufficient to act as the foundations on which the success, or otherwise, of this Bill and this new regulator are to be judged. The actions of this regulator will have significant consequences for the whole football pyramid. It is vital, therefore, that we ensure that it has the necessary legislative tools and the clarity of message from Parliament to set it up for success. To do that, it must have in statute a strong set of conditions against which its actions and its regulatory work can be assessed. This echoes the fruitful discussion we had on our first day in Committee about the underlying purpose of the Bill.
However, my Amendment 7 is about much more than this. It is about setting a precedent. If we do not establish from the outset the frames of reference and the standards to which the regulator will have to be held, that does not set it up for a successful future. It is surely the duty of this Committee and of Parliament more broadly to hold public bodies to higher standards than these two rather short and insubstantial lines we have in the Bill at the moment. That is why I look forward to my noble friends Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Markham setting out the case for their Amendments 12 and 13, and I will say a bit more once they have done so.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have to inform your Lordships that, if Amendment 7 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 7A to 15 because of pre-emption.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 12 in this group. Before I do so, I think it important to express mild regret at what the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip said before we started our proceedings today. This is an incredibly important Bill, which, for the first time, imports into our much-loved national game a costly system of regulation. It is a very long Bill. There are numerous amendments being tabled, mostly by Members on the government side. We know that the House of Commons these days gives scant scrutiny to important Bills. It is therefore incredibly important that this House in Committee gives the Bill the detailed scrutiny that is required. If the five days that the Government have rather meagrely assigned to this Committee stage are not enough, I hope they will be quick to extend the proceedings so that we can give proper scrutiny. Much hangs on this. The more we have debated the detail of the Bill, the more issues have arisen, giving rise to greater concerns—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was here last Wednesday, waiting quite a long time for my amendments to come up in group 3, and I sat through an awful lot of what I felt was hypocritical stuff from this side of the Chamber, given that this was a government Bill under the last Government. Not that much in it has changed, yet there was a lot of discussion on this side. Listening to that was agony, so I am quite keen to get through the Bill. Of course we should debate it, but not at the sort of length that is, I would say, rather self-indulgent.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I empathise with the noble Baroness’s pain, but this is what legislative scrutiny is about. It is about looking in detail at what is proposed and ensuring that we do not pass into law measures that will inflict damage on something that is both an incredibly important economic activity but also a source of great pleasure to millions in this country and more than a billion worldwide. So I hope the noble Baroness will suffer less and we will move as quickly as is appropriate in these circumstances.
We debated last time whether the ambition for football to be sustainable was sufficiently ambitious for the state of English football, and I think many of us in different parts of the House concluded that it was not so. However, if the Government insist that sustainability is all that is going to be sought then it is important that we define what is meant by sustainability in a way that does not circumscribe the mindset and the approach of the regulator that is going to be established.
Football is a very successful industry and activity. As we have heard, it remains the case that the Premier League is the most successful league in the world and the Championship is the sixth most successful in Europe, and we need to make sure that we do first do no harm but, secondly, because we know that there is no such thing as steady state any more, if it does not continue to grow and improve then it will be going backwards. So it seems right that, in addition to the addition suggested in my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, we should look at the four elements that I propose should be added to the definition of “sustainability”.
First, it should continue
“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”.
That is important because you cannot take anything for granted. The success of English football has been earned, but it has been harder over a period so we need to be extremely careful; this is a precious asset and we need to be concerned all the time with competitiveness. The costs that are proposed to be imposed on English football through the creation of this regulator—both the costs to be recovered through the levy and the compliance costs for clubs of accommodating themselves to this regime—will in themselves be a blow to competitiveness, so there needs to be at least an equal and opposite concern to offset that. Competitiveness is going to be incredibly important in relation to audience and quality.
Secondly, it should continue
“to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”.
My own club, Tottenham, has invested hugely in a world-class new stadium; other clubs need to do the same. A huge amount of investment will be required in upgrading stadia around the country. They are extremely expensive commercial assets that are of great importance to their local communities as well. They are community assets that tend to attract in their wake, in their slipstream, other regeneration investment into the communities, often some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. It will be extraordinarily important that the regulator has in mind at all times that the return on those big investments that will be needed should not be imperilled by the way that the regulator itself operates.
Lastly, it should continue
“to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues”.
All these are fragile. None of these revenue streams—from broadcasting or from the asset and enterprise values—can be taken for granted. The success of English football has to be earned, every day of every week of every season there is, so this will be very important.
Given these approaches, I cannot feel that anyone will quarrel with these being elements that the regulator should think about and seek at all times to prioritise. What is the objection to them appearing in the Bill, since that shows the importance that Parliament attaches to these considerations? That can in some way help to make a difference to the way in which the regulator is set up, because much of that is left unclear. Much of it will be at the discretion of the board and its chair, yet to be appointed, of the regulator. This Committee should have no difficulty in supporting having these factors placed squarely on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this away and think carefully about whether it would a be way of improving a Bill that currently leaves much to be desired.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 12 in my noble friend’s name and have added my name to it. As he rightly said, this amendment aims to broaden the definition of the sustainability of English football for the purposes of the new regulator, to ensure that it has a duty to consider a much more extensive list of factors that are important for the continued success and growth of the game—obviously, issues that we discussed at length last week—in deciding its approach and exercising its powers. If the Minister will not look at expanding the purpose of the regulator to include growth, for instance, as I set out last week, this is an important amendment to ensure that we expand the definition of sustainability and create a balanced framework within the regulation to provide protections while enabling growth.
A framework that provides sustainability while encouraging investment and maintaining stability will preserve the success of English football and ensure the continuation of innovation and investor confidence. As my noble friend said, we cannot take the success of the English game for granted, so it is important that the Bill ensures that successful elements of the current model are given due prominence—perhaps we are being a bit blasé in thinking they will just continue, no matter what—in the concerns of the regulator going forward.
English football’s depth and current comparative advantages come from achieving the right balance of oversight with competition, aspiration and financial support—a combination of elements that the regulator must be mindful of when considering the sustainability of football over the longer term. I really hope that in the light of our discussions last week, and the concerns we are raising again today, the Minister can see and accept that a narrow set of sustainability metrics could, inadvertently, be very damaging. If she will not look at changing the purpose of the Bill, I very much hope that she will look at expanding the definition of sustainability in this clause, so that we can cover all the elements that we are all, I believe, in support of saying are important in today’s game but simply do not appear in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for the simple reason that it is very helpful to the Government. We had the good fortune to meet the shadow regulator last week; it was a very informative and interesting meeting and, clearly, it is starting from scratch.
Given that the Bill has many wide-ranging and permissive powers that are given via statutory instrument to Ministers, it is important that on its face—in primary legislation—there are proper framework guidelines for the regulatory and legislative regimes for the regulator to go forward with. Given that last week the Government were quite firm in setting their face against growth parameters, which are pretty important, given that the Premier League is one of the most successful business outfits in the whole world—in fact, the most successful sports league in the world—I cannot really understand why the Government believe that this is mutually exclusive to supporting fans and putting into the Bill a commitment to fans, even though they are, as we learned previously, not defined.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests, which are declared on the register. I support Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, especially proposed new Clause 1(3)(f). This would set a clear success metric for the IFR that it should incentivise
“industry-led agreements on the distribution of”
the Premier League’s broadcast revenue. This is absolutely critical for the future collective success of the football industry.
We already know that UEFA has written an alarming letter to the Government which said, among other things:
“Mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us”
and
“would … prevent amicable solutions being found”.
This is why UEFA says that the backstop should be “carefully reconsidered”. I understand and respect that this is what Ministers genuinely believe they have done in relation to the backstop powers, which we will discuss in much greater detail later. However, I profoundly disagree that the backstop provides any such incentives.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that earlier this year Dame Tracey Crouch, the chair of the fan-led review, called the backstop powers “nuclear … coding” never to be reached for. However, the Football League chair disagreed, and said he fully intends to use the mechanism and that it is entirely logical. To extend the analogy, in the Bill the Government are doling out nuclear weapons to football authorities. They are doing so in the belief that these weapons will somehow create space for diplomacy. However, the evidence is already very clear. In the real world, one side is ready to press the button and launch its missiles. The powers clearly do not place the incentives in the right place. If they did, we would already have a new agreement and the football bodies would not have been driven so far apart.
This is why I have tabled amendments to rebalance the backstop, so it can create proper incentives and space for good-faith negotiations and diplomacy. The fact that the Bill has led one party to believe it can launch a successful first strike is proof that these powers have manifestly failed in their purpose already. That is why I am so supportive of my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I have a couple of questions for the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but first, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said that the amendments provide clear metrics. I do not think they do; they are very subjective, particularly Amendment 12. What is
“globally competitive in relation to audience and quality”?
Regarding the phrase
“continues to attract significant domestic and foreign investment”,
what is “significant”? I do not think it is helpful to include words like that.
For what it is worth—my noble friend the Minister probably will not like this—I think paragraphs (e) and (f) of Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, make sense, because we can clearly see what they mean. I would say the same of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Amendment 7 is rather rambling and unclear and is not suitable for inclusion the Bill. We need something clear that can be measured, rather than words like “substantial”, which could mean anything or nothing.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, just used two words which are of significance: “subjective” and “clear”. The problem with the Bill as drafted, judging from the lengthy debate we had last Wednesday and today’s proposed amendments, is that we are trying to provide clarity in relation to very subjective words, not least of which is “sustainability”, which is used several times. All these amendments are about looking at ways of making things clear, so that the football regulator can operate in some form or another.
The noble Lord was present throughout the debate last week, and during that debate I spoke about the threat to which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, has referred: that other sports and organisations will overtake our system—the Premier League and the other leagues—unless it is able to modernise and change as time goes on. What worries me genuinely about the Bill as drafted is that it almost implies ossification. It is an immovable process, because “sustainability” is just not clear.
Let us look at what we have seen in the past few days in terms of sport. This weekend the Middle East hosted a Grand Prix, a cricket tournament and a rugby tournament, so let us look at what might happen elsewhere. Equally, the Champions League, as was referred to in a previous debate, is changing and expanding. This Bill arose from a government reaction—an overreaction, probably—to the threat of a European super league whereby a set of clubs would be in a league of their own, never challenged. Quite rightly, the nation’s fans—not just this nation but a whole series of other nations—rose up and said that that is utterly unacceptable. Despite that, some clubs still believe that that is the right way to go. The Champions League has extended and we have the UEFA Conference League, et cetera. They are involving more and more British football clubs, and I welcome the success.
In referring to the football results of the past few days, I apologise profusely to my noble friend Lady Brady. But the success of the Premiership was identified in the fact that, albeit only briefly, Brighton & Hove Albion were second in the Premier League. That does not imply an unchanging, rigid position; it implies that the Premiership and the league system can develop. I was listening to the commentary on Liverpool v Manchester City—I apologise to any Manchester City fans for referring to yesterday’s game—and it was striking that, before the game, Radio 5 Live observed that there were more foreign correspondents covering that match than were covering the Liverpool v Real Madrid game only four days earlier. That indicates the very success and potential our system has—as long as it is reasonably developed and allowed to progress.
I have doubts, to be honest, about my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s amendment, because I do not think it goes far enough. I welcome that of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lady Evans, because it gives the Bill a better perspective and tries to provide clarity beyond the merely abstract word “sustainability”, and to develop some other aspects to which the football regulator should refer.
When I spoke last week, I was highly critical of the impact assessment, and I continue to be so. I know that it is largely based on the impact assessment prepared for the previous Bill, so I do not criticise the Minister; I criticise my colleagues in the previous Government just as much. However, I said that the impact assessment was intended to justify the current Bill, and that is made clear in paragraph 17:
“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.
In other words, it is providing support specifically for this Bill. It does not look at a range of other issues, which my noble friend Lord Goodman identified when he quoted from Tracey Crouch’s original report, relating to the overall success of the football industry in this country.
I believe that we need to provide greater clarity and greater indications of what we are trying to protect, develop and allow to go forward. Although last week I criticised the total lack of reference to “success” in the impact assessment, and I stick by that, I was very pleased, in part, to receive the letter from the Minister, page two of which has a section entitled “Proportionality and promoting success”. That is the attitude I want to see reflected in the Bill, in whatever phraseology we choose.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it might be an appropriate time for me to make a few comments on the Bill. Amendment 12 suggests that the regulator will be able to have a very positive input into the marketplace. I do not know how it will achieve the aim of attracting significant domestic and foreign investment. Let us face it, our Premiership and our football structure have no divine right to be the most popular show in town, end of story. We all agree on that, but this Bill is about the fans and what they want from their domestic game. They want it to be there, and they do not want it disappearing off to Europe, or the top names disappearing off to Europe and the structure going.
If the Minister can point us to where we will have limits, and to the encouragement of involvement, we will all be able to move on a bit, but the “sustainability” factor is actually making sure that our domestic structure is there. I do not know how much else we can do without massive intervention by the state. Are we going to say, “You are not going to pay any tax on your revenue”, which means the state has no involvement anyway?
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
The noble Lord asked, perfectly sensibly, in relation to my Amendment 12, whether I am expecting the regulator to positively intervene to promote growth. No—my concern is that the mindset of the regulator has to be not to damage the sector, and not to impose regulation and intervention in such a heavy-handed way that it actually reduces competitiveness and the attractiveness of the sector to investment. It is really a warning shot to the regulator, to make sure it does not harm what is already there. There will be some harm, because additional costs will be imposed on English football simply as a result of creating the regulator, but that has to be as limited as possible.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it depends on whether by harm you mean spending any money on regulation. Yes, making sure that there is any structure of regulation is a harm, but it is a necessary harm, because the Bill is not just about the top guys in the Premier League. It is about the entire structure, five leagues down, and should possibly go even further. It is about making sure that there is something below that, so that if things go wrong in your competitive league—and they will; the big boys will eventually lose, or at least they should—you have the capacity. That is something that we have all embraced, and I hope the regulator allows that to happen.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 13. I echo the points made by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Jackson: if the Chief Whip had stayed and heard the debates last week and this week, he would have found real experts and real, passionate supporters—dare I say fans—scrutinising the Bill and making sure there is real health and success there. I believe we would all be doing this whatever colour of Government had introduced it.
Last week, if noble Lords recall, we were left scratching our heads somewhat about how there was some sort of aversion to the use of the words “growth” and “success” in all this. That is what we are trying to address in Amendments 12 and 13, both with a similar purpose. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is vital because the pyramid structure and the health of all clubs depend on the health at the top of the Premier League, because the redistribution of that money funds so many of the other clubs and is allowing the Championship to be the sixth-richest league in the world as a result.
I really do not understand the Government’s reluctance to engage in these types of measures. There are precedents in other regulators. Everyone knows about the Bank of England’s inflation target, but also within its targets is a target to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Other regulators such as Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat have a growth duty to look at innovation, infrastructure and investment, competition, skills, efficiency and productivity, trade and environmental sustainability. It is very clear that other regulators are being asked to consider these other measures of overall success in their objectives.
Why does it matter? Like other noble Lords, I think the meeting we had with the shadow regulator last week was very helpful. It is undoubtedly true that the intentions of all the people there are very good. Like all of us, they are trying to make sure that the game we love is protected, but the shadow regulator’s thinking on sustainability is very much in the mould of a bank regulator’s. The main method it sees achieving sustainability is to insist—as the FCA does with banks—that a certain amount of money is put on deposit to give a buffer, a certain comfort, to clubs. Numbers have been bandied around—it may be £20 million or so per club in the Premier League. Those are large numbers; £400 million will go out of the game because it will be held in aspect. That amount of money has a real impact. If the regulator has only a one-dimensional objective on sustainability, it will always be weighted towards putting more and more money aside as a buffer. However, if it has other objectives in its definition of sustainability, it will take other factors into account.
I think noble Lords know that all the successful companies we see today, such as the magnificent seven that people talk about—the Googles, Microsofts, Facebooks and Teslas of the world—had an early start-up stage when there was heavy investment and their costs far exceeded their income. We absolutely see that in football clubs. The story of Brighton was mentioned earlier, and I happen to know a thing or two about it. I think we would all agree that it is a fantastic success story. For years and years, that success was reliant on Tony Bloom, the owner of Brighton, putting his hand in his pocket to invest more in players than the club’s income. He believed that, just like in any start-up company, you have to make that investment. That will build success, and from that you will manage to get promoted and get to a more and more sustainable position. He was able to achieve that.
Not every club can achieve that because, as we all know, not every club can get promoted. But the danger is that if the regulator’s only dimension is sustainability, it would look at business plans such as Brighton’s and say, “Hang on, they’re going to run a deficit if they stay in that league. That doesn’t sound very secure. How are we going to guard against that? We’ll make them put a certain amount of money into escrow as a buffer”. That will undoubtably dampen innovation, which is exactly the opposite of what we want. We all know that the beauty and the strength of English football are in the fact that clubs can get promoted and go on to do wonderful things, and we all know of plenty of examples.
Unless a regulator has more than one dimension—more than one club in its locker—it will only ever look at the sustainability angle and put more and more money aside. That is where I am coming from with Amendment 13, which is similar in intent to Amendment 12. It is from my knowledge of selling TV rights and of what people are really looking for. It is all about TV viewership, sporting competitiveness, the income that is generated and match attendance. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, those things are all clear and measurable; they are all things that a regulator should want for the health of the game.
I hope that when the Minister answers, she will let us know why we would not want to follow the lead of the regulators of the Bank of England, Ofwat, Ofgem or all the others, and give this regulator more than one dimension. I know the Minister really wants to see the health of the game and that everyone has good intentions. That is why this debate is so good—we all want what is best for the game. Widening the basket of measures that the regulator seeks to achieve can be only good for the health of the game.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Maude of Horsham for speaking to their amendments and for setting out the case for them. Before the Minister responds to them and to my Amendment 7, which I moved at the outset, I should say that I am not precious about my amendment vis-à-vis those of my noble friends in this group, Amendments 12 and 13.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, said that he did not like my wording and found it rambling and insubstantial. I take no offence; I simply took the wording that the Government used in the Explanatory Notes and sought to put that in the Bill. If he finds that rambling, it may be that the Explanatory Notes are as well.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
The point I was making was that the wording was appropriate for the Explanatory Notes but not for the Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Hayward said that he did not much like it either, but it is helpful that my amendment has been grouped with the other amendments, which are seeking to give a bit more precision than the two short lines that are in the Bill. As I said in moving my amendment, my contention is that they do not go far enough to define what “sustainability” means in practice, which will be important for the regulator looking at it.
I am grateful to my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Markham, whose Amendment 13 proposes a few tangible benchmarks through which sustainability can be measured. It suggests inserting criteria, including increasing TV viewership, increasing match attendance, improving international sporting competitiveness and increasing the overall income generated. They are all very tangible and specific. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will prefer them and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about them when she responds.
Criteria such as those would provide a far more accurate and reliable understanding of the sustainability of English football. As my noble friend Lord Markham said, we all want to make sure that we are helping to deliver that with this Bill and to give the regulator the clarity that it needs to uphold it. The Premier League’s television exports alone were worth £1.4 billion in 2019-20. If the Government are serious about growth and supporting the success of Great British success stories, the regulator must ensure that that growth trajectory goes only upwards. By basing the standards of sustainability on objective metrics, such as those that my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Maude have tried to set out, football would surely benefit, and the regulator would have the clearer frames of reference that I think we are looking for.
As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, there is competition from a growing number of countries that are snapping at our heels. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded us, there is no divine right for football to continue to exist in the way that it does in this country. My noble friend Lord Hayward pointed out some of the sporting fixtures that have happened this weekend. I enjoyed the Qatar Grand Prix, although I thought that the 10-second penalty for Lando Norris was rather disproportionate, especially since no safety car and no virtual safety car were deployed. I mention that not to take us on to another sport but to point out the difficulties that happen when a regulator—in this case, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile—makes curious or contentious decisions.
Through the amendments in this group, we are seeking to give a clarity of purpose to the regulator, so that it can focus its important work on delivering the sustainability of English football in a way that matches what the Government have set out in their Explanatory Notes. For all the differences that have been expressed, I think that we are all united on that. But it is important that we give this extra precision and clarity, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Markham, for tabling their amendments and for the thorough discussion we have had. I look forward to the ongoing discussion on many of the points raised as we debate the Bill.
We do not think that the Bill, which is largely the same as the previous Government’s version, is flawed, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, suggested; nor do we think it leaves a lot to be desired, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, suggested. We also do not think that it is an overreaction of the nature that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, suggested. Indeed, we think it is what fans are looking for and what will bring sustainability to the game. I will get on to the definition of “sustainability” shortly.
Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, adds further detail to the definition of the sustainability of English football. I am pleased that he noted the definition on page 2, which does indeed define sustainability in the Bill. All the aims of the amendments are laudable. However, I assure the noble Lords concerned that the detail that has been added, in particular by Amendment 7, is largely implicit in the current definition of the sustainability of English football. So, while the noble Lord might suggest that the definition is, in his words, short and unsubstantial, I would argue that it is sufficient. The wording is that which was adopted in the noble Lord’s Government’s iteration of the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I hear what the Minister says and I am grateful. However, she will have read the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report dated 22 November. We know that sustainability is not explicitly defined. We know that fans are not explicitly defined. As was said on our first day in Committee,
“the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill … The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of ‘specified competition’. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; cols. 720-21.]
Does she not agree that this is why it is important to tighten up that situation—that lacuna—in the Bill, so that the regulator has a firm sense of direction in how it proceeds?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a matter that I am sure we will discuss at greater length when we come to a longer discussion on secondary legislation, but I am happy to talk to the noble Lord outside this Chamber at further length.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. There were two things that I scribbled down as she said them. The first was that the definition—the extra detail of sustainability—is implicit in the Bill. That really gets to the nub of the debate we have just had. We think leaving it implicit for the regulator causes some problems. If the wording—albeit not to the preference of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—is something that the Government are happy to set out in the Explanatory Notes, why can we not make it a bit more explicit in the Bill to give the regulator more clarity? That is what the amendments in this group have sought to do, and the Bill would benefit from being made more explicit rather than left in the implicit way that the Minister set out.
The Minister also said that the regulator is being set up to deal with football’s sustainability problem, and that football has no growth problem, at least at present. Our concern is that seeking to address the former problem in the way the regulator goes about its work, particularly if it is left to do it implicitly, risks football’s continuing success in the growth category and in other ways. That is why we have given this such detailed scrutiny. However, I am grateful to her for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 7.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to my Amendment 9. Amendment 26 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also touches on many of the issues that concern me and motivated me in bringing my amendments; I look forward to hearing him set out the case for it later in the debate.
My amendments in this group probe the Government’s definition of a football fan. In any other context, the exact definition would perhaps be academic, but fans have had an important role in the process that has led to this Bill. As the Minister and many others have said, the Bill seeks to put fans’ interests at the heart of this legislation. It was, after all, the fan-led review chaired—refereed, if you like—by my former honourable friend Dame Tracey Crouch which led to the Bill in its former iteration under the previous Government and which continues to inform the work that the new Government have taken forward in the Bill that they have brought before your Lordships. It was the fans’ voices in that process that were so important, and which began the path to where we now find ourselves.
We on these Benches agree with the Government that fans must be consulted and that they will have an important and ongoing role to play not just in the future of English football but in the operation of this new regulatory regime, but we cannot empower fans, or listen to their views, if we cannot say who they are. Through Amendment 8, I put it to the Government that both clubs and the new independent football regulator should seek to serve the interests of both “current and prospective” football fans. This expands the point that we have made about growth and making sure that the Bill is not simply seeking to preserve football in aspic.
In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, published in November 1790, Edmund Burke wrote:
“Society is indeed a contract … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.
That may be a high-falutin’ way of putting it, but it is the principle that underlies my Amendment 8. Football must not be governed as a game merely for the fans of today, nor should it simply seek to preserve the game in a form that fans of the past have enjoyed; it must also continue to be a game for the future. That is surely what the Government mean by the sustainability of football which, as the noble Baroness said in the debate on the previous group, is the key concern of this Bill.
We on these Benches feel that prospective fans—whether they be literally unborn, as Burke would point out, or those who are not yet alive to the joys of the game—should always have their interests served by clubs and the new regulator as well. Only if we are seeking to serve the interests of prospective fans as well as existing ones will we truly secure a sustainable future for English football.
My Amendment 9 similarly seeks to expand the definition of the communities whose interests are served by the Bill. The purpose clause in the Bill seeks to serve only “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated. I was keen that the Committee should probe the inclusion of that word, “local”. We had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester with us for earlier deliberations in this Committee. I am taken to understand that not everybody who is a fan of Manchester United or Manchester City lives in the city of Manchester. If a large group of people from London or another part of the country were to follow Manchester United or Manchester City during a period of success for one of those clubs, would it be right for those clubs or the new regulator merely to serve the interests of local communities in Manchester, or should they consider the interests of fans who follow those teams and who have a stake in them no matter where in the country they are based?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
One reason why I have been interested in this Bill is the European Super League proposals that previously happened—the possibility of clubs’ owners deciding that they are going to play two or three games in the United States or two or three games in the Middle East. By defining “local”, are we not ensuring that there is some protection against the aspiration that some owners may have to meet the needs of fans who might be numerous in the Middle East or the United States, but we want regulated clubs to be looked after here in Britain?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That is the question I am trying to probe with this amendment. Are the interests of fans of, say, Manchester United or Manchester City really served only if, as the Bill currently defines it, English football is contributing to the economic or social well-being of the “local communities” with which regulated clubs are associated? Surely Manchester United is associated also with Weymouth, for instance, or other parts of the country where people might choose to be a fan of that club, even if they have never lived in Manchester.
As I set out at Second Reading, I am not the world’s biggest football afficionado, but I know that people do not have to be born in a specific town or city to feel an affinity to, pride in or excitement from certain regulated clubs. I am interested in whether the sustainability of those clubs should also serve people in Weymouth and people across the country. The noble Lord makes an important point about the growing tension with growing the international following of football, but, as we have heard in previous debates, that, too, is a good thing. It is an important part of the soft power of the United Kingdom. It brings inward investment and greater glory to the UK. That is a separate point from the amendments, which look at the work of the sustainability—
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I interrupt to comment on the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Knight. It is quite extraordinary. Are we little Englanders who think that our only role is in this country? There is a vast amount of soft power created by what is probably the UK’s most successful industry, so it is really odd that the noble Lord claimed that there are major problems with it. If there are major problems with our most successful industry, we are in trouble.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I do not think anyone is talking about banning; it is about preserving our Premier League and some of our domestic competitions, and it is for fans of clubs in those leagues who want to follow their team, home and away, and their ability to do so throughout the fixture list of that league. Clubs such as Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal—and West Ham, I am sure—go on tour overseas pre-season to meet the needs of fans who are overseas, and maybe mid-season for all I know. Our teams are playing too many games. It is not sustainable for them to play the number that they are at the moment, but there are opportunities pre-season for fans from around the world to visit.
I love them coming to this country. When I am at the Emirates Stadium and I see all the banners from fans from all over the world who have come to see Arsenal it is a great joy, but we need to be constrained in the regulatory purposes of this to preserve our Premier League and domestic league competitions.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
Noble Lords need to understand exactly what the previous speaker was talking about. It is about preserving our leagues. The fan base of a club is not 200,000 people in South Korea or 20,000 people in New York. The fan bases of these clubs are in this country. The unintended consequence of what is being proposed could occur very quickly, easily and suddenly.
I am quite appalled by the number of noble Lords in this House who have two or three football clubs. You should have one football club; it is the club you support. I do not have a second or third club. I have one club; I am indeed suffering for that pleasure at the moment, but I have one club, through thick and thin.
What is to stop someone setting up a supporters’ group for my club somewhere else, without honourable intentions but with the intention of doing my club some difficulty or harm? That is what muddies the waters and it is where you get all this involvement. The supporters are local supporters. The other supporters can be supporters but, if local groups are going to be set up, they should be there for 12 months or two years. We need to know their history and regulatory rights. They are not being set up by football clubs, because that is another way that this could be done—to set up your own shadow group that plays lip service to this.
Noble Lords know that football supporters have robust views, and chairmen who really understand that tend to meet them regularly. Lots of Premier League clubs do that; they go and meet their supporters—working-class people in areas and towns, who will give them their honest views, which the clubs usually do not like. United is now increasing the prices for all tickets, which is not going down well with all the United fans, but there is still a 10 or 15-year waiting list for a season ticket. That is why the club can do that, but it is not really supporting the fans.
Let us just bring it back from this existential conversation about Burke and the father of the son. Does that go into politics—“I was a Conservative so my son’s going to be a Conservative”? That is changing—we all know it is—and it is a reasonable evolution. If you are the son of a miner, you might end up a Conservative Minister. That is great, that is the opportunity that this country offers, and it should be the same with football supporters.
But football supporters support their own club and are very wary about suddenly involving any number of supporters, because the numbers then become detrimental to doing what we are supposed to be doing here, which is protecting the pyramid. It seems that these debates are all leading in one direction: “Leave the Premier League alone, let it run football, and the rest of you can have the crumbs off the table”. That is the feeling I am getting from these conversations, and that is wrong.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I have a slight fear that I may be intervening in the intervention on an intervention on the answer to an intervention, but still. Among my interests is that I am a director of Chelsea Football Club and director of its foundation. I also had the honour to be a member of the fan-led review committee.
I urge that the Bill and the debate should define “fans” as widely as possible. I am afraid that I think the noble Lord is completely wrong, certainly as far as my club is concerned. We have hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of fans all around the world. We care deeply for them and I am very much engaged in our fan mechanism, in involving them. I am committed to the principle of fan engagement that the Crouch committee laid out. We want to talk to our fans all over the globe and we have an interest in prospective fans, not only current fans.
Of course, the fans who attend Stamford Bridge, which is where Chelsea play at home—I feel that I have to explain that—are very dear to us and play a core part in the definition of who a “fan” is, but they are certainly not the only fans. It would be a mistake for the regulator to start its work thinking that that is how the Bill considers it.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
Regulators do not define who fans are. Regulators define fans for the purpose of consultation in pursuit of their duties. I am a Liverpool fan. Wherever I go in the world—whatever I am doing—I always find the local bar, and there are lots of Liverpool people there to support the team when a game is on, and I make lots of new friends. Liverpool as a club should of course take those fans seriously in its commercial thinking, its tours and other long-term strategy, but the idea that the regulator should consult with the San Diego Liverpool chapter when it is considering issues to do with implementing the Bill is ridiculous. I do not think San Diego-based fans will want that either. The club should take those interests into consideration. We are talking about the connection between a regulator and the pursuit of its duties, and the issue of protecting communities.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Is the noble Lord saying that he thinks the club should not ask those people as well as other fans? If he thinks that, why should that not be part of the definition of the “fan” under the Bill?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I did not say anything about what the club should do. We should not tell clubs what to do about their conception of their own fans. I am talking about the relevant categorisation of what “fans” means for the purpose of the regulator pursuing its duties.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, it would be useful to determine who has the Floor.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it might be convenient if we get to the stage of the amendment being moved, and then we can have such a general debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to the Deputy Chairman of Committees and to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for trying to bring us back to the point.
This underlines the importance of the debate we need to have in this group. I was tempted to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, but seeing as it was an intervention on me, I do not think that I could have done.
We do not need to focus so much on consulting fans of Liverpool in San Diego. I am interested in the opening clause of the Bill and whether the interests of fans of Liverpool who are based in Weymouth, Whitley Bay or Walthamstow should be taken into account at the moment when we are defining “sustainability”. The Bill currently says:
“For the purposes of this section”—
referring to Clause 1(3)—
“English football is sustainable if it … continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
Liverpool do great work not just on Merseyside but for fans across the country and we need to have a useful debate about the inclusion and the limiting factor of the word “local” there because there is a domestic point to be made. But, as the intervention from my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea pointed out, I think we should also avoid looking like little Englanders and being too restricted simply to the domestic benefits here. There is a large group of fans in Thailand, Japan or South Korea, where I was over the summer and where people came up to me and asked which team I supported and wanted to talk about football. I am sure noble Lords across the House have had the same experience when travelling overseas—whether we have places such as Anfield in our titles or otherwise, it is one of the first questions we are asked.
It is a source of pride for this country that a sport we invented and export is something that 1.5 billion people across the globe enjoy watching and can take some of the social and economic benefits of. Through my Amendment 8, I am simply testing whether “local” really ought to be the limiting factor here. I think there are two stages that would be helpful to consider: across England—and, indeed, perhaps the United Kingdom—and across the globe more broadly. I think it would be helpful at this point if I let the debate continue to move by now moving Amendment 8.
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry, but I hope it is appropriate for yet another Liverpool fan to intervene in this debate. I think we have to segment the fan base and that is essentially what is happening, so I wonder how much we are really disagreeing with one another. As I said at Second Reading, my grandad was brought up 200 yards from Anfield; my father had to walk to the match; and when I was young, I had to take a train and a bus. We all know about those intense fans that live locally. They are chiefly the fans who go by train to away games and love the game and it is a critical part of their whole life. Any organisation which segments its fan base is going to pay a great deal of attention to that cohort.
But we live in different times from my grandfather and my father. Television changed all of that and created a fan base for a high proportion of clubs, not just those in the Premier League, right across the country. In more recent times, in the satellite age, the fan base is truly global. Any organisation benefits from a dialogue with its customers, and the fan base broadly defined is the customer and it is that fan base that provides the investment into the game. It provides the investment at local, national and global level, chiefly through the agency of television rights. Any sensible organisation—whether it is the regulator, the leagues or the clubs—should engage with the full complexity of that fan base. Like any good business, you talk to your fans, you listen, you learn, you adapt and you grow and that is surely what, in one way or another, I hope most of us could agree with.
When the league made the bad mistake that we all know about of saying there would be a closed shop in Europe, the fan base, broadly speaking, rose up in 24 hours and it was knocked out of the equation. I happen to think it would be a mistake for the Premier League to play “home games” in another country, because it antagonises the fans who have the most intense feeling. But we do have to talk to and be informed about the totality of the fan base, whether local, national or global.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I totally agree with what has just been said about segmenting the fan base. I do not support a team that has the wide support that Liverpool has, but I was once at a football match in Buenos Aires where I was asked by local people which team I supported. When I mentioned Bolton Wanderers, just about everybody around me said instantly “Nat Lofthouse”, so these things travel. I accept that, but when we are talking about this Bill and about consulting fans on ticket pricing, the club’s heritage or moving grounds, then it is the locality that is in question, and we should not lose sight of that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I shall first pick up the comment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Cheslea. Whether it was an intervention on an intervention, I intervened from a sedentary position, and he heard my comments in relation to friendlies. I was not denying what he was saying; I was expressing support to the extent that pre-season friendlies take place to a substantial amount already and they achieve, to use the word currently in the Bill, an element of sustainability because they provide income from matches all around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, commented earlier on. If ever there was an indication of the strength of support for a football club in another part of the world, all anybody has to do is type in “Liverpool” and “Melbourne cricket ground” to watch a full 100,000-plus Liverpool supporters singing their anthem at the start of a match. That is the extent of the support that our clubs have around the world, and it provides substantial income to the club. There are not many as large as Liverpool, but there is support right around the world.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, the complexity of this debate—it is structurally complex as well as dealing with complex issues—illustrates how important it is that we explore these issues, because in every debate that we have another layer of the multifaceted success that is current English football becomes exposed and illuminated.
My noble friends’ amendments suggest that the regulator should be required to consider future fans as well as current fans and to take into account all fans not just fans in the locality. The truth is that, 20 years ago, there would not have been support across the world, particularly for the major clubs. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, just said, this is not limited to the top level of clubs. This is a moving scene. Globalisation, for all its critics, has not come to an end; this is more of a global village than it was. Top-level football in England is much more international than it was in terms of the background of footballers who play here, and that is unlikely to become less so. As more and more of the world’s population have access to a variety of television channels, there will be more. We can only expect the degree of global interest and support for English football clubs to grow. This is a moving scene, and we should be clear that if we are going to have this regulator, the regulator should think in those terms and to be aware of it.
Of course, there will continue to be an incredibly important local fan base for every club. I was a Tottenham supporter when I lived in Oxfordshire, when I lived in Warwickshire, when I lived in London and now when I live in Sussex. My son, who is also a Tottenham supporter, feels it so strongly that he bought a house five minutes away from the marvellous Tottenham stadium, so he has now become a local supporter having been a distant supporter. This will continue to be the way in which support for football clubs develops, and it is important. My noble friend does us all a service by raising the point and developing the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with here and that we might, if we do not get this right, be putting in jeopardy.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak primarily to Amendment 17A in my name. Before I do so, I want to reflect on some of the contributions that we have heard, largely on the last group of amendments but spilling over into this one. I am a bit concerned that, while the Bill is about the regulator of English football, several noble Lords have said that it would be appropriate to extend it beyond the confines of England.
I understand the economic arguments for that. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who asked: are we really saying that we do not want English football equivalents of American football teams coming here? I saw American baseball at the London Stadium this year and thoroughly enjoyed it. But I do not care about their leagues. I do not care what effect it has on their leagues or their fans; it is up to them.
I do care about the effect of sending games abroad, as other noble Lords have said, and playing competitive matches: not touring matches, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, but competitive matches in other countries. That would be, to put it mildly, a very slippery slope and it would impact on something that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said in the last debate about comparing other sports. There is a very worrying trend of other sports—such as the grand prix that took place at the weekend—being funded to outrageous extents by foreign, often repressive and undemocratic Governments, to ensure that sports go to their countries. I do not want to see that sort of magnet placed in the way of football clubs in this country.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Can I clarify what the noble Lord has just said? He described the sporting events in the Middle East over the weekend—which were cricket, rugby and motor-racing—as “worrying”. Receiving literally millions of pounds of income for a football club or other sport in this country—is that really worrying?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
It is absolutely worrying. These countries have the right to do what they like with their money, but we have a right to say, “I don’t really wish to engage with that”, because we become tainted if we do that to an unlimited extent. That is a slightly different argument from that of playing competitive matches in other countries. That surely is something that we all agree would be bad for the future of English football. There are plenty of ways of bringing money in from all sources—if clubs want to do that, it is up to them—but playing matches outwith this country is surely not where we want to go.
That impacts on the whole question of fans and my amendment, which is: what is a fan? I do not know whether my amendment is the way we should define it, but I think it is the narrowest definition of a fan that I have heard so far in relation to this Bill. How do you define the Liverpool fan in San Diego? What does she or she have to say about what is happening in the Premier League? They may watch it on television and that is fine. They may express a very definite preference for one club, and they are entitled to do so. But they do not have a vested interest in the club in the way that someone who pays their money to go and see a match does.
I will repeat the point that I made last week. Some people are unable to afford the price of tickets, particularly in the Premier League—although I have to say in all honesty that I bought a theatre ticket last week, which cannot really be equated with the cost of a Premier League football ticket. But the other question is whether some people are physically unable to go. It may be somebody who has been going since they were 10 years old; they reach the age of 70 and find they are no longer able to go. I would sympathise with that.
However, we have been talking in the Bill about the regulator ensuring consultation with fans. You cannot consult somebody if you do not know where he or she lives. There has to be a list somewhere of the people you are going to consult. You cannot just open it up online and say, “Anybody with an interest, let us have your view by email”. That is not consulting—or at least consulting properly. So people who have bought into the club by having a season ticket: that is a reasonable way of saying, “These are the only fans we can genuinely define”. You can put them in a box and say, when it comes to consultation, “That’s the group of people because they have put their names in”.
They do not go to every match, of course. I often laugh when I read the football results and they show the attendance. I do not mean any disrespect to Arsenal, but I will use them as an example. They are going rather well at the moment, but they were not going well five years ago in the latter days of the Arsène Wenger period. You would see a match the Emirates Stadium and it was perfectly clear that there were almost as many empty seats as filled seats, yet the next day the papers would say the attendance was 100 short of capacity. That means the club is saying, “Ah, now, but we’ve sold those seats. Season ticket holders have bought them but they’re not very happy at the moment so they haven’t come”. My argument is, “Okay, that’s fine, but the key to the attendance is the word ‘attend’. If people don’t go, there’s not an attendance”. Still, the point is that these people have made a financial commitment to the club, and that is a basis on which to go forward.
That is why I disagree with the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 17 from the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, which refers to those
“who have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.
That is so vague; we have to have some way of pinning it down. If there is a better way of doing that than through season ticket holders, I am open to that suggestion and I will consider it. But, until then, I believe that is the only basis on which we can do it. I also want to see it in the Bill.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Suppose we base it on season ticket holders. If you take a club such as Bournemouth, whose capacity is 11,000-ish, it will probably have 4,000 season ticket holders—but they would not represent all the views of every Bournemouth supporter in the whole world.
In relation to supporters around the world, if a supporter gets on a plane from Sweden to watch Bournemouth play, are they a supporter or not? Some 5% of inbound flights to the UK involve taking in a Premier League game—I mean, the Premier League could run a successful airline. Putting that point to one side, though, it would be impossible for a regulator to try to rank supporters of the club in order of priority. We all know, respect and love our season ticket holders, but not everyone is lucky enough to get a season ticket—particularly if you are a Bournemouth supporter, because the capacity is only 11,000-odd.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s last point, I do not want the regulator to be doing this. That is why I want it in the Bill. This is not an issue where there can be any subjectivity. There has to be something tight.
Bournemouth may have season ticket holders in Sweden, I do not know, and if they come, they come. If they do not come, though, they are still a season ticket holder, so they are entitled to be consulted. But, if there is no financial commitment, I just do not understand how you can possibly meaningfully take the opinion of someone who just says, “Yeah, I’ve been at a couple of Liverpool games, I always watch them on TV and I’ve bought a scarf”. I am open to suggestions as to how we might pin this down better, but pin it down in the Bill we must.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, when it comes to taking opinion, I would rather not complicate things, but the divides that appear to be there are rather false ones, talking about issues that are not contained in the Bill but are contained on other issues.
I currently chair a supporters’ group that has branches all over the world. It has members—some season ticket holders, some not—who attend football. I am quite satisfied that the Bill says that supporters’ groups of different kinds should be consulted on issues that are of relevance to them.
I have a slight liking for “current and prospective” in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but possibly for different reasons from him, and I am not sure it can be encapsulated in statute, so I do not warm to the wording, even if I do to part of the meaning.
There is a danger at the moment that football, especially the Premier League and the higher echelons of the Championship, is full of people who are more like me, rather than young children. Season ticket waiting lists in the Premier League are prodigiously difficult to get up. There are long queues and many children are in them, which is a dilemma. Unless stadiums get bigger and bigger, which I would encourage, how do we get in the next generation of fans? If you do something as absurd as a team in Manchester has done and make it £66 for a child, in the long term you will probably lose competitive advantage. But the family and the children are losing something which is quintessentially British and English: being able to support their local team and occasionally go.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I hope I might be allowed to say a few words about my amendment in this group, if everybody is okay with that.
I asked for a definition of “fans” because I had a nightmare, and this discussion featured largely in it. A fan is a self-selecting person who has made a commitment. If there is another definition out there, save it, please.
Lord Addington (LD)
They have made a financial commitment or signed a pledge—I do not know, but they have made a commitment. They have said that they are a part of this and there is no compulsion; they have made a decision. That is why I felt we should have this in the Bill.
Apart from anything else, this is British law we are talking about, and the English leagues. I do not know why we are bothering discussing what people in South Korea or San Francisco are doing, because we can only deal with what is in our own legal framework. If they join a group over here and make a financial or long-term commitment, maybe then they are consulted. But it is here in the UK that you have to make a commitment; it is about the local base. These people are committing to something which is located in a place. That is why I tabled this amendment. My noble friend got to the guts of it when he said that it is an emotional commitment.
We need some guidance on what the Government are going to say. You are not going to keep everybody happy, clearly, but let us at least know why we are unhappy, and we will see what we can do about it at another stage if that is appropriate. That is what my amendment is for, and I hope we can reach that point with all rapidity.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest of a kind as a season ticket holder at Wycombe Wanderers, who are still top of League One, as they were when I spoke at Second Reading. Therefore, I would count as a fan under the definition in Amendment 17A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. However, I want to describe a group of people who would not count, as I think it casts some light on our proceedings as to what the regulator might say and the Government’s view.
Last year, a Spanish-language YouTube channel, La Media Inglesa—I hope I am pronouncing it correctly; it is apparently the largest football YouTube channel—wrote to every single EFL club asking why Spaniards should support their club. Wycombe Wanderers were the only club to reply in Spanish. As a consequence, 100 Spanish supporters turned up to see Wycombe play Derby County at Adams Park, then again for a game against Sheffield Wednesday, and then again to Fratton Park for a game against Portsmouth—and so on, and so forth. They greatly enlivened the proceedings by waving their scarves, chanting loudly and showing commitment—to pick up the word just used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—to their team.
The point we are trying to get to the heart of is not exactly who we think is a fan, but what the regulator’s view will be and what the Government believe the regulator’s view might be, given that “fan” is not defined in the Bill. There is obviously common sense in the approach just taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, among others. He suggested that, logically and intuitively, there must be some sort of difference, in respect of interest in the ownership of the ground and the prices of tickets, between fans who live in the broad locality and fans—however committed—who travel to the ground from a great distance away.
That is precisely what we need to hear a view about from the Government Front Bench. What I suspect the Minister will say—knocking the issue back across the Benches—is that these are matters for clubs to decide for themselves. If that is the Government’s view, then the Minister in due course should tell us.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 17. What we have seen today, and I am glad that the Chief Whip has been here to witness it, is a passionate and informed debate. Perhaps it will give him an understanding of why the debate may be lengthier than one might have hoped. Not surprisingly, 15 or 20 noble Lords have spoken and we have probably had 21 or 22 different definitions of what a fan is—so none of us underestimates what a complicated area this is, but what we are all united in is that it is vitally important and, as such, it should be in the Bill. That is what we are asking the Minister to reply on.
I am probably biased, but I happen to think my Amendment 17 tries to take those different aspects into account, saying that fans are
“individuals who … identify with the club, engage with the service the club provides, and have an interest in seeing the club succeed”.
Bringing in the service that the club provides is trying to take into account that wider commitment and interest in it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the most dedicated version of that is the season ticket, but we also know that there are massively long waiting lists for season tickets. Does that mean that people who are on a waiting list or people who cannot afford a season ticket somehow count less? That is why my wider definition talks about people who engage with the services of that club to try to take that into account.
I think we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in his amendment that giving the independent regulator a definition to work to is vital, because this is at the core of what a club is. In any consultation that a club has to undertake, it needs to be clear who it is consulting with.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and in favour of Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has clearly thought very carefully about this and I agree with a great many of his nuances and analyses of what a fan is. I also agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, although not about the localism.
Why are we talking about San Francisco or South Korea fans? It is because, surely, the purpose of this Bill is to sustain and continually improve the commercial and financial success of football, not to introduce some more nebulous—indeed, I would say suspicious—metric that we could conjure up on social grounds or whatever. If we are here explicitly to damage the commercial and financial success of football, let us admit it—but, if we are not, let us then look at the consequences and implications of that.
What is a fan? Can it only be a season ticket holder? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said about fans, “These are working-class people”. As an unregenerate member of the middle classes since childhood, I sort of resented that, but let us go with it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is a champion of the working classes, but how many of the working classes can afford a season ticket? When I was 10 years old, I would jump on a number 11 bus and go down the King’s Road to Stamford Bridge. I only got there once a month maybe, by not having a gobstopper or a Barratt sherbet every day and saving up the five bob it cost me to get into the ground. I could not afford a season ticket. Fine, you could say that I should not be consulted, either, any more than children of 10 should be allowed to go on social media.
When I was an undergraduate of 21, I could not afford a season ticket but I was a fervent Chelsea fan. Later, I became a season ticket holder. Did I suddenly become worthy of consultation because I had managed to get a job that helped me afford a season ticket? Then when I moved abroad for a couple of decades, to study and work, did that disqualify me from being a fan? Then when I came back and got a season ticket, was I suddenly qualified to be a fan again? It is nonsense. If we are thinking about the commercial and financial success of this industry, we should follow the commercial and financial logic: my noble friend Lord Finkelstein was quite eloquent about that just now.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, as I sat through the whole of this fascinating debate, I thought I might as well throw my penny’s worth in on the issue of what a fan is. I am a football fan. I do not have a season ticket. I was on a list for a season ticket for many years until Arsenal moved stadium, when they scrapped the waiting list and you had to start again. The only way I show my fandom, really, is to listen or watch matches whenever I can and get into arguments in pubs with people from other teams. Just saying.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s excellent amendment. I think it is unarguable that in the last hour we have demonstrated why we need that amendment, because no one agrees what “local” means. I think that is a very important point. This whole debate reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, when Humpty says:
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.
We do not really know what “local” means. My noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea talks about the importance of international fans. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that I fundamentally disagree with Amendment 17A because I think it is socially regressive and would lock out many people. It would actually go against my noble friend’s Amendment 8 in terms of getting new generations of fans involved: not everyone can afford a season ticket.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I accept that, and I hope I made that clear earlier—but how do you consult the other people? You do not know who they are.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Lord asks a very reasonable question. I actually pray in aid the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because, for all his frustration with this debate, his Amendment 26 has at least tried to answer the question of what a fan is and what “local” means, and therefore I am quite predisposed toward that amendment. My only problem is that it absolves this House and Ministers from solving the problem, by kicking it into the long grass, so to speak, of the independent football regulator. So I agree with that amendment, but the noble Lord’s amendment is too restrictive.
When I was a child, I used to go to Charlton Athletic, the Valley, which in the good old days had a 66,000 capacity. Because I was a Charlton fan, vicariously, through my father, does that mean I could not be a fan of Millwall, which is in almost the next borough, the London Borough of Southwark? Could I not have been a fan of Crystal Palace, in the London Borough of Croydon? Could I not have been a fan of Leyton Orient, in the London Borough of Waltham Forest? You get into a rabbit hole of really difficult decisions if you do not properly talk about what is “local”.
I will finally finish by reminding your Lordships that, at Second Reading, I mentioned the importance of supply chains, because although fans are important, so is the wider football community. That includes businesses, commerce, supply chains, the people who sell the hot dogs and the prawn sandwiches, the people who provide the footballs, and the people who do the advertising, etcetera. We are dancing on the head of a pin, because—with all due respect to the people in the Box—the Bill is not well drafted. We have a responsibility to point that out. For that reason, I implore the Minister specifically to support my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 9.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will make a point on Amendment 17A of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about the complexity of what we mean by “fan” and indeed “season ticket holder”, because there are so many options to be a season ticket holder. You can be a season ticket holder for Premier League clubs, just for those Premier League games. You also have cup games, like the FA Cup and the Carabao Cup. There are also Champions League tickets. If you cannot get a season ticket, as an individual you can apply for those individual cup games. If you wish to become a forwarding member for £20, you are in the position to receive a ticket from a season ticket holder. It spreads up; the number of season tickets available is very complicated indeed for cup games.
Not only that, but you also have corporate tickets. Corporations can buy a whole suite of tickets for their employees and also for their clients. To establish somebody who would go as a guest of a corporate individual or who had been forwarded a ticket further complicates it. The point I am making is that it is not straightforward. It is very complicated—there is not just one season ticket holder at any club.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a lively debate. Even before I moved the lead amendment in it, a lively debate had been engendered. It is an important one, because fans are sown throughout the Bill. There are various points at which the regulator, the Government and others have to consult fans, so it is important that, as we proceed through Committee and look at the Bill line by line, we are clear about and understand who the fans are that the regulator, the clubs and the Government need to consult, where they reside and where they do not, and how their views will be ascertained.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, for the clarity with which he put this in speaking to his Amendment 17A in this group. There has to be something in the Bill, and it has to be something tight; otherwise we will continue having this sort of nightmarish debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, foresaw, and which has been borne out a bit this afternoon. Each time fans are mentioned, we have to decide—as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, put it—what is relevant to them in this instance, and whether this is something that affects them. The fan-led review that led to the Bill would mean that fans take a view on all of the matters that the Bill sets out in each of its clauses.
I am not along—and your Lordships in this Committee are not alone—in confronting the inherent difficulties involved in trying to attempt to define a fan. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough previously mentioned the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which has pointed out the importance of trying to put this definition in the Bill. It is so central to what the Bill tries to achieve that its omission is really very striking.
The European Club Association, in its Fan of the Future report, has also pointed out that
“The anatomy of a football fan has evolved significantly”.
Its research highlights the role of social media, the decline in linear television viewing and the diversification of football content distribution, to give just a few examples. Those factors have fundamentally altered the way that people access information about football and watch their favourite team play. Indeed, 70% of respondents to the association’s survey said they consumed some form of football content online. All of that points to a trend of an increasingly international fan base for English football—a point that noble Lords have borne out repeatedly in the debate on this group. We, the clubs and the regulator will have to grapple with that trend, which I am sure is only growing, if we are all to meet the fan engagement requirements set out in the Bill.
There was a lively debate on consultation and the limits thereof, geographical and otherwise. I should probably state for the record that I do not necessarily believe that fan consultation should include fans from South Korea and all over the world or, as the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, put it, Liverpool fans in San Diego. There are obviously practical and burdensome difficulties here. I also acknowledge the point made by various noble Lords that fans who are more directly affected by their club, either from living in its vicinity or through its work, have an especially special bond.
I was struck by the comments the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made about the gradation that clubs already make between types of fans. However, as we refer to fans again and again throughout this Bill, it is important that we try and specify what constitutes a fan, and not leave it so vague. This issue requires clarity for our future deliberations in this Committee, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide it when she responds. Before she does, I want to say a few words about Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham. This amendment attempts to provide that clarity and specificity by seeking to define what constitutes a fan. If the Minister does not like Amendment 17’s definition, then it is important she provides an alternative.
I am also interested in the solution the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has proposed with his Amendment 26. In essence, his amendment requires the regulator to tell us what it counts as a fan when it conducts its duties under the Bill. It is important for fans, for clubs and for everyone that this is clarified. The noble Lord’s nightmares were well spent if during those night-time hours he formulated the ideas that led to Amendment 26, which has been helpful.
I also want to touch on Amendment 17A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. This amendment, again in the spirit of helpfulness, tries to define a fan as somebody who holds a season ticket for a regulated club. I do not doubt the noble Lord’s intent here; season ticket holders are some of a club’s most stalwart supporters. However, as the debate on this group has shown, that definition is restrictive, limited and problematic. Thousands of club fans may not be fortunate enough to hold a season ticket: it may be too expensive; they may live at the other end of the country; they may find themselves on a waiting list—as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, noted; and they may find themselves behind corporate interests, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow has set out. All of those things could prevent fans from becoming season ticket holders. It would not be right to say that those people are not fans, or that they are not the sort of fan who needs to be consulted on the future of their club or who would have an interest in it. Therefore, although Amendment 17A’s definition is a helpful attempt, it is not quite the answer.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for his tentative and cautious interest in my amendment on current and prospective fans. I hope that he agrees that it is important that we have a definition of a fan in the Bill to avoid this sort of confusion as we go through the debates on later clauses. I know that he chairs a fan group for Leeds United. Would every Leeds fan feel that they were represented by the group that he chairs? Would they all agree with what he says? I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. Fans come in different shapes and sizes, and they have many views, but we need some clarity as we go through our debates to understand in each instance where and whom the regulator, the Government and the clubs themselves must consult.
Lord Mann (Lab)
I hope that not all fans agree with my supporters’ group, because we have a very distinct approach from other fan groups. My point is that there is a range of groups and that different fan groups have different perspectives, interests and ideals. Therefore, to attempt to define them in the Bill is so complex as to be impossible. That is why it is sensible to take the approach that the Government are taking: one that has some flexibility built in.
I will not go into great detail on the different kinds of fan groups. I believe that West Ham has nine, and you could argue about how many we have because there is the question of whether some are really fan groups or not. That is the complexity—and they have different perspectives.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will not prolong the discussion any further; it is important that we hear from the Minister instead. As we do so, I hope that we hear from her on the tension between the need for flexibility, which I understand, and the need for clarity so that the duties on the clubs, which are successful businesses, and on the regulator, which is a powerful new body, are also specified. We need that so that everybody, when they follow the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, is clear on what they have to do, whether they are speaking to the fan group of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, or another about each of those duties.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie for tabling these amendments and for the thorough discussion on this group. There is an amendment in a group specifically on clubs playing overseas, which I will come back to during a later stage in the Bill’s progress. I have been told by my noble friend the Chief Whip that I should not comment on gobstoppers, as tempting as it is to do so.
I am glad that we all agree on the importance of fans to the game. The Bill also recognises that importance. As noble Lords are aware, it is based on the fan-led review, so it should have fans at its heart. I suspect that we will never get full agreement on how we should define a fan or group of fans—we have seen that in the debate on this group. However, I welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that—to paraphrase—there is quite a lot of agreement on this element, so noble Lords are at risk of debating something that, when it comes down to it, many of them will agree on.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, tabled an amendment that would look to add further detail to the definition of the sustainability of English football. I reassure him that both prospective and current fans would be considered in the existing requirement. As he will be aware, this is in line with the Bill introduced by the previous Government in which he served. Football would not serve the interests of fans if the game were unattractive or unwelcoming to new fans. As the Explanatory Notes to this clause clarify, continuing to serve the interests of fans
“means meeting the needs of present fans without compromising the ability of future generations of fans to enjoy and benefit from the club”.
Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, looks to remove the specific reference to “local” communities from the definition of the sustainability of English football. One of the best things about football in this country is that it fosters community. I welcome the passionate defence of local fans made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. This is something that noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House recognised and spoke passionately about at Second Reading, and we wish to protect it.
The local area surrounding clubs can often develop communities and economies dependent on the football club. It is important to recognise that not all communities are grounded in the local area. As noble Lords have mentioned, they can be online, far-reaching and even international. These communities are also important, as was highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Hayward and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, mentioned international flights. I understand that such is the Norwegian enthusiasm for football that weekend flights are scheduled to allow fans to travel to watch UK games. However, as communities become less rooted in the local area or directly related to the club itself, it would be harder for the regulator to control or even predict how its actions may influence their economic or social well-being. We do not want the regulator to be set up to fail because it cannot feasibly meet its statutory purpose. If the regulator were required to consider more detached and far-reaching communities, it might never be able to completely deliver a sustainable English football.
We should also remember that it is often the local communities that are most vulnerable and can suffer most directly from any crisis at a club. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton made clear, the locality matters. We have seen in places such as Bury and Macclesfield the hole that is left in the local community, including the economic impacts, social impacts and job losses. None the less, the regulator must of course consider the impact of its actions on the wider community of fans. That is why the Bill’s purpose, as drafted, includes English football serving the interests of fans, with no requirement that those fans are “local” to their club.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, appeared to conflate how fans and communities are defined. I want to be very clear that, while Clause 1(3)(b) specifies “local communities”, Clause 1(3)(a) does not specify that it applies only to local fans. So, the noble Lord’s points on Manchester United fans in Weymouth would still be considered in this definition of “sustainability” as it pertains to fans.
On Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, I understand that its intention is to set in the Bill a definition of what makes someone a football fan. His amendment draws on the Explanatory Notes. I welcome the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, as a member of the committee on the fan-led review. For a definition of a fan to be in primary legislation, there is a significant risk of unintended consequences that it will end up being either so loosely defined that it lacks precision or too narrow that important and passionate fans are excluded from engagement. I know that noble Lords from across the Committee would not wish to exclude any passionate fan from the engagement that the regulator intends clubs to carry out. This is because the make-up of a fan base will differ from club to club. It is this diversity that makes English football so special.
In our view, there is also likely to be the need for clubs to be able to consult different groups of fans on different issues. For example, on ticket prices, we would reasonably expect that clubs may wish to focus on consulting regular, match-going fans. However, on stadium relocations, we might expect them to consult a broader group of fans from across the community. From my engagement with Members from across your Lordships’ House, I know that there are many different views on the definition of a fan. Indeed, there are probably as many definitions as there are Members in this debate, if not many more. Therefore, although I understand the desire for more clarity, I am extremely reluctant for the Government to provide a specific definition that would be limiting.
The Government do not see themselves as the arbitrator of who counts as a football fan; instead, it is something that fans and clubs themselves will be in the best position to understand and discern. The regulator, once established, will be able to provide guidance for clubs on how to best consult fans, rather than be bound by an inflexible and potentially unhelpful definition. This will ensure that clubs have an appropriate framework in place that allows them to meet and consult fans regularly on key strategic matters and supporter interests, utilising pre-existing fan structures and other engagement mechanisms.
As Amendment 17A in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie demonstrates, there are multiple ways in which others may define a “fan”, all of which would capture vastly different groups. At some clubs and on some issues, the definition as set out in the amendment may be sufficient, but for others there could be large numbers of dedicated fans, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who would not be captured if the club considered only season-ticket holders. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that this would be too narrow. For example, it would mean that those unable to attend matches as a season-ticket holder due to reasons of finance or health, or due just to their lack of luck in a ballot, would be excluded from the consultation. My noble friend Lord Mann noted the waiting list for season tickets. As a Labour Government who think that financial criteria should not exclude people of limited financial means, we feel strongly that the emotional commitment highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should take precedence over any financial ones. This demonstrates the need for nuance and discretion in the definition, which clubs and the regulator are in the best position to arrive at.
On Amendment 26, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that the regulator would have an important role in ensuring that clubs understand and meet the fan engagement requirements placed on them. The Government agree, and they expect that the regulator will need to produce guidance to provide more detail and information on who to engage with, and how, to meet these conditions. However, it is important to understand that, for the most part, individual clubs will be in the best position to understand the demographics of their fans, with significant variation between clubs. There is a risk that the amendment could inadvertently place a limit on fan engagement and limit clubs to meeting only those who are members of an official fan body. Many fans will not be part of a formally constituted body; that does not mean that they should not be represented. For example, if a club is seeking to move ground or make changes to home shirt colours, a wide range of fans should be consulted and not just a formally constituted body. The Government have designed the legislation to allow for a bespoke approach to fan engagement shaped by the regulator’s guidance, an approach that the previous Government also supported.
However, although many clubs will be best placed to discern who they should engage with, if it is felt that a club is misusing this to select only agreeable fans or to exclude another group, the regulator can and should intervene. As is made explicit in paragraph 272 of the Explanatory Notes, the regulator can take action in such instances and will be able to specify how any representative group of fans should be engaged or informed. As I said at the start of my response, I am delighted that there is so much support across your Lordships’ House for fans being at the heart of the Bill and the debate. It is a theme that we will no doubt return to on many occasions, and I look forward to future discussions. However, for the reasons outlined, I am unable to accept the amendments from my noble friend and the noble Lord and ask that they do not press them.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. In relation to my Amendment 8, I have been in her position of having to explain why, while agreeing with the spirit of an amendment, the Government are not minded to put it in a Bill. However, if she says that the Bill is about current and prospective fans, as my amendment seeks, why not say it in the Bill? I hope that between now and Report she might reflect a bit further on that.
Regarding my Amendment 9, the Minister said that I had conflated the issue with fans. After the slightly confusing debate that we had, it is not unreasonable that she thinks I might have done. Perhaps it was unhelpful to have grouped these amendments together and to have had one debate on them. However, I am clear that Clause 1(3)(b) relates to communities and not to fans. The question that I am asking is whether, as we work towards the sustainability of English football, we should limit our ambitions to the economic and social well-being of local communities that stand to benefit rather than our community more broadly? For the sake of clarity, I wanted to de-conflate those. I am not sure that we have quite cracked this matter but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(c) meets environmental sustainability requirements set out in subsection (3A).”
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 11 and 15 relate to sustainability—not the notion of sustainability that we have been addressing to date when considering this Bill but environmental sustainability.
We seek here to get something on the record about how we feel the regulator should approach this issue. Every sector, every industry, should consider environmental sustainability and football should not be an exception. The Government, quite rightly, have commitments to achieve net zero on carbon emissions. It is impossible to divorce environmental issues from issues of financial sustainability and there are numerous ways in which one could substantiate that. It would be negligent to exclude environmental sustainability from the regulator’s remit. It is a moot question whether this needs to be in the Bill, but it should certainly be part of the regulator’s thinking. Existing regulation in the world of football has failed to change sufficiently the culture of professional and semi-professional clubs.
With limited financial and staffing resources, nearly every club outside the Premier League has failed to make any notable progress on environmental considerations. There are some clubs, the first among them being Forest Green Rovers, which, notoriously, have a very good reputation in promoting sustainability. Others include Swansea City and Norwich City—which has recently been in the Premier League. It is the Premier League clubs—16 of them—that have, to their great credit, led the way in the football pyramid. We feel that it is necessary to encourage other clubs to do the same.
Obviously, Premier League clubs have more resources than clubs lower down the pyramid, but they should not continue to be an outlier in promoting more sustainable environmental practices. To noble Lords who might question whether football should have a role in this, I simply say that the Financial Conduct Authority has regulatory principles which include minimising environmental impacts. There is an environmental policy statement and an environmental management statement, which complies with ISO 14001. It covers issues such as energy, emissions, water usage, minimising waste, recycling, paper use, methods of business travel, digital services and ICT. Football clubs and how they manage the resources that they have at their disposal have an impact on our nation’s desire to head towards net zero by 2050, and that is what the amendment speaks to.
I hope that clubs adopt environmental good practices as Arsenal and Brighton & Hove Albion do, such as including free travel in their ticket pricing to encourage more people to get on to public transport. Clubs such as Tottenham, Wolverhampton Wanderers and Chelsea have similar strategies. This should be common practice across the football industry. Whether it is in the Bill or part of the regulator’s remit, the environment is simply too important for us to leave to chance. There is a role for football to play in leading the way, as it does in many other fields of social interaction, such as promoting good race relations, tackling misogyny and dealing with other social issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my 10 amendments in this group on environmental sustainability. I want to support almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just said. If you are talking about sustainability, which is what we have been talking about for two days on this Bill, you cannot avoid environmental sustainability, because it will have an impact on the financial well-being of football, and every other business. At the moment, most clubs do not think very hard about this. Forest Green Rovers are fantastic; Liverpool are doing their bit; but, by and large, there are little tweaks that clubs are doing, which makes them feel good—or perhaps they cannot imagine doing anything more, I am not sure.
We know the climate is changing; we know that the weather is changing; we know there are more floods and more droughts; so it is very short-sighted not to include environmental sustainability when you are worried about the future of clubs and their financial sustainability. Football is at risk from climate change, as are many other sports. Flooded pitches lead to cancelled games, lost revenues and disappointed fans, and droughts demand expensive irrigation. As Carlisle United discovered, a flood can lead to the kind of jump in insurance premiums that could put you out of business. So fans need the confidence that these growing risks are being prepared for and that they are not going to have a detrimental impact on clubs’ finances. The Minister kindly gave me a meeting on this, although we did not quite agree, so does she agree that climate change will have direct impacts on the financial sustainability of football and, if so, how is that recognised in the Bill? At the moment, of course, it is not.
My Amendment 103 requires the football regulator to include an assessment of football’s resilience against climate change in its “state of the game report” because, if the report does not consider environmental sustainability, it can give only an incomplete picture of the state of the game. Amendments 127, 131, 154 and 166 introduce climate and environment management plans as a mandatory licence condition for clubs. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it should be mandatory across all businesses, and these environment management plans would set out the clubs’ environmental impact and what is being done to mitigate it. Above all, they would also require clubs to identify the impacts that climate change is having and will have on the club and make plans to manage those risks.
Football, of course, also contributes to climate change and environmental damage; hundreds of thousands of single-use plastic cups and utensils are used every single matchday; fertilisers, herbicides and millions of litres of water are used to keep the pitch green; and cities and towns are choked up with traffic on match days. The definition of sustainability in the Bill, as it stands, allows all this to continue unabated. It would even allow clubs to damage the environment even more, as long as they keep on serving fans and making a contribution to the community.
It really is an own goal for the planet, but football clubs actually caring about the planet do not have to cost the earth. Forest Green Rovers, who have been described as the greenest football club in the world, are focused on sustainability across their business. Solar panels provide about 20% of the club’s electricity needs; the club organises coaches to away games, not planes; they have cut out single-use plastics in favour of reusable or refillable options; the pitch is organic and harvests rainwater for irrigation. This is a club that is at the top of their table, fit for the future and a role model that other clubs could aspire to. Liverpool, who are, regrettably, also at the top of their table, have their Red Way initiative, which is about environmental sustainability.
My amendments will lay the groundwork for greener pitches and truly sustainable sport, embedding environmentalism throughout the football regulator’s remit. Amendment 55 adds climate and environment to the football regulator’s objectives. At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the football regulator must be focused on the financial sustainability of clubs. The Bill already lists safeguarding the heritage of English football as an objective, so why not safeguard the environment as well? Amendments 60 and 66 require the football regulator to act in accordance with the net-zero targets in the Climate Change Act and secure the long-term environmental sustainability of football.
If the football regulator cannot set sport on an environmentally sustainable footing, football’s long-term viability is at risk. Amendment 144 would have clubs consult their fans about climate and environmental issues facing the club. Sustainable football should not just be a luxury enjoyed only by vegans and eco-entrepreneurs. While Forest Green Rovers are showing what is possible, this Bill is an opportunity to embed best practice throughout the sport. I really hope that the Government can move on this issue.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to oppose this whole group of amendments.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is good to get a laugh before you start. I genuinely worry about the overreach summed up in this particular group that, for example, requires football clubs to operate
“in a way that will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”,
or
“materially reduce their negative impact on the natural world and all species that inhabit it”.
That is just from Amendment 15.
We already know the potentially costly and devastating impacts such green policies can have for organisations and individuals, let alone the barriers on development and growth that they can pose. Imposing such regulatory requirements on football clubs seems ill-advised and could be financially draining. I appreciate that, as we may have heard from the response to my initial remark, the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and many others, will not agree with me politically, but my main reason for speaking is that this group exemplifies what happens once the Government open the floodgates to political interference in football by adding, for example, equality, diversity and inclusion as a mandatory part of what the regulator must inspect in football. If EDI is in the Bill, others will argue “Why not ESG or net zero?” and mission creep will start in a dangerous way. Such politicised interventions threaten to make the game of football secondary to political priorities and jeopardise clubs’ autonomy.
We have already heard from a number of contributors about a kind of league table of worthy green clubs. Do not get me wrong: if football owners, or chairs, or the fans decide they want that to be the priority, that is up to them. But it should be nowhere near the role of a regulator to decide. We have already heard about the case of green multimillionaire Dale Vince, who is the major shareholder and chair of Forest Green Rovers; we have heard him lauded. Certainly, Forest Green Rovers are the world’s first all-vegan football team; they are also the world’s first carbon-neutral football club; but I note that, at the end of the 2023-24 season, they were relegated back into non-league football, coming 24th out of 24. It is not a scientific correlation, I am just noting it.
Also, does having green credentials benefit fans, who we keep being told this Bill is designed for? Note the controversy over Forest Green Rovers’ home strip. The traditional black and white stripes were swapped for a lime green shirt and black shorts, in line with sponsorship from an eco-friendly, EV-supporting, green YouTube channel, despite what the fans wanted. So the Green Army was not necessarily kept happy by the green politics of the chair of the club. I simply raise this because, if a club wants to go green and fans want their club to be more environmentally friendly, that is fine. But the regulator should have absolutely zilch to say on it and certainly no power to impose it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I had no intention of speaking in this debate until I heard that last speech. I will, first of all, remind the Committee of my interest, because the company which I chair helps quite a number of people in football to meet the sustainability needs that we have.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I am not aware of any reputable scientific body that makes the claims the noble Lord has just made.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I absolutely say that the central prediction of all the major bodies is that there will be no major problem faced from climate change by 2050. If, indeed, the noble Lord or any other Peer wishes to controvert me, could they please quote such scientific evidence? By the way, they should also take into account, for example, the recent statement from the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics, that climate change theories are a scam. I am not saying that, and I would not go so far as to say that, but could they address that? If they could please point to a central prediction that contains the sort of apocalyptic predictions just made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I would be very interested. I will say no more at this point.
Lord Deben (Con)
There is no scientific society of any major country that does not say that climate change is the biggest material threat to mankind. All of them say and support the view that by 2050, we need to get to net zero if we are to have any possibility of keeping within a 1.5 degree increase in temperature compared with pre-industrial periods. All of them say that, if we do not do that, the effects upon people will be enormously damaging. You only have to look at what has happened with just a 1 degree increase: the recent floods in Spain, for example, the wildfires and the rest. What my noble friend says is not true and it is very dangerous, because that kind of attitude is what allows people to get off the hook.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I do not want to get into a fight among Tories, but I want to clarify my position. I disagree with both noble Lords, in some ways. My point is that I want football clubs to focus on football and not to have rows like this. This is precisely the thing I am objecting to: the introduction of at least in some ways contentious political or scientific matters. I simply say that this should not have anything to do with the regulation of football. That is all, and that is the reason I oppose it—not because I am taking a particular view on climate change or net zero.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have the last amendment in the group, which seems to be where my amendments are occurring today. I think we should have somebody at each club who addresses this issue. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on this; it is an undeniable thing. You could probably quote one person who has said, “No, it isn’t”, but you cannot list everyone else who says that climate change is real without being here all week. They will then disagree about its extent, but they will not disagree on the fact that it is real.
There should be somebody at each club doing exactly these things to make sure that the business is sustainable, and to address the various problems. If it is just one person, as was suggested, it is simply a question of saying, “Please pay attention: can we raise the issue and see what is going on?” This could be someone who is managing the flood risk; the fact that grounds are being flooded is unarguable. Someone should be saying things such as, “What is the least damaging type of cup?” All of these issues will be important at different levels to different groups, but they are important. If other regulations are coming up to deal with this, you would be an absolute fool not to bring them into your plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is probably right on this, and it is nice to see him on the Bill.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I rise to strongly oppose the idea of adding environmental sustainability to the regulator’s remit, as this group of amendments seeks to do. I do so not because this issue is unimportant: of course, it could not be more significant for us all. My objection is both practical and principled, because barely has the ink dried on this revised Bill, and already we are seeing a litany of attempts to extend the regulator’s scope. This, I am afraid, is what many of us who work in football are so worried about. We are the first major country to introduce a government regulator for football, and immediately there is pressure to have it solve every challenge on the spectrum.
Let me remind noble Lords: this Bill already gives enormous power to the regulator. It can decide who can own a football club; how the club can spend its money; how it should organise itself as a business; how it must engage with its supporters; in what circumstances it can move location; the approach it should take to equality, diversity and inclusion; the overall flow of money; and even the continued existence of key competition tools throughout the ecosystem. However, even that does not seem to be enough. Today it is environmental sustainability; tomorrow it will be something else. We already have amendments tabled to mandate specific kinds of corporate social responsibility; to add the women’s game to the IFR’s scope; to meddle with free-to-air listed events; to require regulator consultation on political statements made by clubs; and even to govern football clubs’ relationships with sports betting.
It is a well-known phenomenon that all regulators significantly expand their scope and size over time but, if we start before it has even begun, imagine what this regulator would look like in a decade. Where will it end? I do not expect it to be anywhere positive for our currently world-leading football pyramid.
The Premier League and its clubs, as well as many EFL clubs, are already taking substantial action on environmental issues, as all responsible businesses should do. We already have comprehensive environmental regulations that apply to all businesses, as well as the aggressive targets of a country reaching net zero. In addition to serious and often innovative action to reduce their own carbon footprints, many clubs also campaign and donate substantial resources to environmental campaigns.
Premier League clubs also do a huge amount to help other clubs in this regard. Let me give one example: the Premier League has put in place a brilliant programme to provide grants of up to 70% of the costs associated with installing modern LED floodlights at stadiums across the National League system and women’s football pyramid. This has already helped dozens of community clubs both to lower their running costs and to minimise the impact they have on the environment, but it is fair to point out that Premier League clubs make these sorts of voluntary contributions while facing already unprecedented financial demands. Again, I will give one example.
The Budget increases to employers’ national insurance contributions will cost Premier League clubs an additional £56 million annually. That is an extraordinary new burden—more than £0.25 billion over the rest of this Parliament. This new bill also comes on top of the £1.6 billion in pyramid support that we already provide, as well as our significant investment in youth development and community programmes, and the constant need to maintain expensive infrastructure and build new facilities. The Government want us to spend even more on grass-roots pitches and, through the Bill, they may force us to give even more to the well-funded Football League.
All of this is before Premier League clubs can focus on their most basic and fundamental requirement—of which the Bill takes so little account—to keep their own teams strong and competitive on the pitch. Let us remember that that is what the fans really care about. It is our ability to do that which underpins the overall health and sustainability of English football.
We must not compel this regulator to interfere in areas far beyond its core purpose, adding yet more cost and complexity to what is already a set of implementation challenges. Every additional requirement we add dilutes its focus and risks its effectiveness, so this group of amendments surely cannot adhere to the basic principles of good regulatory design. Effective regulators need clear, focused remits. They need to do specific things very well, not everything poorly. Let us not undermine this regulator’s clarity of purpose before its work even begins.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend Lady Brady makes some very powerful points. Any business sector would not argue against or disagree with best practice in terms of the sustainable aspects of their business. In football, you need only look at the quality of the hospitality element and the work that goes on there or the maintenance of the grounds and pitches.
Carlisle United has been mentioned several times. The river is in the centre of town and it floods regularly, but that is a matter to do with the location of the club and the river in that city. This comes to my other point about the historic nature of football clubs and their grounds. Many of them were built in the Victorian period in the centre of cities. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talks about sustainability and transport, but it is very difficult for many clubs—Premier League and other league clubs that are located in the centre of towns—to do the things that the noble Baroness is proposing to insert into the Bill.
I will just give a quick example of sustainability, and that is Old Trafford. It is situated between Manchester docks and a railway line, in Trafford Park. The carbon footprint of Trafford Park has significantly reduced over recent decades, and Manchester United and other clubs throughout the league have reduced their carbon footprint, because that is the right thing to do. It is good business practice and therefore we do not need these amendments, because the football clubs themselves know the benefits of offering good-quality hospitality and good performances on pitches.
Some of your Lordships will remember the summer of 1976. It was a sign of global warming, perhaps, but the quality of football pitches in 1976 was terrible. The grass did not grow and the technology of the day did not enable pitches to survive that drought. The technology is there now and it is sustainable. Football clubs have the power, technology and wherewithal to cope with climate change but, if they are located close to a river in the centre of town, there is really only one solution, which is to move that football club.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, in the slightly unexpected but spirited exchange between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have to say that I incline more to the view of my noble friend Lord Deben on the merits of the case about around climate change. I am not remotely sceptical about climate change, the threat that it poses or the need to take urgent action to combat it. I am, however, sceptical about its place in this Bill and for it to be a strong consideration in the role of the to-be-established regulator of English football.
The reality, exactly as my noble friend Lord Evans just outlined, is that some football clubs are already more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than others. All football clubs will have to invest in adaptation measures to combat the effects of climate change, because there will be malign effects whatever is done. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, they are already being experienced.
I also take the view, and have done for a long time, that businesses which value their brand and reputation have a commercial interest in ensuring that they get ahead of the curve on issues of this kind, because their customers—who, for these purposes, are the fans and supporters—care about these matters. People identify very strongly with their football clubs and with the values that they embody and represent. They want to see these institutions being successful, as obviously all football clubs intend, but they are very aware of the need for them to be responsible and to move towards their own zero-carbon position. I do not want this regulator to spend time and money—not their money but the football clubs’ and therefore the fans’ money—doing things that are not necessary, because all football clubs want to be successful, so they will be addressing this already.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords this series of amendments raises an issue that will come back again and again during Committee, which is a clash of priorities. I will introduce it by again reading out a section from Tracey Crouch’s original report, in which she refers to
“the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. It is both true that our game is genuinely world leading and that there is a real risk of widespread failures and a potential collapse of the pyramid as we know it”.
In other words, we are being told, on the one hand, that football is so financially troubled that we need a state regulator to guide it and, on the other hand—in this series of amendments and others to come—that we must load the regulator with additional responsibilities.
As my noble friend Lady Brady said, these amendments relate to climate change, but we will have more on fan safety, the regulation of women’s football, the expansion of the regulator to other leagues and others on environmental sustainability. On and on they will come. There is a fundamental tension between loading the regulator with these responsibilities and the state of football as the Crouch report described it and as the Bill attempts to address.
There may be other ways of meeting these environmental objectives. I will avoid being drawn into the adverse exchanges between my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea. There may be other ways in which clubs that lead on environmental action can help clubs that do not. As matters stand, the regulator, were these amendments to come into force, would be imposing on clubs that have, for better or worse, not thought about these matters at all, requirements that would affect how fans come to the games, how they treat their pitches and how they deal with litter—all matters for which they are completely unprepared.
If the Government are correct in stressing—as they have done throughout in talking to Peers; the Minister has been generous in doing this before and during the Bill—that they do not want the regulator to have a heavy touch, I look forward to the Minister explaining the other ways there might be to encourage clubs to take responsible environmental action besides accepting these amendments to the Bill, which might have effects we do not expect or want on clubs that are in financial difficulties—the very basis, after all, on which the Bill has been brought forward.
Lord Markham (Con)
I join in with the sentiments expressed by many other noble Lords. I made the point at Second Reading that, however well intentioned, noble Lords came up with seven new commitments they wanted the regulator to be involved in. This all starts from the premise that we believe it should be a light-touch regulator and the unintended consequence is that each one, however well intentioned, can add another burden, as so ably explained by my noble friend Lady Brady. I, like others, am fearful of adding something new to the Bill.
I would like to explain a slight difference. In her response to the first group, the Minister talked about mission creep regarding how we were trying to expand the sustainability argument to other objectives of the regulator; for example, to some of the income-generating TV advertising. The key difference here is that we were trying to talk about the action the regulator takes—the measures the regulator might take to force clubs to put down a deposit to cover their sustainability requirements, and whether the regulator should have wider criteria beyond financial sustainability regarding the wider benefits of the game. Those sorts of things are appropriate because they look at what the regulator is responsible for and its objectives. Thing that put new burdens on the clubs come into a different category. They come into the mission-creep category, so to speak, which I, like other noble Lords, are reluctant to add in.
So, although I support the points made by other noble Lords, I would make that distinction. When talking about things the regulator might do that might impact clubs we should make sure that the regulator looks at the wider benefits of the game but we should not look to add extra burdens on clubs, however well intentioned.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to all noble Lords who have contributed to the useful discussion on this group of amendments, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her Amendment 15, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke to on her behalf.
We recognise the importance of environmental sustainability and the target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It was, in fact, as noble Lords know, the previous Government who introduced and passed the law to ensure that the United Kingdom reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by 100% from 1990 levels by 2050. In recent scrutiny of and debate on other legislation before your Lordships’ House, we on these Benches have discharged the duty not just of the Official Opposition but, importantly, of sparking several debates on environmental sustainability and protection.
My noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough tabled an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill to make provisions for nature recovery and nature-based solutions. We also supported and helped to pass an amendment to the Crown Estate Bill to require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental and animal welfare impacts of salmon farms on the Crown Estate.
I am very proud of those demonstrations of our commitment on these Benches to the protection of the environment and I am sorry that the Government did not support the sensible provisions brought by my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Roborough on the water Bill. But I am not persuaded by the amendments in this group because I am not convinced that they are the proper responsibility of the new independent football regulator. I worry that additional requirements—in this case on environmental sustainability—will place a further burden on football clubs.
Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, requires clubs to operate
“in a way that will achieve net zero … by 2050 … materially reducing negative impact on the natural world”.
Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, adds an environmental sustainability objective to the list of objectives for the independent football regulator under the Bill.
These are important and noble causes, but they will be, as this debate has highlighted, very costly duties that some of the clubs, particularly in the lower leagues of the football pyramid, might not be able to discharge. This speaks to the tension that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned in our debate on the previous group about making sure that we are thinking about clubs of all sizes and at both ends of the leagues with which the Bill is interested. There is a great difference between their financial and administrative ability to discharge some of the duties the Bill will place upon them. The clubs in the lower leagues of the pyramid are significantly smaller than those at the top and have far fewer available resources.
Even with the Bill’s efforts to help with the financial flows throughout the football pyramid, we should be mindful of the concern about whether these clubs will be able to cope with these further regulations, particularly, as my noble friend Lady Brady pointed out, in light of the additional burden placed on them by the Government’s new taxes on employment through expanding the scope and rate of national insurance contributions. Given the additional costs to football clubs from measures such as that and the other measures we will look at in the Bill, such as the industry levy, the costs of compliance with the financial regulations and so on, I fear that these amendments mean further regulatory burden on clubs at both ends of the spectrum.
It is important to note, as noble Lords have reminded us, that clubs and leagues have already voluntarily adopted and embraced elements of environmental and sustainability governance rules. In February this year the Premier League clubs met and agreed a Premier League environmental sustainability commitment. That means that each club in that league has agreed to:
“Develop a robust environmental sustainability policy”
by the end of the current season,
“designate a senior employee to lead the club’s environmental sustainability activities”,
and
“develop a greenhouse gas … emissions dataset … by the end of the 2025/26 season”.
My noble friend Lady Brady set out some of the other excellent work that has been done on a voluntary basis, but with enthusiasm, by clubs in the Premier League.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for raising the very serious issue of environmental sustainability and how it relates to the regulator. These are issues of considerable concern, not least with the shocking storms we have seen recently and the change to weather patterns over the past few years. The impact of the climate emergency on all aspects of our lives is very real.
In response to these amendments, I would like to make clear that the Government are absolutely committed to environmental sustainability. One of the Prime Minister’s five national missions is to accelerate the transition towards clean energy and ensure the UK fulfils its legal obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. As a huge part of our national life, all sports, including football, have an important role to play in this transition. The Government expect authorities across this sport and across all sports to be working together to advance environmental sustainability.
A point made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is that we have to be able to justify the view we take now to future generations. This is true. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made an interesting point on placing this requirement within the Bill. However, while I entirely support her views, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the purpose of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, highlighted, this Bill is acting only where industry has shown it is not capable of resolving matters itself and statutory regulation is the most effective way of tackling any market failures.
I would, however, be happy to discuss further with the noble Baroness how we can use good examples of football clubs already acting on the climate change emergency and spread best practice. What I would stress, when noble Lords are discussing something so important both nationally and internationally, is that noble Lords are still debating the very purpose of the Bill. The areas specified in the purpose of the Bill are based only on issues that English football has clearly shown itself to be unable to self-regulate and to risk clubs being lost to their fans and local communities.
By contrast, football has already demonstrated the ability to take action on the environment: for example, the Premier League’s new minimum standard of action on environmental issues across both the clubs and the league. I welcomed the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Bassam described some interesting measures when describing the work of Forest Green Rovers, but this is clearly only a starting point on which future initiatives must build. Football authorities must take more proactive steps to accelerate their own environmental initiatives. However, it is within the gift of leagues, clubs and other authorities across the game to do so without government intervention.
We must also be wary of scope creep and unintended consequences. The addition proposed in Amendments 11 and 15, in the names of my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, would potentially add burden and cost to the regulator, as well as potentially limiting its ability to carry out its main objectives. Therefore, while I acknowledge the importance of this issue, as I have set out, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the purpose of this Bill.
I look forward to further discussions on how we can best promote environmental sustainability within the game. However, for the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I think it has been of great value to have this discussion and debate on the notion of environmental sustainability in the football industry, which is a very responsible industry actually. I take heart from the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, gave of the Premier League’s initiatives and those from the noble Lord Parkinson.
It seems to me that this is an important issue for football. All the other regulators seem to have an environmental purpose as well. I have looked at the Financial Conduct Authority, Ofcom and even the Pensions Regulator, which you might think is a million miles away from being a regulator interested in sustainability. They all have environmental statements and purposes as part of their work.
I think the football business is making progress in this space. I want to see it making more progress, perhaps with a more level playing field. It seems unfair that some clubs leap ahead and leave others behind. Forest Green Rovers, although a small club and in the fifth tier of football, has led the way for some years and I think it only right that we encourage other clubs to do the same, whether that is through the regulator or by applying environmental legislation more generally.
I look forward to the invitation to have some more discussion on this point but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“(c) meets the social responsibility duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment includes the social responsibility duty as part of the definition of English football sustainability.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my name is to amendments in this group which will undoubtedly be accused of a bit of creep from the mission on the Bill. Having said that, what inspired this creep was Clause 1(3)(b), which says that football is sustainable if it
“continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
There are two issues. The most substantive amendment is Amendment 245 and I apologise for the paving amendment, but it is the way I could get the matter discussed.
Nothing has the reach of football in our society. It is seen as a local totem in which we seem universally to be interested—I speak as a follower of an oval-shaped ball, not a round one, so with a bit of envy—so there is the ability to go forward and make changes. We might hear about the good contributions made by certain clubs. They do things within their own environments that are of benefit to their communities. I thought, “Why don’t we use football as a basis for helping the rest of the voluntary sector?” The voluntary sector tends to be dependent on itself: amateur sport, music and drama and the likes of environmental schemes where people put their hands in their pockets to go out to do things that have a social benefit.
Let us face it: we are taking on a Bill here because football, at least tiers of football, are in a mess, but we think they are important so we want to keep them. I do not think it unreasonable that they should help voluntary groups. In Amendment 245 I suggest that these clubs, which are great institutions with local kudos and power and structure, should undertake the very small duty to train people to run those local groups. Okay, it may not be about football, but it is about the local community. I suggest not that the clubs do it for those groups, but that they train them in how to do it themselves and be the treasurer, secretary or chairman. Noble Lords might disagree with that list, but these things contribute to the whole of society. It will also enhance the position of the football club. Unless it is done in a mean-spirited way, it will be something that reaches out.
Also, it is a fact that all groups like to sit in darkened rooms and talk about themselves to themselves. My amendment would force clubs to look out of that room to somebody else and appreciate that other people will help them. When I said that to the Minister in one of our meetings, she said that football manages to sit in a darkened room and does not talk to most other groups, but we will let that one fall. We can get something that helps groups that help society to run. The difficult bit for an amateur as the treasurer is to be constructive with a balance sheet, or as the secretary to figure out how to run a DBS check: “What am I legally supposed to do with it?” People will say that other groups do this, but nothing has the centralised pull of football. My amendment is a probe. Its wording is very general. This expertise might be pulled together. Sports have governing bodies that will run this, but most other organisations do not have that structure. I just cannot resist the image of the local am-dram group finding itself sitting beside the local rugby union team for the same class. It appeals to me somehow, but they all have the same problems, and they all have the same virtue that they are local, running it for themselves, and they benefit the community. I hope that we have at least some support for this idea and this structure.
The other amendment is about encouraging professional football clubs to get people to play football. It is an odd thing, but it struck me earlier: that is not really what the Bill is about. Perhaps the Government do not want it to be about that, but I would have thought that getting people to play football—getting the benefits of exercising as opposed to just watching—might sit reasonably well with the Bill. Certain clubs might have schemes that do good things, but why do we not bring them together and find out which ones work best? Football does some of this, because it has competitions and gives awards for who runs the best community scheme. I know because I have attended them, and I thank the EFL for doing that. I do not think that making sure that clubs take on some role in the community is unreasonable, as a reward for the amount of time we are putting into make sure this structure is sustainable. There are certain limitations here, and I have accepted that those should be put forward if these ideas are accepted, but we may just be pointing to good practice. I hope we will do this.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, makes a good point about football clubs needing to be outgoing and outward looking, able to offer advice to other charities or organisations locally and to encourage football. The vast majority of clubs do that. Perhaps there is insufficient evidence about best practice or not enough sharing of it, but the vast majority of clubs have a good outreach programme, and that is much valued by local communities.
I rise to say a few words about Amendments 151 and 165, which are about the corporate responsibility of clubs in general. The noble Lord touched on some ways in which they can have an impact. We have just talked about the environmental sustainability that is necessary, and the Minister has given reassurances on that point.
I want to mention, in particular, the need for football clubs to increase diversity, include underrepresented groups and eliminate discrimination, which I am afraid exists in many areas of business, from boardrooms to employment records. Local football clubs have a big impact on their community and can lead the way in showing what can and should be done. We need to know what is happening in our clubs, and therefore a reporting mechanism on these areas would be important and of assistance.
We have seen some changes, for example, in the gender diversity of people employed by football clubs. We see many more women taking up roles, but there is a long way to go. It would be good if we could encourage better governance at football club level on all these issues. I agree with what has been said about not having mission creep, and some of these areas are covered by parts of employment law, for example, but we have to look to the long term to improve the good governance of football clubs. Yes, we can encourage best practice, as the Minister said earlier, but there is more to do.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 165 to which my name is attached. I declare my interests; I am chair of Sport Wales, I sit on UK Sport and I am a trustee of the Foundation of Light.
I start by thanking the Minister for answering my question from Second Reading on what would happen between the Privy Council and Senedd regulations with this Bill. I am not a season ticket holder, although I do spend a lot of time watching the Welsh women’s football team—good luck to them tomorrow night—and Thornaby FC women’s team.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I believe in the power of football to change lives. I realise that most of the amendments that I have my name to in this Bill will be considered out of scope, but I do share the noble Lord’s concern over academies. My 2017 duty of care report, commissioned by the then Sports Minister Tracey Crouch, has some answers on that which have not yet been taken up.
This is important in relation to understanding the communities of which football clubs are part. We have talked a lot about the big clubs tonight. Thornaby Football Club, which is very low down in the leagues, decided earlier this year to cancel the women’s and girls’ team. The community came together, people stepped in—partly due to the Women’s Sport Collective—and the team was saved.
This, to me, is the power of football at its best. There is a lovely interview online with a young girl called Lily, aged seven, who was asked what she thought about women’s football being cancelled. She indignantly said, “If girls want to play football, you can’t just not let them”. For me, the impact that these amendments would have all through the game is important; it sets an important tone.
In the original review, Dame Tracey Crouch said that equality standards were a non-negotiable part of the regulator. We have seen this in other sports. The code for sports governance, launched in 2016 by the sports councils, which covers over 4,000 organisations, has made a materially positive impact on the world of sport.
I believe that club governance should include these equality standards, because they link back to accountability and integrity. I can speak only for the Foundation of Light. I am biased, but it runs incredible programmes in communities as lots of foundations do. We are lucky that we have a good link to, and support from, the club. The aim of the foundation is to involve, educate and bring people together through football in Sunderland, south Tyneside and County Durham, and to improve education, health and well-being
This has a significant impact on the community. It is important that we can measure this impact in relation to the community it represents, to help develop and refine these programmes and get to those who they can have the most impact on. This is an important part of what we should be looking for in relation to football, to be able to make a real difference at the grass-roots level.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against this set of amendments, which would add corporate responsibility requirements to the Bill. Before I do so, I want to say how much I respect and understand where the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is coming from. As a shareholder in the Premier League, I commit to him that we will meet with him to think about ways in which we can work together to deliver some of the aims that he spoke so passionately about, because we are all in agreement that they are important.
I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding in this House of the extraordinary social impact that football clubs already have in their communities and what drives this activity. Let me share some perspective on what football clubs already deliver. The Premier League provides over £500 million annually to support lower league clubs, fund youth development and invest in community facilities. We support every single football league club to provide its own community programmes, too. This is not a peripheral activity; it represents the most comprehensive community investment of any business sector in Britain. I cannot think of any other sector that voluntarily shares such a huge proportion—over 16%—of its central revenues in such a way.
The Premier League Charitable Fund’s £110 million three-year budget supports half a million people annually through targeted community programmes. Significantly, 45% of this activity takes place in our country’s most deprived communities. This April, the Premier League announced additional funding of £33 million per season from 2025-26 to further enhance this work.
The scale of impact that this work has is remarkable. Through the Football Foundation, Premier League funding has enabled over 70,000 grants to improve grass-roots facilities, supporting nearly 70,000 community teams last season alone. The Premier League Primary Stars programme reaches 84% of primary schools across England and Wales; that is 19,000 schools and over 18 million student interactions since 2017.
These are not isolated initiatives. More than 100 club-connected charities work daily in their communities. Programmes such as Premier League Kicks create opportunities for young people at risk of anti-social behaviour. Premier League Inspires develops personal skills and positive attitudes in young people aged 11 to 25. This work touches every aspect of community development.
Football has naturally evolved its social contribution without regulatory compulsion or diktats. What other business sector can demonstrate this level of sustained community investment? What other industry has built social responsibility so fundamentally into its operating model? Premier League clubs—indeed, all football clubs—understand their role as community institutions and deliver accordingly.
The Bill’s purpose is to address specific issues around what I think the Government mean by financial sustainability and governance. Adding layers of corporate responsibility requirements would not only duplicate existing good work but risk distracting the regulator from its core purpose. We have seen in other sectors how regulatory mission creep can undermine effectiveness. We must not let that happen here again.
Football clubs are not just businesses that happen to do some good work in their communities. They are the beating heart of those communities, woven into their very fabric across generations. When a child steps on to a Premier League-funded pitch in a deprived area, when a struggling student finds inspiration through Premier League Inspires, and when a disabled young person discovers the joy of playing football through a club foundation, these moments represent something profound about football’s role in our society.
Premier League clubs understand their power and their responsibility deeply. They live it every day through their actions, their investment and their commitment to their communities. I do not believe any regulation could ever mandate or compel this level of social impact; it comes from an authentic and deeply felt understanding of football’s unique place in our national life.
Let us keep the regulator focused on its vital purpose and trust instead in football’s consistent commitment to social good: not because rules demand it but because it is already so fundamental to what makes English football so special.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, that eloquent and passionate explanation of football at the heart of community sums up for me the tension when we are talking about this Bill. Football exists as a positive force in society and in communities. We do not want to kick the life out of it by turning it into a box-ticking exercise that imagines the only way football clubs will help a community is if they have a regulator breathing down their neck, saying, “You must be corporately socially responsible”. Noble Lords must not make me repeat that.
I had concerns in general when I read the details of all these amendments. For example, Amendment 165 calls for environmental sustainability requirements and increasing diversity and inclusion requirements. I will not repeat the points that I made earlier and will make more fully when I speak to my Amendment 155, opposing the imposed duties of EDI and so on. I want to look at one aspect of discrimination that I think is hidden. It is focused on in Amendment 247, which says that regulated clubs
“must facilitate football training for young women and girls”,
and Amendment 90, which says that the independent football regulator
“must include facilitation for both sexes and separate development pathways”.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I shall return to the spirit of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the other amendments in this group. As my noble friend Lady Brady has said, the Premiership funds, in one form or another, enormous amounts of good work, but, as I have discussed with both my noble friend and representatives of the Premiership, it totally fails to identify the work that it does.
Until the Premiership sets about aggregating, in one form or another, all the contributions that different foundations make—whether in relation to football training, the disabled, the young or whatever it may happen to be—it will continue, quite rightly, to face the pressures that the amendments I have referred to attempt to address. Until the message is got across about the sums of money that my noble friend Lady Brady identified, certain attitudes will not change within the football world more broadly. The social work that is undertaken is so substantial, as my noble friend has said, that it will help to change other attitudes and enable progress to be made in all sorts of different ways that the amendments attempt to tackle.
So I do not necessarily support the amendments being accepted into the Bill, but I strongly support the message that is included in them. I ask the Premiership to get its act together in some form or another and convey the good work that my noble friend has just identified so that people understand that it is attempting to change attitudes, and in that way it will actually change attitudes.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in what she and the previous speaker have said and in all the work that she does. It is all there in the Deloitte report on the Premier League. The Premier League has missed a trick; the pages of the report show where the money goes and how it is spent, and it is all very laudable. Premier League football clubs, independent of the Premier League, do great schemes as well. Manchester City’s City in the Community started in 2003 with no funding from the football club, apart from one officer and that was Alex Williams, an England goalkeeper, who has just retired after doing 20 years at City in the Community. That is an example of the social responsibility of football clubs.
The reasoning behind these amendments, even though they may be just probing amendments, is that those things that can be given can be taken away. If football clubs in the Premier League fall on hard times and things have to stop being done, they may stop doing the things they do not have to do, and that effect will invariably come down to the poorest parts of the pyramid.
All we are trying to say with these amendments is: let us acknowledge the social responsibility that the Premier League has and the Premier League football clubs deliver but let us give the regulator the ability to ensure that that carries on. My noble friend is not being prescriptive and saying, “You should all pay that much”, but he wants to ensure that, to avoid unintended consequences, football clubs do not suffer in the event that some Premier League clubs or the Premier League itself cannot deliver those benefits in future years. I have no reason to think that will happen, because the Premier League is getting bigger and going global and more money is coming in, but that is the point of the fan-led review. How many football clubs did the review show were one match away from disaster? That why we are looking for a regulator. Sometimes the unintended consequences are too dire, especially for smaller clubs.
Lord Markham (Con)
Like others, I have a dilemma, in that I am mindful that the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, are well intentioned and, on the whole, I agree with what they are trying to do. However, like others, I feel that there is the danger of mission creep. This is another area—we will be speaking about others later tonight, and over the next few days there are other areas that we will be adding—where each one on its own might not feel like a lot, but if we add layer upon layer, we move far away from the original intention of being a light-touch regulator and towards one that becomes overbearing.
It has been an education, probably for all of us, to hear, as my noble friend Lady Brady was saying, about the good acts that the Premier League is doing with local communities through local football clubs. There is probably more that can be done to make sure that the awareness of those, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was saying, is enhanced and greatened.
Generally, the idea, as my noble friend Lady Brady was saying, of having a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the Premier League to see how that can be more fostered, encouraged, known about and channelled is probably the right way. Where things are working, I much prefer the use of the carrot than the stick.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has indeed been a good and very valuable debate. The issues which amendments in this group address are in a slightly different category to some of the additional duties and areas into which amendments in other groups have sought to take the work of the regulator and the scope of the Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in opening, nothing has the reach of football.
These amendments speak to sustaining the future of the game and making sure that clubs can continue to do the work in their communities which noble Lords have spoken about passionately from Second Reading onwards. Particularly, the noble Lord’s Amendment 247 is about making sure that they are facilitating
“training for young women and girls”
and that the valuable work done in recent years is extended there. Like others, I was struck by the powerful contribution from my noble friend Lady Brady, who said that these are responsibilities which are authentic and deeply felt by clubs. She gave examples, drawing particularly on her experience in the Premier League. I agree with the points that my noble friend Lord Hayward and others have made: perhaps that work ought to be better known and the clubs should blow their trumpets more loudly, not just those in the Premier League but clubs at every level that are doing important work.
It might be helpful to flag to the Committee that the Premier League and the EFL already have rules in place regarding corporate responsibility. Section K of the Premier League’s handbook has a whole host of rules including, to name a few, a safety certificate and medical facilities, ground rules and regulations. Those are but some of the requirements already placed upon clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly highlighted the work done by the EFL through the awards that it presents to clubs that are doing valuable work in this area.
Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to impose additional reporting obligations on the executives of football clubs. While transparency in this important area is an admirable goal, it is important to bear in mind proportionality and, again, to echo the concerns that have been raised about adding to the duties of clubs and their executives in other areas, clubs, especially those lower in the league structures, already face significant financial and administrative pressures. Requiring more and more reports on a growing list of matters could strain their limited resources and have an opposite effect to that by which noble Lords are motivated when they bring their amendments. We have to bear in mind that a one-size-fits-all approach to corporate governance would fail to recognise the diversity which we should be mindful of in the financial ecosystem of football.
Amendment 165 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, aims to compel clubs to adhere to certain corporate codes beyond those which the Bill would currently mandate. As we keep reminding ourselves, football clubs are not merely businesses; they are community institutions with unique identities and relationships with their supporters. While it is a useful idea, we also have to be careful of imposing rigid corporate structures designed for companies in other sectors, which could risk alienating clubs from their communities. We have to find ways to ensure the sort of good governance that the noble Baroness seeks without overburdening clubs with corporate obligations that could conflict with the broader role that they play—and always have played, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Brady and others have reminded us this evening. Like others, I favour encouraging that work to continue voluntarily, but it would be valuable for a spotlight to be shone more brightly on the work being done, not just at the top end of football but all the way through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, thanked the Minister for answering the very good question that she raised at Second Reading about what would happen in the event of conflicts between the Privy Council and Senedd Cymru. I had a quick look again at the Minister’s helpful letter of 27 November and I do not think it was covered in that. My apologies if I have missed the answer that the Minister gave the noble Baroness but, if it was not in that letter, could it be shared with other noble Lords? It was a very technical question but an interesting one, at least to me, so it would be useful if the Minister is able to share that with the rest of us. But with that, I look forward to her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising these important issues around corporate and social responsibility and duties to facilitate training. It has been an interesting debate and I had particular sympathy for the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. I will, however, take their amendments in turn.
First, on Amendments 14 and 245 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Government acknowledge football clubs’ central importance as community assets and their role in communities. However, this amendment would expand the scope of the regulator beyond sustainability and the Government do not believe that social responsibility is an issue where statutory intervention is necessarily justified. We believe that the regulator should be tightly focused on areas of critical need, addressing genuine market failures as exposed by the fan-led review. What is more, mandating how clubs should approach community funding could discourage their pre-existing work, crowding out some of the great initiatives already taking place.
On Amendments 90 and 247 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, opportunities for training at amateur and community level and for women are vital. They support the next generation of English football and are crucial in getting more women into football. I speak as someone who was not allowed to play football as a girl in school, so I strongly believe in those opportunities being available. The Government are committed to supporting these opportunities. This is why we are continuing to fund the work of organisations such as Sport England and the Football Foundation and welcome work already being done by the game itself, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. However, such training opportunities, and the women’s game more broadly, are not within the intended scope of the regulator.
On the regulator’s role in relation to whether it should require clubs to facilitate training for young women and girls, the regulator has a tightly defined scope: to promote financial sustainability and resilience in English football. The regulator will also be focused on the men’s game at the outset; women’s youth training is therefore beyond its core remit. However, the Government acknowledge the importance of football training to the future of football and are committed to funding organisations such as Sport England and the Football Foundation. The football industry also understands its importance, as was noted during the debate, funding numerous initiatives through the Football Foundation and the Premier League Charitable Fund. It is therefore the Government’s belief that the regulator would be an inefficient way to support women’s youth training. Further collaboration with the industry is, in our view, the most effective way to invest in England’s football future.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a point about whether we should require the regulator to facilitate amateur and community training and development. That is an appealing proposal, but the regulator has a tightly defined scope in its objective—to promote financial sustainability and resilience in English football—therefore training and development in this regard is beyond its core remit. However, the Government acknowledge the importance of football training, as I have highlighted, to the future of football. In our view, collaboration with the industry and funding through the spending review is the most effective way to invest in English football’s future. I am happy to discuss both those points with noble Lords outside the Chamber before our next Committee date. As with the noble Lord’s other amendments, the amendment under discussion would expand the scope of the regulator beyond sustainability and into areas in which the Government do not believe that statutory intervention is justified.
On Amendments 151 and 165 in the name of my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor, corporate responsibility is an important part of any business, and it is no different for football clubs. However, this addition to the mandatory licence conditions would impose more prescriptive burdens and regulations on clubs. On the content of the proposed condition, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability and the societal impact around clubs to the purpose of this Bill. As I set out, the regulatory scope will focus on issues that football has clearly shown it is unable to address through self-regulation and which would pose a threat to the continued operation of football clubs.
On equality, diversity and inclusion, it is right that football clubs should be more transparent about what action they are taking on this issue. That is why we have included equality, diversity and inclusion in the corporate governance condition, which will mandate clubs to report on what action they are taking on this issue. We expect the regulator to produce guidance on the specifics of what this will entail, in consultation with the industry. We do not think it is right to put such detail on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted player welfare and the duty of care. The Government will discuss player welfare with the leagues, the FA and the PFA to drive action on this issue. We will continue to urge competition organisers to work together to develop a consistent programme of support which allows academy players to access an offering of independent support and advice when required. This is very important.
Many, if not most, clubs already have a positive impact on their local community, a number of examples of which have been provided. We do not believe that the regulator should be attempting to micromanage clubs in this area. However, relevant safeguards are in place in the Bill to stop a club harming the heritage and community of the club.
While I understand and strongly endorse the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment, for the reasons I have set out I am unable to accept it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, made that the most positive rejection of an amendment I think I have ever received; I thank her for that commitment. Although I would have preferred it, as my noble friend Lord Goddard put it, to be something that “must” happen, the Premier League saying that they will do this is a pretty good second.
It would be good to arrange a discussion and to say that the outreach work beyond football could go to groups who do not normally think that football has anything to do with them. Some groups already do this, and that is the essence of running voluntary groups. It would be a very big step forward and, if the Premier League are prepared to do it, more power to their elbow.
I understand the idea of focus. I did not mention the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, because I knew she would do a better job herself. I do not think we have quite captured in this Bill the social responsibility inherent in football’s role. We should have another look at this issue, because we may just be encouraging others to do the heavy lifting.
There is something about football. It has a nationwide pattern of facilities which can reach all these local communities. There are very few who would not be reached by football. It does not reach everywhere—some places in the countryside may not be affected by a local club’s activity—but it reaches most people, including virtually all the major population centres.
I hope that we can go away and have a little think about how to give a few more nudges to these positive responses. Having said that, and in thanking all those who took part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
UK Leadership on Sudan
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, Sudan is a terrible humanitarian catastrophe that gets far too little media attention, given all the other wars going on in the world at the moment. It has resulted in the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis, with 25 million people in urgent need of assistance. There are ongoing reports of sexual violence, torture and mass civilian casualties.
Against that background, I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, following the excellent work done by my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon in this role. The noble Lord is certainly going to have his work cut out in Sudan.
As Wendy Morton, the MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, said in the other place:
“The situation in Sudan is unconscionable. Red lines are being crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that countries such as the UK—the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—cannot allow to stand. It is also firmly in the region’s interest for the conflict to come to an end and the humanitarian crisis to be addressed. Further destabilisation in the region caused by this conflict must be avoided”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/24; col. 943.]
The previous Government invested heavily in aid to Sudan. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps he is taking to continue that work.
We understand that further aid measures have been announced, but could the noble Lord provide more information on how he envisages that aid reaching Sudan? The Minister will no doubt be fully seized of the massive problem of actually getting aid into Sudan in the first place, never mind the challenges of distribution across that vast nation.
I am sure the Minister would agree that the UK has a key leadership role to play in Sudan. We wish him all the best, and I am sure that he will wish to use that role to its fullest possible extent.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have done on previous occasions: I have made previous visits to Sudan, and I continue to support civilians in making the case that a future Sudan should be a civilian-led, rather than a military-led country. I know the Minister is supportive of that aim, and I thank him for the Statement and for the update to Parliament. He and colleagues have honoured a commitment to do that, and that is welcome.
I also welcome, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the additional humanitarian support package. In particular, I welcome the more than £10 million of additional support for children, especially for education provision. This has been one of the most pernicious elements of the conflict in Sudan: according to UNICEF, up to 17 million children are not being schooled.
It is estimated that UK aid will provide vital education facilities for 200,000 children, many of whom are displaced. Can the Minister say how we can ramp up support among other donors, so that they too focus on this issue and the conflict does not have the terrible consequence of millions of children being permanently uneducated and unschooled? The UK’s leadership on this would be extremely welcome.
I also thank His Majesty’s Government and the Minister himself with regard to working with others, especially African nations, on putting forward a draft Security Council resolution. I noted that it was with Sierra Leone; unfortunately, the A3 Plus members of the African community on the Security Council were unable to reach consensus among themselves, but I thank the UK for taking the initiative. I hope the Minister might say a little as to why the A3 Plus group was not able to have consensus, which caused me great sadness.
However, as the Statement from Minister Dodds said, ultimately the work was met by a Russian veto. I read the entire remarks of the Russian representative in the Security Council, made with utter brazen hypocrisy laced with cynicism, as he sought to say that that was an argument. While the warped views of the Russian Government might suit their own venal foreign policy, the real victims of the veto are the Sudanese civilians in desperate need of protective measures now and the reassurance that there is no impunity for the illegal and horrific crimes being inflicted on them by SAF and the RSF.
The veto is a reality, though, and therefore what is the view of His Majesty’s Government on the measures that we can take alone and with a coalition of the willing for the protection of civilians in Sudan? How will we now take forward support for the ICC in ensuring that there is no impunity for those inflicting both war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the growing evidence of clear ethnic cleansing and the genocide now apparent again within Darfur, as the new head of OCHA Tom Fletcher will be seeing personally? I welcome his position as the head of OCHA. The UK leadership continues in that immensely important role, and I wish him well. I was very glad that he was in Darfur and the BBC was with him. This draws the attention of the United Nations and hopefully also of the British public with Lyse Doucet’s reporting.
Russia has refused any calls to enforce an arms embargo. It rejected the need to have humanitarian aid access. What can His Majesty’s Government do with regard to a potentially wider suite of sanctions and the option of secondary sanctions—I suspect the Minister will say that he keeps this continuously under review—on those who are failing to cease the supply of arms, now including drones, to the belligerents that are being used so venally on civilians? In these areas and others, the UK has acted—for example, on the prescription of the Wagner Group—on a cross-party consensus. There is more that can be done on the gold trade and other areas with regard to the supply of funds to the belligerents.
Finally, it is depressing news that I received this week that, possibly within days, the RSF may also declare that they are the Government of Sudan and effectively we could have a “Libyafication” of the country. Both sides, I am certain, will be seeking to have as much advantage as possible before President-elect Trump takes office in January next year. If there is to be a division of the country, one thing will be guaranteed, and that is that civilians will still be set aside and the humanitarian priorities will become secondary to the continuing military advantage of territory. Therefore, I hope the Minister can agree that only a civilian Government can guarantee one Sudan and the integrity of the country.
I hope that there will be others in the humanitarian community now taking UNICEF and the IRC’s lead in calling for public appeals of humanitarian support. The Minister has heard me, in this Chamber and separately, call for the Disasters Emergency Committee to open up a public appeal, and I hope that if there is a public appeal then the Government will match that funding. Having more publicity will address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this is an ignored war, and I hope the Government stand ready for continued support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the comments of both Front Benches on the Statement. What we face, as they have quite rightly said, is a huge humanitarian crisis which, sadly, does not attract the attention of the world that it deserves. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was incredibly moved to hear the report on Radio 4 this morning from Tom Fletcher, who had got into Port Sudan and was able, with a BBC team, to report on the circumstances—not only to report on what he saw but to amplify the voices of the victims and the survivors of this terrible situation—so I certainly congratulate him.
As the noble Lords have quite rightly pointed out, we have used all diplomatic efforts as penholder, particularly at the United Nations, to bring about a ceasefire to ensure humanitarian access and the protection of civilians. That priority was reflected, as both noble Lords said, in terms of our UN Security Council resolution where we have used the presidency of the Security Council. The Foreign Secretary not only announced a doubling of aid in response to the conflict but led that resolution to ensure the protection of civilians, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, was so cynically vetoed by the Russians.
Despite that veto, we are not giving up on these efforts. Both warring parties made commitments at Jeddah to limit the conflict’s impact on civilians, yet we know from reports that widespread violence continues. We will continue to push for the United Nations Secretary-General’s recommendations on the protection of civilians, including compliance mechanisms, to ensure that the warring parties stick to the commitments they made at Jeddah and there are tangible results on the ground.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, we are absolutely committed to a civilian Government. We want to ensure a future for Sudan under proper civilian rule. That is why I have met regularly with the former Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, whom I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows well, and we have given absolute support to the pro-democracy Taqaddum coalition and we will continue to do that. We have to see a future without the military activity that we see the consequences of.
The uplift that the Foreign Secretary announced is a further £113 million aid package, doubling our aid in response to the conflict to £226 million. This will support over a million people affected by violence. We are ensuring that we have a big impact on the ground, and we are also providing just under £70 million for neighbouring countries impacted by that violence, including Chad, as the noble Lord knows, South Sudan and Uganda. The Foreign Secretary chaired a Sudan session during the G7 with the Arab Quintet Foreign Ministers on 25 November to ensure that we can have collective action to improve humanitarian access but ensure greater financial support, and we are going to continue to do that.
The noble Lord mentioned the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. We will do all we can to support the people of Sudan to ensure that there is far greater volume on the situation. Of course, DEC appeals are subject to broadcasters, but we do need to raise this up the agenda. I have tried to raise it since being appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative on PSVI. I was in Colombia to talk to the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict last week and I focused on ensuring that the voices people heard were not mine but those of the survivors, the people who have experienced this terrible crime. I am absolutely determined. What we did at the General Assembly of the United Nations, but also at the special Security Council meeting that I chaired, was to ensure that the voices of survivors are heard. We must not simply sit back and quote statistics: we need to ensure that the population hears that first-hand evidence.
I think I have answered all the questions and I want to ensure that there is time for other noble Lords to ask questions, so I will leave it there for now.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s Statement and the Minister’s active engagement on this issue are to be warmly welcomed. The increase in humanitarian aid is helpful and necessary, but state institutions in Sudan are weak, there is active mischief-making by external parties, including Russia, and the best hope for Sudan surely lies in civil society organisations. Those are assisted by the Addis process and the African Union’s expanded mechanism, which is being helped by the United States, but what proportion of this additional funding from the UK is going to go to supporting civil society institutions within Sudan and their contribution to conflict resolution and peacekeeping?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: we are financially supporting Taqaddum, which is operating outside but also operating within civilian groups inside. Picking up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised, on education and children, Education Cannot Wait will also receive £14 million to provide safe learning spaces and psychosocial support to over 200,000 vulnerable children in refugee and host communities in Sudan, as well as in Chad and other countries.
On civil society, it is absolutely right that we have to mobilise and give voice to that. We should not restrict it just to those organisations that we know exist; one of the things I will be doing on Wednesday is attending a round table hosted by Zeinab Badawi, president of SOAS, who is establishing a Sudanese diaspora group initiative called Humanitarian Action for Sudan. We are going to take every opportunity to ensure that we can build support, both inside Sudan and outside.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the work that the noble Lord has been doing on this issue, but, in the context of all too many unprecedented crises in the world, the conflict in Sudan has, at times, appeared invisible to too many world leaders, who appear to be missing in action. We had Jan Egeland here recently, speaking to the All-Party Group on Sudan. He has said that Sudan is in danger of becoming another failed state because civil society is disintegrating amid a proliferation of armed groups. Will the Minister comment on that? He also talked about how, as well as the two warring parties in Sudan, the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, there are many other smaller ethnic armies looting and, as he put it, “going berserk on civilians”. The parties are tearing down their own houses and massacring their own people. What can the noble Lord say to us about that?
In echoing what has been said about the plight of children, all of us were deeply moved last week to hear the report from Lyse Doucet, who said:
“Nowhere else on earth are so many children on the run, so many people living with such acute hunger”.
She went on to describe the situation in Darfur. It is 20 years since I went to Darfur, when nearly 300,000 people were killed and 2 million people displaced. This is in danger of happening all over again. Will the noble Lord, in responding to the points the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, put to him about genocide and about justice, tell us what accountability mechanisms are being put in place?
Finally, there is the issue of refugees and displaced people. There are 120 million people displaced in the world, 12 million in Sudan and an extra 7.5 million since this war began 18 months ago. What are we able to do, using the leverage of His Majesty’s Government, to bring together statesmen, stateswomen and world leaders on the kind of regular basis on which the COP meets, to do something, until we start to dramatically reduce the number of people who will otherwise end up in small boats, drowning on dangerous and treacherous journeys of escape?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is absolutely right: we cannot afford for Sudan to fail. It is absolutely important that we focus on ensuring that we can have a return to proper civilian rule. It is because of that that I do not suggest that the conflict is simply about two generals. That is the consequence of it, but the conflict has other roots within it, and that is why it is important to focus on that civilian resolve to bring people together.
When I spoke to the Taqaddum leader, what he stressed to me and I stressed to him was to have an inclusive process to ensure that all groups are brought together to find a solution. He is absolutely committed to that, even though it is difficult because he is sitting down with people who are not easily friends. It is very difficult to build that situation together. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we have to build consensus and see the solution in much broader peace-building ways. He is also right that we cannot allow people to act with impunity. He knows that, since 2003, we have supported the ICC investigation and we are committed to continue that. We are certainly committed to ensuring that violations of international humanitarian law are properly monitored, and evidence gathered, so that we can eventually hold people properly to account for their crimes. At the end of the day, what we have done is consistently condemn such violence.
As the noble Lord knows, our long-standing policy is for competent courts to determine whether genocide is taking place, but that does not stop us acting to ensure that we prevent such crimes and actually hold people to account, so that they know that if they continue to commit such crimes, we will hold them to account. So, he is absolutely right. One thing that we have to keep stressing is the importance of our peace-building and development efforts, which are all about creating a much more secure world. If we are really to address migration, we have to focus on that, and certainly that is what this Government are determined to do.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, this Statement from the Government is obviously extremely welcome, as my noble friend Lord Boateng has said. The Minister’s own leadership on this is exemplary. Clearly, bringing an end to this conflict is where we ultimately want to be. Alongside the humanitarian efforts—which we are obviously putting in and which are laudable—what avenues are there for diplomacy? This might go along with the kinds of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked, about the fora in which we might be able to discuss these matters.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: we cannot simply focus just on the humanitarian situation, as desperate as that is. Our efforts should go into not only trying to establish an immediate ceasefire but longer-term diplomatic work to ensure that that ceasefire is sustainable and that we can return to civilian rule.
Of course, we have seen the talks in Geneva where RSF turned up but SAF did not, and there was engagement. Our first step was at the Security Council, where sadly there was the cynical application of that veto by the Russians, but that does not stop us in our determination to seek other diplomatic means. Our beginning is to ensure that those parties follow the commitments that they made at Jeddah, and that they have confidence in a mechanism where they can stick to their commitments.
It also means that we have to work with all our allies to ensure that people understand how important that ceasefire is, and how important it is for it to be sustainable. We are working with all our allies to ensure that we can put maximum leverage on those parties to stick to the commitments they have made and achieve a ceasefire. I assure my noble friend that we are using all diplomatic levers to ensure that.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, when Minister Dodds visited Sudan, she welcomed the then opening of the border between Chad and Darfur for three months. She then commented that it was important that the Sudanese Armed Forces should not impose any unnecessary restrictions and should make the flow of aid possible. In the Statement, she quite rightly welcomed a further opening for three months but again referred to restrictions by the Sudanese Armed Forces. Can the Minister say more about how much progress we have made in allowing aid to arrive?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we welcome the three-month extension, but the barriers to delivering aid are not simply that border, and it is not simply what we are able to get through. The simple fact is that both parties are imposing all kinds of constraints on it, which is why we are using our calls for the protection of civilians and the call of the Secretary-General to focus on that access issue. We are working with all NGOs, including the United Nations, to ensure that we can get that aid right through the country. We will certainly be monitoring the situation and holding those people to account. In effect, some of those parties are using starvation as a weapon of war, and we have to hold them to account for that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the additional money going to Sudan is very welcome, likewise the money going to neighbouring countries which are dealing with refugees. It is such a dreadful problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, acknowledged. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for all his work, including by giving voice to the voiceless, as he has been doing in Colombia. I know he will do that throughout the world. I also pay tribute to Tom Fletcher, who is extraordinary. The fact that he went there in his first two weeks of having been appointed to OCHA is quite amazing.
Many noble Lords have rightly spoken about civil society, but what exactly are we doing, together with the international community, to support the cultivation of an inclusive, representative, apolitical civilian bloc to provide a viable political alternative to the warring parties and to build the longer-term routes that are needed to a healthy, active Sudanese civil society that can underpin the governance systems that are so necessary?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has been working on this too, in terms of Abdalla Hamdok’s activity and the Taqaddum coalition. That coalition is seeking to broaden its base and engage all parties. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned proliferation. There are groups proliferating from this, using all kinds of conflicts that have previously occurred and reigniting them between communities. That is why, when we sat down with Abdalla Hamdok, we focused on how he needs to have the most inclusive process possible—and our allies are also focusing on this. That is not easy in all the circumstances, but it is what we are doing.
My noble friend is right that we need to ensure that we have all those voices heard. That is the most important thing, as we heard on the radio this morning with Tom’s report—like my noble friend, I think that it is great that he was able to get into Sudan so early; it shows that he will be absolutely focused on making sure that the world hears from those survivors and from those women and children who gave their first-hand accounts. We need to focus on that, which is why I am also concerned to ensure that we build that coalition not just among Sudanese within Sudan but among the diaspora here so that we get an inclusive approach to a final solution which will help to return civilian rule.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, in the late 1970s, I was administering law in northern Uganda, and there were many refugees from south Sudan. Archbishop Luwum did a fantastic job in persuading the Uganda Government to provide places where refugees could go, allowing them to go to schools and universities. He did a fantastic job. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds was here, he would have told the story of how he put his life in danger by visiting Sudan regularly, because they are linked together. I think that one of his messages would have been to ask the Minister to ensure that he and many others—who have a lot of first-hand experience and know where the NGOs are—are part of a conversation, because he has been doing amazing work in terms of civil society.
Finally, I thank the Minister. His voice has been heard, and he should keep that voice. I have every confidence that with what he is doing in terms of partnership, particularly with the African Union, he will get a breakthrough, because he has been very consistent. He has also honoured people. He does not do things like a colonist does; he does things all on the same level.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his remarks. The approach of the Foreign Secretary and of the whole Government is to ensure that we raise this issue and put it higher up the global agenda. I have also spoken to the right reverend Prelate about this situation. The Church, particularly the Church of England, has close connections in Sudan. I am working with it to ensure that we can support its activity, building cross-community support for peace.
It is also important to recognise that we are supporting 700,000 people who have been affected in neighbouring countries such as Chad and South Sudan. We are working with UN and NGO partners to provide food and cash. We have organised cash-transfer systems to ensure that the local economies in those countries are not severely impacted, and we are also providing shelter and medical assistance. Those are important actions to ensure that this terrible conflict does not spread and undermine security in that part of Africa.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (28 Nov 2024)
“(3A) Notwithstanding the purpose of this Act, the IFR must have due regard to the potential economic harms of overregulating English football.(3B) As part of fulfilling its duty under subsection (3A) the IFR must assess the effects of its activities on the financial position of regulated clubs and submit a report to the Secretary of State within six months in the first instance and annually thereafter which must be laid before Parliament within 28 days of their receipt of the report.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, on the potential harms of overregulation, goes to the heart of this whole Bill. What we are discussing in this Committee is not just the role of a new regulatory body but the future of English football in its totality. The Bill introduces a complete overhaul of the entire system of English football. It creates an entirely new organ of state apparatus, which will no doubt introduce copious amounts of onerous rules and regulations that clubs and leagues will be forced to comply with—in addition to the already stringent rules that the leagues impose on clubs themselves.
The Premier League has a handbook on its rules and governance procedures that is 768 pages long. Contained within this vast document are reams of rules, regulations and duties relating to matters such as club finances, tests for the prospective owners and directors of clubs, the disclosure of relevant interests by club officers, requirements for directors’ reports, and so on. Under rule E.22, the league has the power to impose financial penalties, and under E.37 it can deduct points from clubs which violate those rules. All the things that the Bill seeks to address are already covered by the Premier League.
It is not just the Premier League that does this. The EFL already has an established financial regulation department, aptly called the club financial reporting unit, which monitors and ensures financial regulations that EFL clubs must abide by. The EFL can and does hand out penalties to clubs that fail to meet its standards. For example, in May 2023 Wigan Athletic FC was deducted four points, beginning the 2023-24 season on minus eight. That was because the club failed to comply with the EFL’s requirements that the club deposit 125% of its forecast monthly wage bill into a designated club account. In fact, in that season there were 15 disciplinary and enforcement proceedings against clubs by the EFL for breaching its rules. That existing self-regulation has clearly been effective. Despite some high-profile cases of failure, the vast majority of the time the current regulations do serve their purpose.
Since 2012, when the financial rules were strengthened, only six Football League clubs have gone into administration and only seven football clubs have been completely liquidated since 1945—these are remarkable numbers. Compare that to the finance industry, whose insolvency figures dwarf that of football. In the 12 months to September 2024, there were approximately 500 insolvencies in the financial services sector alone, according to the Insolvency Service’s official statistics. We talk about breakaway leagues, and yet we must not forget that the European super league was stopped in its tracks by the fury of the fans and the power of the current league regulators of football. Is that not a clear example of the self-regulation of the sport working very effectively?
It is not clear at all that self-regulation has failed. I put it to your Lordships’ House that English football is one of the great success stories of private regulation. The leagues already impose their own rules, which hold clubs to account for their actions. They have robust mechanisms for punishing those clubs that do not act appropriately, and the evidence of the success rate of football clubs proves that that has indeed worked. So I ask the Minister: why strangle the flourishing industry that is professional football?
I also point out that that seems to be the view of the Prime Minister. As my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park noted at Second Reading, the Prime Minister himself said at the recent investment summit that
“the key test for me on regulation is … growth. Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to inhibit or unlock investment?”
He went on to say that
“where it is needlessly holding back the investment we need … we will get rid of it … we will make sure that every regulator in this country, especially our economic and competition regulators, takes growth as seriously as this room does”.
There we have it. The Prime Minister himself understands that regulation and overregulation are fraught with economic danger. If he realises the risks of regulation inhibiting investment in that arena, does he also recognise the risks of regulation and overregulation within football?
It seems we are suffering from, as Harold Demsetz termed it, the Nirvana fallacy. This is where people look at private solutions and seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real. If discrepancies are found, they deduce that the real is inefficient. Their usual yet unfortunate response is that the only possible solution must surely be more regulation, more rules and more state diktats. But when we are considering whether this new regulator will actually improve outcomes for football, we cannot merely have reference to the supposed limitations of self-regulation. We must look at what this independent football regulator will become.
For that, it is particularly instructive to examine the recent report on the Financial Conduct Authority by the All-Party Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. That report has found that the body that regulates the entire financial sector in this country is
“an opaque and unaccountable organisation”
that is
“incompetent at best and dishonest at worst.”
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who is not in his place, stated that the FCA was “complacent, conflicted and captured”.
Among the litany of failures that the report identified is one that is typical of regulators of all stripes: the culture of the organisation. The APPG found that the entire professional culture of the regulator was defective, and that
“errors and inaction are too common”.
The APPG has lined up a vast array of whistleblowers, who have shed light on the problems that the FCA faces. That report is backed up by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which points out that the FCA has been able to decide its own burden of proof and then levy fines running into billions of pounds, and all without proper accountability.
I will not reiterate the entire report for the Committee, but I was not surprised at all when I read it. The behaviours and the failures as described by the APPG are all too common when it comes to state-run bodies that seek to enforce their rules on to other private entities. They are too often encouraged to go further than necessary—mission creep—and then do not act when they are supposed to.
Why would this regulator be any different? Why would the independent football regulator break the mould and challenge these hitherto proven truths? I see no reason why the IFR would improve football in this country in any way. Previous state-run regulators have clearly failed, and I have no doubt that this regulator would potentially do the same. I therefore feel it is an absolute bare minimum to require the independent football regulator to have due regard to these risks of overregulation, as enunciated in my amendment. That should not be a contentious point.
I hope that the Minister can give me cast-iron assurances that the regulator will be ever watchful of the damage that it could very well inflict on football clubs and leagues. I ask her to guarantee absolutely that the IFR would be a light-touch regulator and not delve into the minutiae of each club’s finances and everyday operations. I want her to reassure the House that not one penny of a club’s income will be wantonly redistributed to another club, which would be tantamount to asking one private business to give its own earned assets to another private business. As I described last week in Committee, that would be a moral hazard. This is a matter of profound principle that I simply cannot disregard.
For the avoidance of doubt, I say again that this is a poorly drafted Bill. It was poorly drafted under the previous Administration, and it is worse now—but at least we have the opportunity to address its worst deficiencies and improve it in Committee. I hope that the Government and this Committee understand the dangers of the path that we are heading down, and that all possible efforts should be taken to shift us away from the constant move towards more regulation and to protect our nation’s proudest cultural export from the ever-encroaching arms and dead hand of the state.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak for the first time today to support my noble friend’s amendment, because it is important to set this Bill in context.
I, for one, am not in favour of the financial regulation in the Bill. I have a degree of support for many of the amendments that came out of the Tracey Crouch review, and the propositions on fan-led change are reasonable for the Premier League to consider. What worries me is that we are introducing—the only country in the western world to do so—the imposition of regulatory control over one of our major sports. Even countries such as Russia and China, which have sports laws, recognise the overall authority of the International Olympic Committee, FIFA and UEFA. They do so in recognition that they would not be able to host or to participate in their sporting events if they did not accept that overall authority.
On the first day in Committee, it was clear that the Government were not prepared to countenance putting the important rider in the legislation that we would do nothing that would threaten the role and playing of our clubs in European competitions and the World Cup—and, if we include women’s football, in the Olympic Games too, but that is a matter for a latter amendment. I am concerned about the imposition of regulatory control, being the only country that does this, because, as was rightly pointed out by my noble friend, this does not in any way generate growth. On the contrary, it proposes a whole series of measures that will restrict the competitiveness of the clubs in the Premier League, which, in turn, will mean that the waterfall of financial support that comes through to all professional football in this country is lessened, not increased.
I speak from the position of somebody who has had the privilege of being involved in sport for 30 or 40 years. When I was interested in becoming a Member of Parliament, I wanted to go to Moscow as an athlete for the Olympic Games. Had we legislated that the athletes could not go, I would not have been permitted to go. As it was, I led a campaign for the athletes to go against the boycott that my then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, strongly supported. I felt that, under the autonomy and independence of sport and the vital principle that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be political pawns, it was right for the competitors, who wanted to go, to compete in Moscow, however much they may have opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as indeed I did. I recognised that to use sportsmen and sportswomen as the only way to demonstrate opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was wrong, when people could buy tickets for Aeroflot in Piccadilly and go to watch the Bolshoi in Leningrad, and while trade and diplomatic relations continued.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jackson and the eloquent case that he made for it. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
As we go further into this Bill and debate it further, it becomes clearer that this was a Bill conceived in a fit of absence of mind; it has come about almost by accident. There were some concerns about Bury Football Club going into administration. There were concerns about the European Super League being proposed—an idea that was almost literally dead on arrival not because of a regulator or primarily because of political intervention but because of a fan revolt. The system as it was worked. It was the deep commitment of fans to the current arrangement, the current competitive leagues and all of that. Their anger and dismay at this were reflected in the British clubs which had committed to it, including my own. They abandoned it as if it was suddenly realised that this thing that they were holding was red hot and that the sooner they got rid of it the better. This was working. Yet there was a casual threat made by the then Prime Minister, reacting—as a populist will often do—to popular anger with a threat to introduce legislation. It is more and more evident as we go further that the Bill we are now considering at length, with its deficiencies and its threats, is the result of that.
I want to consider, for a moment, the case that my noble friend Lord Jackson made about overregulation. I have been involved, at various stages of my long and chequered career, in trying to counter overregulation. The first time was nearly 40 years ago when I was Margaret Thatcher’s Minister for Deregulation. Later, I chaired a deregulation task force at the request of my noble friend Lord Heseltine, the then Deputy Prime Minister. I then chaired periodically the coalition Government’s better regulation Cabinet Committee, or whatever we called it. I have been involved in this a lot and spent a lot of time looking at the effects of overregulation, who the beneficiaries are and which organisations suffer because of it.
One of the conclusions that I reached very early on was that it is not the big businesses that suffer most but the smaller ones. A bit of a theme in how we have been debating this Bill is the sense that “All of the resentment and all of the difficulty with this is coming from the Premier League”, and that somehow we are trying to defend it. I have to tell your Lordships that the clubs that will feel the least of the burden of overregulation, the compliance costs, are the big clubs, because they are big machines. They are serious businesses. They have the personnel and infrastructure and can draw on resources to deal with the unexpected effects of regulation. They will have a machine that will accommodate it. It will be uncomfortable and unnecessary and it will have costs, but they will not be threatened by it. The clubs that will really feel the burden are the small clubs. They do not have these big machines and are not equipped with armies of lawyers and accountants and the rest of the panoply of resource that is required to deal with this totally new form of regulation that is suddenly being thrust upon them.
This is something we need to think about very carefully indeed. One might not want there to be bad effects, but so many of the debates we have had on this Bill have been about the threat of unintended consequences.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. He has made an important point in relation to small companies, and is it not confirmed by an article in this morning’s Times, which says that the Financial Conduct Authority’s “over-regulation … harms small companies”? That is exactly the point he is making: it is small companies that are affected, rather than large ones.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing your Lordships’ attention to that. It is absolutely the case. When Governments consult with a sector, the people they consult with tend to be the big ones. I spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to work out how to deal with it in previous contexts. If you run a small company, business or operation—a small football club—you are far more concerned with getting on with whatever the next thing is on your agenda. You have got relatively few people around to do the work. Big companies have a machine that is set up to deal with all this, so the point that my noble friend makes is entirely right.
The point behind this amendment is incredibly important, and my noble friend has done a great service in raising it in the vivid way that he has. We have to consider this, because once you create an independent regulator, you have created something that is supposedly independent, and it is much harder to come back. Later in these debates, we will come to my noble friend Lord Goodman’s proposed sunset clause. That would be some kind of constraint because the threat or certainty of there being a proper, serious review after a given length of time will focus the minds of the regulator. But without that, without the kind of amendment that my noble friend has tabled, I think we stand in great danger.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, absolutely nobody is going to support the idea of overregulation. I spent my whole career, however, in a highly regulated industry: broadcasting. The BBC was the result of a regulatory regime imposed over 100 years ago, and ITV was heavily regulated, with enormous benefits as a result. We have the best broadcasting system in the whole world, so good regulation makes things better. I agree that we do not want to see overregulation.
The strongest part of this Bill is that it tries to ensure that every club is well managed, and that is to be welcomed. Let us recognise that that has not been the general picture, and there is no club that I know of that has not been badly managed, including my own, at some point in its history. Somebody else gave the example that, for a few hours this weekend, Brighton were number two in the Premier League. That is absolutely 100% down to the fact that they have been exceptionally well-managed in recent years.
In my career, I encountered many boards of clubs at every level and, frankly, it was an extremely mixed picture. We name no names. Some of them I encountered were very well-managed, some were managed by rogues and many by people who had a bit of money—not enough money—and were attracted to football for the wrong reasons but completely and utterly lacked any ability to manage a club properly. The great strength of this Bill, in demanding proper boards and financial probity, will bring, I hope, a great improvement to the generality of English football down the leagues and have strong, competent boards wherever you look.
I cannot resist one short story. I know of a Prime Minister—I will not name who the Prime Minister was, but it is not the person you think that I am thinking of; it is somebody else—who was invited to a match and to have lunch beforehand. The Special Branch at Number 10 looked at all the other guests, and every single one of them had a criminal record. That is a true story. That is what we want to put an end to. We want good, strong boards and prudent financial management.
What is the justification for that intervention? It is all the things we have already mentioned. These clubs are not just normal commercial assets; they are deeply embedded in their communities; they have their own heritage; they have their own history; they are culturally important. That justifies appropriate and proportionate regulation and intervention.
Having said lots of nice things, I do have profound reservations about the mechanism for establishing fund flow down the pyramid, but that is a matter for later in our deliberations.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 16, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. The amendment would require the regulator to take into account the economic risks of overregulation and report against this risk. I am sure this is an approach that will interest all parts of the Committee, especially, as my noble friend Lord Jackson reminded us, as the Prime Minister himself recently made such a high priority of reducing the impact of regulatory burden on British investment and growth.
We should consider the Prime Minister’s words carefully. He spoke of breaking free from the trap of excessive regulation, of removing needless barriers to investment, and of ensuring that regulators take growth far more seriously. Yet, here we are again, at risk of creating a new regulator without proper safeguards against exactly these risks. Indeed, the Department for Business and Trade this year published a report on smarter regulation, which described the problem in stark terms:
“Good regulation allows our markets and societies to function. However, there is strong evidence that points to our regulatory culture acting as a drag on our ability to generate economic activity, innovation and to attract investment. The regulatory environment is often confusing and sometimes features of it appear to exist for the benefit of the regulators, rather than the industries who they regulate, consumers or Britain as a whole”.
We must take care to guard against our regulatory culture having a similarly damaging impact on British football.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the Premier League represents one of Britain’s most successful exports, contributing £8.2 billion annually to our economy and more than £4 billion to the Exchequer, while supporting more than 90,000 jobs. Already, we are seeing concerning signs in the Bill: undefined ownership tests: parallel regulatory requirements; unproven intervention powers; and sweeping powers to redistribute Premier League revenue. Each adds complexity and risks that could deter the very investment that we need.
The Premier League competes globally for capital, for talent and for attention. Excessive regulation could quickly diminish its appeal to serious investors, with knock-on impacts for the pyramid which relies on the Premier League. As the chief executive of the Premier League has said in relation to this Bill, we must not wound the goose that lays English football’s golden egg. It is that egg that supports so much of the good work that we discussed earlier and the football pyramid as a whole.
The Prime Minister pledged to “march through the institutions”, ensuring regulators take growth seriously. Yet this Bill creates a regulator with no equal duty to consider success, economic impact or growth alongside the very vague notions of soundness and resilience, which, as I said earlier in this Committee, have no clear end state. We can have both effective regulation and economic dynamism, but only if we build in appropriate safeguards from the start. Without them, we risk creating exactly the kind of bureaucratic barriers to investment that the Prime Minister has correctly identified as holding Britain back.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. I will concentrate particularly on both the impact assessment and what my noble friend Lord Maude was referring to: the impact on small businesses. Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, when I made my comments at Second Reading, I emphasised that my concerns are not that there are no problems; the question is how we actually tackle the problems that exist in the industry while not damaging the success.
I have made a number of references to the impact assessment, and I quoted from it earlier today. On page 8, paragraph 17, it states:
“This Impact Assessment (IA) provides evidence and analysis to support the government’s case for intervention”.
I am concerned after reading the impact assessment that, as my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lord Maude identified, the impact is not on the big companies. Anybody who has sat on the side of an industry, as I did when changes were made to licensing law, for example, knows that it is not the big companies that are affected by such changes. They have the resources. It is the small companies that are confused, concerned and lost. They do not have a specialist to deal with the minutiae of a clause. I was the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association at the time, and it was an enormous task to guide smaller companies through the issues they faced. For me, the impact assessment dramatically underestimates the impact that small companies face in these circumstances.
I will come back to other elements later, but I am particularly concerned—and am referring to page 53 onwards—about the identified benefits that are supposed to accrue to the industry. The costs are dealt with, but I must admit that I am not convinced. On the indirect benefits, paragraph 225 comes up with a wonderful sentence:
“These indirect benefits are extremely difficult to quantify, given the range of variables that will affect the profitability of individual football clubs. Therefore, these are not quantified in the appraisal”.
Paragraph 227 says:
“These benefits are extremely difficult and speculative to quantify and therefore are not quantified in the appraisal”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will no doubt be relieved that I have not entered into any word counts on this occasion.
On accruing benefits for the community, paragraph 233, on page 54, states:
“The model states that the results of this contingent valuation survey of football users and non-users shows that people positively value the club they support/their local club and would be willing to pay an annual subscription to support it”.
I find myself at a loss to believe that my noble friend went round the streets of Wycombe or any other community and asked, “Would you be willing to pay X sum to support the club?” The suggestion that large parts of any population are
“willing to pay … to support”
their local club is really stretching credibility far.
This comment was made as a result of some work undertaken by Ipsos, an organisation for which I have high regard and with which I deal on polling. But the next paragraph, 235, refers to the following:
“DCMS guidance states that a lower bound”—
I am not sure whether the authors intend “bound” or “band”—
“95% confidence interval of willingness to pay (WTP)”.
That is rather like talking about turnout at a general election by asking people whether they are going to vote. I checked with a pollster this morning, and the mean answer given is 80%. The turnout at the last election was 60%, so there was an error of a quarter or a third, depending on whether you go upwards or downwards. To suggest that you can quantify the willingness of a community and people in the street to pay to support their local club stretches the bounds of credibility.
But on page 56 we have a breakdown, in detail, of the willingness of each region of the country to pay a sum to support its local club. There has been infinite reference to the fact that the support for clubs crosses from one place to another. Therefore, if you are contributing in the north-east or in London you may not be willing to pay to support a specific club. It is not surprising that London is identified as the place where people are most willing to supply most money, but it does not say whether the sums involved include a season ticket. Many of the people who answered the question will have thought, “Well, I actually pay in the form of a season ticket already and therefore I am contributing”.
What is depressing about the impact assessment is that it goes into such detail in relation to the benefits that will be gained from this legislation, but there is no attempt to identify what the clubs will have to pay. I am not talking here about the Premier League clubs; I am talking about the small clubs. In her response to the points that I and others raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the costs would be proportionate. But no figures are given. I find it barely credible that such detail can be provided to identify how much people from each different area of the country are willing to pay, but there is no calculation of the cost for a small club.
That is where the important issue—the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson—arises. People can concentrate on Premier League clubs, but we are talking here about regulating over 100 clubs. People do not realise that the impact will be on the small clubs. The Government need to be honest before this legislation passes, and to identify the probable burden for each of the small clubs, because without that information it is not appropriate to pass into law a football regulation Bill.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jackson and to speak further to the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Hayward about large clubs, small clubs and financial burdens.
We are presumably all agreed that large clubs are better able to bear the cost of regulation than smaller ones. My noble friend Lord Hayward referred a moment ago to 100 clubs, but if some noble Lords have their way, it will be more than 100 clubs. We have already heard today, as we will hear as the Bill develops, proposals to tack on to the Bill corporate social responsibility, net-zero obligations and so on. There are amendments tabled to tack on to the Bill specifically the National League North and National League South. I am sure that the Minister would resist any such amendments, in the same way that the Government will resist most of the amendments that come forward. But as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out at Second Reading—if he did not, I am sure other noble Lords did—the Bill is shy about saying which leagues will be covered by the regulator.
The Government have made it very clear that it will be the pyramid—the top five leagues—but the point is that at any future date the Government might change or, heaven help us, the Minister might move on and be replaced by someone else. At that point, the Government could bring forward by regulation changes to the scope covered by the regulator in order to bring in the National Leagues North and South, or other leagues. Even more small clubs would then be covered by the regulator and have to bear the costs. My noble friend’s amendment is a wise, precautionary one, not only in dealing with the measures the Government are proposing to bring within the scope of the Bill, but as a hedge against other leagues being brought within the scope of the regulator in the future.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Can I just suggest to Members opposite who are making their point that they might look at Amendment 72, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson? It is called “Support to clubs”, which very specifically gives advice on how smaller clubs might be helped.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords and I think the point about Amendment 72 was well made. Why I believe this is so critical is that when we have been talking about big clubs the feeling almost is that they are going to look after themselves and somehow we do not need to worry about the Premier League. But, as we have all said, the clue is in the word “pyramid”. The fact that the Championship is the sixth-richest league in the world—richer than Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands—is because of the money passed down from the Premier League. Fundamental to the health of the whole game, all the network and all the clubs is the health of the Premier League.
As my noble friend Lord Maude was saying, I am afraid that the more that I look into this Bill and the more I understand it, the more worried I become. As we have said before, if the only objective of the regulator is the survival of clubs, as the shadow regulator mentioned, the only tool it has in its locker is to get them to deposit cash as a cushion. I do not think there is any other mechanism. Again, I would be delighted if anyone else can come up with another mechanism and I will sit down and hear it. I really would be delighted.
But the only measure is to say “Okay, we want to be sure that there is no chance at all of you getting into financial difficulties, so put this money aside”. There have been figures of £20 million a club—£400 million—but, as noble Lords have said, maybe the bigger clubs are better able to cope. I bet the top eight or so—the Liverpools, the Manchesters, the Tottenhams et cetera—will be better able to cope. It will be the smaller clubs, especially the ones that are just trying to break in—such as Brentford and Brighton, which have now broken in, but as they were trying to get there—are the ones which will be disproportionately affected.
It is not just the Premier League clubs because, of course, we would be talking about clubs right the way down the pyramid having to make deposits to make sure that there is less risk of them getting into financial difficulties. Of course, the further down the pyramid you go, the more of a hardship that becomes. Let us understand it more. The shadow regulator was talking about his concern about dependence on rich owners and what you can do about that.
We can give two examples recently from my club, Chelsea. I think everyone would say that Matthew Harding was a very reputable business guy, had very good intentions and was an absolutely stand-up person. He was tragically killed in a helicopter crash. No one could have expected that. The club was in financial difficulties and had to be sold. What would the regulator’s answer to that have been? Probably, “Oh, you were dependent on a rich owner. You have to deposit more money in case, God forbid, they die in a helicopter crash”. Our next owner, Roman Abramovich, was very well regarded for about 18 years and was absolutely fine. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and, all of a sudden, he was no longer a reputable owner. What could the financial regulator have done about that? Well, clearly, it has to look at all the owners and think “Ooh, what could happen in your circumstance? Could your country end up doing something bad on the world stage? Deposit more money”.
It goes beyond that. Lots of noble Lords have said, “What do we want? We want better management of our clubs”. Are we asking the financial regulator to assess managers and say “Oh, I don’t think you’re very good”, or “I don’t think your business plan is very good”. What can a financial regulator do if they do not like the management of the club? They cannot sack them. What can they do if they do not like the business plan very much? They can say, “Well, please try better, please make it a bit better”. The only thing they can absolutely do at the end of the day is say “I don’t like your management very much, I’m not very confident in them, and I don’t like your business plan very much, so I’m going to ask you to put more money on deposit”.
Then you get into a situation where I guess you follow that through to its logical conclusion and some clubs are going to have to put a lot more on deposit than others, because the regulator has decided, you know, “I don’t like the cut of your jib”, for want of a better word. What sort of situation are we going to get into there? We can see as we peel back the onion that this is fraught with more and more difficulties. You are asking the regulator to opine on each club, each business plan, each set of owners and each set of management and say, depending on all that, how much money a club should set aside—with only one criterion for success for that regulator: that that club financially stays in its place and never gets threatened with going bust. There is only one criterion, so every time we are going to have an ever-increasing ratchet to de-risk every club, and the only mechanism to do that is to get them to put more and more money on deposit.
Again, please, I would be delighted. I know the Minister cares about football and the welfare of the game, so I would be delighted if someone could come up with another tool on how the regulator can try to manage sustainability. He could not come up with one the other day, so maybe we should ask him.
Lord Birt (CB)
Is it not far more likely that the regulator will simply insist on having a good-quality, conventional board—I know from the noble Lord’s experience that he will know what that looks like—with a mix of skills, a proper CFO and a real sense of financial accountability and risk management? That is the direction of travel a regulator is likely to take. I am sure the noble Lord would agree from his experience that that tends to lead to strong institutions—and that is not a description of many football clubs at any level.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Before my noble friend responds to that, he is on a very important point here about the remedies that are available to a regulator where they have concerns. The noble Lord suggests that you put in some great and good, experienced, splendid people, and they will make it all better. We have rightly heard a lot from the noble Lord opposite about Brighton & Hove Albion. If a visionary owner had a view of how you could, by investing in the right way, in the right kind of players and the right methodologies, have a different approach to managing and developing a football club, what would a great and good, wise and sage board have said? It would have said “Ooh, very difficult”. Board members would have pursed their lips and sucked their teeth and possibly stopped there being this great success story.
What would a regulator have done? They would have said, “This all looks very risky. How can you justify this great vision you’ve got?” Would they, as my noble friend suggested, say “Well, you’ve got to put more and more money on deposit as a hedge against possible failure”? What are you then going to say to fans when they say, “Well, why aren’t you investing in the players that we need to create the success?” This is why so much of this is of concern. It goes back to the point we made earlier about sustainability. It is all about downward pressure. It is putting a cap on aspiration, vision, excitement, ambition and the possibility of having these great romantic stories of huge success. Is that really what we want the future of English football to be?
Lord Markham (Con)
I genuinely thank noble Lords for their interventions. We are trying to unpack and fix a tricky problem. I completely agree with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, about better boards; of course that is a good idea, but how does the regulator make that happen? Will it be given the powers to force people off boards? I have not heard that; I have not seen that anywhere in the Bill. I fully support recommending a stronger board, but how do you make it happen? The only remedy I see for this in the Bill, and which I keep coming back to, is that clubs have to deposit more money as a sort of punishment.
On the visionary business plan at Brighton, which really was visionary, a regulator at the time could have thought, “That looks a bit risky”—and it probably was a bit risky—“so how do I guard against that?” They could have wondered, “How much does this chairman know about football? He is a poker champion; that is brilliant. He believes in the stats. But he is probably not your conventional person, who you would be going to and asking for more money as a deposit”.
This is what we all keep coming back to. If the only remedy is that the clubs put more money aside—
Baroness Brady (Con)
I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. My understanding of the Bill is that the ultimate sanction the regulator can have is to withdraw the licence from the football club. If a football club loses its licence, it ceases to be able to play. It is put in a very difficult situation whatever the remedy: it either complies wholeheartedly with whatever remedy it is told by the regulator to put in place, or it loses its licence and cannot play in the league. Surely that cannot be right.
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, I hope the Minister will answer this point. This is what the shadow regulator was explaining to us last week. What is the one thing you can do short of that? You can look to de-risk the situation, particularly if your only criterion is sustainability at that club; in other words, it survives by you saying, “You have to put money on deposit”. That is exactly the model they were taking from the financial regulator and the banks; that is what I see as the whole problem.
It is fundamental. As my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment suggests, we could make sure that it is aware of the burdens of regulation, or, as some of the earlier amendments proposed, it could be about broadening the definition and objectives of the regulator so that it has other criteria at stake. I truly believe that, unless we widen it out—it is only one-dimensional—we really are going to harm the great game.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that it is a little unconventional to speak to the amendment, but I would like to make a few comments to the mover of the amendment and the Minister. The case was made that this is all about small clubs. I have met very many clubs outside of the Premier League and discussed this issue with them. They have raised many issues and changes that they would like to see, some of which might be controversial in the football world or in government but not in relation to this regulation Bill. I have not yet come across any club outside of the Premier League that has said that it is worried or opposes this Bill—not one. Perhaps the Minister might like to reflect on that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for moving his Amendment 16. It has been well worth having a debate on this on its own because his short and simple amendment, if inserted into the Bill, would represent a vital step towards ensuring that the regulation of English football was both fair and economically responsible. It would require the independent football regulator to consider the potential economic harms of overregulation.
As my noble friend so eloquently established, overregulation is an issue that can choke off investment and disrupt growth in many industries. It can also, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham powerfully reminded us by invoking the example of Brighton and Hove Albion, prohibit the visionaries and the innovators who help to drive industries and sectors forward. None of us wants to see that harmful effect happening in the case of this new regulator and the example of football.
Lord Mann (Lab)
I was a member of that group and heavily involved in that work. Will the noble Lord reflect on the fact that all of its recommendations request that the regulator, the FCA, regulate more toughly and more appropriately, not less and more weakly, including the cases involving football that I am personally very involved in? That was a case for more and stronger regulation, not less.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention and for mentioning that. The point remains that it would be beneficial for us to look at that report on the way in which the FCA is doing its work to see whether it is doing what Parliament asked it to do when it was set up and to see whether we agree with the points that the all-party group, of which he is a member, made in its recent report.
As a number of noble Lords from across the House have said in our debate on this group, the amendment simply requires the regulator to have regard to the risks inherent when regulating a large industry such as football. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham for the benefit of their considerable expertise and to my noble friend Lord Hayward for going so forensically through the impact assessment published by the Minister’s department.
My noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 16 represents another guardrail for the regulator to use to focus its attention when exercising its functions. It would complement some of the other amendments that I have tabled and which we have been looking at. Such simple insertions of text into the Bill may be criticised as unnecessary, but they are important. The language that we use when establishing in law new public bodies and new regulators is of supreme importance. It creates a starting point from which that body will grow or change and be investigated by all-party groups and Select Committees. What that starting point looks like and how it is clearly defined has the potential to shape its future trajectory. We are looking at a regulator we hope will do its work very successfully for generations to come. Surely, we want that trajectory to enable future growth and innovation—future visionaries—and to remain free from mission creep and expansion into areas which we do not want to see it moving in.
The proposed model of regulation in the Bill will require the frequent submission of reports and financial plans. These will, as per the licensing conditions and as per our debate on this group, all have to be approved before a regulated club is granted a licence and are a condition for it maintaining that licence. The monitoring and collection of that information will naturally require a large number of staff to help comply with the new regulation. Added to the costs of the levy, this could have damaging effects on regulated clubs—damaging effects, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham and others powerfully set out, that would be felt most keenly by those at the lower end of the pyramid.
That is also particularly evident in the provisions in the Bill that require clubs which are no longer regulated, by virtue of their relegation, to continue to comply with the duties set out. Part 5, for instance, states that some of these duties will be applicable for up to 10 years after the club has been regulated. This ratchet effect means that clubs could still be required to submit a whole host of information to the regulator, even when they have diminished resources because they have dropped below the lower limit of the regulatory ambit envisaged by the Bill. I hope that we can all see the potential for harms here and the risks of those harms growing.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for drawing the Committee’s attention to her Amendment 72. We should all take a careful look at it in light of the debate that we have had. We will touch on it when we come to that group later on, but I appreciate that it is an attempt to make that sort of regulatory burden easier on clubs. When we come to it, I will ask her more on how her amendment envisages the regulator potentially paying some money to clubs. I will be interested to hear her set that out, but that is for another group.
Football is not only an extremely popular pastime but a vital part of our economy, and the financial health of clubs has to be protected, as my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 16 seeks to do. By mandating a thorough assessment of the financial implications of the new regulator’s regulatory actions, his amendment would guarantee that clubs’ sustainability would never be overlooked in the pursuit of regulation or reform.
The requirement for regular reports to be submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament would add to the Bill’s parliamentary oversight, which it currently lacks. It would enhance the transparency of the new regime that we will be bringing in through this law and allow for prompt corrective action, if needed. That is an approach which aligns perfectly with Conservative values, but one which I hope would garner support from every corner of your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend Lady Brady has reminded us, the Prime Minister has recently spoken, to my mind encouragingly, about the risks of overregulation and the need for growth. I hope that these points will resonate with the Benches opposite and with the Minister too.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to safeguard the future of football while maintaining accountability to Parliament. I know that he would have tabled an amendment such as this if we were still in the last Parliament. If I had found myself at the Dispatch Box opposite, I would have been responding to it. I must say that I would have looked very favourably on it. I think it seeks to strike the right balance between regulation and the economic vitality and viability of football clubs. I hope the Minister will look favourably on it as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for tabling this amendment. I also particularly welcomed the personal account of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I thank all those who contributed, including the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, who has considerable expertise in regulation. The description from the noble Lord, Lord Birt, of the benefits of regulation, including a strong board and what advantage that might bring, was particularly helpful.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, we will cover the scope of specified competition in the next group, so your Lordships’ Committee will come to that shortly.
The amendment seeks to add an explicit requirement for the regulator to have “due regard” to the potential economic harms of overregulation and to report on this. It is an important point to be aired, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns the noble Lord has. I absolutely agree that overregulation is something to be avoided. It is why the regulator’s general duties and regulatory principles provide sufficient safeguards to prevent this.
The regulation ensures that the regime is proportionate. In particular, Clauses 7 and 8 emphasise the need for the regulator to act in a way that avoids, as far as reasonably possible, adverse effects on investment and competitiveness, and that it should act proportionately.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked about overregulation and was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. The regulator’s general duties require it to have regard to how regulation might affect, among other things, financial investment in English football. Its regulatory principles clearly state the importance of advocacy and the need for the regulator to engage with stakeholders. It must act, as I said, in a proportionate manner. All these measures provide a safeguard against overregulation.
The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Maude, asked about burdens or potential costs on small clubs and the risk of disproportionate burdens. In addition to the explicit regulatory principle guiding the regulator to be proportionate, the entire system has been designed with this proportionality in mind. For example, the licence conditions placed on clubs will vary depending on their unique circumstances. Where clubs are smaller or lower-risk, the regulator’s requirements will reflect this. This means that the regulator will not impose unnecessary burdens on smaller or already well-run clubs.
Baroness Brady (Con)
A comment was made about there being no concern for costs outside the Premier League. However, Mark Ives, the general manager of National League, said:
“We are concerned about the costs … The expectation of how much it is going to cost clubs at a National League level is a huge concern—it may be a small amount of money, but it is a lot to the clubs. We are worried about mission creep within the Bill and the additional bureaucracy. There is a lot of duplication of work, such as the licensing system—there’s an expectation for clubs to do two lots of licensing”.
Dagenham & Redbridge chief executive officer, Steve Thompson, said:
“We are worried that the Bill will be so onerous. Some National League clubs work on two or three people and some volunteers … It does really worry me that some of our small clubs will not survive with the regulation and the reporting that is required”.
There may be a proportionate cost, with clubs in the Premier League from the top down paying proportionately but, whatever the cost, there is concern throughout the leagues.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a particular concern. I am not suggesting by any means that people will not need time to get used to and understand the burdens or costs on smaller clubs but, as I felt I had outlined, I hope that, with enough clarity, the licence conditions—that includes the costs placed on clubs— will vary depending on their unique circumstances. I am sure we will have further opportunities to discuss that as we go forward. Hopefully we can give your Lordships’ Committee and the clubs some reassurance on that point.
Lord Hayward (Con)
To follow up on the Minister’s comments and the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, given the detail that is included in the impact assessment on every other category of cost and benefit, and even though I find some of the calculations dubious, to say the least, at the next sitting of this Committee can we have a clearer indication of the likely proportionate costs which will fall on clubs at different levels in the pyramid, rather than some broad, general observation that it will be proportionate?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that a lot of this detail is being worked out by the shadow regulator. I can ask for that detail. I cannot give the noble Lord explicit clarity on that tonight but I will endeavour to get a clearer answer for him before the next sitting. That may, however, not include the level of detail that he requests.
To return to the amendment in question, the duties in Clause 7 are fairly novel for a statutory regulator. These bespoke duties acknowledge the specific market features that are key to the continued success of English football, such as investment and competitiveness.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
The Minister just referred to competitiveness. Some 14 clubs in the Premier League are multi-club ownership structures. Will the regulator be able to take into account the financial strength or otherwise of other clubs in the ownership structure of those 14 clubs? For example, with Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS at Manchester United, in providing a licence to Manchester United, will the regulator take into account the financial strength or otherwise of Nice and Lausanne—two other clubs which INEOS has an interest in—or is the regulator specifically and only to look at the English clubs? If it is the latter, is there not a risk of capital flight away from Manchester United in those circumstances if, for example, a significant bond was to be required by the regulator to be put up for Manchester United?
Baroness Twycross
If I correctly understood the noble Lord’s point, I do not believe that clubs should be concerned about that particular instance. We will be discussing licences and licensing conditions in a later group so, with your Lordships’ indulgence, if we could wait until then, that would be appreciated.
The amendment would also require the regulator to submit a report on its effects on the financial position of regulated clubs. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already includes comprehensive reporting requirements on the regulator—for example, the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report to the Secretary of State, which must be laid before Parliament. These reports would of course be expected to include an assessment of the regulator’s own impact on the market. In our view, the intent of this amendment is therefore already achieved in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether we are risking jeopardising English clubs’ involvement in international competitions. As I reiterated during the last debate, the Government are confident that the Bill and the regulator will not breach the statutes of UEFA and FIFA. This Bill will constitute the business regulation of football clubs in this country; it will not constitute interference in how the FA, or any international body, governs the game. For the reasons I have laid out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Markham (Con)
The Minister will be aware that I made quite a few points on how the only thing a regulator can really do—the only shot in its locker—is to put in more deposits, and on the impact that would have on clubs in terms of that safety net. I perfectly understand that she may not be able to answer that question now but I would welcome a follow-up in writing, and perhaps we can arrange a meeting on it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss it further.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for her answer and I thank my noble friends and others for an excellent debate on my amendment. I hesitate to single anyone out, but the contributions of my noble friends Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady showed their great expertise in different aspects of football, sport and regulation over the years. I make particular reference to the granular and forensic demolition of the impact assessment by my noble friend Lord Hayward, and the issue of the impact on small clubs that was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe.
To come back to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I see this amendment as complementary to good governance, because it is a pretty light-touch amendment. It is really a permissive oversight power—we will come back to it, of course, on Report—with timely regulatory audit and a sense check. The Minister may need to think about whether accepting this amendment, perhaps on Report, would detract from the substance of the Bill.
Football is full of amazing stories. I want to finish with a story about my own local team, which goes to the heart of the debate on this amendment, which is the nature of entrepreneurial endeavour in football—risk and reward. Darragh MacAnthony, a property entrepreneur, bought Posh, Peterborough United, at the age of 30, the youngest owner in the league, in 2006. In August 2007, he put a note in the programme at a football match which said, “I will deliver back-to-back promotions from League Two to the Championship by 2009”. He did it, with the help of my friend Barry Fry, who, of course, noble Lords know. The point is that I have to ask, looking at the Bill and at all its onerous implications in terms of regulatory impact, would Darragh MacAnthony have put his business on the line to buy Posh, to keep Peterborough United afloat and make it flourish as it has done for the last 18 years, had the Bill been in place? I very much doubt that he would.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Thank you; I appreciate being kept on my toes by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. With that in mind, and notwithstanding anything I have said, we will ventilate these issues on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 18 covers the issue of the scope of the Bill, and particularly women’s football. The Clause 2 stand part debate will focus specifically on the concerns that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised for the consideration of your Lordships.
As regards the women’s game, I seek clarification from the Minister. There is, as noble Lords know, a delegated power in the Bill that allows, at any time in the future, the Secretary of State to amend the scope of the Bill and include women’s football. At present, women’s football is not covered, mainly because of the future of women’s football review, which recommended that women’s football be given a chance to self-regulate. However, it noted that the market shares some similar problems with the men’s game, and, given that the policy intent was that the regulator should not regulate women’s clubs—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am mindful of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not here. She and I, and others, have an amendment specifically addressing the issue of the place of women’s football. Would the noble Lord withdraw his amendment this evening so that the noble Baroness could at least be here to take part in that debate? I know it is very close to her heart and I am trying to save us from having two debates.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I appreciate that. I will considerably curtail, so I do not need to come back to repeat what I have just said, and simply put a number of very brief questions. Unfortunately, that was not of my doing, as the noble Lord knows, and the powers that be will no doubt look rather more closely at future amendments to make sure that there is no overlap.
I simply ask the Minister one question: what specifically would need to happen for the women’s game to be added into the proposed regulatory framework? I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others, to explore in more detail questions surrounding the ownership of clubs, which regard both women’s and men’s participation as equally important, and therefore the fitness of directors tests, et cetera. To assist the process of speeding up matters in your Lordships’ Committee this evening, I will not ask any further questions on that but will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to consider that in greater detail.
I turn to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is absolutely relevant to Clause 2—unless the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has identified a further group of amendments that we can tie this in to. Clause 2 is really important, because it gives the Secretary of State significant powers through secondary legislation. As the Minister knows, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is a highly respected Committee in this House, and we have a senior member of that committee present this evening. I declare an interest, having served on that committee.
There was real concern that the meaning of English football as defined in Clause 2 was left unclear in the Bill. We covered that briefly at an earlier stage but, to cut to the point, their comment was:
“The policy intent has always been that”
the clubs in scope of the regulator’s remit
“should currently be the top five leagues of the men’s English football pyramid only”.
Given that, it is somewhat concerning that there is so much scope given to change that in secondary legislation, without the opportunity we would have of considering the benefits, or otherwise, of any significant changes to the Bill, which would be really significant. Therefore, it was not surprising that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated:
“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.
That is a fairly powerful point for that committee to make in the context of this Bill—indeed, of any Bill brought before your Lordships’ House.
The committee continued:
“The current system of leagues works well. If it were enshrined in primary legislation, it could still work well and, if it ceased to do so, the primary legislation could be amended. Primary legislation is constantly being amended”
to be
“fit for purpose”.
So I very much hope that the Minister will take careful note of the advice offered by that committee. It is very rare that we would ignore that committee or reject the most important recommendation that it has made. It makes a very strong point there. This is an enabling Bill. Clause 2 gives wide-ranging remits to consider the inclusion of women’s football to the Secretary of State—not, by the way, to the regulator. Equally, it is clearly a Bill about the men’s game, which brings forward clear primary legislation on the role of the regulator in the context of the men’s game.
That being the case, I see no reason why this legislation should not be very clear about its purpose and not leave it open to secondary legislation, which gets far less attention in your Lordships’ House. We know that from both sides of the House, whoever has been in Government: it is easy to slip through secondary legislation. We cannot deal with it clause by clause; we either accept it or reject it and we do not have a Committee stage on it.
The two powers vested in the Secretary of State under Clause 2 are of such importance that I very much hope that the Minister will take away the points I have just raised and give further consideration to putting the Bill’s intent clearly within it, rather than leaving it to future secondary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I appreciate that with legislation it is always better to have what you want on the face of the Bill. The women’s game needs more attention here, as this is something that deals totally with the top five leagues of the men’s game. It is also true that with a little bit of will, we could amend it. However, we are sitting here thinking about what would be best for the development of women’s football. When the Minister comes to respond, I hope she will give us a better steer on what they regard as that future. It is a growing sport that has outstripped everybody’s idea 20 years ago of where it would be, and we need to discuss what is happening there. My gut instinct is to resist this for the women’s game, but my legislative experience says we should have a definition here.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am scratching my head a bit on this. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that I would like to see the women’s game included. However, I accept that there is a debate to be had around that, so there could be an argument for having that as part of secondary legislation. What I do not understand that there could be a debate about is whether the Premier League or the EFL should be included. I do not understand for one moment why you would not have that on the face of the Bill. I do not think any of us would debate for one second the thought of somehow having all these discussions and not including the Premier League or the EFL.
I will freely admit that I am not very well versed in this, but my understanding is that, if it was mentioned on the face of the Bill, that does something about the hybrid nature of the Bill and would mean there are greater consultations and involvements that we would have to have—maybe some other noble Lords can help me out here—with those bodies that are impacted by the Bill. If that is the case, and if it is absolutely obvious to everyone here that of course the Premier League and the EFL are going to be involved in this, and probably some others as well—maybe the noble Lord can help me with this in a minute—I think there are consequences from not having it on the face of the Bill. That means it is not getting the proper involvement that you would expect, having the Premier League and other impacted bodies such as the EFL as part of this.
Again, all of this is an education for me and I think my noble friend Lord Goodman might be about to stand up to help me on this. But, if not, maybe the Minister could answer that, because it seems so obvious to everyone here that of course it is going to include the Premier League and the EFL. Why would you not have that on the face of the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment about the inclusion of the National Leagues North and South. I accept that my amendment is defective; I think the Committee on Statutory Instruments has declared it as such. However, I will use this opportunity to raise the question of where down the pyramid the regulatory process should stop.
Some of the teams in the National League North and National League South are quite substantial. Scunthorpe United is quite a big club and has a turnover somewhere in the region of £5 million to £6 million a year. Torquay United has a turnover of probably £2 million or £3 million a year. Even Maidstone, another former league club, has a turnover of between £2 million and £3 million a year. These are small but substantial businesses. They probably employ no more than 10 or a dozen staff—Scunthorpe probably employs more than that, looking at its accounts—but we expect other parts of the business world to be regulated by health and safety or environmental legislation, by financial conduct rules and regulations, and so on.
It is not smart to leave those two leagues out of consideration, because one of the things we should worry about is predatory ownership. We have seen some of that in the past, to the detriment of clubs in the lower leagues. The Bill is about making sure that the clubs in the lower leagues are properly protected. We have heard a lot from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches about the Premier League and how they believe that the regulatory regime may be damaging to the Premier League, but it is the plight of clubs lower down the pyramid that has sparked the most concern over the years and has been the motor for both major political parties to seek a football regulator.
I make that point because at some stage, we will need to have the National League North and National League South clubs in the regulatory framework. It seems odd to regulate one of the National League’s divisions, but not the other two. I wonder about the cliff-edge effect of having clubs coming up from both those leagues into a system of regulation. That does not necessarily seem to be the right way to do things; it would be better if they were all captured by the same framework.
The Minister made the point at Second Reading that regulation would be appropriate at each level of the pyramid—that has to be right—and that teams in the National League do not require the same degree of regulation as teams in the upper leagues. That is a sensible and proportionate way of looking at things. These clubs are already used to regulation; they are regulated by other regulators.
There is a case that we need at an early stage in the life of the regulator—I accept it may not be now—to have a report, or perhaps a section in the “state of the game” report, that looks at this issue. There may well be some unintended consequences and some cliff-edge issues, and if we do not get regulation right for these clubs, which could be vulnerable to predatory takeovers, some of them may well suffer as a consequence. None of us in the Committee wants to see that happen—I certainly do not, based on my experience as a Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club fan in the 1990s, when we were nearly destroyed by a predatory takeover. We very nearly went out of the league and out of business, and it took us a decade to recover our position.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I will follow my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham in their references to the Delegated Legislation Committee.
I hesitate to disagree with anything my noble friend Lord Moynihan says in any way, but he described me as a senior member of the committee, and I am afraid that this is not accurate. I am, in fact, the most junior member of the committee, having arrived only very recently, but certainly in time to consider this Bill. When I joined the committee, I found that it was very worked up about the rise in secondary legislation, as it set out in its key document, Democracy Denied?, published in 2021—I will come to the significance of that date in a moment. It criticised the use of Henry VIII powers, disguised legislation and skeleton legislation, saying:
“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy, and this report will, we hope, be a prompt to strengthen Parliament in the coming years”.
I find myself in an awkward position here with my own Front Bench, because in 2021 a Conservative Government were in office. The committee clearly feels that this tendency for skeleton legislation, Henry VIII powers and so on has carried on from 2021 to the present.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan will remember that at Second Reading, he drew attention, as I did, to Clause 92(3), which states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend …the definition of ‘football season’”
and
“the definition of ‘serious criminal conduct’”.
Such is the exquisite moderation of the committee that we did not follow that matter up in the report, but we did concentrate on the issue, raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, of the leagues not named in the Bill. He has read out the relevant sections of the report, and I have no intention of reading them out again.
However, I reinforce the closing point made by my noble friend Lord Markham and put it to the Minister in the form of a question. Can she confirm or deny that if the leagues in the pyramid were to be named in the Bill, the Bill would therefore become hybrid? She is nodding, and she will doubtless amplify on that nod when she responds to the debate, but that is a very important point. If that is the case, did the Government refer to that in their discussions with the committee clerks when they were drawing up the report?
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, nobody faint, but on this issue I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I bear the scars of Democracy Denied? It was an excellent report that it took us quite a long time to bring through. The Government cannot have it both ways. We say that the purpose of the Bill
“is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”,
yet it does not explain what English football is.
That is the nub of this. We spent hours on the first part of that, but the second part we seem to want to leave to the Government, because it is seemingly easier to amend delegated powers than primary legislation powers. That is not the point. What is in the tin should be on the front of the tin. It should name what it is doing, which is the Premier League and the Championship. It could go down the tiers and include leagues north and south. You would then have a full list of what this legislation is covering. It is probably just bad drafting, and no more than that. This could be done very simply. Everybody would then understand what the Bill is about.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will speak to my amendments in this group, and I want to extend the point that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, has just made, as it is a very important one.
I appreciate this may have been a painful experience for the Minister, the Bill team and others. We have spent our first two days in Committee looking at Clause 1 and the definitions of “the sustainability of English football”. However, as the noble Lord said, the lack of precision in the Bill in that regard is what has elongated our debates over the last two days in Committee and so concerned the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. It bears repetition to draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 3 of the committee’s report, published on 22 November:
“The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to ‘protect and promote the sustainability of English football’. One must go through a series of definitions only to find that the Bill does not, after all, provide the definition of English football. Ultimately, the meaning of ‘English football’ depends on regulations to be made in due course by the Secretary of State”.
That is why we have had some rather tortuous debates on the opening clauses of the Bill, and why we are concerned to ensure that this Committee brings the focus we need to the deliberations on this important Bill.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I want to pick up exactly the point that my noble friend on the Front Bench has eloquently started to unpack. It is my fault, but I had not thought about this aspect of hybridity until it was developed this evening. It seems that we have two mischiefs compounding on each other here. The Government are relying on secondary legislation to do something that could just as well be in the Bill, and the committee of which my noble friend is a very distinguished member—although whether junior or senior is not for me to judge—dealt with the Government’s purported reasons for not putting any of these things in the Bill in lapidary and devastating style. They knocked each of them down with casual ease.
The one reason, of course, that the Government did not put forward to the Committee, which the Minister—all praise and honour to her—has accepted as the principal reason, was that to identify the five top tiers in the pyramid in the Bill would have risked making it hybrid. However, the reason why we have a hybrid Bill procedure is quite specific. It is because, if you have a Bill that as well as having general effect has an effect on specific private interests, those private interests are entitled to a way of making their specific concerns directly clear to Parliament.
I remember 40 years ago, as a Whip in the other place, taking through the then Channel Tunnel Bill, which was a hybrid Bill, and a very Herculean effort it was, although it was well worthwhile. It was incredibly important that the private interests—many were affected by it—had the right to make their concerns known. Here we have one technique of putting something into secondary legislation which could easily be put in the Bill, and that is something which generally, in your Lordships’ House and in the other place as well, is generally deprecated.
Even worse is when the reason for putting it in secondary legislation is to suppress the ability of private interests—in this case, really important private interests, right the way down to the National League. There are way more than 100 clubs which, according to the Government, make up English football, which is an incredibly successful and important economic interest. We know, because the Government have said it, that those multiple private interests are the intended target for this legislation. So you have a parliamentary or legislative technique, which is to be deprecated in the first place, being used to frustrate a legitimate right of private interests, which have been identified by the Government as the proposed target for this Bill. Each of those two things on its own should be deprecated, but added together they should give the Government serious pause.
I sympathise with the Minister. She probably did not ask to be put in charge of this Bill and it must have looked like it was going to be quite straightforward, because my party’s Government mistakenly came up with the idea in the first place. It must have seemed like it would be a bit of a doddle to take it through; I am sorry for her that it has not turned out like that but, in every debate we have, something else comes up.
We are not playing games. We are talking about something really serious and important, which affects a lot of people’s lives and economic livelihoods. We are seeing more issues arise; as every layer is peeled away, something else emerges that gives us serious pause. So I urge the Minister to take this back to her department and colleagues and say that it is time to look at it again.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond on this group, I would like to say that I am absolutely delighted to be taking this Bill through Parliament. If somebody had asked me even six months ago if I thought I was going to have an opportunity like this, I would have doubted them, so please do not feel sorry for me in any form. I am delighted to be taking forward this Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, for their amendments to Clause 2.
I will start with Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It is the Government’s view that the current definition of “team” is sufficient and that the definitions in Clause 2 already work as intended. Which clubs are regulated will be determined by which competitions are specified in secondary legislation, as noble Lords have noted. If those are initially men’s competitions only, as the Government currently intend, only clubs that operate men’s teams will be regulated. Restricting the definition of “team” in statute to men’s teams would not only limit the Secretary of State’s ability to bring the women’s game into scope in the future if it were deemed necessary but send the wrong message to all those girls and young women who play football about the value we place on their contribution to the sport.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what would need to happen for us to see women’s football brought into scope in the future. As he referenced, the Government do not believe that the case for statutory intervention has yet been met in women’s football. It should be given the time, space and opportunity to grow and self-regulate. If in the future it becomes clear that women’s football is suffering from a sustainability problem that the industry authorities have been unable to address, the Secretary of State will be able to conduct a formal review. This will of course include consultation with all appropriate parties. Based on that review, women’s football could be brought into scope.
Amendment 19 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill about which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, the amendment would significantly undermine the regulator’s ability to react to changes in the structure of the football pyramid in a timely manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Markham, questioned why we do not, for example, name the Premier League when it is obvious that it would be included. Names change, and we have seen the restructuring or naming of leagues, such as in 1992, when the First Division became the Premier League, and in 2015, when the Football Conference was renamed the National League. In such a scenario, failing to amend the scope in a timely fashion could result in the legislation becoming ineffectual and the regulator being undermined.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Before the Minister comes on to that important point, could she say a bit more about what circumstances would need to change for the National League North and the National League South to be brought into scope in the Government’s view? The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made a powerful case about the size of many of the clubs there and the very valid point, which I meant to echo in my contribution, that those are precisely the sort of teams the Government and their predecessors were both very concerned about in the thinking that led to the Bill—the sort of teams that play such an important role in their communities, that are sometimes more precarious than those at the top of the pyramid, and that, if they went under, would leave such a hole in their communities.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am slightly confused because the noble Lord is going from being proportionate to now appearing to want us to bring in further—
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My noble friend just needs to know why. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying so, but that is not a satisfactory response. The problem here is that there seems to be no rationale other than saying it is reasonable and proportionate. On what basis? What is the basis for saying that? Why is the line drawn there? It feels completely random; you could just as easily draw it one up or one down. But if there has been a decision, and clubs up and down the country now have to prepare themselves for the likelihood that the Bill will go through and they will become regulated licensed entities, it is important to know why the line has been drawn in this place.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Was it not said at some stage during the consideration of the predecessor Bill before the election that it would be a good idea if the regulator was up and running and got some experience of the regime being introduced before considering extending it?
A few minutes ago, we heard that Members opposite thought that this would be too great a burden on smaller clubs. So perhaps it is a good idea to consider when the time is right and what experience the new regulator will have.
Baroness Brady (Con)
It was the smaller clubs, as well as us, that said it would be a burden to them. I read out what the National League’s general manager said about his clubs and their concerns.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will address the issue of why the regulatory regime is currently intended to be limited to the top five tiers of football and not to include the National League North and the National League South. The issues we are concerned with arise most typically and markedly in the professional game where the financialisation of clubs is greatest. We recognise that the top five tiers is not necessarily a perfect proxy for the professional game, since some semi-professional and professional clubs can move between these leagues. However, we consider it the most appropriate and proportionate place to draw the line and the place where it would not result in some clubs in the league being subject to regulation and others not. We do not currently believe that extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be proportionate to the burden on smaller clubs below the National League.
On Amendment 19—and apologies if I am repeating parts of my speech, because it is some time ago that I was actually on my script—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity on the face of the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 21, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for putting forward this amendment. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the Secretary of State would have the ability to specify competitions that are in scope of the regulator and we believe that the top five tiers is a sensible and proportionate place to draw the line.
In relation to the points on hybridity, questions of hybridity are for the examiners, not for the Government. If the amendment is made, there will be a process to be followed that will decide whether the Bill is hybrid and needs to go through the hybrid procedures. Initial advice is that the Bill would be thought to be hybrid and I understand that, following the tabling of Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and Amendment 21 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor, issues have been raised about their hybridity.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, asked whether we had discussed with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee ahead of the process. We would not discuss committee reports with clerks before they draw them up.
I know that noble Lords want to continue to work constructively on the Bill—
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I think my question was, in advance of the committee considering the Bill and the Government giving their reasons to the clerks for objecting to the Bill, why did they not then raise the matter of hybridity? Is it the Government’s position that raising the matter of hybridity just is not their business? If it is their business, why did they not raise it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is for the examiners, not the Government, to decide whether or not there is hybridity.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
But it is for the Government to decide whether to incorporate something in a Bill that might make it hybrid. She has clearly taken advice which concluded that putting the explicit leagues on to the face of the Bill would make it hybrid. So there was clearly a decision based on that advice to exclude the specificity from the Bill and put it into secondary legislation. I repeat my noble friend’s question: why was that reason not given to the committee?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The primary reason, as I understand it—and it was clearly the previous Government who drafted the iteration of the Bill and the stage of the Bill that we are now at in our discussions is identical to the previous Government’s Bill—was that naming the leagues would mean that, if there was any change in the names of the leagues, there would be an issue in terms of the legislation, as I have outlined previously. I am happy to write to noble Lords on this point.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry; I know this is frustrating. But this is a really important issue for the Bill and I think there is some confusion. During the debate on this, the noble Baroness very helpfully nodded to give a sense to the question—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Let me just ask the question and then the Minister can clarify. Did she nod to agree to the suggestion that, if we had put the names of the leagues—which I seek to do in my amendment or which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seek to do in their Amendment 21—on the face of the Bill, this would make it a hybrid Bill, and the reason they are not in the Bill is to stop it being a hybrid Bill? That is what I think we think she was nodding to agree to earlier.
In the speech she has just given, she dismissed my amendment on the grounds that sometimes the names of the Premier League and the EFL and the National League change and that is the reason for doing it. That is a rather different answer from refusing to put it on the face of the Bill because it would make it a hybrid Bill. If allowing those leagues, those clubs, to have access to Parliament to make the arguments about the effects on their private interests and their business is the reason that it is not on the face of the Bill, I think they and this Committee need to know that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I apologise hugely if my nodding at one point during the noble Lord’s comments meant that other things were inferred. It has reminded me of the dangers of nodding, whether you are nodding to indicate that you understand a point, or that you agree with a point. I was nodding was because in the explanation of this group of amendments that I received from officials earlier today, they made it clear that following the tabling of Amendments 19 and 21, issues have been raised about hybridity. That was the point at which hybridity was raised with me. I hope noble Lords will accept my writing to them to clear up any other issues that might have been raised. I know they want to work constructively on the Bill to make sure that we put in place as soon as possible an effective and proportionate regulator that safeguards the future of our national game, which was a manifesto commitment by the three main parties. I look forward to discussing these amendments further, ahead of Report.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Will my noble friend just clarify that this section of the Bill is identical to the one that was introduced pre-election?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that point is by the by. I had not appreciated the hybridity question until my Amendment 19 was tabled and the clerks advised me about it, as I am sure she had not in relation to her Amendment 21. It raises some fundamental questions. It is unfortunate that we have come to debate them at this late hour, and I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to write to the Committee about this; I hope she will be able to do that before our next meeting.
We need to understand this point, because it is a further instance of democracy being denied—the limiting effect it has not just on the ability of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise legislation, but on private citizens making representations to Parliament about the direct effect on their companies, businesses, clubs and organisations. I asked the Minister about Clause 91, which seeks to deny the right to use the hybrid powers so that they can make their views known directly. If we are going to go down the route that seeks to close this off not just in the Bill—in primary legislation—but in secondary legislation too, we need clarity on this before we go much further.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said, I will write to noble Lords on this point, noting that I know they want to work constructively on the Bill. I have a few more points to cover, so if I could continue without interruption, I will reply to anybody in writing if we need to.
On Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I understand that delegated decisions of such importance as the scope of regulation should be made only after proper consideration and in consultation with all key stakeholders. This is exactly what has been done over several years of development of the Bill. It was carried out by the previous Government, in which, as has been noted, the noble Lord served, although I accept that we are bringing forward this legislation, so it is the Labour Government’s Bill now.
The initial intended scope of the Bill is built on a strong evidence base and extensive consultation with the industry, including a White Paper. Therefore, the Government do not feel it is necessary to require additional consultation before the first regulations are specified in scope in secondary regulation. This would impose unnecessary burdens on the industry and the Government and risk significantly delaying the regulator being able to implement its regime.
On the question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for giving notice of his intention to oppose this. As is standard procedure, the Bill sets out the key definitions used in this legislation. These are required to ensure that there is legal clarity throughout the Bill and to prevent confusion when looking to practically implement this legislation.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for her response to these points, I am more convinced than ever that having a probing amendment that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill has been borne out by the exchanges that we have had this evening.
First, there are clearly too many powers that have gone into secondary legislation and those powers delegated to the Secretary of State now have a completely different light on them. The question of hybridity is absolutely relevant. If we do not know what we are talking about within the Bill because it is potentially hybrid, and we cannot put on the face of the Bill the government plan—which, incidentally, was the same as the previous government plan—to enshrine the top five leagues of the men’s game in legislation, then we have a serious problem.
My concern is amplified by the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clearly unaware of the exchanges that have taken place this evening or, indeed, of any briefing that could have been given to the committee by the Government; it clearly did not happen. So it is not surprising that in its report it stated:
“It is not clear why a monopoly granted by secondary legislation would be less significant than one granted by primary legislation”.
The answer to that is quite clearly one of hybridity.
Therefore, in not pushing my amendment this evening, I nevertheless request that the Government write not only to members of this Committee but to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, setting out in some detail their response to the exchanges that have taken place this evening, so that these issues can be addressed with clarity. Frankly, it is not surprising that, without that clarity, the committee commented:
“The argument that something should not be fixed in primary legislation because it might need changing in future would be an argument against having any primary legislation”.
The committee does not make comments such as that flippantly but it would make them in the absence of a full understanding of the reasons behind the Government’s position as to why they have not put the top five leagues from the men’s game in legislation. That applies to Amendment 19 as well as Amendment 21.
I very much hope that in my not pressing Amendment 18, the Government will take it away and give due consideration to what has been said this evening and write to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with an updated view. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I call Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am not willing to not move Amendment 19 yet. Given that the House is about to resume and be adjourned, it might be more helpful to degroup it and leave it as the first amendment that we return to when the Committee resumes. I appreciate that this is unusual, but I do it to try to be helpful. If the Minister can write on the points about hybridity, which she has kindly undertaken to do, then this is the point at which the Committee will resume when next it meets, so that we can return to this fundamental point. So I am not willing to not move Amendment 19 and I suggest we resume the House now.