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 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
The Foreign Secretary made clear at his Kew lecture that the climate must be at the heart of all that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does. When we have that focus on climate adaptation and mitigation, we see economic growth globally and in our country.
Steve Witherden
The rising death tolls from the wildfires in Los Angeles and the damage to our communities recently caused by Storms Bert and Darragh serve as clear reminders of escalating weather extremes and the urgent need to tackle the climate emergency. Will the Minister explain how the Government are actively driving efforts to cut emissions and champion clean energy, both in the UK and across the globe?
Anneliese Dodds
Our thoughts are with all those hit by the dreadful crises that my hon. Friend mentions. At COP29, the UK showed leadership in setting an ambitious nationally determined contribution to cut emissions by 81% by 2035. We are championing clean energy at home and abroad, including through the launch of GB Energy and the global clean power alliance.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove has warned against the risks of relying on China for Britain’s energy infrastructure. What assessment has the Minister made of the involvement of Chinese supply chains in the Government’s solar plans?
Anneliese Dodds
This Government are determined to have a consistent and clear-eyed approach to China and to avoid the oscillation that we saw under previous Governments; as a result, we are conducting a China audit that will look thoroughly at all our relationships with China. We will compete where we must, challenge where we need to and co-operate where that is necessary.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Government signed up to a $300 billion climate finance package at COP29, with the amount increasing by $50 billion to get a deal. Since then, Ministers have not been able to give details of what our share will be, how much British taxpayers will fund, and what will come from official development assistance and what from private enterprise and investment. Can the Minister provide any of those details, and, if not, will she commit to a timetable for disclosure of that information?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question, but she will surely understand that the COP agreement was about the global goal. The precise share for individual countries is worked out through the normal processes. It was her Government—a Conservative Government—who committed to the £11.6 billion climate finance goal. Unlike the previous Government, however, we are determined to fit that within our responsibilities and deliver on it for the sake of our climate and our economy.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
NATO is the cornerstone of UK and Euro-Atlantic security. Indeed, the first act of this Government was to publicly state our commitment to a “NATO first” defence policy. We regularly discuss NATO with our allies; NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers meet three times a year, with the most recent Foreign Ministers’ meeting having been in December, which the Foreign Secretary and I both attended.
Richard Foord
For 75 years, NATO has stood as a bulwark against territorial acquisition, and NATO is stronger when all its members stand against that. What discussions does the Foreign Secretary plan to have with the President-elect of the United States about the status of Denmark, Greenland and Canada? Will the Foreign Secretary remind President-elect Trump that when he pronounces on how he would like to expand the United States’ sphere of influence, NATO’s adversaries are also watching?
Stephen Doughty
As the Foreign Secretary made clear last week, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and the future of its constitutional arrangements is a matter for the people and Government of Greenland and, indeed, the Kingdom of Denmark. It would be wrong to speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make. I delivered those messages during a meeting with the Greenlandic Foreign Minister yesterday. There are, rightly, important concerns about security in the Arctic, which is why I was proud to be one of the first British Ministers in 10 years to attend the Arctic Circle Assembly and meet partners to discuss these issues just a few months ago.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Foreign Office on the inspired appointment of our new ambassador in Washington DC? Not many candidates would be able to fill the shoes of Dame Karen Pierce, who has represented UK interests so exceptionally in both New York and Washington; she is an inspirational leader and a skilled diplomat.
Lord Mandelson’s appointment is unusual, however. It is not often that circumstances demand that the UK appoint someone who is not a career diplomat to be our ambassador to such a key NATO ally. To silence critics and to show respect to Parliament and its Committees, will the Foreign Office agree that we should return to the policy of the previous Labour Government, and allow Lord Mandelson the time to come before my Committee before he leaves for the United States? That will allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him, and to learn what his priorities are in this crucial diplomatic role.
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington, and it was a pleasure to meet him last week and discuss his plans as he prepares to take up his post. Obviously we have one ambassador at a time, but I am sure that we will consider any request that my right hon. Friend makes in due course in the normal way in which we consider requests from her Committee.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The NATO alliance stands at the cornerstone of our defence and has been essential to the security of the free world. Given the importance of the Indo-Pacific security alliance, strengthening co-operation and dialogue with key allies in the region has been paramount, and our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital British-American strategic asset. However, Ministers have failed to give answers to questions about its future, or about the costs involved in the proposed treaty with Mauritius. Will the Minister give one straight answer? Will he make a commitment to the House to wait until President Trump is in office and has had time to discuss this deal with the new Administration before finalising any agreement with Mauritius—yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
The shadow Minister is right about the importance of security in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed, when we see North Korean troops fighting in Russia and Ukraine, when we see Iranian missiles being used and when we see military companies elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region supplying Russia, it is crucial that we see global security as one. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have answered many questions about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Our deal secures the future security of the base on Diego Garcia, and it has support across the US Administration and across the United States national security apparatus. We will come forward with details in due course.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) pointed out, President-elect Trump has threatened to use force to seize the Panama canal and Greenland, and he has promised tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico. Whatever else we can predict about the presidency that begins next Monday, we know that it will be unpredictable. May I therefore ask the Minister what steps his Government has taken to Trump-proof UK foreign policy so that we cannot be held hostage in the security, economic or climate realm by a President who puts short-term deals ahead of long-term relationships, and what specific steps the Government have taken to accelerate an improvement in the UK’s relationship with European partners since 5 November?
Stephen Doughty
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, he knows very well the commitments that we have made to European security through NATO—and, indeed, through our reset of relations not only with the European Union but across Europe—and the leadership that we have shown in, for example, tackling the Russian shadow fleet by working with partners across Europe, a process that we began at the European Political Community summit. The special relationship endures—it has endured, and it will continue to endure—and we look forward to working with President-elect Trump and his team on a range of issues. I have already given an answer in relation to Greenland; in relation to Panama, we respect the Torrijos–Carter treaties and recognise the important role that Panama plays in world trade.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
The UK will continue to use all diplomatic avenues to press the warring parties in Sudan into a permanent ceasefire, to enable unrestricted humanitarian access and to protect civilians.
Sarah Green
The Liberal Democrats welcome the humanitarian support that the Government are giving to Sudan. We also recognise that greater protections are needed for women, children and ethnic minority groups. In the light of the failure of the United Nations to back safe areas, what is the UK doing to create safe zones for schools and hospitals in Sudan?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the measures the UK Government have been taking. Clearly, there are dreadful problems when it comes to civilian protection in Sudan. The UK put forward a resolution to the Security Council, with Sierra Leone, focused on the protection of civilians. It was appalling that Russia vetoed that resolution. We will continue to use every avenue available to us to promote their safety.
Chris Ward
I thank the Minister for her reply and for the focus she has given this important issue. The suffering, famine and displacement in Sudan are only intensifying, so will she outline the practical steps the Government are taking to protect human rights, promote peace and bring an end to this appalling conflict?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the extreme need to act on what is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The UK has doubled its aid to Sudan. We have sought to use the UN Security Council, as I mentioned. We ensured through the Foreign Secretary that there was a Sudan session with G7 and Arab Quint Foreign Ministers, and the UK special representative to Sudan has visited Sudan; that occurred in December for the first time since the conflict.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome what the right hon. Lady said yesterday, but the delivery of aid is clearly being used as a weapon in this conflict. What steps are being taken to ensure that the aid gets through to the people most in need on the ground in Sudan?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that. I know he shares our deep concern about the impact of restrictions on aid, which we have particularly seen feeding through into the famine assessment from the IPC—integrated food security phase classification—that came out at the end of last year. There must be, above all, a permanent opening of crossings. We were, of course, pleased to see the Adre crossing open for three months, but it must be opened permanently. We also need to see cross-line availability of aid. We need to have the warring parties focused on humanitarian need, not on pursuing a war that they both appear to think they can win but as a result of which civilians are suffering appallingly.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), I welcome the Government’s ongoing support for the humanitarian effort in Sudan and the wider region, but does the Minister share my concern that aid risks not reaching those who need it most? Will she continue to put pressure on Sudan for the Adre crossing to be kept open permanently, so that vital aid can get to those who need it most? Could she update the House on what steps she is taking in that area?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so clear about the challenges around aid coming into Sudan and then being delivered to those who so desperately need it. We will keep pushing on the need for the Adre crossing to remain open. We will also keep pushing on the need for aid workers to be protected within Sudan and for UN staff to be able to access Sudan. Of course, we will work with those on the ground, particularly the emergency response rooms, which are delivering essential mutual aid.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The UK and India’s Prime Ministers have committed to an ambitious refresh of the comprehensive strategic partnership. They announced that the UK-India trade talks will relaunch, which will deliver our joint ambition to take the UK-India relationship to even greater heights, and India is one of a handful of countries that will determine whether we meet the global warming limit of 1.5° C.
Dr Sandher
This is indeed an exciting year to help improve our economic growth and our trading relationship with India. We are two nations with an intertwined history and common democratic ideals, and we face the risks of a dangerous world and a warming planet. I co-chair the India all-party parliamentary group, and one of my priorities is to strengthen our economic and strategic relationship. Can the Secretary of State outline what he will do to help get a good UK-India trade deal over the line, including the exchange of green technologies to help prevent and reduce the warming of our planet?
Mr Lammy
It was important to get to India just a few weeks into office. I might pray in aid my great-grandmother on my mother’s side, who was from Calcutta. I look forward to inviting Foreign Minister Jaishankar to Britain later in the spring. It is important that we have a strategic partnership going forward. We have relaunched the free trade agreement—we have said that it is a floor, not a ceiling on our ambition—and it was important that a delegation of Indian businessmen met the Chancellor of the Exchequer, me and the Prime Minister just a few weeks before Christmas.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Among our greatest UK exports are our culture and our creative industries, so I am keen to hear what conversations the Foreign Secretary has had with international counterparts—not only to improve the opportunity for British artists to tour, particularly post Brexit, but to take advantage of the appetite for bilateral cultural agreements, which has been articulated by a number of our overseas counterparts.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady will be pleased that we will very shortly launch our new soft power council, specifically to look in detail at this issue. I was pleased to secure further funding for the BBC World Service in the spending review, which was very important. As we move forward with our reset, we continue to discuss, particularly with European allies, what more we can do for touring artists.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This weekend, we had the indignity of seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer fleeing the financial mess that she has left at home in the United Kingdom while embracing the Chinese Communist party—Labour’s friends—and the Chinese Government in a desperate attempt to secure money from them. Can the Foreign Secretary explain how this new love-in with one of the biggest threats to our national security and freedom helps our national interests? What message does that send to Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong BNOs facing threats in our country, and others living in fear of China? Is this Government’s reset with China the cause of the delay in implementing the foreign influence registration scheme?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box with chutzpah and a brass neck after a period in which we had about seven different China policies from the last Government, who left a huge £22 billion black hole in the economy. I might remind her that President Trump has invited the Chinese President to his inauguration, and that trade between the US and China has grown. We can also protect our national security, just as the United States has done. That is why we will compete with China where we need to and challenge it where we must, but we must co-operate in important areas of trade, because we want to see growth in our economy. We are absolutely minded to move forward with that.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Ensuring the safe release of all hostages, including British national Emily Damari and three others with strong UK links, is a top priority for this Government. We have continually supported hostage talks, and support the efforts of the American, Egyptian and Qatari negotiators. We are exercising every diplomatic lever to secure the hostages’ immediate and unconditional release, and call on all parties to show flexibility at the negotiation table.
Jake Richards
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his answer. Last month I had the privilege of meeting Mandy, Emily’s mother, to discuss her family’s plight and their campaign and efforts to secure Emily’s release. I know that the Foreign Secretary met Mandy yesterday in Israel; I spoke to her afterwards, and she was very grateful for that meeting. What steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access to the hostages before release, which Hamas are disgracefully avoiding, and what pressures are being put on Qatar and Egypt in that regard?
Mr Lammy
It was important to be with Mandy Damari in Israel yesterday and to speak to the Israelis, and to be in Saudi Arabia just before that, particularly to speak to my Egyptian counterpart and to press these issues. As Joe Biden has said, we may well be on the brink of a deal, and I know that the whole House will want to see that deal emerge in the coming days and to see Emily come home. My hon. Friend can be assured that humanitarian access, for which we have continued to press for the people of Gaza, is hugely important, and it is as important for the hostages. It will take some time for them to come out, and they need that humanitarian access.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
At Easter last year I had the opportunity to meet Amanda Damari in Israel and to speak to some of the families of the hostages who were kidnapped by Hamas on that terrible and unfortunately memorable day, 7 October. The families have had a yo-yo of emotions: will the hostages be freed, or will they not be freed? Now, all of a sudden, there is a possibility. After the rollercoaster of emotion that the families have been on over the last year and a half, how can we ensure that they get the direct help that they need from our Government?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to see Emily Damari free, and all the hostages, particularly the UK-linked hostages. We know from our contact with their families—I am thinking about the moving event that we had in No. 10 on 30 September—that there will be deep psychological scars, and we must commit to doing all we can through our ongoing humanitarian effort to support those hostages in their process of recovery.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
All Members of the House will praise the courage and resilience of the hostage families and have the hostages in their thoughts right now, particularly Emily’s mother Mandy and Emily herself. Reports of the progress being made on the hostage negotiations are truly welcome, including the Foreign Secretary’s discussions during and after his visit to Israel. Can he give an update on what information he has received about the proof of life of those hostages? Importantly, what resources will our Government be providing to support the hostages through the release process over the period of time speculated, and to bring about a sustainable end to this awful conflict?
Mr Lammy
First, we do all we can to establish proof of life. The right hon. Lady will understand that this situation is fast moving, and even post any deal it can take some degree of time before the hostages come out. I would therefore not want to be pushed on that issue at the Dispatch Box, but I want to assure her that we are doing all we can to continue to make that necessary assessment. As I say, we are—I hope—on the brink of a deal. It will be the first phase of a deal that will probably last six weeks, and that is important to bear in mind. All of us in this House hope to get to a ceasefire and the necessary rebuilding of Gaza, with Israel safe and secure—that will be very important—so that the middle east can move forward in an atmosphere of peace.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We unequivocally condemn Iran’s attacks on Israel in April and October 2024. These attacks, and Iran’s ongoing support for its proxies and partners, have destabilised the region and fuelled escalation. Alongside our allies and partners, we will continue to hold Iran to account for this behaviour, including through sanctions, addressing Iranian weapons proliferation, and maintaining our permanent defence presence in the region.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for that answer. Clearly, we all hope that there will be a deal to release the hostages held illegally in Gaza. Given that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, the proxies of Iran, are on the brink of defeat, the risk to the region now is that Iran takes direct action. As we want to see the end of the despotic regime that brutalises the people of Iran, now is the time for sanctions and the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps once and for all. Will the Minister take the necessary action to bring that regime to its knees, so that democracy can be restored to Iran?
Mr Falconer
I recognise that the hon. Member has asked questions about proscribing the IRGC a number of times in this Chamber, and I can assure him that we are working urgently on measures to take the necessary action to deter the Iranian state from posing a threat to this country and the region. We will continue to update the House in due course.
Peter Fortune
With the re-election of President Trump in the US, we are likely to see a return to his policy of maximum pressure to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. What is the Secretary of State’s view on that approach? Will the Government support our allies in the United States of America?
Mr Falconer
We continue to work closely with the American Administration, and we look forward to doing so with the new Administration. It is regrettably true that Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced, and it threatens international peace and security. We remain determined that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon, and we remain committed to a diplomatic solution to achieve that.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
The scale of humanitarian suffering in Gaza is catastrophic and unacceptable. The UK condemns Israel’s restrictions on aid in the strongest terms. This is a man-made crisis, and Israel must act immediately to address it.
Danny Beales
The aid agencies I have spoken to are particularly concerned about access to medical facilities and critical shortages of medical supplies in Gaza, particularly northern Gaza. In the light of that, what steps are the Government taking to get additional medical supplies to Gaza for both Palestinians and Israeli hostages in desperate humanitarian situations?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important issue. In December, I saw for myself in Jordan how medical aid had been blocked from entering Gaza. As I have said before, the position that the UK Government have articulated at every possible juncture is that restrictions on lifesaving aid must end. The UK continues to provide core healthcare relief items, and has provided 76,000 wound care kits, 1.3 million items of medicine, and critical funding for UK-Med to run its field hospitals in Gaza.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Minister for her response, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to secure a sustainable ceasefire and the release of hostages.
Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the recent raid of Kamal Adwan hospital, which was one of the last healthcare facilities still operating in Gaza. The hospital’s director, Dr Safiya, was detained along with several of his staff during that raid. International law prohibits the detention of medical staff in conflict zones. What is the Minister doing to secure the release of these medical staff so that Gaza’s civilians can continue to access essential medical care?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend is right to raise this critically important issue. We have raised the protection of healthcare facilities and the detention of healthcare workers directly with the Israeli Government. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has specifically raised the detention of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya with both Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister and its ambassador to the UK.
Andy McDonald
The ceasefire that is apparently being progressed is seemingly the same as the one drafted in May, which was deliberately frustrated by members of the Israeli Government. Sadly, since that time, hostages and those falsely imprisoned have remained captive and so many lives have been lost. No doubt the Minister can assure the public that, should the ceasefire be confirmed, every effort will be made to get aid and supplies to the Palestinians, particularly those in northern Gaza. Does she agree that this means that neither Israeli military activity nor Israeli legislation preventing the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency can be accepted?
Anneliese Dodds
There absolutely must be a surge of aid into Gaza; that will be critical after a ceasefire. However, impediments to aid that remain must also be removed.
The issue of UNRWA has been previously discussed in the House. The UK Government’s position is that UNRWA must be able to continue to operate. It is the only organisation with the scale and depth necessary to get that lifesaving aid to people who need it.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
UAV Engines Ltd, based in Staffordshire, manufactures the engines powering the Hermes 450 drone, which is manufactured by Elbit Systems in the UK and used by the Israeli military in the Gaza strip. Israel regards the Hermes 450 as a critical asset, providing strike capabilities. Will the Minister confirm whether those drones, engines or any other parts for the Hermes 450 drone are still being supplied to Israel from the UK?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK has the most robust arms control regime in any global comparison. This Government were determined to ensure that we fulfilled our legal responsibilities and that we assessed, fully and legally, arms exportation licences. I can confirm to the House that since 2 September there have been no extant UK export licences for items to Israel that we assess are for use in military operations in Gaza.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Last week, Hamas fired rockets at the Erez crossing, demonstrating once again the terror group’s intention to disrupt aid delivery and prolong the suffering of Gazans, as well as Israelis. What assistance have the UK Government offered to support repairing that crossing and support Israel as it gets much-needed aid into Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
We remain directly in contact with Israel, with UN agencies and with other partners in the region. That is obviously at ministerial level and also with our special representative for humanitarian issues in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The issues of crossings and their openness and safety have been raised repeatedly by the special representative and by members of this Government. That also covers attacks by the terrorists Hamas on those crossings.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
While Gaza stands on the verge of absolute annihilation, the Israeli ambassador to the UK has repeatedly expressed opposition to a two-state solution, emphasising that that is not a feasible solution. Given that the UK has consistently expressed support for a two-state solution but does not yet recognise one of the states, will the Minister clarify any discussions she has had with the Israeli ambassador?
Mr Speaker
Order. This question is about humanitarian aid, but I am sure the Minister will be able to answer.
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government’s position is, indeed, that there must be a two-state solution. The new Government have been determined to do all we can towards that end. That will include advocating for that solution at every juncture, including with embassies and, as would be expected, with the Israeli embassy.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The UK remains committed to supporting Israel’s security and wider regional stability in the face of threats from malign actors such as Iran. We are clear that Israel must act in accordance with international humanitarian law and do more to protect civilians, hospitals and those who are in desperate need of their services.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Notwithstanding the hope that we all have of a ceasefire, atrocities continue to take place daily in Gaza, with the killing of children, the bombing of hospitals and the threat of banning aid at the end of the month. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what the Israeli Government have to do to persuade the UK Government to impose sanctions, ban all arms sales and recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
Since coming into office we have taken significant action: calling, of course, for a ceasefire—we have been calling for a ceasefire since December 2023; suspending relevant arms sales, as has been set out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development; and increasing the amount of aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are also in steadfast support of UNRWA.
Israel remains an important ally. We have an important trading relationship, worth £6.1 billion last year and involving 38,000 British jobs. I am sorry; any discussion of sanctions is just not correct.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I invite the Foreign Secretary to welcome the appointment of Nawaf Salam and to comment on its implications for our relationship with Lebanon and Israel and for Iran’s influence in the region. What does he intend to do to ensure that that positive step improves our relationship with Israel, Lebanon and the countries in the eastern Mediterranean?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak about Lebanon. The developments in Lebanon over the past few days could transform the region. The appointment of a new President and a new Prime Minister could provide Lebanon with the opportunity to see Hezbollah’s capability diminished, which the whole international community should grab hold of. As the right hon. Member knows from his time in office, the UK contribution to the Lebanese armed forces is important and one that the Lebanese treasure. We intend to continue with that and to go further over the coming months, which I know he will welcome.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
May I pay tribute to the hon. Member for her overseas work as the British Council’s former director of communications? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I understand that she was posted in London, Paris, Tokyo and Shanghai. I am jealous, as my assignments in my overseas postings were rather different.
The British Council’s board of trustees is responsible for the organisation’s financial sustainability. As an FCDO arm’s length body, the British Council received £162.5 million of grant in aid funding in 2024-25. My noble Friend, Baroness Chapman, oversees this as the Minister responsible. This contribution supports the British Council’s role as a soft power asset, promoting UK arts and culture, education, and the English language.
Monica Harding
Mr Speaker, may I declare another interest as the officer of the British Council all-party parliamentary group?
The British Council delivers more than £1 billion-worth of global impact for the UK every year. During the pandemic, it was forced to close 18 country operations, none of which has since reopened. The then Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab gave it an emergency loan, but set it out on commercial terms. The interest on this loan is costing the British Council £14 million a year. Will the Minister help the British Council keep delivering on the Government’s growth, security and soft power objectives and consider reviewing the terms of the council’s loan, extending the date for beginning repayments, reducing the commercial rate of interest, or redesignating the loan—
Mr Falconer
Ministers are aware of the issues in relation to the £200 million. As the hon. Member said, the loan was made on commercial terms in order to be compliant with the UK subsidy control regime. On 6 January, my ministerial colleagues the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Chapman met the chief executive officer of the British Council to discuss these issues.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
As we have already heard, the British Council is vital to the UK’s soft power across the world. At such an important time for the promotion of our values of democracy, freedom and human rights, reports that the British Council may have to close 30 to 40 operations is deeply worrying. What steps is the Minister taking to secure the future of the British Council’s existing programmes?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his long-held commitment on these issues. Soft power is an issue of the most vital importance, particularly in this contested world. I am very pleased to confirm, as the Foreign Secretary already has, that we are establishing a soft power council in the coming days. That is an important initiative and the British Council will be an important part of that work. In relation to country offices, the British Council retains a significant physical presence in more than 100 countries, which is welcome, and has a growing presence online, which is to be encouraged.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend as the new UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief.
As part of our intensive diplomatic engagement with international partners, and indeed with the interim Syrian authorities, we have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition and underlined the importance of protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.
David Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me and for his commitment and that of the Department to work with the nascent Syrian Government as they seek to protect and respect religious minorities. However, I am sure that he is aware that over Christmas there were attacks by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham fighters on the Christian-majority town of Maaloula, and some reports of attacks on Alawite communities. What more can he and his Department do to work with the Syrian Government as they seek to build a society in which all religious communities can take part without fear of religious persecution?
Mr Falconer
As the House would expect, we follow reports of such incidents in Syria very closely. I was discussing some of those incidents with members of Syrian civil society just last night, and the Foreign Secretary has raised those questions directly with the interim Foreign Minister of the Syrian authorities. We will continue to call for all parties in Syria, in this moment of transition, to do the utmost to respect the rights of all religious minorities across the country.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Minorities can be protected only if there is stable and representative government in Syria. This morning I met some members of the Syrian Democratic Council who are concerned that the call for dialogue is not inclusive and that minorities are not being protected. What steps can the Government take to ensure that that does not happen and that there is inclusive dialogue? Will the Government, for example, link the lifting of sanctions against Syria to the actions to protect minorities and to the inclusion of the Syrian Democratic Council in future constitutional arrangements?
Mr Falconer
It is vital that the new Syria includes representation of all its people and that all Syrians can see themselves represented in the Government that will follow. We are supporting an inclusive political process that must respect the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, and we will continue in our efforts.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
As I made clear in my Locarno speech on 9 January, tackling irregular migration is an FCDO priority. We regularly engage with counterparts in priority countries to strengthen collaboration on tackling organised crime and to secure migrant returns.
Peter Swallow
The proposed sanctions on people smugglers are a world first, designed to deter and disrupt those vile criminals and the supply chain that enables them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an important step in smashing the gangs?
Mr Lammy
The sanctions are the first of their kind, and we hope that other allies will follow us in going after the enablers of the gangs and with the ability to issue travel bans, freeze assets and do all we can to disrupt this illegal trade. But I emphasise that alongside the sanctions are the new joint unit in the Department; the huge amount of work we have done on returns, which are important and which are up by 23% across the country; and the work we do upstream with the official development assistance funding of £84 million announced as we came into government back in July.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I first would like to offer my deep condolences to all those affected by the dreadful wildfires we have seen in California and, indeed, in relation to the terror attacks we saw in Las Vegas and New Orleans, where tragically we also lost a British national. I know the thoughts of the whole House are with the United States at this difficult time.
The 250th anniversary of US independence will be a significant moment to recognise the work of generations of Americans and Britons over a quarter of a millennium to build the special relationship. We have come a long way since 1776, and I am excited by the ambitious US plans to mark the occasion, and I look forward to celebrating our partnership and our special relationship in 2026.
Robin Swann
I join the Minister in his opening comments. The 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence presents a unique opportunity to promote cultural and historical links between Northern Ireland and the United States, because at least five signatories of the declaration have direct Ulster links. The declaration itself was printed by an Ulster Scot—John Dunlap from Strabane. The great seal of the United States was designed by Charles Thomson from Upperlands, and 17 of the US Presidents can claim Ulster Scots roots. However, the Government’s introduction of an electronic travel authorisation scheme will have a devastating impact on tourism—
Mr Speaker
Order. The anniversary will have passed if we don’t get to the end—come on.
Stephen Doughty
We learn new things every day. I am delighted to hear about the heritage of the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world in relation to the United States. My own family dates back to the late 1700s in Pennsylvania—we are not sure which side they fought on. Later, my grandfather came over during the second world war to fight alongside us against Nazi tyranny in Europe. Those special relationship are part of all our communities and families, and we absolutely want to celebrate them across all our countries.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
We are strengthening our work abroad on the priorities of the British people to deliver the Government’s plan for change. We are the first country in the world to develop a sanctions regime specifically targeting illegal migration. Our reforms will strengthen the Foreign Office role in attracting investment and securing new business deals. Our tough diplomacy will keep up support for Ukraine and bring stability to the middle east.
Alex Baker
I welcome the progress made by COP29 in Baku, and the Government’s leadership on climate change. Nepal is at the sharp end of dealing with climate change—late last year, there were 200 deaths from floods in Kathmandu. What are the Government doing to support that nation, which has been a partner and a friend to the UK over many years?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased that we announced a £38.5 million resilience, adaption and inclusion programme so that Nepal could deal with disaster risk. That follows £58.5 million for climate-smart development over an eight-year programme. Our relationship with Nepal, particularly on the climate issue, is essential and very important.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he is surrendering the Chagos Islands and front-loading payments to the Government of Mauritius to lease back a base at Diego Garcia at a cost of £9 billion to UK taxpayers? If that is such a good deal, why is he so secretive about it?
Mr Lammy
I know that the shadow Foreign Secretary is new to the job, but I remind her that her Government did 10 rounds of negotiations on this issue and we picked it up, and that the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon believe that it is a good deal, as do the Indian Government.
Priti Patel
Following the Foreign Secretary’s meetings in Saudi Arabia and with the new Foreign Minister of Syria over the weekend, what conditions did he stipulate for the removal of sanctions in Syria, and in what kind of timeframe?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady raises an important issue. We will judge the new Syrian Government by their actions, not their words. We are, alongside allies, reviewing sanctions at the moment. I will not comment in detail on that, but we are clear that we want to see an inclusive Government who prosper. We have been pleased with what we have seen so far, but as has already been mentioned, some of what we have seen on the ground has not been good. We will judge them by their actions, not their words, and we will not go faster than she would expect us to.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I thank my hon. Friend for the question and for his long-standing work on Syria issues. I was very glad to join him and so many inspiring members of Syrian civil society who are keen to make a contribution. We will do what we can to enable the new Syria to be a success and to enable Syrian civil society here and across the world to play their full role in that.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
There is strong evidence that Russia has sought to influence the outcome of elections in Georgia, Moldova and Romania, and it may now be doing so in Germany. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that the current measures to track Russian money and misinformation in the UK is sufficient to protect the UK from similar interference, and does he think that the role of Russian money in funding UK political parties should be investigated to ensure that our elections remain free and fair?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important work of the defending democracy taskforce, which works across Government here in the United Kingdom. We closely monitor developments in other countries; we have stood alongside our European partners, including Moldova specifically, in response to these efforts at interference; and of course, we recently appointed Margaret Hodge as our illicit finance and kleptocracy champion, to tackle many of the issues the hon. Gentleman has raised in relation to money.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
The UK Government consistently urge Pakistani authorities to act in line with their international obligations and respect fundamental freedoms and human rights. I raised these issues during my visit to Pakistan in November and in my statement to the House on 28 November. We issued a further statement on 23 December about the role of military courts. We have made it clear that the UK supports individuals’ rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and we will continue to do so.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Stephen Doughty
As I have said in the House on many occasions, there is no rush. [Interruption.] No, it is a fact that negotiations on this issue were going on for two years under the previous Government, with 10 rounds of failed negotiations. We have secured a deal that is in all of our interests and, crucially, secures our base and our national security interests and those of our allies on Diego Garcia.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the deeply concerning ongoing conflict in eastern DRC and its devastating consequences. Our humanitarian programme, which amounts to £114 million, is delivering lifesaving emergency assistance, and I can reassure her that Lord Collins has met with the leaders of DRC and Rwanda to urge them to engage in good faith in the Luanda process, to bring an end to the horrific fighting.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Stephen Doughty
I simply refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers we have given previously on this issue. There is strong support from across the US national security apparatus—from the State Department, from the White House and from the Pentagon. We are convinced that this is a deal that has protections in it to protect our national security and that of our allies, most importantly the United States.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about our historical role and responsibilities in relation to Kosovo. KFOR makes a vital contribution to maintaining a safe and secure environment in Kosovo, and of course UK troops play a key part in that. We engage very closely with our partners in Kosovo and across the region, and continue to urge Serbia and Kosovo to engage constructively in the EU-facilitated dialogue. In recent months, I have spoken to both Prime Minister Kurti and Foreign Minister Đurić of Serbia.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The UK Government have been in touch with the South Koreans, our great friends, and we continue to support the arrangements there, any democratic moves towards stability and the ongoing relationship with the UK.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Israeli Government have stated that Israel’s presence in the Golan heights buffer zone is defensive, limited and temporary. Given that the Israeli Cabinet has recently approved a financial package to increase the number of illegal settlements in the Golan heights, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the veracity of Israel’s statement?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased that I raised this issue directly with the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday. He wanted to emphasise that this is a temporary measure in Israel’s national interests, and I emphasised that the Syrian Foreign Minister had made it clear to me that the Syrians stand by the 1974 commitment and do not want to seek any escalation with their Israeli neighbour.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Mr Lammy
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that all due process has been followed in the normal way. This is the same as any planning application, and the implication of what he has just said in relation to the Deputy Prime Minister is quite unsavoury.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the representations that he and the Prime Minister have made to the President of Egypt to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah? His mother Laila, who is with us in the Gallery today, has gone beyond 100 days on hunger strike, and we are desperate to secure the release of Alaa.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Prime Minister wrote to President Sisi on 26 December and 8 January. The National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, was in Egypt on 2 January, and I met the Egyptian Foreign Minister in Saudi Arabia on Sunday. This remains our No. 1 issue. We have raised it on every single occasion, and we continue to press for clemency, for understanding and for Alaa’s release.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The official readout from “Operation kowtow”, the Chancellor’s mission to Beijing, says that she
“urged China to cease its support for Russia’s defence industrial base, which is enabling Russia to maintain its illegal war against Ukraine.”
Did the Chancellor elicit any such assurances, and if not, what does it mean for the Foreign Secretary’s supposed reset of relations with the people of the Great Hall?
Mr Lammy
Can I just remind the hon. Gentleman that it was our last Foreign Secretary who had a pint with President Xi? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as she is able to outline, was able to raise all the issues—Jimmy Lai, the security law in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and a whole range of others—but we are only able to do that by engagement.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Friends in Gaza and across the middle east, together with many of us here, are all hoping and praying that a ceasefire will happen this time. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Palestinians of Gaza must be able to move freely to return to their homes, or what is left of them, regardless of whether they are currently in Gaza or have fled elsewhere? In the event of a ceasefire, will the UK convene an international meeting on Gaza’s reconstruction?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to press these issues. It was very important to be in Israel yesterday to talk about what may come when we get that ceasefire, and about the role that the UK of course wants to play both in ensuring Israel’s security and in working with other partners to ensure reconstruction.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The rights of women in Afghanistan have been under systematic assault since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, and women have been all but entirely excluded from public life. They are barred from attending school and university, and in many areas they cannot leave their homes without a male guardian present. What pressure are the UK Government putting on the Taliban to ensure that women and girls can go back to school?
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with the hon. Lady. We are deeply concerned by the appalling erosion of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, and we are seeking to use every avenue to exert pressure. I remind the House that on 9 January I announced that the UK had formally joined the list of countries pledging political support to the initiative to refer Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice for violations of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will Ministers update the House on the implementation of the advisory opinion from the ICJ on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly in relation to the consequences for the UK and other nation states?
Mr Falconer
We continue to consider the advisory opinion of the ICJ carefully. It is a far-reaching opinion that took months in the production, and we hope to be able to report back soon.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Following up on the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah in Egypt, will the Secretary of State say when he expects a substantial response to his engagement with the Egyptian Government? Will he confirm that he will not travel to Egypt unless he is confident that he can return with Alaa?
Mr Lammy
Our relationship with Egypt is multifaceted. Today, this House has discussed the hope of a hostage deal, and the hon. Lady will understand the importance that the Egyptians play in that. As I said, I raised this issue on Sunday. I raised it on 20 December. I have pressed for Alaa’s release, and we will continue to do all we can, including the Prime Minister and the National Security Adviser. In the end, this is in the hands of the Egyptians.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Turkey has increasingly been threatening interventions beyond Syria. It has given shelter to Hamas and has announced a new programme to develop long-range weapons. As a fellow NATO ally, how will the Government work with Ankara to secure peace and stability in the middle east?
Mr Lammy
I met my opposite number in Saudi Arabia at the weekend to discuss the issues in north-east Syria. He of course raised his long-standing concerns about Kurdish groups in the north-east, and I made it clear, along with many allies, that we do not want to see further escalation in Syria at this time. We continue to be in dialogue with a very close NATO ally.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Minister keeps telling the House that negotiations with Mauritius have been going on for two years. Will he explain to the House why he is so reluctant to extend those negotiations by just one week until the Trump Administration take office? They may take a very different view of the negotiations from that of the Biden Administration.
Stephen Doughty
I simply refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers I have given repeatedly. This deal is in the interests of the United Kingdom and in the interests of the United States, and it has been supported by all parts of the United States Administration. There is no rush. There are ongoing discussions, but we are not going to give a running commentary.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been in arbitrary detention in India for more than seven years. The Secretary of State and his ministerial team have been extremely generous with their time and assistance to help resolve the situation, but can I seek the Minister’s assurance that those efforts are ongoing?
Catherine West
Ministers have engaged frankly with counterparts in India on Mr Johal’s case, pushing for faster progress towards a resolution, including the call for an investigation into allegations of torture by the authorities.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Government are right to continue the all-party approach to the next International Development Association replenishment of the World Bank, which is extremely good value for taxpayer money. Will the Foreign Secretary press the Treasury to match what the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), did in adding £2.5 billion to the 0.5% official development assistance budget, to help defray some of the costs of first-year asylum seekers, which that budget bears? Otherwise, we will be spending more development money in UK postal districts than in Africa.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He understands deeply that under Conservative Governments, we saw those so-called in-donor refugee costs spiralling out of control. The system was not being brought under any kind of coherent plan by previous Governments. Now there is a plan, which is being delivered by the Home Secretary. We are determined to ensure that those costs are brought down.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
The Foreign Secretary has rightly imposed widespread sanctions on Russia for its war crimes. Earlier, he responded on the subject of sanctions on Israel by referring to the fact that talk of war crimes is incorrect because of the value of trade and Israel’s historic status as an ally. Surely a war crime is a war crime, whoever commits it. All lives are equal and international law is international law. I invite the Foreign Secretary to explain to the House the difference of approach between war crimes committed by Russia and war crimes committed by Israel.
Mr Lammy
We are on the brink, we hope, of a ceasefire deal. It was important to be in Israel yesterday, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is one of the toughest regions in the world. I remind him of the malign effect of Iran, just next door. Hezbollah have been diminished, but they are still there. Hamas have been diminished, but they are still there. I have to say that it is not right to comment on sanctions and proscription, but we are talking about an ally.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister’s earlier comment that the future of Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland, but will he commit in the way that France and Germany have to defending Greenland’s territorial integrity against any hostile action?
Stephen Doughty
I met the Foreign Minister of Greenland yesterday, which was the second time I have met her in the past four months. We discussed a range of issues, including security in the Arctic, our partnership, our trade partnership and our close engagement on a number of matters, including climate change, science and other areas. Our partnership with Greenland is strong, as is our partnership with Denmark. I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made on Greenland’s future, which is a matter for the people of Greenland and the people of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
We have millions shoehorned into a confined prison, hundreds of communities destroyed, thousands of people indiscriminately killed and lifesaving humanitarian aid being blocked. Will the Foreign Secretary show consistency, judge Israel on its actions and at last define what Netanyahu’s apartheid regime is doing to Palestinians as a genocide?
Mr Falconer
We have set out our position on the designation of genocide, so I will not enter into that discussion again, but I will respond to my hon. Friend on the questions of aid access, on which a ministerial colleague has spoken already and on which we have been consistent. We are clear that not enough aid is getting into Gaza, and we have been clear with the Israeli Government on our difference on the conduct of hostilities and of aid access.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government deny that incoming President Trump is deeply hostile to the proposed Chagos Islands giveaway?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we have support across the United States Administration, including from the Pentagon, the State Department, the agencies and the White House. We are confident that as the details of the deal are provided in the proper way—one Administration at a time, as he well knows—the new Administration will recognise that this important deal protects our security and that of the United States, as well as the unimpeded operation of the base on Diego Garcia, which has been our primary objective throughout this process.
Drones: High-security Prisons
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the national security risk of drones being used to deliver weapons to high-security prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
This is not a new issue. Effective prison security is fundamental to the rehabilitative nature of prisons and ensuring public confidence in the criminal justice system. The availability of illicit items in our jails, including drugs and mobile phones, undermines prison officers’ ability to do their jobs. Drone sightings around prisons in England and Wales are a matter of great concern and pose a major threat to prison security.
The Government inherited a prison system in crisis, with violence and drug use on the rise. We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones. It is not possible to talk in detail of the tactics we use to disrupt drones, given the obvious security implications. What I can say is that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service invests in targeted countermeasures such as improvements to windows, netting and grilles to stop drones from successfully delivering cargo such as drugs and weapons. In January 2024, restricted fly zones were introduced around all closed prisons and young offender institutions, supporting police and prison staff to disrupt illegal drone use.
Ultimately, it is crucial that we tackle demand. Almost half of people entering prisons have a drug problem, so we must get them into the right treatment to tackle the drug misuse that is so often a driver of their reoffending. Contraband supply and the illicit economy drive violence, self-harm and instability, and prevent offenders from engaging in rehabilitative activity. We are working to crack down on the levels of violence and drugs in our prisons.
The illicit economy is unfortunately highly profitable, with prices for drugs and other commodities between 10 and 100 times their street values—an A4 sheet of paper laced with drugs can be worth £1,000—so we must tackle the organised crime gangs behind it. That is why we have invested in a dedicated serious and organised crime unit who will work with law enforcement agencies to disrupt these sophisticated criminal networks. We will continue to take a multifaceted approach to drones and the disruption that they cause to our prison system.
Robert Jenrick
Given that this is a question of national security, I find it astonishing that the Lord Chancellor cannot be bothered to turn up to the House today. Yesterday—[Interruption.]
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Yesterday, the chief inspector of prisons warned that the police and prisons service have “ceded the airspace” above two high-security prisons to organised crime groups. The result is that organised crime gangs can deliver drugs, phones and weapons such as zombie knives to inmates with impunity due to the absence of basic security measures such as functional CCTV, protective netting and window repairs. Across two visits in September and October, he described a damning picture of thriving illicit economies that jeopardise the safety of dedicated prison staff.
In HMP Manchester, almost four in 10 prisoners have tested positive in mandatory drug tests, and in HMP Long Lartin the figure was nearly three in 10. Those two prisons hold some of the most dangerous men in our country, including murderers and terrorists. If organised crime gangs can deliver phones and drugs to inmates’ cells, they could be delivering serious weapons and explosives as well.
The chief inspector said that the potential for escapes or hostage taking is of enormous concern. This could not be more serious. The situation has become, in his words,
“a threat to national security.”
I do not pretend that these problems are entirely new, but they have deteriorated and they need urgent action. Will the Minister provide the timeframes for fixing the most basic security measures? What visits has the Lord Chancellor made to HMP Manchester and HMP Long Lartin? If she has not visited, when does she intend to go? Little else could be more pressing. What discussions has she held with the prison governors? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have confidence in the senior management to restore order? Does he agree with the chief inspector that the failure to grip the situation is a serious indictment of the Department?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Who had 14 years to grip this situation? At least this Government are taking action—[Interruption.]
Sir Nicholas Dakin
This Government are taking action in the first six months. The right hon. Member will know that drone sightings around prisons increased by over 770% between 2019 and 2023—on his Government’s watch. Much like everything in our prisons, his Government have left it to us to fix the broken system and clean up their mess. It is a bit rich for him to come here and lecture us when he had 14 years to put this right.
We are installing new CCTV systems, netting and other countermeasures to combat drones. We have clamped down on the contraband that fuels violence behind bars. We are tackling drones through a cross-Government approach, as well as learning from our international counterparts to support our efforts. We are working with our Five Eyes partners—they face the same issues across their prison estates, because this is not a UK problem but a global problem—along with the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. We have 99 X-ray body scanners in 96 prisons, providing full coverage of the closed adult male estate, to prevent the internal smuggling of illicit contraband. We are taking action while the Opposition just spout.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister will no doubt be pleased that the Justice Committee has just announced an inquiry into drugs in prisons, with an emphasis on the use of drones by organised crime gangs to supply inmates. What makes it easy for drones to access prisons is the appalling state of prison maintenance. There is a £1.8 billion backlog, which did not accrue in the past six months. The shadow Secretary of State’s surprise is, in itself, surprising. What is the timetable for repairing the problems in prisons and getting to grips with that maintenance backlog?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is completely right that the prison maintenance programme that we inherited was in a state. That is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget a £500 million boost to the prison maintenance budget over the next couple of years. That is important. He is right also to say that we need to grip this, which is why the Prisons Minister in the other place has visited Manchester and is regularly updated on the situation there.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The word that was missing from the shadow Justice Secretary’s question just now was “sorry”. A National Audit Office report said of the then Conservative Treasury’s investment in prison maintenance and security that
“capital budget allocations for prisons have been well below the level needed.”
Who was a Treasury Minister at that time? None other than the shadow Justice Secretary. Today’s report is the latest chapter in a catalogue of Tory prison failures that scuppered their mission to reduce reoffending, and therefore let down victims of crime. Will the Minister tell us about a new approach to better empower governors with the investment and the autonomy needed to properly invest in prison maintenance and security? What investment will he make in prison officer recruitment through programmes such as Unlocked Graduates, which are critical to help drive security in our prisons?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member is right about the failures missing in the shadow Minister’s question. He is also right to ask what the Government are doing to support prison officers and prison governors. We are investing in that, and we will announce a new programme for training and developing new governors very shortly.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The Conservatives are doing another faux outrage, as they were the ones who ceded the airspace after 14 years of colossal failure in our justice system. What lessons can we learn from that failure so that we tackle the problem of drugs in prisons, which are a big driver of drone drops?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The lesson is that we need to work with prison governors and the police and invest in actions to deal with the problem. That is exactly what we are doing. We are working with everybody in the system to sort this mess out.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Apart from the serious security concerns that this activity raises, it shows that prisons bring resource pressures for local police forces. In West Suffolk, where Highpoint prison is due to grow significantly in the years ahead, the police have asked me to ask the Minister to ensure they receive additional funding to reflect that pressure. Will he do so?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The hon. Member is right that it is important that local police forces work strongly with HM Prison and Probation Service on this issue. That is what is happening. He will know that funding, both locally and nationally, is dealt with in an appropriate way.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Prison Officers’ Association has been saying for the past five years that the threat of drones destabilises our prisons and poses a massive security risk. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the anti-drone system at HMP Guernsey, which very effectively prevents that threat. Can we expect this new system to be implemented in all prisons in England and Wales?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Anything that works will be built upon—that is part of it. Drone technology has been accelerated through the Ukraine war. We know that we need to work very hard to keep ahead of the felons on this.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
We all appreciate the destructive impact of drugs in our prisons. In Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, we have the largest cluster of prisons in the United Kingdom, with HMP Featherstone, HMP Oakwood and Brinsford young offender institution. Prison officers do an amazing job trying to tackle this issue, but what specific measures can the Minister bring forward to support their work, to try to ensure that prisoners ultimately get on to the path of rehabilitation and kick the habit of drugs?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The right hon. Member is right that prison officers do an outstanding job. I want to take the opportunity to commend the work of prison officers up and down this country. Eighty prisons now have incentivised substance-free living units, providing a supportive environment for prisoners who commit to living drug-free, with regular drug tests and incentives. That project appears to be working.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
There has been a long-standing issue at Wandsworth prison in my constituency, which has multiple drone drops every single week. Given the lack of CCTV, no netting and high staff vacancies, little can be done to combat them. Following the announcement of a £100 million investment into the prison, will the Minister please ensure that all these issues are addressed and ameliorated?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to work hard to address these issues, but if there were a simple solution, the previous Administration would have waved that magic wand and we would not be sitting here today. It is important that the ongoing work of prison governors, supported by HMPPS across the country and by Ministers, gets to the bottom of this and sorts things out, which is what we are trying to do.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
LiveLink Aerospace in my constituency is a surveillance company that has created a technology that is being used on Royal Navy ships, in airports and on private yachts. This technology could be crucial to maintaining the no-fly zones above prisons, which were introduced in January last year. Will the Minister explore this technology? Will he come to my constituency to visit LiveLink Aerospace and see what the technology can do?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
It is important that we take advantage of what intelligence is out there. If the hon. Lady writes to me, I will be happy to follow that up appropriately with her and the business involved.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the Conservative party left our prisons in crisis, with drug and drone use rife? Will he outline the urgent steps that his Government are taking to ensure that such colossal failure can never happen again?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We inherited a prison estate that was 99.7% full. The police and the courts were in danger of not being able to lock people up. That was an abrogation of duty by the Conservative party. We have rolled up our sleeves and tackled that, and we will tackle this problem as well.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for a very positive recent meeting on an unrelated subject. Is the main problem here the detection of the incoming drones, or the ability to impede the deliveries once they have been detected?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the positive meeting I had recently with him, officials and the local business. The answer to his question is that both those things are issues.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
On visiting the three prisons in the Sheppey prison cluster in my constituency, it is clear to see how the prison estate has been degraded over the past 14 years. I have talked to prison officers, who are my constituents, as well as working in the constituency, about the problems they face day in, day out. It takes more than a few signs saying “no drones” to stop those drones. What is the Minister doing to listen to prison officers and the Prison Officers Association, and to support them in tackling this? Those officers face threats and pressure from organised crime. Will he meet me to discuss this further?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend; if he could drop me a note to remind me, I will do that. This week, the Prisons Minister is meeting officials from the Prison Officers Association. Whenever I visit prisons, as I do regularly, I meet the Prison Officers Association representative in that prison. They are key partners in tackling the problems that we have inherited from the previous Government.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
High-security prisons ensure that our national security is not compromised, because they house some of the most dangerous threats to our society. In government, the Conservatives introduced legislation to make it an automatic offence to fly drones within 400 metres of any closed prison. What assurances can the Minister give this House that those who commit such offences will feel the full force of the law?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
That important action taken by the previous Government was, quite correctly, supported by Labour in opposition. When anybody is found guilty of flying a detected drone, the appropriate prosecution will follow.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Welsh Affairs Committee recently visited Parc Prison in Wales, where we saw the types of contraband being smuggled into prisons by drones. One of the biggest problems reported to us was multiple drones coming in at the same time; it is difficult for the security team to then bring them down, even though they are using CCTV. What is the Minister doing to outlaw the use of those drones, to keep our prisoners safe and secure?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The security and safety of prisoners and prison officers is very important. The Prisons Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), sitting to my right, recently visited Parc Prison, and are well aware of the issues. They are working with the prison authorities to address them.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Two months ago in the House, I raised concerns that HMP Garth had been likened to an airport because of the number of drones illegally flying drugs into the prison. In response, the Lord Chancellor told me that the Prisons Minister was meeting the governor and thinking
“about how to deal with those problems”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 164.]
What precise action has the Department taken since then, and what action will the Minister take today to deal with the problems at HMP Manchester?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Actions are being taken and things are being done. I have mentioned the issues around windows, and netting and bars, but frankly this is a security issue. We are up against organised crime. We will not talk publicly about the measures that we are considering, because that would not be the best way of tackling the issue.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I recognise that this issue is very much related to drugs. Having previously worked for a homeless charity, I have seen the huge amount of damage that drugs can cause to people’s lives, and to their families. What are the Government doing about the wider issue of drugs supply, both in and out of prisons?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
As I have already said, it is very important that we tackle drug dependency in prisons. The fact that we now have a little bit more space in prisons allows more work to go on there to tackle drug dependency. We know that education and employment also help to reduce reoffending, which is why we have committed to improving prisoners’ access to not only drug support programmes, but purposeful activity and employment.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Government have said time and again that they want to smash the criminal gangs that illegally smuggle illegal migrants into the UK, yet the Government cannot even smash the gangs that smuggle drugs and phones into our prisons. How can my residents trust the Government to smash these gangs?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The residents of Broxbourne will be well aware that for 14 years, the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported failed to tackle this problem. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and getting on with it.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
This is a long-standing problem, and the previous Government did not do anywhere near enough to deal with it. What they did do, when former Prime Minister Liz Truss was Lord Chancellor, was arrange for more dogs to bark at drones around prisons, which they assured us would work. Has the Ministry of Justice done an assessment on how effective that policy was?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I think everybody agrees that that policy was barking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers today, and for his clear commitment to making changes that will make a difference. In Northern Ireland prisons, contraband has been a difficult issue to get on top of. Given the news today that drones are being so successfully used in the UK, there is obvious cause for concern that their use may become more prevalent. How will the Minister ensure that the steps taken apply equally across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that any additional funding that is required will be allocated?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Any lessons learned need to be applied across the United Kingdom, and that will happen. We need to work with our Five Eyes partners to ensure that the very best action is taken. Northern Ireland needs to get the best of that as well.
UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Labour Government. To grow the economy, we need to help Great British businesses to export around the world, including to China, the second biggest economy in the world and our fourth-largest trading partner. Not engaging is simply not an option. That is why I led a delegation, including the Governor of the Bank of England, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority and representatives of some of Britain’s largest financial service firms, including HSBC, Standard Chartered and Schroders, to the 2025 UK-China economic and financial dialogue—the first of its kind since 2019.
This dialogue has delivered a set of tangible benefits to ensure that British firms have greater access to the Chinese market, while safeguarding our national security—the first duty of any Government. In China, I met outstanding British companies, such as Brompton, Jaguar Land Rover and AstraZeneca, that will benefit from the steps that we have agreed. We have worked to lift market access barriers across a range of goods and services, particularly in the agrifood sector. On financial services, we have successfully secured new licences and quota allocations for UK firms to improve operating access in China. We agreed to co-operate further, including by renewing our shared commitment to the UK-China stock connect scheme, first launched in 2019, by deepening our co-operation on wealth management through a UK-China wealth connect scheme, and by progressing initiatives on pensions and sustainable finance, delivering significant benefits for UK firms and the City of London. I am pleased that China agreed to issue its first ever overseas sovereign green bond in London in 2025, underlining the UK’s position as a global capital for high-quality sustainable finance.
The UK is a global leader in financial services. There are significant opportunities to expand our presence in new markets, and the tangible outcomes we have delivered this week will help to deliver that. These steps are part of a wider programme to make substantive progress on improving arrangements for UK exporters and investors, as reflected in new agreements on vaccine approvals, fertiliser, whisky labelling, legal services, automotives and accountancy, which have set us on course for this dialogue to unlock £1 billion of value for the UK economy.
These outcomes, agreed with my counterpart Vice-Premier He Lifeng, represent pragmatic co-operation in action, and support secure and resilient economic growth, because security and economic growth go hand in hand. That means finding the right way to build a stable and balanced relationship with China that is in our national interest—one that recognises the importance of co-operation in addressing the global issues that we face, of competing where our interests differ, and of challenging robustly whenever that is required. In Beijing and Shanghai, I was clear that while we must co-operate on areas of mutual interest, we will confidently challenge on areas where we disagree. I expressed our country’s real economic and trade concerns to the Chinese, including about trade imbalances and economic security, and I raised concerns about Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, human rights, and restrictions on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including the case of Jimmy Lai and the completely unjustified sanctions against British parliamentarians.
A key outcome of this dialogue is that we have secured China’s commitment to improving existing channels, so that we can openly discuss sensitive issues and the ways in which they impact our economy, because if we do not engage with China, we cannot raise our real concerns. This dialogue is just one part of our engagement with trading partners across the world. Since becoming Chancellor, I have been to New York, Washington, Toronto and Brussels to build our global economic relationships, while my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has travelled to the Gulf to boost trade and investment, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is engaging with partners all over the world to deliver growth that benefits people across the United Kingdom.
We must continue to go further, faster, in driving economic growth to make working people better off. That is why the Prime Minister launched our artificial intelligence opportunities action plan yesterday. It throws the full weight of Government behind AI in the UK to revolutionise our public services and make our economy more productive. It is why next week I will talk to business leaders, investors and entrepreneurs at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to make the case that the UK is one of the best places in the world in which to invest. In the coming weeks, I will set out further details of our plans to kick-start growth in the economy after 14 years of failure from the Conservative party.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
It is good to see the Chancellor in her place, and I thank her for advance sight of her statement. I know that she has been away, so let me update her on the mess that she left behind. The pound has hit a 14-month low; Government borrowing costs are at a 27-year high; growth has been killed stone dead; inflation is rising, impacting millions; interest rates are staying higher for longer; and business confidence has fallen through the floor. The Labour party talked down the economy and crippled businesses with colossal taxes, breaking all their promises. This is a crisis made in Downing Street.
It should hardly surprise the Chancellor that international markets are uneasy. The UK’s long-term borrowing costs have risen to their highest in almost 30 years. But while the Government were losing control of the economy, where was the Chancellor? Her trip to China had not even begun when my urgent question was taken in the House last week. She was still in the country, but she sent the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, rather than facing up to her failures. May I ask her why she chose not to respond herself?
The Chancellor, of course, ducked the difficult questions by jetting off to Beijing. I believe that in Labour circles they are calling it the Peking duck, but whatever was on the menu in China, was it really worth the unedifying sight of an increasingly desperate politician scampering halfway around the world with a begging bowl? The Chancellor’s deal pales in comparison to Labour’s black hole, which opened up in the public finances while the right hon. Lady was absent from her station.
Let me give the House a sense of scale. The deal that the Chancellor has announced amounts to £120 million a year. The rise in our borrowing costs, due to her disastrous Budget, has added about £12 billion to our annual spending on debt interest alone: literally 100 times what she says she has brought back from Beijing. That is money that cannot now be spent on the public’s priorities. That £12 billion is enough to pay for 300,000 nurses or to cover Labour’s pernicious winter fuel payments cut for eight and a half years—and, of course, even before this latest market reaction, the Budget meant spending tens of billions more on servicing our debt. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, two thirds of the money raised from the Chancellor’s jobs tax will be swallowed up by additional debt interest. Forget those billions going towards better public services; they are going on paying the price of Labour’s mismanagement.
We on this side of the House know how this sorry story goes. We have seen it all before: socialist Governments who think that they can tax and spend their way to prosperity; Labour Governments who simply do not understand that if you tax the living daylights out of business, you will get stagnation. They do not understand because there is barely a shred of business experience on the Government Front Bench. May I ask the right hon. Lady which of her promises she will break if the OBR judges in March that she is now in breach of her own fiscal rules? Will she cancel promised spending, will she ramp up borrowing, or will she raise taxes yet again?
This whole sorry tale is nothing short of a Shakespearean tragedy being played out before our eyes. This is the Hamlet of our time. Labour promised the electorate much, while pouring the poison into their ear. And the end—you can feel the end; the Chancellor flailing, estranged, it seems, from those closest to her; those about her falling; the drums beating ever closer. To go, or not to go, that is now a question. The Prime Minister will be damned if he does, but he will surely be damned if he does not. The British people deserve better.
Rachel Reeves
The shadow Chancellor is simply not serious. I was on the Opposition side of the House for 14 years, and I think that after a statement one usually asks some questions.
We heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would not do, but we heard absolutely nothing about what he would do. Now we can see what happens when the Leader of the Opposition tells the shadow Cabinet that it should not have any policies. As far as I can tell, the Conservative party’s economic strategy is to say that the UK should not engage with the second largest economy in the world, or indeed with our nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partners in the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman’s economic strategy is to support higher spending but none of the right decisions that are required to deliver sound public finances, and his economic strategy is to ignore the mistakes of the past with no apology to the British people for his part in Liz Truss’s mini-Budget that crashed the economy. I appreciate that, having said that, I may now receive a “cease and desist” letter from her later.
One question that the shadow Chancellor did ask was: why did I go to China? I went to secure tangible benefits for British businesses trading overseas. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not worth it; let him say that to the representatives of HSBC, Standard Chartered, Prudential, Schroders and the London Stock Exchange who attended those meetings with me last week, all of whom have spoken of the difference that it will make.
I have been under no illusion about the scale of challenges that we face, after 14 years of stagnant economic growth, higher debt and economic uncertainty, and we have seen global economic uncertainty play out in the last week, but leadership is not about ducking these challenges; it is about rising to them. The economic headwinds we face are a reminder that we should—indeed, we must—go further and faster in our plan to kick-start economic growth, which plunged under the last Government, by bringing stability to the public finances after years of instability under the Conservative party, unlocking investment that plummeted under the previous Government and pushing ahead with essential reforms to our economy and public services. That is my message to the House today, because if we get it right, the prize on offer to us—to the British people—is immense: the opportunity to make working people better off by making Britain better off. That is the mandate this Government have, and that is what we will deliver.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to growth in this country and to encouraging investment in the UK. Listening to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), we would think the country was going to hell in a handcart. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is no time for panic, that it is perfectly possible to manage any pressures on the Budget through astute management of public spending, and that we are a very long way from the approach taken during the years of austerity under the Conservative party?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. I set out this Government’s fiscal rules at the Budget in October: we will pay for day-to-day spending through tax receipts, and we will get debt down as a share of the economy. We remain committed to those fiscal rules and will meet them at all times.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement.
Let us be blunt: the Budget has not worked. The Chancellor says that the Government’s No. 1 mission is growth, but to date there are no signs that the Government are going to deliver it. The national insurance contributions rise is self-defeating. It undermines growth—it does not unleash it—and it piles pressure on to struggling small businesses and high streets. Nor does it raise anything like the sums of money for the NHS that the Government initially suggested it would. Now we have this much-lauded visit to China, which the Government themselves say is only worth £600 million to the UK over the next five years. That is equivalent to just five and a half hours of NHS spending a year—27.5 hours over the five-year period. All growth is welcome, but this really is small beer.
What are we to make of the Chancellor’s pledge to improve existing channels with China? It is nothing short of warm words and mixed messages. The Chancellor should not have gone to China unless there was a commitment that Jimmy Lai was going to be released.
Does the Chancellor now accept that the national insurance increase will damage growth? Does she accept that there were and still are much fairer ways to raise the necessary revenue without holding back our economy and our high streets? The international market jitters we have seen in the last few days are largely caused by the threat of tariffs by the new Trump Administration, so will the Chancellor guard against the risks of a Trump presidency by rebuilding our trading relationship with our European neighbours?
After the economic vandalism of the previous Conservative Government and their mini-Budget, our NHS and care services are still on their knees. Does the Chancellor accept that wealth and health are two sides of the same coin and that scaling back any investment in the NHS will be not only devastating for local communities but damaging for economic growth?
Rachel Reeves
I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady’s response. The Liberal Democrats opposed every decision we made to get the public finances under control at the Budget, and now they say that we need to spend more on public services. Well, I am afraid they cannot have it both ways. The only way there is more money for our public services is by raising it, as we did in the Budget—decisions that the Liberal Democrats apparently oppose.
The hon. Lady says that £600 million is not worth it. That is £600 million of tangible benefits for British businesses trading overseas. I would have thought she would welcome enhanced trade and investment as a way to create more good jobs paying decent wages in St Albans and, indeed, in all our constituencies.
The hon. Lady says that we should not go to China because we need to raise difficult issues. I am not sure how she thinks we are going to raise difficult issues unless we engage with the second biggest economy in the world. Because I went to China, I was able to raise issues around human rights, forced labour, Hong Kong and Jimmy Lai and the sanctioning of parliamentarians. We cannot raise those issues unless we are in the room. I was in the room and therefore able to do just that.
Labour is the party that put £20 billion into the national health service at the Budget in October. We were able to do that because of the difficult decisions we took, including on taxation. The hon. Lady seems to want the additional money for public services but without finding any way to pay for them. That is the way the Conservative party got into its troubles. I am afraid the Liberal Democrats are going down exactly the same path.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
May I thank the Chancellor for raising the case of my constituent, Jimmy Lai? I know it will mean a lot to him and his family. Does she agree that it is because of the profound differences that it is vital we maintain this strategic engagement?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has just said. On behalf of the whole House, I want to send our best wishes to the family of Jimmy Lai at this difficult time. I had the opportunity to raise this as well as other issues during my time in China, and it is incredibly important that at every opportunity we have, we raise some of the difficult issues and challenge the Chinese authorities in a way that is appropriate and consistent with our British values.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The economic and financial dialogue was stayed because of the brutal imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. When the Chancellor and the Government go back to engage and reopen that dialogue, they do so on the back of things getting worse, not better. The reality I put to her is that while she was away, Shein refused point blank at a Select Committee hearing to answer the question of whether it has slave labour in its supply chain, but the Government want it to list here in London. We have solar arrays being imported by the Government into the UK that demonstrably involve slave labour. Can the Chancellor be clear with the House about the Government’s position on slave labour? Can she explain whether this Government will allow any products or services, or allow companies to align themselves here or import goods here, that contain any slave labour, no matter how important that import is?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question; I know how seriously he takes this issue, like so many other Members on both sides of the House. Listing of companies in the UK is a decision for the Financial Conduct Authority, but any company listing on the London stock exchange has to live up to the responsibilities set out by the United Nations and the OECD on forced labour.
This Government are committed to working with international partners and businesses to ensure that global supply chains are free from human and labour rights abuses. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, commercial businesses that operate in the UK and have a turnover of more than £36 million are required to report annually on the steps they have taken, and rightly so, because modern slavery is abhorrent, and this Government continue to take steps to deal with it.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
First, may I remind Conservative Members that UK bond yields are rising for the same reason that German and French bond yields are—because they are tracking the US rate? They never were very good at numbers.
The Chancellor has set out her economic philosophy that our prosperity is built upon secure foundations in a more uncertain world. Will she set out how she is building that economic security here, particularly with reference to having domestic energy, rather than being dependent on foreign fossil fuel dictators?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that economic growth has to be built on strong foundations, which is the approach of this Government. Our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is consistent with that. If we can ween ourselves off fossil fuels and the oil of dictators, we will be more secure in our economy, because we will not have to import so much from overseas.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is good to see the Chancellor back from China and to hear her reiterate that growth is her No. 1 mission, because we have not had any growth since her Budget. Given that accepting responsibility is the first step in solving a problem, will she accept that last October’s Budget has caused business confidence and growth prospects in this country’s economy to plunge?
Rachel Reeves
I thought for a moment that the hon. Lady was going to apologise for Liz Truss’s mini-Budget. Maybe she will do so on another occasion.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for raising the case of Jimmy Lai. I hope that the Government will in future press the case of pensions owed to British national overseas constituents in Earley and Woodley, and across the UK, who have moved here from Hong Kong.
I was surprised to hear the shadow Chancellor advocate knee-jerk responses to inter-day movements in market prices. I would argue that such short-termism led to the Conservative party having five Chancellors in only four years. Will the Chancellor reassure us that she will not be misled by short-termism, and that she will instead keep her focus on our Government’s long-term ambition to raise living standards and growth?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been movements in international markets in the past week or so, and they have been global in nature. In the UK, we must do what we can, which is why I have reiterated today my commitment to the fiscal rules that I set out in the Budget in October. I reiterate that growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government: growth built on stability, which will come through securing the public finances; through investment, including through the national wealth fund and GB Energy; and through reform—of our planning system to make it easier to build in Britain, getting people back to work, and of our pension system. This Government are cracking on after 14 years of failure from the Conservative party.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Did the Communist party of China tell the Chancellor that she was doing a good job or a bad job of running the UK economy when she was there?
Rachel Reeves
I was not seeking assurance from any foreign Government on the performance of this Government. What I was seeking—I achieved this in China—were tangible outputs for British businesses trading overseas, helping to create more good jobs that pay decent wages here in Britain. The Conservative party absolutely failed to do that in 14 years.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I particularly welcome the fact that she raised the issues of Jimmy Lai and human rights in Beijing, which is really important. After 14 years of the Conservative party’s inconsistency on China, does she agree that we need a cross-Whitehall strategy and a pragmatic approach?
Rachel Reeves
What is really important is that we take decisions in Britain’s national interest. Taking decisions in the national interest means engaging with our trading partners all around the world, which is why, since being appointed as Chancellor, I have been to Brussels to reset our relations with the European Union, as well as to Washington and New York to welcome investment from overseas. I have secured £600 million-worth of benefits for UK businesses doing business in China.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do what the Prime Minister refused to do yesterday and rule out future spending cuts?
Rachel Reeves
I am not going to write five years’ worth of Budgets in the first six months of a Labour Government, but I am absolutely committed to meeting the fiscal rules that I set out in the Budget in October. We know what happens when Governments lose control of the public finances: they crash the economy and end up on the Opposition Benches.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Chancellor may be able to learn a bit about emergency spending cuts from the Scottish Government in Holyrood, who have had three years of emergency spending cuts. Does the Chancellor agree that it is essential to engage with large economies like China so that we can export our brilliant financial services sector and whisky from Scotland? In the real world, we have to trade with large economies like China.
Rachel Reeves
Many of the benefits that we secured last week were for the financial services sector, and both Edinburgh and Glasgow are important hubs of financial services in the UK. Businesses such as Abrdn and Standard Chartered, which were on the delegation with me, have welcomed the tangible benefits, which will result in more jobs and more economic prosperity in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It has been reported that the Chancellor was going to meet the owners of British Steel in China. Many of my constituents work at the Scunthorpe steelworks. While I appreciate that Ministers may not have reached a final decision on the steelworks, is she able to give reassurance to my constituents that she has had constructive engagement?
Rachel Reeves
My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has met Mr Li, from Jingye, on a number of occasions. Talks are ongoing, but I am not able to provide an update on that today.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor has only my admiration and support for the tough decisions that she is taking to fix the fundamentals. While Conservative Members were carping about the Chancellor’s whereabouts this week, she was having serious discussions with the world’s second largest economy and securing access for UK firms. Is it not clear that only Labour Members are serious about growth?
Rachel Reeves
I will always stand up for Britain’s national and economic interest, which is why I am helping some of our best businesses to export around the world. That is what I did in China at the weekend, and it is what I will continue to do. I will always stand up for our economic interest.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoken to the Governor of the Bank of England about what action needs to be taken to bring about stability in our bond markets?
Rachel Reeves
I regularly speak to the Governor of the Bank of England; indeed, he was with me on the delegation to China this weekend. We work closely together to ensure that the British economy remains competitive in global markets.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
I am quite surprised at the audaciousness of those on the Opposition Benches. The Conservatives oversaw a rise in debt levels over the last 14 years, and it is a shame that they did not turn their minds to the issue earlier. Does the Chancellor agree that serious discussions, such as the one with China, can deliver not just on our economic aims, but on our wider climate and international objectives?
Rachel Reeves
Unless we engage and work with our partners around the world, we will miss out on the opportunities that other countries secure for their businesses and economies. If we miss out on those investment and trade opportunities, we can be sure that other countries will take advantage of them. That is why I was in China, and it is why I will work with counterparts around the world to secure good outcomes for British businesses and jobs here in the United Kingdom.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Chancellor raised the issue of human rights abuses in China, but did she get the opportunity to raise with her interlocutors the extrajudicial work of the United Front Work Department, particularly in relation to UK institutions, especially universities?
Rachel Reeves
I raised a number of issues around human rights abuses, labour and, indeed, rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including the case of Jimmy Lai. I raised that with all the Ministers I met in China, and I will always stand up for our values and interests.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
Unlike the bickering in the Conservative party, we are cutting deals in the national interest and putting Britain at the frontier—£600 million just over the weekend, and an AI opportunities plan just this week. Does the Chancellor agree that we are the party of action and the Conservatives are the party of rhetoric?
Rachel Reeves
We on the Government Benches are not going to apologise for getting a good deal for British businesses and the people working for them. I am determined to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that British businesses have the rights and freedoms to export and trade around the world, helping to create good jobs here in Britain.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
UK exports to China currently represent less than 10% of the UK’s total exports, whereas our exports to the EU represent over 40%, demonstrating the greater opportunities that trading with the EU makes available to our small and medium enterprises. Will the Chancellor commit to talking four times as much to our European partners about our trading opportunities than she has to China?
Rachel Reeves
This is not either/or; we cannot write off one country and say that we are going to put all our eggs in a different basket. China is our fourth biggest trading partner and we cannot miss out on opportunities in a country that is growing quickly, with an expanding middle class, where there are huge export opportunities. As the hon. Lady knows, I was in Brussels in December to reset our relations—the first British Chancellor to go to a Eurogroup meeting since we left the European Union. I am leaving no stone unturned in exploiting export opportunities for British businesses.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. Can she set out in more detail how the Government intend to help reinvigorate the UK-China stock connect, so that UK companies and investors can access Chinese capital markets and vice versa?
Rachel Reeves
The stock connect is an initiative first set up by the former Conservative Chancellor Philip Hammond to improve links between the Shanghai and London stock exchanges and to help Chinese businesses to access capital on UK financial markets. That is good for financial services firms operating in London, and the enhancement of that stock connect scheme at the weekend offers new opportunities for British businesses in financial services in the UK.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
As the Chancellor flew east, the pound plummeted south and Government debt rocketed north. Why? The markets do not believe her plan for growth; that is the fundamental issue. To pick up the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), what is she going to say to the markets to make them believe she really does understand how to deliver growth in the UK?
Rachel Reeves
There has been global volatility in markets. It is not reasonable to suggest that bond yields in the United States, Germany and France have risen because of decisions made by this Government. I think the hon. Member should just get real.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. In regard to raising money for public services, an annual wealth tax on the multimillionaire and billionaire class would certainly achieve that. However, that is a conversation for another day—on to China. My right hon. Friend and I have had discussions regarding the closure of the Grangemouth refinery, in which PetroChina—part of the Chinese state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation—is heavily involved. If the refinery closes, thousands of jobs will be lost. This is not just a constituency issue for me. It will impact all of Scotland, as our fuel and national security will be severely weakened. Did the Chancellor speak about the issue with her Chinese counterparts, and if not, will she do so?
Rachel Reeves
We are working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a bright future for the people of Grangemouth, because deindustrialisation should not be the future for communities, including in Scotland.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The data in September and October shows that the economy is falling. It is going down and the currency markets and bond markets are selling off and expressing their clear concern that there is no growth and that the economy continues to fall. If the Chancellor is so confident, will she confirm to the House when the economy will start growing again?
Rachel Reeves
Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Labour Government, but the truth is that it is not possible to turn things around quickly after 14 years of lacklustre growth and declining living standards under the Conservatives. We are leaving no stone unturned, which is why last week in China we secured £600 million-worth of tangible benefits for the UK economy, helping great British businesses exporting overseas.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that developing our economic and trading relationships with other nations is one of many important levers; and that, alongside that approach, public investment, planning reforms and an industrial strategy—whose absence under the Conservative Government was problematic—will be returned under this Government so that we can see economic growth?
Rachel Reeves
The best way to grow an economy is to boost investment in an economy. The truth is that, under the Conservatives, we were the only G7 economy where investment stood at less than 20% of GDP. That is the inheritance that our party was bequeathed by the Conservatives, but we are beginning to turn that around through the creation of a national wealth fund to leverage in private sector investment, through planning reform to get Britain building again, and through pensions reform to unlock £80 billion of investment to help small and start-up businesses to grow. We are turning things around after 14 years of failure from the Conservative party.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
While the Chancellor was in China securing her measly £600 million, borrowing rates reached the highest they have been since 2008. In 2024 she said that her Budget would be
“a Budget with real ambition, a Budget to fix the foundations…a Budget to rebuild Britain.”
How is that going, given that her mess has caused borrowing to be the highest it has been since 2008, making real working people in this country suffer?
Rachel Reeves
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman follows global financial markets, but borrowing costs have increased for countries around the world. What we saw under Liz Truss’s mini-Budget was unique to the United Kingdom, because it was only UK markets that were affected by the decisions of the Conservatives.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is great to see our Chancellor of the Exchequer working with international business and winning investment for the UK. Does she agree that while the Conservatives were happy to sell out our heavy industry to China, leading to the end of steelmaking in Teesside after 150 years, our industrial strategy is delivering investment in steel, chemicals and life sciences in Stockton North, in Teesside and across the UK?
Rachel Reeves
The national wealth fund created by this Government will get investment into industries such as carbon capture and storage, green hydrogen, ports and, indeed, steel. We were really pleased at the end of last year to be able to announce investment in carbon capture and storage in Merseyside and Teesside, securing billions of pounds of investment into those economies and securing many thousands of jobs.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. I think it is worth reminding the House that under the previous Government business investment fell to 28th out of 31 OECD countries, which was lower than Latvia, Slovenia and Hungary. Could the Chancellor set out how our industrial strategy will overcome that terrible legacy on business investment left by the Conservatives?
Rachel Reeves
One of the reasons for such poor investment—the lowest of all the G7 economies—is that our planning system makes it so hard to get anything done in this country. That is why the planning and infrastructure Bill, which is being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, will turn that around, making it easier to invest in transport, in digital, in housing and in so much more. That is the way to get our economy growing after 14 years of failure.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. She goes to China, New York, Washington, Toronto and Brussels to build economic relationships, yet she will not take the time to speak with the Ulster Farmers Union, the NFU, the Farmers Union of Wales or NFU Scotland to hear at first hand about the devastating impact that her death tax will have on family farms and small businesses. When will she realise that no matter what deals she does around the world—and I welcome them—Rome is burning around her? Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, so will she commit to meet me as a representative of the thousands of farmers whose farms are going to be decimated by her death tax?
Rachel Reeves
I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to meet the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), would be happy to meet colleagues from Northern Ireland. The truth is that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances from the Conservatives, and in order to stabilise our public finances we had to make difficult decisions on taxes. At the moment we hear from the Opposition that they do not like the increases in taxes but they want increases in public spending. Well, they cannot have it both ways.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Could she elaborate further on how this visit and the discussions she has started are not only consistent with the Government’s approach to China, but a vital part of it—co-operate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must?
Rachel Reeves
This is the first economic and financial dialogue between our two countries since 2019. Since then, other countries around the world have continued to engage with China, securing tangible benefits for their economies. I do not want UK businesses and the people working in our country to miss out, which is why this weekend we secured £600 million-worth of tangible benefits for businesses that export to China, thereby helping to create more good jobs paying decent wages in our country.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am slightly worried that investors will be watching this statement and wondering what planet the Chancellor is on. She just said that she is investing in transport infrastructure, but she is actually cutting transport capital budgets. She has previously said that she wants only one Budget a year, and the March statement is billed only as a fiscal forecast. Can she rule out any new tax rises or departmental spending cuts in the March statement, or will the fiscal forecast become an emergency Budget?
Rachel Reeves
We have committed to having just one Budget a year to provide businesses with the certainty they need to invest, so we will have an update from the Office for Budget Responsibility in March. I also give the commitment that, as I have already said, the fiscal rules mean we will balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts, and we will get debt down as a share of GDP within the forecast period. We will continue at all times to meet those fiscal rules.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on unlocking £1 billion of value for the UK economy that would not have been unlocked if she had not gone to China. However, does she agree that the Government’s much-needed decision to thaw UK-China relations is now reaping dividends while also allowing us to press China on difficult issues, including human rights and labour standards?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We managed to secure tangible benefits for the UK economy and British exporters. At the same time, we were able to raise difficult issues that we would not have been able to raise if we were not engaged. That is the benefit of engagement: we get the economic gains and we can raise those tricky issues.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is beyond parody that His Majesty’s Chancellor would throw herself at the mercy of the Chinese Government and come back with £600 million in revenue over five years. Is she aware that £600 million in revenue is less than one ninetieth of HSBC’s annual profit? This is what she is holding up as a major achievement of the Treasury’s trade mission. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) very reasonably asked what the Chancellor will do when, not if, her fiscal rules are breached. Will she increase borrowing, raise taxes or cut spending, not over five years but this year?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is an expert in HSBC, but I would rather take the word of the chairman of HSBC, who welcomed the tangible investments and, indeed, led the financial forum that we held in China last week. I have been really clear that we will meet the fiscal rules that I set out in the Budget, and we will do that at all times. That is the commitment I made, and it is the commitment I continue to make.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor confirm that, for her, growth must always go hand in hand with economic security? That is a lesson that the previous Conservative Government refused to learn when they left 85% of us dependent on expensive foreign gas to heat our homes this winter.
Rachel Reeves
This Government’s clean energy mission will mean that we are less reliant on foreign dictators for our basic energy needs. That is why we are investing in carbon capture and storage and floating offshore wind, and it is why we are getting rid of the previous Government’s absurd ban on onshore wind.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Chancellor referred in her statement to safeguarding national security, which I welcome, but this must include energy security. Yet her changes to the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and not permitting new licences at a time when we are still reliant on oil and gas, not only undermines our energy security but dwarfs the £600 million that she has brought back from China with the £12 billion of tax revenues that will be lost from the sector. Why, rather than supporting our energy security, is the Chancellor turning her back on the sector, turning her back on these tax revenues and risking selling our energy security to China?
Rachel Reeves
If the hon. Lady has a brief look at the documents from the Office for Budget Responsibility, she will see that the changes to the energy profits levy—taking the tax rate up from 75% to 78%, the same rate as in Norway—raises money; it does not lose money.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I commend the Chancellor for her visit to advocate for our country’s best interests, but does she agree that Chinese companies must not provide any support to Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine?
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I raised such issues with my counterparts in China at the weekend. It is really important that, whenever we engage with foreign Governments, we also raise issues consistent with our values, including Chinese companies supplying the Russian Government with materials used in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Did the Chancellor raise any concerns, or indeed does she have any concerns, about the Confucius Institute, the Chinese Government-backed operation we see across the United Kingdom? And what answer did she get with respect to Jimmy Lai?
Rachel Reeves
When our Prime Minister met President Xi Jinping in Rio last year, they agreed that one of the points of re-engagement is that we were able to make clear our concerns on a range of issues in a private way. I am not going to go into the details of that conversation, but I raised these issues with all the Chinese officials I met at the weekend. [Interruption.] The problem is that Conservative Members, for all their chuntering, did not raise these issues because they did not even engage.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
My constituents, many of whom work in financial services, will have been amazed, just as I was, when the shadow Chancellor, in a fit of pique, demanded that the Chancellor should come home from China to talk to him in this House, rather than staying to promote growth, increase access to the world’s second largest market and win new licences and quota allocations for financial services businesses. As anybody who has taken the trouble to listen carefully to the Chancellor would recognise, there is more on the way. What does she think the City, and the banks that accompanied her, would have preferred in the long-term interests of this country: stay in China to win for this country, or come home to satisfy the shadow Chancellor’s fit of pique?
Rachel Reeves
We just have to look at what the businesses have already said about the deal we managed to secure last week. There are tangible benefits for British businesses exporting to China, helping to create more good jobs paying decent wages here in Britain. It has been welcomed by businesses. It is a shame that the Conservative party no longer stands up for British businesses.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We have an embargo on Russian oil and gas. China continues to import it, and apparently Russia will be China’s No. 1 supplier this year. Did the Chancellor raise this with her counterparts on her trip to China, and what assessment has she made so that her deal does not inadvertently support the Russian war effort?
Rachel Reeves
As I have already said in the House today, I raised the issue of Chinese companies supplying the Russian Government. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will know that last week, alongside the United States, we increased sanctions on Russian oil and gas to make it harder for Putin to continue to conduct his illegal war.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chancellor outline how the visit is an example of ongoing dialogue with the international community, which will benefit businesses and residents in my constituency of Harlow? Also, while we are quoting Shakespeare, does she agree that there is something rotten in the state of the Conservative party—or perhaps that the Conservative party is in a rotten state?
Rachel Reeves
I am glad that my hon. Friend has used the 50 minutes of the statement to come up with such a good line. He is right that many people working in Harlow work in the financial services sector and will very much welcome the enhanced licences and quotas, which, incidentally, many other countries and their banks already have because their Governments have engaged with China. Those are opportunities that we have missed out on in Britain for far too long because of the six years during which we failed to be involved in an economic and financial dialogue, while other Governments cracked on and made sure they supported and stood up for their national interest.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Notwithstanding the importance of China as a trading partner, will the Chancellor please explain what steps the Government are taking to address the issues of forced labour links with Uyghur workers in supply chains at fast fashion companies such as Shein? Will the Minister provide data on the extent of forced labour in UK supply chains, especially in the garment sector? Will she also outline any actions to strengthen due diligence requirements for companies sourcing from areas with known human rights abuses, such as Xinjiang?
Rachel Reeves
As I have already set out, one of the issues I was able to raise with my counterparts in China was forced labour, particularly in Xinjiang. As I said in answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I have also been really clear that any company seeking to list in London has to meet stringent requirements, as set out by the United Nations and the OECD, on labour supply and the treatment of workers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I welcome the UK-China economic and financial dialogue, as the Chancellor will know, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have repeatedly highlighted in this House human rights abuses in China, with regard to Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and Christians in Hong Kong and China. How will the Government and the Chancellor make sure that safeguards for British money and goods are put in place to ensure that economic engagements do not directly support those violations? Human rights concerns, forced labour, denial of religious freedom and ongoing suppression in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan must be remembered at all costs and in all deals with China.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful question. It is important that when we engage with China, we co-operate where we can, we compete where necessary, but we challenge whenever our values do not align. Like the hon. Gentleman, I care deeply about issues of religious freedom and forced labour, but that is the whole point of engaging. We have to engage in the world as it is, not in the world as we would like it to be. It is through those engagements that we are able to raise even some of the most difficult issues and be very clear about the values of our great country.
Community Energy (Review)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the contribution of community energy to the Government’s Clean Power 2030 mission.
The clean power mission and climate policy more generally are what brought me into politics. Ensuring that we have a world that is economically, ecologically and environmentally viable for future generations is one of the reasons that I am privileged to stand in this House today and that many people across the Hexham constituency put their faith in me.
I thank local climate groups, such as the Hexham Climate Café, the North Tyne climate action group and Sustainable Haltwhistle for their engagement and feedback on climate issues. I have always committed to working with local charities and organisations throughout my constituency as we strive to protect our climate and our planet. I also want to pay tribute to the Co-operative party for constantly raising the issue on a national level.
The country is on a vital mission to achieve net zero and to combat the immediate and very real threat of climate change. It is a mission that we can and must achieve. The British people deserve lower costs and secure power, with good jobs and a Government that protect them from the long-term threats posed by climate change. I am therefore glad the Government have committed to a clean power mission by 2030 that will achieve energy security, protect bill payers, create good jobs and help to protect future generations from the cost of climate breakdown.
To ensure that this country is on the right path to becoming a clean energy superpower, it is essential that we unlock the full extent of renewable energy and conduct a necessary review of the contribution of community energy to the 2030 clean power mission. For decades, energy has been produced and, crucially, owned far away from this country. Many constituents pay their energy bills to a company based 600 miles and an ocean away. We know our energy system is broken, but for too long it has been too distant to fix. The Labour Government will do things differently.
Great British Energy, owned by the British people, will invest in clean energy and ensure that our communities reap the benefits, not just through cheaper bills that families can afford, but through new jobs for our young people, bringing growth that will revitalise local economies. The local power plan, to be developed by Great British Energy, has the potential to facilitate that necessary drive towards community energy projects, ensuring funding is available to support local projects that could be transformational.
Community energy offers a crucial opportunity of agency and empowerment within local communities to develop practical and long-term energy solutions. It will not only deliver key elements that are essential for reaching our net zero targets, but encourage local generation at household and community level, reducing the need for electricity to be imported into communities. It is necessary for individual houses to change their energy usage to make our net zero targets achievable.
There are opportunities for community-owned power throughout the country. Indeed, we know what can happen when communities as a whole come together. We see the mutual support and care that constituents hold for each other. When a community has been left behind time and again, as is the case with many in the north-east, we know how to pull together. Community energy and engagement are essential for achieving the net zero transition. Individual households throughout the country can engage. Through both centralised generation and storage, houses can be powered locally, reducing demand for imports from the distribution network and cutting energy bills.
As a leader in offshore wind power and research, the north-east is already a frontrunner in energy production, supporting more than 5 GW of offshore production, with a further 72 GW of potential production. My region can display leadership not only in production, but through infrastructure, and we can supply more than 130 GW of offshore power through the north-east local supply chain across all four of our nations. Supporting the green energy transition can start in the north-east. Not only is the region strongly placed to deliver offshore wind in the North sea, but we are in a strong position to install and maintain the growing pipeline of heat network projects that would support the supply chain in the north-east and foster highly skilled jobs that are vital to the region and necessary in ensuring that young people in the north-east can remain there and secure high-paying work.
It is essential that the resources the country has at its disposal are properly recognised. Through community engagement and energy, effective solutions can be tailored specifically to regions and localities. Community-owned energy projects are, however, not new. They already exist and thrive across the country, thanks to the innovation and drive of individuals. In that regard, I want to acknowledge and highlight the phenomenal work of Humshaugh Net Zero, its founder Herbie Newell, and David Still. I thank them for their support and their commitment to delivering net zero emissions by 2030. One of my first meetings as Hexham’s MP was in the room above the Crown Inn in Humshaugh to talk about net zero, which I highly recommend to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) if he comes up to visit.
Humshaugh Net Zero has already installed a number of low-carbon technologies, including solar, heat pumps, battery storage, electric vehicles and biomass. Its efforts to launch, this year, one of the first community-based solar farms in the north-east captures my constituents’ community spirit and drive. Its aim is to successfully deliver half of the parish’s electricity demand. I believe that the work of Humshaugh Net Zero would be of valuable interest to a review of community energy, informing how to unlock community energy at scale and how to support the development of other projects throughout the region and the country. It provides a strong example of community engagement and a model for how that can be achieved.
Launching a review will assist the Secretary of State to understand how best to support the thriving community energy schemes that already exist, as well as to set up new projects that benefit new communities. A review could consider how to expand the availability of funding for local projects and examine how best to support community energy projects, specifically those in rural areas, to facilitate strong working relations with landlords and ensure that planning processes receive local support and consultation.
Supply companies could be mandated to ensure that economic power is contractually negotiated on appropriate terms. A review could also identify how best to successfully expand and transform smaller projects into large-scale projects that respect local communities and interests. Smaller community projects face far higher financial challenges. A possible guarantee scheme could make considerable headway to successfully minimise the risk.
Through conducting a review, solutions can be considered to tackle the two major challenges for community energy projects: first, ensuring that funding is available on competitive terms; and, secondly, ensuring that there is support for electricity to be sold to the community to maximise project revenue. Launching this vital review into community energy will support our mission to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.
I am proud that throughout the Hexham constituency, local residents are already engaging in efforts to reduce their emissions and committing to green energy to achieve that 2030 mission. In Prudhoe, the Friends of Eastwoods Park and the Miners Lamp Cafe have introduced solar panels and battery storage. This has received vital funding from Northern Powergrid, and the drive of local residents has made sure that the building can still be heated, meals can be cooked and ingredients can be preserved through the local green energy supply. The Stocksfield community association has, similarly, transformed the local community centre into a crisis centre. By achieving a self-sufficient energy source, the community centre can operate as a support service for local residents during emergencies. Not only is this a valuable asset to the local community, but it offers a cost-effective solution. As Prudhoe, Humshaugh and Stocksfield represent, community energy provides more than just energy; it fosters community collaboration and cohesion.
It is clear that we need to take community power seriously. Community energy is integral to our clean power mission. It is integral to ensuring that cheap and affordable power is accessible to local residents across the country, and it is essential for ensuring that this country utilises the valuable resources at our disposal. Conducting a review of the contribution of community energy to the 2030 clean power mission is vital for identifying challenges, threats and necessary solutions. I look forward to a future where my home and the homes of my constituents can be powered by green energy built and generated in the north-east.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Joe Morris, Emma Foody, Mark Ferguson, Ms Polly Billington, Maya Ellis, James Naish, Torcuil Crichton and Dr Simon Opher present the Bill.
Joe Morris accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 159).
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 363 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 118 / Noes: 434 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 440 / Noes: 111 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 14—Prohibition of rent in advance before lease entered into.
Government new clause 15—Guarantor not liable for rent payable after tenant’s death.
Government new clause 16—Limitation on obligation to pay removal expenses.
New clause 1—Limit on rent to be requested in advance of tenancy—
“In the 1988 Act, after section 14ZB (inserted by section 8 of this Act) insert—
“14ZBA Maximum rent to be paid in advance
No rent may be requested or received in advance of any period of the tenancy which exceeds the rent for two months of the tenancy.””
This new clause would prohibit landlords from requesting or accepting more than two month's rent in advance.
New clause 2—Impact of Act on provision of short-term lets—
“The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, publish a review of the impact of sections 1 to 3 on the number of landlords offering properties on short-term lets rather than in the private rented sector.”
New clause 3—Limit on rent in advance of tenancy—
“In Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) But if the amount of rent payable in advance of any period of the tenancy exceeds the equivalent of one month’s rent, the amount of the excess is a prohibited payment.””
This new clause would make it unlawful for a landlord to demand or accept more than one month’s rent in advance in respect of a tenancy or licence of residential accommodation.
New clause 4—Signature of lease for student accommodation—
“Where a tenant meets the student test set out in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, the relevant tenancy agreement may not be signed before 1 March in the year in which the tenancy is intended to take effect.”
This new clause would prevent student leases being signed before March in the year in which they are intended to commence.
New clause 5—Review of tenancy deposit schemes and requirements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of tenancy deposit schemes and tenancy deposit requirements.
(2) The review must include, but not be limited to—
(a) consideration of options for tenancy “passporting”; and
(b) measures to improve trust in the deposit dispute process.
(3) As part of the review the Secretary of State must consult with such parties as they see fit, which must include representatives of tenants’ and landlords’ interests.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the Act passing, to review and consult on tenancy deposit schemes and requirements.
New clause 6—Duties of local authorities: care leavers—
“(1) Where it is requested of a local housing authority by, or on behalf of—
(a) a relevant child as defined by section 23A of the Children Act 1989, or
(b) a former relevant child as defined by section 23C of the Children Act 1989,
the local housing authority shall provide assistance to the individual making the request, or the individual on whose behalf the request is made, in paying or guaranteeing any deposit required to agree a tenancy.
(2) The assistance to be provided under subsection (1) may include, but not be limited to, the payment of a deposit on behalf of an individual listed in subsection (1), or acting as a guarantor for any deposit paid by or on behalf of an individual listed in subsection (1).”
This new clause would place a duty on local authorities to help care leavers pay or guarantee any required deposit to enable them to agree a tenancy in the private rented sector.
New clause 7—Rules for proposed rent levels—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a body to be known as the Independent Living Rent Body.
(2) The “proposed rent” referred to in section 55(2) must be calculated with reference to rules set by the Independent Living Rent Body.
(3) In setting rules to be applied to the calculation of a proposed rent under section 55(2) the Independent Living Rent Body will have regard to property type, size and condition, location, local incomes, and such other criteria as it sees fit.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body that would set rules to be used when calculating the proposed rent payable in relation to an advertised tenancy.
New clause 8—Mediated rent pauses (housing conditions)—
“(1) This section applies where–
(a) there is a tenancy to which section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 applies;
(b) it appears to the tenant that the landlord has breached the covenant implied by that section; and
(c) it appears to the tenant that the landlord has failed to carry out works necessary to remedy any such breaches within the timeframes set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 10A(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
(2) A tenant is entitled to make arrangements to pay rent to an independent individual, rather than to the relevant landlord.
(3) The independent individual shall not pass any rent paid under subsection (2) to the landlord until there has been a determination or agreement between the landlord and tenant as to the landlord’s liability for any breach of the covenant implied by section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
(4) Where a determination or agreement under subsection (3) sets a time by which works are to be completed, the independent individual will –
(a) release any rent paid under subsection (2) to the landlord if the works are completed by that time;
(b) release any rent paid under subsection (2) back to the tenant if the works have not been completed by that time.
(5) In this section an “independent individual” means the independent individual responsible for investigating complaints made against members of a landlord redress scheme under section 62.”
New clause 9—Home adaptations—
“(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 16 insert—
“16A Home adaptations
(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that a landlord shall give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Tenants have the right to appeal a landlord’s refusal to adapt a property.
(2) This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.””
This new clause would ensure that landlords give permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.
New clause 10—Guarantor to have no further liability following death of tenant—
“(1) Subject to subsection (3), a guarantee agreement relating to a relevant tenancy ceases to have effect upon the death of a relevant tenant.
(2) Upon the death of a relevant tenant the guarantor in respect of a relevant tenancy shall incur no further liability in relation to matters arising under the tenancy.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of a guarantor in relation to matters which arose before the date of the death of the relevant tenant.
(4) In assessing any liability under subsection (3), account shall be taken of any tenancy deposit paid in respect of the tenancy.
(5) Where there is more than one relevant tenant, this section shall apply only upon the death of both or all of the tenants.
(6) In this section—
“guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee agreement in relation to a relevant tenancy;
“guarantee agreement” is a contractual promise (whether incorporated in or separate from the tenancy agreement) to indemnify or compensate a relevant person in respect of an obligation under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform or comply with the obligation;
“relevant tenancy” has the same meaning as in section 41, and “relevant tenant” is to be interpreted accordingly; and
“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004.”
New clause 11—Restrictions on the requirement for tenants to provide a guarantor—
“(1) A relevant person must not, in any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3), require a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor in relation to the observance or performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, requiring a person to provide a guarantor includes accepting an offer by that person to provide a guarantor.
(3) The circumstances are –
(a) that the person has paid a tenancy deposit or has been assisted under a deposit scheme;
(b) that the person is required to pay rent in advance equivalent to one month’s rent or more;
(c) that on a reasonable assessment of their means the person’s income (including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income) is sufficient to enable them to pay the full rent due under the tenancy;
(d) that arrangements will be made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly in respect of rent to the relevant person;
(e) that the relevant person has entered into a contract of insurance under which they are insured against non-payment of rent; or
(f) such other circumstances as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In any other case where a relevant person lawfully requires a person, as a condition of the grant of a relevant tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum for which the guarantor may become liable under the relevant guarantee shall not exceed a sum equal to six months’ rent.
(5) In any case where a relevant person requires a tenant, as a condition of the grant of a relevant joint tenancy, to provide a guarantor, the sum claimed under the guarantee shall not exceed such proportion of the loss as is attributable to the act or default of the individual tenant on whose behalf the guarantee was given and, if such proportion cannot be proved, shall not exceed the sum obtained by dividing the total loss by the number of tenants.
(6) In this section–
a “guarantor” is a person who enters into a guarantee in relation to a relevant tenancy;
a “guarantee” is a contractual promise to be responsible for the performance of an obligation owed by the tenant to a relevant person under the tenancy if the tenant fails to perform the obligation;
a “deposit scheme” includes a scheme whereby a sum payable by way of deposit or a bond or guarantee is provided by a local authority, registered charity or voluntary organisation for the purpose of providing security to a landlord for the performance of a tenant’s obligations under a tenancy;
“tenancy deposit” has the same meaning as in section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004.”
This new clause would restrict the circumstances in which a landlord can request a guarantor.
New clause 17—Use of licence conditions to improve housing conditions—
“In section 90 of the Housing Act 2004, for subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) A licence may include such conditions as the local housing authority consider appropriate for regulating all or any of the following—
(a) the management, use and occupation of the house concerned, and
(b) its condition and contents.””
This new clause would enable local authorities operating selective licensing schemes to use licence conditions to improve housing conditions.
New clause 18—Increases to duration of discretionary licensing schemes—
“(1) The Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 60(2), omit “five” and insert “ten”.
(3) In section 84(2), omit “five” and insert “ten”.”
This new clause would increase the maximum duration of additional HMO licensing schemes and selective licensing schemes from five to ten years.
New clause 19—Assessment of operation of possession process—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare an assessment of the operation of the process by which—
(a) on applications made by landlords, the county court is able to make orders for the possession of dwellings in England that are let under assured and regulated tenancies, and
(b) such orders are enforced.
(2) The Lord Chancellor must publish the assessment at such time, and in such manner, as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.
(3) In this section—
“assured tenancy” means an assured tenancy within the meaning of the 1988 Act;
“dwelling” means a building or part of a building which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling;
“regulated tenancy” means a regulated tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977.”
New clause 20—Review of the impact of the Act on the housing market—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report outlining the impact of the provisions of this Act on the housing market in the UK.
(2) A report under this section must include the impact of this Act on—
(a) the availability of homes in the private rental sector;
(b) rents charged under tenancies;
(c) house prices; and
(d) requests for social housing.
(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.”
New clause 21—Appropriate insurance products to be available to landlords—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, consult with representatives of the insurance sector to ensure that—
(1) sufficient and appropriate insurance products will be available for landlords wishing to let a property to a tenant who—
(a) is in receipt of benefits; or
(b) will be keeping a pet in the property during their tenancy; and
(2) such insurance products will not disadvantage landlords wishing to let a property to a such tenant or dissuade them from doing so.”
New clause 22—Requirement on landlords to pay for alternative accommodation—
“In section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (fitness for human habitation of dwellings in England), after subsection(1) insert—
(1A) Where a dwelling—
(a)is found to be at any point in a tenancy; or
(b)becomes during the period of the tenancy unfit for human habitation, the landlord must pay any costs incurred by the tenant in obtaining alternative accommodation.
(1B) A landlord must hold appropriate insurance for the purposes of paying any costs under subsection (1A).
(1C) For the purposes of this section—
“costs” include—
(a) moving costs;
(b) deposits;
(c) rent, up to the amount of the rent for the original property;
“fitness for human habitation” is to be understood with reference to section 10 of this Act, but excludes any conditions caused by any damage or neglect on the part of the tenant.””
New clause 23—Permission for home adaptations—
“(1) The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 16 insert—
“16A Home adaptations
(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy that a landlord shall give permission for adaptations where a local council has carried out a Home Assessment and recommends adaptations which constitute reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
(2) A tenant may appeal a landlord’s refusal to give permission for such adaptations.””
This new clause would ensure that landlords of private and social tenancies provide permission for home adaptations for people who have disabilities where a Home Assessment has been carried out.
New clause 24—Discrimination relating to requirement for home adaptations—
“A relevant person must not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on an agreement which may give rise to a relevant tenancy—
(a) on the basis that a person does or may require home adaptations, prevent the person from—
(i) enquiring whether the dwelling is available for let,
(ii) accessing information about the dwelling,
(iii) viewing the dwelling in order to consider whether to seek to rent it, or
(iv) entering into a tenancy of the dwelling, or
(b) apply a provision, criterion or practice in order to make people requiring home adaptations less likely to enter into a tenancy of the dwelling than people who do not require home adaptations.”
Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“unless the tenant meets the student test where the tenancy is entered into.
(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A.”
Amendment 58, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“unless the landlord and the tenant mutually agree to have a fixed term during which period the landlord agrees to suspend the ability to seek possession under Ground 1 (Occupation by landlord or family), Ground 1A (Sale of dwelling-house) or Ground 6 (Redevelopment) of Schedule 2.
(1A) During a fixed term tenancy agreed under subsection (1) the landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent as provided for by section 13.”
Amendment 60, page 1, line 13, at end insert
“unless the landlord acts as landlord for fewer than five properties.”
Government amendments 12 to 17.
Amendment 1, in clause 7, page 9, line 6, leave out from “determination” to end of line 11 and insert—
“(4AA) Where the rent for a particular period of the tenancy is to be greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), the rent may not be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.
(4AB) Any provision relating to an assured tenancy to which this section applies is of no effect so far as it provides—
(a) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period otherwise than by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), or
(b) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy, where greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period increased by the Bank of England Base Rate.”
This amendment would cap in-tenancy rent increases to the Bank of England base rate.
Amendment 9, page 9, line 6, leave out from “determination” to the end of line 11 and insert—
“(4AA) Where the rent for a particular period of the tenancy is to be greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), the rent may not be greater than whichever is the lesser of—
(a) the rent for the previous period plus an increase equal to the rent multiplied by CPI; or
(b) the rent for the previous period plus an increase equal to the rent multiplied by the percentage increase in median national earnings.
(4AB) Any provision relating to an assured tenancy to which this section applies is of no effect so far as it provides—
(a) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period otherwise than by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), or
(b) that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy, where greater than the rent for the previous period by virtue of a notice, determination or agreement mentioned in subsection (4A), must or may be greater than the lesser of—
(i) the rent for the previous period plus an increase equal to the rent multiplied by CPI; or
(ii) the rent for the previous period plus an increase equal to the rent multiplied by the percentage increase in median national earnings.
(4AC) In this section—
“CPI” means the Consumer Prices Index 12-month rate published by the Office for National Statistics for 1 April preceding the date the notice is served.
“the percentage increase in median national earnings” means that calculated by the UK Statistics Authority over a three-year period ending on the date on which the notice was served.”
This amendment would introduce limits on the increases which could be made to rents by landlords. The limits would be calculated by reference to increases in CPI or median national earnings.
Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) after “subject to” insert “section 13(4AA) and”;
(ab) omit from “concerned” to the end of the subsection and insert “should be let”;”.
This amendment would amend the Housing Act 1988 so that when determining rents tribunals must take into account the limits on rent increases introduced by Amendment 9 and need not consider existing market rates.
Amendment 6, page 11, line 17, leave out subsections (b), (c) and (d).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 55, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
“(4A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) any change in the value of the dwelling-house resulting from improvement works to the property facilitated by any means-tested energy efficiency grant scheme””.
This amendment would ensure that improvements to a property facilitated by means-tested energy efficiency grant schemes can be disregarded by a tribunal determining a new rent for the property, and can therefore not be used as grounds for increasing rent levels.
Government amendment 27.
Amendment 61, in clause 11, page 16, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the insurance sector before this section comes into effect to ensure that appropriate insurance products are available for tenants whose landlords have required insurance as a condition for consenting to the keeping of a pet.”
Government amendments 28 and 29.
Amendment 2, in clause 19, page 32, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) where it is given by a tenant in relation to a premises in which they are the first tenants since its construction, not less than twenty-four months before the date on which the notice is to take effect;”.
This amendment would allow an assured short-term tenancy for the first two years after a premises is constructed.
Government amendments 30 and 34 to 39.
Amendment 7, in clause 75, page 101, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Information or documents to be provided under regulations under subsection (2) must include—
(a) in respect of a landlord entry—
(i) the address and contact details of the landlord;
(ii) the address and contact details of the managing agent;
(iii) details of each rented property owned by the landlord;
(iv) details of any enforcement action that any local authority has taken against the landlord;
(v) details of any enforcement action that any local authority has taken against the managing agent;
(vi) details of any banning orders or rent repayment orders that have been made against the landlord;
(vii) details of any reports that the landlord has failed to carry out works necessary to remedy any breaches of any applicable housing regulations within the timeframes set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State under
section 10A(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
(b) in respect of a dwelling entry—
(i) the address and contact details of the landlord;
(ii) the address and contact details of the managing agent;
(iii) details of any notices given to the previous tenant under
section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, including the grounds relied upon;
(iv) details of the rent that was payable at the commencement of the existing tenancy or, where there is no existing tenancy, the most recent tenancy;
(v) details of any increases in the rent imposed during the existing tenancy and the previous tenancy;
(vi) details of energy performance certificates required by
regulation 6(5) of the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) Regulations 2012;
(vii) details of gas safety certificates required by regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998;
(viii) details of electrical safety reports required by the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2010;
(ix) details of checks required under
regulation 4(1)(b) of the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015; and
(x) details of any features of the dwelling relevant to people with disabilities.”
This amendment would introduce specific requirements for landlord and dwelling entries on the Private Rented Sector Database.
Government amendments 40 and 41.
Amendment 11, in clause 96, page 114, line 22, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 40 (introduction and key definitions), in subsection (1) after “has” insert—
“breached a requirement imposed by sections 62(1) or 80(3) of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 or””.
This amendment would enable a tribunal to make a rent repayment order where a landlord has failed to join a landlord redress scheme or have active entries in the private rented sector database.
Amendment 3, in clause 98, page 117, line 33, after “(homelessness),” insert—
“or that is provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation,”.
This amendment would extend the Decent Homes Standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation.
Amendment 8, page 117, line 33, leave out from “(homelessness)” to the end of line 3 on page 118.
This amendment would make the Decent Homes Standard apply to all homeless temporary accommodation provided under the Housing Act 1996 by adapting the definition of “residential premises” in the Housing Act 2004 to remove a requirement for such temporary accommodation to meet certain Government regulations.
Government amendments 42 to 52.
Amendment 56, in clause 142, page 151, line 9, leave out from “subject to” to the end of line 27 and insert—
“the publication of an assessment under section [Assessment of operation of possession process].
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 160, line 13, leave out subsection (a).
This amendment would extend the special provisions for purpose-built student housing to HMO student properties.
Government amendments 18 to 22.
Amendment 59, page 168, line 25, at end insert—
“20A After Ground 6 insert—
“Ground 6ZA
The landlord or superior landlord who is seeking possession intends to undertake such works as are necessary to ensure that the property meets the standards set out by regulations under
section 2A of the Housing Act 2004
and the intended work cannot reasonably be carried out without the tenant giving up possession of the dwelling-house because—
(a) the tenant is not willing to agree to such a variation of the terms of the tenancy as would give such access and other facilities as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(b) the nature of the intended work is such that no such variation is practicable, or
(c) the tenant is not willing to accept an assured tenancy of such part only of the dwelling-house (in this sub-paragraph referred to as “the reduced part”) as would leave in the possession of his landlord so much of the dwelling-house as would be reasonable to enable the intended work to be carried out and, where appropriate, as would give such access and other facilities over the reduced part as would permit the intended work to be carried out, or
(d) the nature of the intended work is such that such a tenancy is not practicable.””
Government amendments 23 to 26, 31 to 33, 53 and 54.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to bring this important Bill back to the House this afternoon. Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their engagement with it over recent months. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), and other members of the Committee for the diligent and thoughtful line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill that they undertook over the course of many sittings late last year.
This Labour Government promised to succeed where their predecessor had failed, by quickly and decisively acting to transform the experience of private renting in England. Today, we make further tangible progress towards delivering on that commitment. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, levelling decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant. It will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness.
It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of privately rented housing so that renters have access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course. It will also allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters. The Bill will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants. Not only will its provisions see the reputation of the sector as a whole improve, as we clamp down on those landlords whose behaviour currently tarnishes it, but the Bill will also ensure that good landlords enjoy simpler regulation and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.
Although we have eschewed the previous Government’s habit of shoehorning swathes of new clauses into legislation following Second Reading, we needed to make a modest number of improvements to the Bill in Committee. Many of the amendments in question were minor and technical or consequential in nature, but I shall briefly explain to the House some of the more substantive changes.
To increase fairness for tenants being evicted because their landlord is at fault, we chose to make an amendment connected to ground 6A. As hon. Members will be aware this mandatory ground allows landlords to remove their tenants when eviction is necessary for them to comply not only with enforcement action, but as a result of separate changes that we made to the Bill with planning enforcement action as well. The amendment allows the court to require landlords to pay compensation to the tenant when they are forced to vacate their homes under such circumstances.
To provide greater flexibility for social landlords in meeting the demands of local housing markets, we widened ground 1B for rent-to-buy tenancies, ensuring that registered providers can take possession in all necessary circumstances. We also exempted assured tenancies from the 90-day rule, which protects housing supply in London and benefits permanent residents by preventing the conversion of family homes into short-term lets. Should a tenant give notice early in their tenancy, meaning that they leave before 90 consecutive nights have passed, these changes mean that the landlord will not automatically be found to have inadvertently provided temporary sleeping accommodation.
Lastly, we made changes to ensure that the introduction of a decent homes standard in the private rented sector works as intended.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Last week, I asked the Government to ensure that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards of social housing, as set out in the decent homes standard. The Minister for Veterans confirmed that this is already done, so will the Government support amending the Renters’ Rights Bill officially to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I agree with the objective that she has in mind, but, as we discussed fairly extensively in Committee, we do not think that the Renters’ Rights Bill and the way that the decent homes standard will apply to assured tenancies in this sector is right for MOD accommodation. The MOD is undertaking its own review, and I shall touch on that issue later in the debate.
As I was saying, the changes around the decent homes standard will guarantee that the appropriate person can always be subject to enforcement action and they close a potential gap that may have been exploited by clarifying the types of accommodation that will be required to meet the standard.
Today, we are proposing a small number of further improvements, most of which are again minor and technical in nature. As I have made clear repeatedly, the Government have long recognised that demands for extortionate amounts of rent in advance put undue financial strain on tenants and can exclude certain groups from renting altogether. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber will have heard powerful stories from our constituents about the impact of such demands. The typical story is all too familiar. Tenants find and view a property which, as advertised, matches their budget only to find that, on application, they are suddenly asked to pay several months’ rent up front to secure it. Tenants in such circumstances often confront an almost impossible choice: do they find a way to make a large rent-in-advance payment, thereby stretching their finances to breaking point, or do they walk away and risk homelessness if they are unable to find an alternative?
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing. He highlighted the issue of tenants being asked to pay up front. In my constituency and many other London constituencies, that up-front cost amounts in some cases to a deposit to purchase a home. Does he agree that we need to look into that issue and into estate agents effectively getting tenants to bid against each other for private rented accommodation?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right and, as I will detail, that is precisely why the Government are moving to prohibit that practice. As she will know, the Government have already moved to ban bidding wars through the Bill, where desperate tenants are often pitted against each other so that a landlord can extract the highest possible rental payment. Demands for large rent-in-advance payments—in many parts of the country, they can be six, nine or even 12 months’ rent in advance—can have a similar effect, with tenants encouraged to offer ever larger sums up front to outdo the competition and secure a home that may or may not be of a good standard, or risk being locked out of renting altogether.
As I stated previously, the interaction of the new rent periods in clause 1, which cannot be longer than a month, and the existing provisions of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 related to prohibited payments, arguably provide a measure of protection against requests for large amounts of advance rent. As I made clear in Committee, however, there is a strong case for putting the matter beyond doubt, and that is what we intend to do.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister will know, before coming to this place I worked for a homelessness charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes. Part of our role was to support homeless people—both rough sleepers and the hidden homeless—to get into rented accommodation, and often we provided deposits for that. Does he agree that the legislation will help charities like Streets2Homes provide more support to more people in need?
Matthew Pennycook
It absolutely will. I will detail some of the other changes that we are making to ensure that the Bill achieves our objectives.
Having listened to the concerns raised by numerous stakeholders, the views expressed on Second Reading and in Committee, and the representatives made to me by individual hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), we have tabled new clauses 13 and 14.
New clause 14 would limit the amount of rent that a landlord can require to a maximum of one month. It would prevent unscrupulous landlords from using rent in advance to either set tenants against each other in de facto bidding wars or to exclude all together certain types of renters who are otherwise perfectly able to afford the monthly rent on a property. It does so by amending schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so that any payment of rent made before a tenancy agreement is signed will be a prohibited payment. If a landlord or letting agent invites, encourages or accepts such a payment, they could face local authority enforcement action and a fine of up to £5,000.
New clause 13 would amend the Housing Act 1988 to ensure that tenants continue to be protected from unreasonable requests for rent to be paid early once a tenancy has commenced. Landlords will no longer be able to include any terms in the tenancy agreement that have the effect of requiring rent to be paid prior to the rent due date. Tenants will retain the flexibility to make payments of rent in advance within a tenancy agreement should they wish to do so.
The effect of the new clauses will be that tenants can be certain that the financial outlay to secure a tenancy will not exceed the cost of a tenancy deposit and the first month’s rent, and that they will not be required to pay their rent earlier than agreed. The new clauses will thereby reduce the barriers that stop tenants moving from substandard or insecure housing, and I commend them to the House.
Hon. Members with large student populations in their constituencies will know that the dynamics of the general student rental market in many parts of the country see students compelled to make important decisions about accommodation long before they have formed stable friendship groups, or have had time to properly judge a property’s condition or location, and to consequently pay substantial deposits at a point in time when they are already coping with significant additional costs. This arms race, in which students are pressured ever earlier in the year to enter into contracts for the subsequent academic year, clearly is not benefiting them, and it is arguable whether it benefits the student landlords engaged in it.
The Government have therefore tabled amendments 18 and 53, which will prevent the use of possession ground 4A in instances where a student tenancy was agreed more than six months in advance of the date of occupation, thereby helping to reduce the prevalence of the practice. I want to be clear that the amendment will not lead to an outright ban on contracts being agreed more than six months in advance. Instead, making the use of ground 4A conditional on not doing so will act as a strong disincentive against landlords who wish to use it to pressure students into early sign-ups, as many do now. I thank all those who have advocated for this change, including the former Member for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield, during his time in Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, and organisations such as Unipol.
Having taken up the cause of a family in her constituency who were forced by a letting agent to continue to pay as guarantors for a property that had been rented by their son before he tragically took his own life, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has been campaigning for many years to protect bereaved families by prohibiting the practice. I pay tribute to her for her tireless efforts to secure a change in this area. She was unable to persuade the previous Government to make the necessary changes to the Renters (Reform) Bill, but this Government are determined to act to end the abhorrent practice where guarantors are held liable for unpaid rent owed solely as a result of the death of a tenant who is a family member.
We have tabled new clause 15, which will limit the liability of a guarantor of a tenancy agreement for rent in circumstances where a tenant has died. I should make it clear that if in a joint tenancy the guarantor is not a family member, their liability for rent will be maintained. We consider that fair because we do not think it is reasonable to remove the guarantor’s liability and therefore expose a landlord to additional financial risk where the guarantor is not related to the deceased. Our new clause strikes the right balance: guarantors will be protected from being held liable for rent when they are grieving; landlords will be able to reclaim costs owed prior to a tenant’s death; and guarantor’s liability for other costs incurred under the tenancy will not be affected.
I turn to amendments 40 and 41, which will amend existing powers to charge fees for the private rented sector database. The amendments will expand the definition of relevant costs that can be considered when calculating such fees and would enable fee revenue to include PRS enforcement costs incurred by local housing authorities. Hon. Members should be assured that database fees will be calculated and agreed at a later date, with further details set out in secondary legislation and developed on the basis that fees must be reasonable and proportionate. The amendments do not alter that position. In setting the fees, a range of factors will be considered, including the costs incurred by landlords. However, we need to ensure that when calculating fees, we can take into account all relevant costs, and the amendments will ensure that that is the case.
Enabling fee revenue to include PRS enforcement costs is also important. For the reforms to have the impact we all want, effective enforcement will be crucial, and that point was debated at length in Committee. As we have touched on frequently throughout our consideration of the Bill, local housing authority capacity and resourcing is a real problem. The amendments provide an additional lever to help ensure that every local housing authority has the tools and resources it needs to carry out its enforcement role, so that good tenants and landlords benefit from a well-regulated and enforced PRS.
Amendments 35 to 39 will expand the scope of what can be covered by the compulsory fee that private landlords will be required to pay to fund the new PRS landlord ombudsman. They will ensure that the fee can cover the set-up costs of the ombudsman and activities specified in the regulations beyond those strictly necessary for mandatory aspects of landlord redress. That will allow the ombudsman to set up the core redress service and to provide additional member benefits, such as landlord-initiated mediation or voluntary member redress, without the costs having to be borne by the taxpayer.
I turn to amendments 42 to 52. Rent repayment orders are an important and effective tenant-led enforcement tool. They deter landlords from non-compliance and empower tenants to take action against unscrupulous landlords. The Bill will significantly strengthen rent repayment orders, including their extension to superior landlords in rent-to-rent arrangements. But we intend to go further and ensure that those sorts of arrangements cannot be used to evade responsibility and escape enforcement action. We are also making it clear that tenants and local authorities can seek a rent repayment order against any landlord in the chain, regardless of who they paid the rent to.
Amendments 24 and 26 will limit the circumstances in which landlords can use ground 7 to obtain possession from a person who has inherited a tenancy following the death of a tenant. They will provide greater security for bereaved tenants by preventing them from losing their home, and I acknowledge the role that Marie Curie has played in advocating for change in respect of the matter. Landlords will still be able to use ground 7 if the original tenant had inherited it by will or intestacy, or if the inheriting individual did not live in the property before the tenant passed away. Landlords will also be able to use ground 7 for specialist tenancies, such as supported and temporary accommodation. That is in recognition of the critical role such tenancies play in supplying housing to those with specialist needs.
Private registered providers are currently restricted from using the possession ground for redevelopment—ground 6—apart from where they have a superior landlord who wants to redevelop the property. Other possession grounds, such as the suitable alternative accommodation ground—ground 9—can be used to move tenants, but only if clear conditions are met. Although we expect PRPs to work closely with tenants to facilitate moves to enable redevelopment work, the Government accept that in limited cases it is increasingly hard to meet those conditions, preventing PRPs from progressing with crucial redevelopment work. I thank the National Housing Federation for raising concerns about that matter with me.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome what the Minister just said. Is he aware that a lot of landlords are using unreasonable arguments to terminate tenancies or raise rents ahead of this legislation coming into force, and is there anything he or his Department can do to protect tenants during this stressful period for them?
Matthew Pennycook
There is a lot of bad practice out there. That is the very reason why the Government have acted so quickly to introduce these reforms, and we are confident that once they are in place, they will provide tenants with the protection that they deserve. In the interim, I am afraid that there will continue to be bad practice of the kind that the Bill will stamp out.
For the reasons that I have just alluded to, we have tabled amendments 19 and 22 to give private registered providers an alternative route for obtaining possession for redevelopment and for decant accommodation. Where the landlord seeks possession on ground 6 or ground 6ZA because they intend to carry out redevelopment work or want to move a tenant on from decant accommodation, they will need to provide alternative accommodation that meets specific requirements. That includes the accommodation being affordable, in a suitable location and not overcrowded. The accommodation must also be let as an assured tenancy or equivalent, unless it is being let for a temporary period pending the tenant being moved to an assured tenancy or equivalent. To use ground 6ZA, landlords must give tenants prior notice to ensure that they are fully aware that the accommodation is provided for temporary decant use. If the landlord does not do that, they are liable for a fine of up to £7,000.
Where landlords wish to accommodate tenants temporarily in properties that are earmarked for redevelopment, social landlords must give prior notice, and set out in a written statement the intention to redevelop the accommodation and the timeframe for redevelopment. Under those circumstances, alternative accommodation will not need to be provided. Social landlords will also be required to pay removal expenses for social tenants when using ground 6 and ground 6ZA. We do not expect that the need to use those grounds will arise often in practice through the engagement of PRPs with tenants, but where needed, the amendments will ensure that significant redevelopment work is not unduly delayed.
Government amendments 12, 13, 17, 20, 21, 23, 28 to 30 and 54 are related and consequential provisions to reflect the new ability for landlords to gain possession for redevelopment and for decant accommodation. We think that this group of amendments gets the balance right, enabling PRPs to progress redevelopment and use temporary decant accommodation during redevelopment works, while ensuring that tenants are provided with appropriate alternative accommodation and removal expenses.
Let me turn finally to amendment 34. Clause 30 ensures that long leases can continue to function by excluding leases over seven years from the assured regime. Those leases are typically used in purchases of leasehold and shared-ownership properties. I am grateful to stakeholders for raising concerns about the possibility of some unscrupulous landlords using clause 30 to circumnavigate the new assured regime by issuing leases of over seven years with a break or early-termination clause that is operable in the first few years. Tenants must not be cheated out of the protections of the assured tenancy regime. The amendment will therefore exclude all leases over 21 years from the assured regime. That will act as a much stronger deterrent to landlords who seek to avoid the assured tenancy regime. The amendment also excludes existing leases of between seven and 21 years, to ensure that they can continue to operate as currently intended. It also ensures that regulated home purchase plans can continue to enable consumers to purchase properties using the principles of Islamic finance by adding them to the list of excluded tenancies in schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988.
The amendments that the Government have tabled for consideration today are a series of targeted changes designed to ensure that the Bill works as intended, and I commend them all to the House. I thank hon. Members for their efforts to improve the Bill, and for the scrutiny and challenge that the Bill has received so far. I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
May I echo the Minister’s comments, and extend my thanks to him and his team, the other Members who served on the Committee, and the many witnesses who came in to share their views? It is clear that a lot of the discussion has been on the real-world impact that the legislation will have, rather than on political points, and in that spirit, I will set out my responses, and the rationale behind a number of the amendments that we have tabled, which will be the subject of debate and votes this afternoon.
Clearly, legislation is about striking the right balance. This afternoon, we will recognise—as we have done in our contributions to debate on this issue—the impact that the Bill will have on tenants, landlords and the stakeholders whom our amendments seek to protect. I highlight in particular the impact on students; on financially vulnerable tenants, such as those with low credit scores; on tenants who have pets; on small landlords, who are themselves vulnerable to financial shocks; and of course on other groups, such as agricultural workers and those with work-related accommodation, including NHS workers, military families and school staff, all of whom were mentioned in Committee and will, I am sure, be covered again later. All our amendments have sought to address practical issues, such as ensuring that when work is required on a property and a tenant is reluctant to allow the landlord in to carry out that work for whatever reason, there is sufficient freedom and flexibility in the legislation to ensure that the work can take place.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The shadow Minister talks about situations in which tenants must leave a property. A constituent of mine had a terrible ordeal. She moved into a new rental property, but after three months it became uninhabitable, and she spent a further 11 weeks going in and out of eight Airbnbs. She was left thousands of pounds out of pocket because the landlord’s insurance covered his loss of rent but did not cover the accommodation costs that she incurred as a tenant. Will the shadow Minister support my new clause 22, which would require landlords to hold appropriate insurance for the purposes of paying any costs related to alternative accommodation in such situations?
David Simmonds
There are a number of ways to address that issue. The Minister has talked compensation, and we have tabled amendments on insurance, but clearly there needs to be an effective dispute resolution mechanism in place, so that such situations can be resolved when they arise. We were focused in particular on ensuring that there is sufficient flexibility when, for example, work must be carried out to improve energy efficiency or to address health and safety concerns such as mould, and a tenant needs to leave because the work will render the property uninhabitable.
Although there have been substantial areas of agreement on the Bill, much of which takes forward work that started under the previous Government in their Renters (Reform) Bill, we have concerns that it creates significant new problems for the availability and affordability of accommodation in the private rented sector. That sector, we must not forget, enjoys the highest tenant satisfaction of any private tenure: 82% of private renters say that they are satisfied with their accommodation.
The backdrop is challenging, and has become a lot more so recently. The Chancellor’s Budget has set inflation rising, and borrowing costs are soaring. Markets are responding to the chaos in No. 11, and that is causing a great deal of uncertainty for tenants and landlords alike. Her decisions are stoking inflation, and that is pushing up rent and housing costs of all kinds. The black hole in local government funding, which was unveiled just before Christmas, means that councils facing the twin existential threats of wholesale reorganisation and growing funding shortfalls lack certainty from the Government about the funding to deliver this enormous increase in workload.
Florence Eshalomi
I know that the shadow Minister cares passionately about this area, especially in the light of his local government experience. Given that financial pressures on local authorities are added to by the need to provide temporary accommodation to families facing eviction, does he agree that we should have abolished section 21 no-fault evictions sooner?
David Simmonds
I say gently to the hon. Lady that had Labour-run Lambeth council not recently rushed to put 200 of its own people on the streets using section 21, because it is concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on its housing situation, that would have more credibility. It is clear that this is a difficult situation in all parts of the country. There is a significant shortfall in emergency accommodation in London in particular, and a rising cost attached to it there, just as other areas of the country have a surplus of accommodation. That is all part of a complex picture. We need to make sure that everything works efficiently and effectively together, and it is absolutely right that we set out our concerns about whether the Bill goes far enough in all areas towards addressing those issues—and about whether, in some cases, it goes too far.
I touched on the impact of the black hole in local government funding. Another area that is driving significant pressure is the Government’s approach to asylum. They are granting refugee status faster, so people are being pushed out of the doors of Home Office asylum dispersal accommodation and on to local housing waiting lists. I am sure that many hon. Members in this Chamber will have been lobbied by their local authority about the impact of that additional pressure—those additional people, who under our laws are perfectly entitled to that housing—on supply in their area. All those things have a huge collective impact on the pool of available housing.
Of course, as we have seen in the news, the declining confidence abroad in our economy is reducing the number of overseas students. That makes it more important than ever to support thriving student accommodation through tenancies that address students’ needs properly—especially the needs of students who are older, have families, or are studying for higher degrees and have a fixed commitment to a location. All those requirements need to be addressed effectively in this legislation.
Does the Bill in its new form rise to those challenges? It is clear that it fails to ensure that landlords can recover their property quickly when they need to. That reduces their incentive to rent it out, especially for small landlords. If the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) needs to recover some of her property portfolio to return it to another owner, will she have the assurance under this Bill that due process is available to her? The Bill fails to ensure a flexibility and freedom of contract that allows tenants and landlords to agree a deal that suits them both. Students wanting to book accommodation for a guaranteed period of two years—or shorter or longer—and those moving to a new location for a fixed-term work contract require opportunities and flexibility that are taken away by this legislation.
The Bill takes away landlords’ opportunity to make allowances for financially riskier tenants, such as those with a poor credit record, through rent in advance or other safeguarding arrangements that give the landlord confidence that they will not lose out. That locks financially vulnerable people out of the rental market. The Bill also puts enormous obligations on local councils—one of the biggest additional sets of burdens and expectations in generations—and there is no real clarity yet on how it will be resourced, at a time when all the wider uncertainties that I have described add up to a great deal of additional cost. The Bill also fails to provide the necessary assurance that tenants who have pets and need to access insurance as part of their tenancy conditions will be able to find affordable insurance. That is dealt with in our new clause 21. More concerning still, the Bill is a missed opportunity to provide this House with a proper impact assessment, or the assurance of a future review that would give us really good evidence on which to base our decisions. Our new clause 20 would address that shortcoming, and the House will have the opportunity to vote for it shortly.
Let me give an example of where there is significant uncertainty. In some of the political knockabout, the Government have sought to blame their predecessor for court delays, while claiming that there are no delays worthy of regard in the passage of this Bill, which loads more regulation on to the sector. Both of those things cannot be true simultaneously, so let us properly assess the impact of the Bill before we legislate. There is a lot of good will—for example, on the point about tenants with pets being able to access the accommodation that they need. We do not want to find ourselves returning to this issue in the House because the legislation failed to achieve what we had hoped.
Clearly, it is the role of this Chamber to scrutinise and question, and it is the role of the Opposition to oppose when we cannot see that the legislation before us will result in an improvement in the lot of the people of this country. A pattern is emerging. The Government came after the farmers. They came after the pubs. They came after the small businesses. They came after the private schools. They came after our local councillors. Now this Bill, in its new form, comes after our tenants and our landlords. It is very clear from the number of Government amendments, which the Minister referred to, that the points we made in Committee about the many shortcomings of the Bill that need to be addressed were not lost on the Government.
I return to the point that even a Labour council—a bastion such as Lambeth, led by the Labour chair of London Councils—is rushing to use section 21 to evict its own tenants in advance of this Bill because of the impact it will have. A Labour council and a Labour Government are putting their own people out of their homes.
David Simmonds
I promise the hon. Member that that is exactly what I am going to do. I am going to make an apology to all those in the private rented sector. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I have only four hours. I am afraid that I will not be able to go through all the private tenants individually, but the apology will be fulsome. I say to those in the private rented sector, 82% of whom are very satisfied with their accommodation, that I am sorry that they will be faced with the mess that this Bill will create, whether they are seeking to rent their first home or need to move to a new one.
David Simmonds
I will not give way, because I am concluding. We on the Conservative Benches give those people the undertaking that while they may have to endure that situation until the next election, we will put it right, for the benefit of landlords and tenants alike.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his constructive work with the Liberal Democrats and other parties in Committee.
For a generation cut off from the dream of home ownership who find that, after half a century of flogging off social houses and council houses—over 1.5 million have been lost since 1980—there are now basically none left, it is vital that we restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home. As such, the Liberal Democrats support the key principle of this Bill, which is to bring an end to no-fault evictions. After the continual stop-start of the previous Government, giving tenants the security they deserve is long overdue. It is time to end once and for all the fear that any complaint from any tenant could be met with an instant eviction notice at any moment.
Of course, landlords do not generally act in such a cavalier fashion; most are good landlords, and we value them and what they bring to the market. As such, to sustain a healthy private rented sector, we have tabled amendment 10, which would extend to off-street student rental landlords the same possession laws that apply to purpose-built student accommodation. Given that fully 31% of properties on the Accommodation for Students website are one or two-bedroom properties rather than houses in multiple occupancy, as Unipol and the Higher Education Policy Institute have pointed out, that is a big chunk of the market, and one that needs to be addressed.
The need for more homes is why we have tabled amendment 2, which would particularly incentivise more build-to-rent accommodation. In Taunton and Wellington, our Lib Dem council has supported the delivery of tens of thousands of new homes; our population increased by 10% up to 2021. Our manifesto called for 150,000 social homes per year—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my experience as a social landlord. We clearly set out the borrowing of £6 billion per year that would make that happen, unlike the Labour and Conservative manifestos, which included no numbers whatsoever for social housing.
We need a lot of that build-to-rent accommodation also to be rent to own, so renters can accrue ownership of their own home. It is time to give a whole generation of young people who have been excluded that elusive first step on the housing ladder. Amendment 2 would therefore give a developer of build-to-rent housing the security of a fixed term of 24 months for the first tenancy. Since that was tabled, I have heard from the British Property Federation and others, and they have suggested that an initial fixed term of six months would enable them to secure the investment they need to build more and to get building. That would not undermine the general principle of moving to periodic tenancies, as build to rent is only 0.1% of the housing stock. We will not press amendment 2, but I genuinely urge the Government to take up the idea, run with it and generate more investment in new homes.
Let me turn to the interests of tenants, which have been so overlooked for so long. My constituent and friend Mike Godleman, who was disabled, died while recovering from major surgery and under the threat of a no-fault eviction notice, for no reason he could possibly work out. In part in his memory, our new clause 23 would ensure that landlords of both private and social tenancies must give permission for home adaptations when a home assessment has been carried out. If rental bidding is to be outlawed, as the Minister said, it must not be replaced by bidding up rent in advance, so our new clause 1 would limit rent in advance to two months’ rent. In that respect, I welcome Government new clause 13.
In-tenancy rent increases also need to be limited to protect tenants from exorbitant increases. The most sensible way to do this is set out in our amendment 1, which would peg increases to the Bank of England base rate. Property is a financial and investment asset, and landlords’ costs are more directly influenced by mortgage rates rather than by the general inflation and the cost of living. New clause 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), would require landlords to pay for alternative accommodation when dwellings are unfit for human habitation.
Turning to the amendments proposed by other hon. Members, we support the proposed new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), which will prevent the guarantor from being liable on the death of a tenant, and we recognise that the Government have tabled new clause 15 to limit that liability, rather than end it altogether. We also support amendment 7 on the content that must be submitted for inclusion in the database. The database could be a very powerful instrument for tenants if it provides information, as I spoke about at some length in Committee. We also support new clause 6, which would give care leavers support through funding for a deposit when they move out of care. Both those amendments are in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).
One of the biggest concerns to landlords, tenants and local communities in Taunton and Wellington, as it is in Cornwall, the lakes and other places, is that there is no control over the number of homes being turned into holiday lets and Airbnbs. This has prompted a significant increase to about 3,000 holiday homes in Somerset—a 33% increase in short-term rentals in the south-west since 2019. Visitors of course bring welcome investment, but in some areas second homes are pricing locals out of local markets.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
My hon. Friend is talking about second homes, which can particularly affect rural communities. Schedule 1 provides mandatory grounds to recover possession in order to house an agricultural worker, but does he agree that the definition of “agricultural worker” is limited and does not reflect rural workers—for example, those who work in the horse training industry in the village of Lambourn in my constituency, where local housing is key to that industry given the nature and the hours of the work of stable staff?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That definition needs to cover the breadth of agricultural workers, and I am sure the Minister has heard his point.
Liberal Democrats have long argued for a licensing system and tougher planning controls for second homes, with a new use class to cover second homes and short-term lets. Both this and previous Governments have said that they would create a new use class, so I urge the Minister to say in today’s debate whether that will really happen. Without controls, there is a serious risk of second homes proliferating if landlords do not wish to be part of a more regulated private rented sector following the enactment of this Bill. Our new clause 2 would therefore require the Government to assess properly the growth in short-term lets, and I urge the Minister to do so. In fact, I am not sure why anyone would oppose that amendment.
Finally, our amendment 3 would apply the Bill’s proposed decent homes standard to military service family accommodation. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to write to me on this, but the argument that a standard would not be suitable for service family accommodation does not stand up, because clause 98 allows the Secretary of State to establish whatever version of the decent homes standard they feel is appropriate. I do not think anyone across the House would understand why that should be different for service families. We will no doubt hear the Ministry of Defence say that 90% or more of service family accommodation already meets the decent homes standard so it is all okay, but in that case, why not make that claim evident by subjecting that accommodation to the decent homes standard in the Bill?
To say that the recently published “Service Accommodation” report from the Defence Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), says something different from the official reports would be a massive understatement. The Select Committee reported evidence from one service family, who said:
“It is impossible to challenge the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ without paying for a survey yourself. It is widely accepted that each house has not been checked but either guessed or it is assumed that the standard of one house is the same as all in one area.”
I therefore ask how sure we can be of the self-declared statistics from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, or were they from Annington homes? As another witness before the Select Committee said:
“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but”
and
“it is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”
Crucially, the witness added:
“Moreover, there is no local authority”—
or anyone else—
“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”
That is exactly what amendment 3 would provide.
In the Kerslake report, commissioned before the election by the now Secretary of State for Defence—a former Housing Minister—reports of damp, mould and, in other service accommodation, rat infestations abound. If all the witnesses and all these reports are wrong and the official figures are right, showing that over 90% of properties meet the decent homes standard, there is nothing for the MOD to fear in subjecting service accommodation to that assessment, just as social and private landlords will have to do under the Bill. The hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) got even the previous Government to come round to the idea, and the then Minister, the former Member for Redcar, said in this Chamber on 24 April last year that the Government:
“intend to ensure that service accommodation meets the decent homes standard”.—[Official Report, 24 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 1029.]
Service families such as those of 40 Commando Royal Marines, part of our Taunton and Wellington family community, make massive sacrifices for our country, and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice. They deserve decent homes, and the MOD should be required to meet the standard, just as the Government are requiring that of other landlords. I am grateful to see support for amendment 3 from across the House. We will be voting for it this evening to support our service families, and I urge Members across the House to vote for it, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I start by paying tribute to Members from across the House who have tabled an amendment at this stage, and to the Minister, who has engaged constructively with Members between Second Reading and Report.
As we debate this Bill today, it is important to remember why it is so badly needed: the dire situation that many tenants across all our constituencies are facing through no fault of their own. We have to ask ourselves how we got to a position where tenants have the threat of eviction held over their head for no good reason. How did we get to a position where tenants can be given only a couple of months to raise thousands of pounds for rent in advance, on top of moving costs and the deposit? How did we get to a position where the average rent went up by 9.1% last year? For far too long tenants have been the innocent victims of an unjust power balance in the rental market. As a result, many of them have been unable to keep a roof over their heads and, sadly, have fallen into homelessness. This cannot continue any longer. We need a fairer deal for renters.
Jeremy Corbyn
Has the hon. Member noticed, as I have, an increase in the number of threatened evictions at the present time, as well as no-fault evictions, excessive rent rises and harassment by landlords of private sector tenants? Does she believe that there is any immediate and urgent protection that we can give those tenants?
Florence Eshalomi
As a fellow London MP, the right hon. Member will see what I see in my inbox, with many tenants facing that threat on an almost daily basis. They are the same tenants who come to our advice surgeries and are turned away from overstretched council departments, and who cannot apply to social housing waiting lists because those lists are already full. It is important that we get guarantees and protections for those tenants as outlined in the Bill, and hopefully help my constituents and his, and people up and down the country.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. I am proud that the Bill will be strengthened by some of the welcome amendments that Members have tabled. I extend my support to new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), on limiting rent payable in advance. That is a big issue in my constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, and I have spoken to many tenants who are being asked to stump up six to 12 months’ rent in advance. That leaves many people priced out of the rental market, ending in a race to the bottom where landlords can charge more and more for less in return.
How can someone finally find a place that they want to call home, only to be told that they need to pay out thousands upon thousands of pounds up front? In some cases, because of the rents charged in my constituency, and many others, the money that people are asked to stump up in advance would amount to a deposit if they took it to purchase a home in another part of the country. We are talking in excess of £30,000 if someone is asked to stump up, with an average rent of £2,500 per calendar month in my constituency. The result is that those who do not have significant savings or family wealth end up needing to borrow money just to have somewhere to live. That cycle of exploitation is pushing thousands of people into debt, impacting them for the rest of their lives.
Research from StepChange shows that one in six private renters are relying on credit to make ends meet. Something must change, because the system is broken. We must lower immediate financial pressures on tenants and make private renting fairer for everyone. That is why I welcome the amendments tabled by the Secretary of State, and I urge the House to support measures that will reduce up-front costs for all renters.
My constituency is home to thousands of university students from great universities across London. Students often have the most insecure housing, because landlords know that they can charge a new group higher rents every year. I therefore welcome measures that restrict the time that a landlord can agree a new tenancy, prior to the end of the current tenancy in student housing. Many of us will remember the time when we went to university and looked for accommodation. We signed up to live with friends or someone we knew—perhaps by Christmas we had all fallen out, and there was that frantic search when someone left the property and we had to find a new flatmate. Many social media posts are put on SpareRoom.com or Facebook, and university students need time to bed into their new accommodation. The new clause will help to give students that breathing space, and avoid the problems they face as a result of early sign-up accommodation.
New clause 10 addresses a vital issue, and I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for tabling it and for her tireless campaigning. The death of a loved one is a difficult and challenging time for anybody, and the one thing people need is the time and space to grieve. Under current rules, guarantors can end up facing a huge bill for the remainder of their loved one’s rent. None of us would want to be placed in that situation. It is right that the Government have acted to prevent guarantors from being faced with that unacceptable scenario, and I urge the House to support the new clause.
I also wish briefly to touch on some other amendments, which I hope the Government will consider during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Although the Bill introduces a rent tribunal for unfair rent rises, there is concern from groups such as the Renters Reform Coalition that measures in the Bill do not go far enough to prevent landlords from evicting a tenant under the guise of a large rent increase. I am particularly concerned that market rent may not be an appropriate benchmark when market data is poor. Renters at the bottom end of the market could end up being told that an unaffordable rent rise is acceptable under this system. We need guarantees that the use of a tribunal will resolve that, and that it is available and accessible to tenants.
In Scotland, only a handful of rent increase cases a year go through the tribunal system to the rent officer, and it would severely undermine the Bill if tenants who were being exploited did not take up the option available to them. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Government will encourage the take-up of such a provision, and whether he will support the alternative measures and safeguards in the Bill, such as amendment 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).
Finally, a number of amendments have touched on the vital issue of home adaptations in the private rental sector. It is not fair that disabled tenants end up with reduced access to their own homes. The Government are rightly looking at making it easier for disabled people to thrive in the workplace, but what is the point of someone thriving if they do not even have an adequate home or housing?
We cannot expect someone to go out and work and contribute to the economy if they have not had a good night’s sleep. Can any of us imagine being unable to have a shower in our own flat because the landlord refuses to make the necessary adaptations, or trying to cook in a kitchen when we cannot even reach the worktops? None of us would want to live in such conditions, yet that is the reality for many disabled people in the private rented sector in 2025 in the UK. People face such issues on a daily basis, with more challenges and blockages when trying to get private landlords to address them.
I urge the Government to ensure that disabled people do not face a private rented sector that is far too often completely inaccessible to them. I look forward to the Government responding to the report by my Committee’s predecessor on disabled people in the housing sector. The House must continue to look at how we fight for a rental sector that works for everyone, regardless of their background.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I was privileged to serve on the Bill Committee, and it is good to see many fellow members of the Committee in the House this afternoon. Before I start, I wish to pay tribute to the many excellent landlords across our country. The Bill has been designed to tackle the worst offenders, but it is worth putting on the record that thousands upon thousands of landlords do a good job of providing long-term accommodation for many people in the private rented sector. On Second Reading and in Committee we spoke about the unintended consequences that exist in the Bill, some of which still remain—that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
My hon. Friend raises an important point about unintended consequences. Does she agree that it is important we consider our key workers, such as NHS staff and police, who rely on accommodation tied to their employment? With the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies, it is important to ensure that provisions are there to support such tenancies, so that they can continue and we can retain and attract much-needed police officers and NHS staff.
Rebecca Smith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is a perfect example of one of the unintended consequences that I do not believe have been put in deliberately but are something that we might see as a result of the Bill. Other issues include accidental landlords—those who did not intend to be landlords and are not large portfolio holders—and small landlords, and we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner about the challenge they face regarding economic drivers and the risk of the market shrinking. We talked a lot about that on Second Reading, but ultimately landlords are leaving the market, and if there are fewer homes for people to rent, we are in a worse situation.
I support new clause 20, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I believe a review of the Bill’s impact on the housing market after a year is important to ensure that we make it even better than it already is, and to address those unintended consequences. We can all agree that is important, given the challenges we have already heard about regarding the long housing waiting lists and the homelessness rife across our country. It is also important to listen to landlords.
In particular, I draw attention to some of the reasons why new clause 20 is so important. Plymouth Access to Housing, known as PATH, is a key player in tackling homelessness in my constituency, and it works especially with those who are harder to place into accommodation. It has rightly said that it supports the Bill in principle—as we have heard, the Opposition support large parts of it too—but in a buoyant private rental market. It is concerned that it is not buoyant, so there is already a challenge. That is why a review would be important. PATH also says that it has received funding in the past to support landlords to stay in the private rented sector. What plans does the Minister have, perhaps outside of this Bill, to ensure that such organisations, in which some Members present today have worked, might be able to mitigate the impact of some of those future challenges?
The South West Landlords Association, which I have mentioned, would benefit from new clause 20, because it would allow for an assessment of a provision that essentially amounts to a doubling of the amount of rent arrears that can be accrued and of the notice required for possession before a landlord can get somebody out of their property. Landlords are particularly concerned about that, for the financial reasons we have already set out. If they have to wait for three months of arrears and then another month’s notice before they can remove someone from their property when they have not been paying rent, that has a massive impact on small landlords, and on those accidental landlords in particular—that is nearly half a year of income they would lose. Ultimately, it is the luck of the draw. We do not know in advance how good tenants will be. If someone has an excellent tenant, it is not a problem, but with a bad tenant it is not so good.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, fundamentally, the only way to secure the rights of tenants is to ensure the buoyant rental market that she is talking about, where landlords want to enter and invest in it? They are then competing for tenants in the market, which is the biggest and most powerful force of all. That will drive decent behaviour towards tenants, and without that, landlords cannot gain and retain tenants.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes. I agree that the market is important, but I also appreciate that there are some whom the market has failed. We have to find a situation where those who are not looked after by their landlords can receive support, but, as I have already said, my concern is that the Bill goes too far in the opposite direction.
Graham Stuart
With the freedom of being on the Back Benches, I can say that the last Conservative Government got this wrong. When they stopped landlords being able to offset the interest payments on the mortgage for that commercial asset against their income, it was one step among many that reduced the number of landlords coming into the market. Each step along the way, instead of seeking to strengthen the market, successive Governments—Conservative then, and the process is bound to be completed by Labour now—moved against landlords to make it a less and less investable asset. Ultimately, those who lose out most are tenants.
Rebecca Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend that ultimately tenants are at risk of losing out if there are no properties left in the market. That leads me on to my next point and one of the other reasons why an assessment would be useful in the light of new clause 20. We heard in Committee that rural landlords are particularly concerned. According to the Country Land and Business Association, 44% of landlords are planning to sell in the next two years, and only 21% are planning to build new properties. When 90% of those planning to leave cite reforms to the private rented sector as a reason, we need an opportunity to reflect and to see the impact assessment.
Having set out some of my reasons for supporting new clause 20, I will turn briefly to new clause 15, which has been mentioned many times already. I appreciate why it has been tabled in the tragic circumstances that have been laid out. In the light of some conversations we had in Committee, I am interested to see who is in scope to be considered family for the purposes of that guarantor system. The new clause lists
“child…grandchild…parent…grandparent…sibling…niece or nephew…aunt or uncle…or, a cousin”.
That is a wide but—I think we would all agree—highly realistic view of what family is. However, in schedule 1 to the Bill, a landlord can only evict an existing tenant to house a parent, grandparent, sibling, child or grandchild.
I raised this matter with the Minister in Committee, and I know that he thinks tenants’ rights would be inhibited if we extended the definition of family, but I find it puzzling that a wide extended family is justified in new clause 15, but not in the determination of who lives in a property under schedule 1. Often, those family members may be vulnerable themselves and need somewhere to live. It is a niche point, but for the Government to say that someone cannot house their niece or nephew—or, in the light of new clause 15, their aunt, uncle or cousin—feels like an overreach of the state. We are slightly testing ownership rights and restricting trust and freedom in society as a result.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I was pleased to serve on the Public Bill Committee for this legislation, which is a concrete example of the positive difference that this Labour Government are making to people’s lives. I fundamentally believe that everyone should have somewhere they can call home and that they should feel secure in that home. The Bill will deliver massive improvements for the millions of tenants in the private rented sector, who for too long have been forced to pay over the odds for housing that is often inadequate and insecure. It finally addresses the clear imbalance of power between landlords and tenants by levelling the playing field through the delivery of a once-in-a-generation boost to tenants’ rights, moving away from expensive, precarious, poor-quality accommodation and ending a status quo that has left tenants under the constant threat of losing their home.
On the Bill Committee, we heard evidence of landlords demanding multiple months of rent up front at the start of a tenancy. That highly exclusionary practice shuts lower income renters out of the market by requiring them to hand over thousands of pounds on top of their deposit at the start of a tenancy. The spread of this practice would have a devastating impact on the choices available to many tenants, so I warmly welcome new clauses 13 and 14 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), which address the issue.
Turning to section 21 evictions, one of the absolute privileges of being an MP is going to visit local schools to answer questions from pupils. Those questions can be about anything, but they normally relate to the interests and experiences of the children, such as, “What can you do about the traffic?”, “How can you make my park and playground better?”, and even—this is a real one—“I really like trees. Do you like trees?” On a recent visit to St Andrew’s primary school in Eccles, I was given a poignant reminder of why we are here and why this Bill is so important. One of the pupils asked me, “What are you doing to stop people being kicked out of their homes for no reason?” It was a shocking question to hear from someone so young, and it serves as an appalling illustration of how wide the fear of no-fault evictions is. No child should even know what a section 21 eviction is, and no child should live in fear of losing their home. We cannot allow these evictions to continue. For me, that is the most critical part of the Bill. It is beyond time to end the spectre of homelessness that hangs over these tenants and end section 21 evictions, giving people a steady, strong, secure foundation to build their lives around.
Unfortunately, no-fault evictions are just one of the many challenges facing tenants. Action to tackle unaffordable rents is badly needed, which is why the measures in the Bill to end rental bidding wars and stop the use of unreasonable rent increases designed to drive out tenants are so important. Never-ending rent increases are bad for tenants and bad for the economy, absorbing money that could be spent more productively elsewhere.
I welcome the measures in the Bill to drive up standards across the sector, such as the application of the decent homes standard and the establishment of a private rented sector database. All of those reforms are entirely necessary in a market where, year after year, tenants are expected to pay more for less.
It is hard to overstate the impact that housing has on people’s lives or the detrimental effects caused by the sector’s current flaws. The Bill’s reforms decisively rebalance a broken sector, ending the scandal of no-fault evictions and encouraging the market to provide affordable, high-quality accommodation with security of tenure. The Bill represents real and meaningful action, which we all should welcome.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Many of us are described as either a dog person or a cat person. I have had my dog for over five years now, and as a result I definitely feel like a dog person. Joking aside, it is quite clear that we as a country are in love with our pets; so many of us are defined by them. The laws that govern us should reflect how we live and how we choose to live, but our lack of respect for people’s ability to bring a pet into their home is shocking. That is why I am pleased with the Bill.
Sadly, there are gaps for pet owners in the rental market in particular, which not only creates an uneven playing field for people choosing new homes but fills animal shelters with much-loved pets that should be in their stable homes. Many pets are in animal shelters because of landlords’ unfair rules introduced over the years. According to research conducted by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, only 8% of private landlords list their properties as pet-friendly. I do not just want to talk about statistics, as the numbers have real-life consequences for families and animals.
In my constituency of Woking, a woman along with her family were evicted after 16 years of a tenancy because the landlord decided to sell the property. The council tried to find alternative housing for the family but repeatedly came up against obstacles, including a no pets policy, which would have forced her and her family to give up their three cats, including one that her autistic son is emotionally bonded to—his emotional support pet. A letter from the GP stated how important the cat was to her child’s wellbeing, but it did not help. The cat reduced her son’s anxiety levels and helped him with his day-to-day functioning—it had a huge impact. Housing officers noted that they could have considered the family for a place in some new flats that the council had built, but the housing provider did not accept pets.
Sadly, that case, which is not unique, perfectly illustrates the emotional toll that the rules can have on families, particularly those with additional needs. Pet ownership might seem like a small issue in the face of homelessness, eviction and the heart-wrenching issues that we have heard about, but it is clear that sometimes, because there are no protections for families with pets, people are forced into a horrible situation. It is fair to say that the culture of a country should be reflected in the laws that govern it, and most of us have pets, so let us ensure that we are allowed to keep them.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) pursue my party’s amendments, and I was pleased to hear from the Chair of my Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). There has been much cross-party support for the Bill, while we push the Government to go further still. As supportive as I am of the Bill, it could be better and help reduce our casework of heart-wrenching stories of vulnerable tenants pushed out and treated badly by landlords. The Bill will help us, but, through the amendments tabled and others that I know will be proposed in the other place, it could be better.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I declare an interest: like one in three households in my constituency, I rent my home. As a renter and an MP who represents a large number of renters, it will come as no surprise that I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, which will bring in some important, long-overdue reforms to provide private renters with decent and secure homes.
Crucially, I am pleased to see the abolition of section 21 evictions, which was promised by the Conservative party, including in its 2019 manifesto, but never delivered. Close to a million people faced no-fault eviction notices in the last Parliament because of that failure, which added to the homelessness crisis that we now face.
I am happy to see measures in the Bill that focus on affordability. In my borough of Lambeth, renting a one-bedroom home now costs the average person more than half their take-home pay. When teachers, rail staff, nurses and other key workers went on strike to call for inflation-matching pay rises, the last Government attacked them and rejected their demands, calling them greedy, but that Government shrugged their shoulders as private landlords collected above-inflation rent hikes from some of those same key workers year after year.
In recent years, the situation has been particularly pronounced. In March 2024, the Office for National Statistics reported that monthly rents rose by 9.1%, the highest annual increase since records began in 2015. I am glad that the Bill brings some common sense to the situation, ensuring that rent increases can no longer be written into contracts and that landlords will be able to legally increase rents only once a year, and protecting tenants from egregious rent hikes.
Also highly positive are the new measures to strengthen enforcement against slum private landlords, to extend the decent homes standard to the private rental sector and to widen council enforcement powers while extending the range of financial penalties available to local authorities to fund enforcement activity.
I am pleased that the Bill legislates for a consultation on improving energy efficiency standards in rented homes. The UK has some of the most energy inefficient homes in Europe, with 2.6 million private rented homes falling below minimum energy efficiency standards in England and Wales alone. Almost a quarter of renters live in fuel poverty, the highest rate of any tenure.
The Bill contains important measures to provide renters with some basic security and to place some basic responsibility on landlords. However, so much more could be done to strengthen it. I am pleased to see that the Government are supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and I am pleased to support amendments 9, 5 and 6 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), which would better protect sitting tenants from unaffordable rent increases. In its current form, the Bill caps rent increases only at market rate—the prices that landlords set. The amendments would instead cap them at the rate of the consumer prices index or wage growth, whichever is the lowest. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why landlords should see their incomes grow faster than people who actually work for a living.
I place on record my support for the Renters’ Reform Coalition’s call for a national rental affordability commission, to investigate methods to bring down rents relative to incomes.
Although there are not many Members on the Opposition Benches, the few speeches that they have made have talked about homes almost entirely as assets, forgetting that people need to live in them. I welcome the amendments that remember that people with a variety of different circumstances are living in those homes, and they should be viewed with compassion. I welcome and support new clause 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), as well as new clause 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on adaptations for disabled people.
It is welcome that the legislation would make it illegal to discriminate against benefit claimants and families for exactly the same reason. I would like further changes to prevent discrimination, such as scrapping right-to-rent checks and reforming the laws around guarantors more generally. I would like the legislation to go further on preventing illegal and back-door evictions. As the London Renters Union has pointed out, for the many families struggling with housing costs, a 20% rent hike is simply a no-fault eviction under a different name.
During my time as an MP, I have seen too many unscrupulous attempts to remove tenants to be unconcerned about a likely increase in illegal evictions in response to scrapping section 21. I welcome new enforcement powers, but we have to acknowledge the financial difficulties that local authorities face after 14 years of massive cuts. The Government must ensure that local authorities have the resources to use these enforcement powers.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I broadly welcome the Bill and the strength and protections that it will provide private tenants. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the amendments that he and my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) have tabled.
I wish to focus on one aspect of the Bill to see if I can encourage some last-minute reconsideration by the Minister. The Government recently repurchased more than 36,000 Ministry of Defence properties from the private sector. This move is a step in the right direction, yet many properties, including those in my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, have fallen into disrepair, having failed to be managed properly, and are now substandard or unsafe. Service personnel and their families living in Ministry of Defence accommodation in Ambrosden and in Caversfield in my constituency have expressed frustration with the current management and maintenance companies.
Liberal Democrats are clear that our service personnel and their families deserve the same decent standards that the Government are proposing for the rest of the private rented sector. I am proud to support amendment 3 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington. Will the Government now commit to using the Bill to ensure that the recently reacquired Ministry of Defence accommodation will be covered by the decent homes standard, so that those living in service family accommodation in my constituency can access safe, weathertight and warm accommodation?
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) the Minister argued that it would not be appropriate to extend the decent homes standard to service family accommodation. Will he therefore clarify, so that I can inform my constituents, whether they should expect to live in service family accommodation that meets that standard and, if they should, how and to whom they can appeal if the accommodation continues to fall below that standard?
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
There are concerns that military accommodation, which I have in my constituency, is not included in the Bill, but one of my main concerns is the immense cut in funding to that accommodation. The properties are in such a state of disrepair that the Government have had to go back and re-buy them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a larger issue, which we need to deal with when looking at the Armed Forces Commissioner role?
Calum Miller
I wholeheartedly agree. The Ministry of Defence’s service family accommodation estate is in disrepair because of a significant lack of investment by the last Government, which failed to maintain the standards that should be enjoyed by our hard-working and dedicated service personnel and their families. However, the fact that this Government have made the welcome step to purchase that estate means that it is now their obligation to uphold standards. As we are talking about legislation that is intended to set the standard that all renters should expect, including those who are paying rent now to the Ministry of Defence for their accommodation, why are the Government resisting the opportunity to set that high standard for service personnel?
Finally, in the notes to the Bill, the Government emphasise that the concerns that led to Awaab’s law will now be extended to the private rented sector. Given how serious those concerns were, and given that the death occurred as a result of a failure to maintain property in the social rented sector, will the Minister tell me how I can go back to my constituents, who are tenants of the Ministry of Defence, and tell them they will enjoy the same protection as other private renters under Awaab’s law?
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Stability for 11 million renters, and, indeed, for 2.3 million landlords, is necessary to build our better Britain. For the tenants enduring the least affordable, poorest quality housing, disregarded renters’ rights have had a profound impact on people’s lives. Britain deserves more than dodgy landlords, back-door evictions and dismal living standards. The British people deserve to feel secure in their own homes.
Some of my constituents are forced to live in terrible accommodation, facing damp and mould. This treatment is fundamentally unacceptable.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Defence Committee’s recent report described service accommodation as “shocking”, saying that two thirds required massive investment to bring it up to standard and that damp and mould were legion. The hon. Gentleman talks of dodgy landlords—would he characterise the Ministry of Defence as one? Should we be bringing those homes up to the decent homes standard that everyone else in the country will benefit from if the Bill is passed?
Adam Thompson
In his opening remarks, the Minister addressed the fact that there are issues in the space, but they go beyond the scope of the Bill. We need to continue having these conversations as we move forward. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point.
Conservative failure has led to more than 200,000 households with children being forced to live in privately rented damp and squalid homes. According to The Guardian, each year, 31,000 children aged four and under are admitted to hospital because of damp and mould-related issues. I strongly believe that this simply cannot be allowed to continue. Shelter has recently found that a quarter of renters are afraid to ask their landlords for basic repairs for fear of being evicted, and that 26,000 households are at risk of being made homeless from the no-fault evictions we have been discussing today. We need to change, and fast. The abolition of section 21 will end these no-fault evictions for good. This is a vital part of this legislation, which will ensure peace of mind for tenants in their own homes, to which they devote a sizeable portion of their income.
Pressure on local authorities to provide temporary accommodation has become totally unsustainable. Crisis estimates that £2.2 billion of council funds in England were spent on temporary accommodation for 120,000 households between 2023 and 2024—an increase from 85,000 in 2019. My good colleagues at Erewash borough council tell me that they spent three times more on alternative accommodation in 2024 than in 2019. These temporary measures are incredibly costly and ultimately untenable. With accommodation including bed and breakfasts and hotels, alternative housing is an inadequate long-term solution. The Bill will make an excellent start to save council taxpayers’ money and protect tenants’ welfare from unsuitable temporary accommodation.
The vital extension of Awaab’s law to include private rental properties will prevent unsafe living conditions, landlord discrimination and bidding on rental properties. Prospective tenants in the housing crisis simply cannot afford bidding wars aimed at pricing them out. Discrimination based on receipt of benefits and having children will be prevented, ensuring an inclusive and impartial rental market. Hazardous properties will require prompt and efficient landlord responses, and tenants will be protected from unjustifiable rent inflation. Today, while we have been debating the Bill, I have received a communication from a constituent whose rental price recently went up by 21%, which is disgusting. The measures are essential for the efficient operation of rental markets in the UK and for the protection of tenants’ rights.
The much-needed introduction of the decent homes standard will further empower tenants to leave poor-quality homes and provide better value housing for all. According to the English housing survey 2023, one in five privately rented homes is considered substandard. The enforcement of the decent homes standard will put an end to this appalling practice. With the introduction of a £7,000 penalty for non-compliance, landlords will finally be properly incentivised to maintain the necessary high standards that renters deserve. New legal protections will secure quick, impartial, binding resolutions to protect both renters and landlords. Given the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman and the strengthened council enforcement for which the Bill provides, tenants and adults will feel assured that their concerns are respected and will be handled with compassion and certainty.
The Bill will allow us to end backdoor evictions and extortionate rents designed to force renters out. Periodic tenancies ensuring that rent increases are made per the market rate, once a year, will protect renters from unreasonable increases and unexpected evictions. Access to a private rented sector database will help landlords to understand their legal obligations and demonstrate compliance with the new regulations. These measures will allow for certainty in the law for both landlords and tenants. I understand that landlords are concerned about investing and entering the market for fear of payment insecurity, but the current system is designed around uncertainty. The serious lack of clear legislation has caused decades of chaos for both landlords and tenants, with unsafe homes and unsuitable dispute resolution. A transparent and fair system is needed so that all parties can make informed decisions.
As for student accommodation, the changes proposed in the Bill are necessary for the protection of landlords and students alike. Students deserve security as much as everyone else in society. The assured continuance of annual short-term student tenancies will still provide certainty in respect of landlord income, with the ability to evict tenants at the end of the academic year and to increase rents for new tenants as required. According to the National Union of Students,
“the average student loan...leaves students with just 50p a week to live off after…rent”.
Despite those extortionate costs, cold, damp, unsuitable housing has become the norm in student accommodation. Students are at risk of being unable to pay for basic essentials, so it is vital that they are protected from living in poor conditions under unfair terms.
The Bill will extend vital safety and reassurance to thousands of people in Erewash. My constituents cannot continue to endure poor housing at the hands of inadequate renters’ legislation; they deserve security in their own homes. The Renters’ Rights Bill is our way forward, and I urge all Members to support it, as amended today by the Government.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in today’s debate on such an important topic. The Bill has many laudable aims, and represents a once-in-a generation opportunity to finally fix the private rented sector for the 11 million people in England—including me—who rent privately. I know that about 13,000 private renters in Tiverton and Minehead will be watching this debate with interest—particularly Owein and his family, whom it took me six months to rehome earlier this year—in the hope and expectation that the House can finally do what it promised to do under the last Government, and pass meaningful rental sector reform. That Conservative Government neglected renters, and I am pleased that this Government are introducing meaningful legislation now. Tiverton and Minehead sits at 88th out of 543 constituencies in England on the barriers to housing and services index of deprivation. I will think closely about anything that the Government can do to improve that, to ensure that it represents a fair deal for renters, particularly those in my constituency.
Let me start by stating the obvious. This is a good Bill, on the whole. It takes strong steps to protect tenants, especially when landlords are not maintaining their properties. Provisions such as Awaab’s law should and must be extended to the private rented sector, so that landlords have a duty to fix hazardous living conditions like those that cost that precious toddler his life, within a set timeframe. Shelter is a basic need, not just a want. I am very pleased that the Bill seeks to apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector for the first time: such an extension is overdue, and very welcome.
As a pet owner, I am happy to see in the legislation the right for tenants to request a pet. Pets are often an integral part of the family, as they have been for me. My party’s former spokesperson on this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), welcomed the inclusion of this measure in a previous iteration of the Bill, and I echo that welcome.
The Bill should be commended for its ambition in many sectors. For example, it creates a national private rented sector database, so that tenants know about their landlords. It also looks to stop bidding wars, and to ban in-tenancy rent increases being written into the contract. Those are all fantastic reasons to support the Bill today.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I join colleagues from across the House in saying that I was proud to serve on the Public Bill Committee. For too long, tenants in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham have been at the mercy of a broken rental market. The system has gone unchecked for the last few decades, and left renters with a lack of security, limited rights and too often no choice but to live in unacceptable conditions. The previous Government promised change. Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and assured the public that they would deliver fair reform in the rental sector, yet they failed. They kicked the can down the road, while tenants faced soaring rents, substandard housing and the ever-present threat of losing their home at a moment’s notice.
The failure to address the housing crisis is perhaps one of the most glaring legacies of the last Government. The number of people renting privately has exploded. Many are renting not from choice, but because it is the only option. In Gillingham and Rainham, 22% of households now live in the private rented sector, and rents have risen sharply over the last decade. Families, young people and older residents alike feel trapped. They are locked out of home ownership and housing security, and locked into paying for homes that are too often cold, damp or unsafe.
Recently, my inbox has been full of stories of constituents who have been evicted through section 21 evictions. Pat Cooper, for example, was told just before Christmas that she would have to leave her home of 35 years. It has left her feeling incredibly distressed, facing real uncertainty about what the future holds for her, with limited choices that she can afford. There are countless similar stories of people who have been plunged into uncertainty and the risk of homelessness because of no-fault evictions. The previous Government had every opportunity to end this injustice, but they chose delay and inaction over the wellbeing of often vulnerable families.
My constituents know that this Government are different. Within their first 100 days, they have brought forward this landmark legislation, which I know will deliver the security, dignity and fairness that renters in my constituency deserve. I welcome the fact that the Bill will end the scourge of no-fault evictions once and for all. I welcome the decent homes standard being extended to the private rented sector; that will guarantee that tenants no longer have to put up with mould, disrepair or unsafe conditions. Crucially, I welcome the introduction of an ombudsman to hold accountable those who do not uphold the law, and to give tenants a clear route to justice. I thank the Minister for considering representations from Members of different parties and the amendments in front of us, which introduce new rules to cap advance rent payments and provide safeguards for bereaved families—something that has been spoken about powerfully today.
This Bill sends a clear message: it is the end of the era of unchecked power for landlords who do not want to follow the rules. For far too long, too many tenants have been treated as second-class citizens in their own homes, and I am glad to see that this Government are putting an end to that. It is high time that renters across the country were treated with the fairness, dignity and respect that they deserve, and I am proud to support this Bill as it progresses through this place and the other place. It will give my constituents their basic rights.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, who I am sure will speak to her amendments, I remind Members that on Report we should consider the amendments and new clauses to the Bill; the debate is neither a rehash of Second Reading, nor a precursor to Third Reading.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I should declare that I am a member of the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now, which campaigns on renters’ rights. I thank it for its important work on this Bill, including alongside me.
The Bill is hugely welcome, but it can and should go further to fix the grave and urgent housing crisis. I therefore rise to speak to my new clause 7, on rent controls and affordability; new clause 9, on home adaptations for disabled people; and new clauses 17 and 18, on selective licencing schemes. I also want to put on the record my strong support for a number of amendments tabled by others, including the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker).
We have people living on the streets and in temporary accommodation because they cannot afford their rent. New clause 7 proposes a living rent body, which would set the rules that applied to the calculation of rent between tenancies. That would control rents and make them fair, considering factors such as the home’s property type, condition and size, average local incomes and so on. Local flexibility will be important. The measure is needed. The Bill gives renters a once-in-a-generation set of new rights that they have long been denied, but rent controls are still needed, because it is no help to anyone if they have a right to something that they cannot afford or access.
Once the Bill does away with section 21, we will need rent controls to prevent rogue landlords from instead hiking rents to kick people out. The Government’s changes to the tribunal system do not go far enough to protect renters from that. First, most tenants do not have the time or energy to navigate the system. Secondly, tribunal panel judges only judge whether a rent rise is fair compared with market rates, and the market rates are too high.
We have a generation of people who will never be able to earn enough to have a mortgage, and who cannot even afford their rent now. If a 21-year-old in my home city of Bristol rents a single room today at the average rate, they will have put £80,000 into their landlord’s bank account by their 30th birthday. No wonder that a third of private renters struggle with their housing costs. New clause 7 addresses the plain fact that the market is failing, with terrible costs for people who are struggling and made homeless.
There are huge economic costs, too; the Government are set to pay private landlords £70 billion of taxpayers’ money in the five years from 2021 to 2026. That is multiple times the spend on new affordable homes. Surely that is the wrong way round. We can add to that the huge annual spend on temporary accommodation, which cost councils at least £1.74 billion in 2022-23. Rent rises are far outstripping inflation. The Deposit Protection Service rental index found that rents outstripped inflation by one third in 2023. Rightmove reports show that asking rents outside London have risen 60% since 2020, and I assume that I do not have to tell the House that incomes have not grown by the same amount.
As I set out in Committee, discussion is vital if we are to avoid unintended consequences, and I do not dismiss the importance of that detailed work. At the same time, we cannot ignore the acute affordability crisis for renters. Key workers are being forced out of cities, and people are being forced out of communities that they have made their home. The average rent in my constituency of Bristol Central has hit nearly £1,800 a month.
I know what the criticisms will be, but let me remind the House that rent controls are an established part of private renting in 16 European countries, where they are a completely normal part of housing policy. It is interesting that private renters in England spend a higher proportion of their income on rent than those in any European country apart from Luxembourg and Norway. Our homes are in worse condition, too.
Rent controls are of course not a panacea. They are needed alongside a suite of housing policies, and increasing social housing supply is really important. However, the private rented sector is in an affordability crisis now, and it will take huge amounts of effort and time, even with the best will in the world, to increase the social housing supply on a scale that will impact private rents. Modelling from Generation Rent and other economists predicts that building 1.5 million homes over this Parliament will decrease the private rent burden by just over 1%.
Moving on to new clause 9, there are 16 million disabled people in the UK—more than a fifth of the population—and 19% of them live in the private rented sector. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that a shocking one in three disabled people in the private rented sector lives in unsuitable accommodation, and a Government survey reveals that an appalling 44% of private landlords have said that they will not rent to someone who requires home adaptations.
My amendment seeks to ensure that, if all tenants can put up shelves, disabled tenants should be allowed to put up grab rails. If all tenants can replace a showerhead, disabled tenants should be allowed to put in accessible washing facilities. It is not acceptable that disabled tenants must get permission for these most basic adaptations.
In Committee, the Minister was sympathetic to my concern but argued that the Equality Act 2010 already covers this issue. However, it clearly is not doing the job. Disabled people are explaining this very clearly and patiently, as did the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whom I thank.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I must declare an interest: my husband works for an organisation that funds the Renters’ Reform Coalition, which has been referred to today.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate after serving on the Bill Committee, which took a thorough approach to each element of the Bill. This topic is of great importance to me, I having worked in housing for my entire working life and representing 27,000 private renters in the Cities of London and Westminster. I speak today thinking of those constituents and their experiences.
One landlord revoked a promise to provide free heating for their tenant’s home, leading to it becoming infested with mould. The landlord later refused to respond to repeated reports of pests in the property, before subsequently charging that tenant £1,500 to fumigate the house. I also bear in mind my constituents who were evicted under a section 21 notice, are now living in temporary accommodation with three children and have been on the social housing waiting list for nearly 15 years.
After being let down by dither and delay from the Members on the Conservative Benches when they were in Government, renters such as my constituents have been denied the crucial powers to hold their landlords to account in even the most basic fashion. If those Members had delivered on their promise and tackled the dissenters in their midst, renters would already have the protections that we are introducing in this legislation. Yet the Opposition have the audacity to claim that the legislation and principles that they had tried to introduce when they were in power will, mysteriously, not work now.
On the amendments, the Opposition claim that the legislation will lead to landlords exiting the market, but they repeatedly fail to suggest where the homes owned by landlords would go. Even in his case for new clause 20, the shadow Minister started talking about where the homes might go, so I take the opportunity to ask him directly whether he thinks the homes would disappear. Would he have rather let a home lie vacant than let it out or sell it if it were unprofitable? And if a sale took place, would the mysterious buyers not live there? I will happily give way if he wants to answer—okay, he does not.
To continue on to my main point, I want to focus on the parts of the Bill that consider local authority enforcement and the new clauses that address that. Current regulations in the private rented sector have suffered from a lack of enforcement by local authorities due to a lack of knowledge about private rented stock, limited enforcement capacity and the range and complexity of laws relevant to enforcement. The legislation goes a long way towards addressing those issues. The Bill puts local authorities clearly in the driving seat in enforcing regulation, cleaning up the confusion of the past regime. It expands the range of civil penalties that can be used by local authorities to crack down on poor behaviour. Importantly, it introduces mandatory reporting for local authorities’ enforcement activity, ensuring that councils are accountable to their constituents and to central Government.
The introduction of the private rented sector database will also fill a key gap in the existing regime: a lack of knowledge of the location and nature of private rented properties. The remaining gap in the regime will be funding, and it is essential that fees for the private rented sector database are sufficient to fund the enforcement measures in the Bill. It is therefore encouraging to see that recognised by Government amendment 40, which I am happy to support.
Jeremy Corbyn
I support what the hon. Member says about resources for local government. Does she also accept that there is a real problem, particularly in London, where there is simply a lack of advice available for tenants because the advice agencies are completely overwhelmed and underfunded? We therefore need to fund independent advice agencies as well.
Rachel Blake
I will come on to some of the incredible work that advice agencies do in my constituency.
Funding will need to be met with an active approach by local authorities to recruit the right individuals with the appropriate skills to act as inspectors for the regime. Additional funding may be needed for the immediate recruitment and upskilling of inspectors, and to deal with a backlog of cases related to enforcing existing regulations. Most importantly, landlords must have as many points of potential accountability as possible. That means that reporting on enforcement activity should be published publicly, with the naming and shaming of poor-performing landlords.
The Bill marks not just an era of rights for the millions of private renters across the country, but a step change in the necessary enforcement activity by councils and by renters themselves. The campaigning groups and advice agencies that have stood up for renters for years, including Generation Rent and also Z2K, which operates in my constituency, deserve a mountain of praise for their work in keeping this issue on the agenda of parties and actors across the political spectrum, and I pay tribute to them for their work. The scale of support that this Bill has from Members on the Government Benches demonstrates the significance of this issue. It is important that we work together across Government and civil society to enforce this new rights framework and provide renters with their long-overdue protections.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I am sure that all Members have plenty of examples in their inboxes of why this Bill is so needed. Recent cases in my inbox have ranged from someone who had to wait two years for a boiler to be fixed, to someone who has a home so damp that they cannot walk through it without shoes on, as the carpets are permanently wet. They have had numerous electrical appliances fail and have lost their property to mould. Worst of all, they are permanently ill. Even the ombudsman finding in their favour has not produced decisive action to address the problem. It is an outrage that people are living in such conditions in the 21st century and, after the inaction of the previous Government, I welcome the approach set out in this Bill to fixing hazards such as mould.
I also welcome the security of tenancy. So often when people approach their MP about homelessness issues, they talk about the importance of being in a particular location. They say it is because their children are settled in their school, because they need to care for a relative who lives there, and because they need the support of family and friends. Repeatedly moving around robs people of vital community links and stability. It also affects the life chances of children and young people. It is not only no-fault evictions that lead to people moving around; so too do rent rises. So I welcome the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) to limit the maximum rent increase. Far too many people are forced out of their rental properties by exorbitant rent rises, and this Bill does not go far enough to prevent that situation.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) asked where the properties will go. In some cases, as our new clause 2 sets out, they will go to people on short-term contracts. We therefore need to consider the impact on the market as a whole.
I wish to raise one small concern of a landlord about the impact that the changes will have both on them and on their tenants. They own a single, upper-floor, leasehold flat. They own only the inside of the flat—not the exterior, the wall gaps or the loft. The Bill’s provisions on energy efficiency and so forth are of concern to them. Obviously, we want people to have homes that they can afford to heat and that meet climate change obligations, but not all small landlords are scrupulous, and relying on them to be so is not appropriate protection for tenants. As the Bill progresses, I ask the Minister to consider how the Government will support small landlords who want to do the right thing, so that the private rental sector does not become the sole preserve of well-heeled, large landlords.
Matthew Pennycook
I wonder whether I might provide some helpful clarification: this Bill has no provisions in it that deal with minimum energy-efficiency standards in the private rented sector. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will shortly go out to consultation on those MEE standards for the PRS, but it is not within the scope of this Bill.
Claire Young
I thank the Minister for that clarification.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the protections it provides, but I urge Ministers to accept the Liberal Democrat amendments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton and Wellington and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper).
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
This is groundbreaking legislation, and I pay tribute to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the excellent work that they have done so far. In October, I said in this place that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, under the leadership of our Deputy Prime Minister, will get this job done, and they are doing exactly that.
This Government are getting on with the job. The previous Government made empty promise after empty promise, ultimately caving in to the landlord lobby on their own Benches. Perhaps that is why the Opposition Benches are so empty today.
The Bill goes a long way towards redressing the power imbalance between those who own assets and those who need to use such assets for the basic human needs of housing and shelter. It will finally see an end to section 21 evictions. To boot, the Bill ensures a protected period at the beginning of a tenancy, the end of discrimination faced by those in receipt of social security, an end to bidding wars, and the rolling out of the decent homes standard across the private rented sector. Indeed, the Government have indicated their intention to strengthen the Bill further by limiting the amount of rent payable in advance at the start of a tenancy.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is important to my constituents, and to me personally, as I grew up in rented accommodation.
New clause 1 would limit the maximum rent that landlords can request or receive in advance to no more than two months-worth of the tenancy. Excessive deposits mean that far too many people face exclusion from the housing market altogether. For families on lower incomes, younger tenants or those receiving benefits, that practice can make finding a home almost impossible. Landlords increasingly use methods such requiring rent in advance to exclude those they deem undesirable tenants. According to the charity Shelter, 52% of private landlords refuse to let to tenants receiving housing benefit. By capping rent in advance, the new clause would help to level the playing field and reduce the financial burden on those who are looking for somewhere decent to live but cannot get in the door because they are living pay cheque to pay cheque.
Amendment 1 would ensure that any rent increase is capped at a maximum rate in line with the Bank of England base rate. Unchecked rent increases are driving families in Eastleigh and across the country into financial hardship. In the current system, unscrupulous landlords can impose excessive hikes that effectively force tenants out. One couple in my constituency, who are already working two jobs to provide a home for their young children, were forced out of their rented accommodation when their landlord hiked their rent to an unaffordable level. They had no choice but to move to a smaller property that does not cater as well to their family’s needs. Allowing that practice to continue undermines the stability and security that the Bill seeks to provide. Linking rent increases to the Bank of England base rate is both logical and fair. It would create predictability for tenants, while allowing landlords to adjust rents reasonably in response to economic conditions. Office for National Statistics figures show that private rents in Eastleigh rose by 7.6% in 2024. The amendment would provide more protection for people who are struggling because of the cost of living crisis and cannot pay extremely high rents.
New clause 23 would ensure that landlords approve necessary home adaptations for disabled tenants where a professional home assessment has been carried out. One in three disabled people in private rented properties live in unsuitable accommodation. The failure to secure appropriate housing can be life-limiting and make regular activities such as accessing a bathroom or moving between rooms very difficult. In England, 8.8% of disabled people rely on the private rented sector because of the chronic shortage of social housing, yet private rented properties are rarely accessible or adaptable, and only 6.6% of disabled facilities grants are used to make such homes suitable for disabled renters. Unsuitable housing not only hinders independence, but increases reliance on social care, leads to higher hospital admissions and reduces participation in work and community life. The amendment would ensure that disabled tenants have the autonomy and dignity to live independently in homes suited to their needs.
Finally, I express my support for amendment 10, which would extend protections to students in HMO properties. Students are some of the most vulnerable renters, often dealing with insecure housing, high rents and landlords who fail to maintain properties. This amendment would ensure that landlords of student HMOs are held to the same standards as other landlords, providing greater security and accountability. I also express my support for new clause 6: all young people deserve somewhere safe to call home, and as much support as possible to help them find it.
I welcome this Bill as an opportunity to reset the balance of power in the rental market. My constituents in Eastleigh and renters across the country deserve a rental market that works for them, not against them. I urge Members to support the amendments to which I have spoken, to ensure that the Bill delivers the fair deal that renters have been waiting for.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I note for the record my interest in this area, because I am a landlord. As the Member of Parliament for Northampton South, I come to the Chamber today to speak strongly in support of the Bill and many of the amendments. The private and social rented sectors account for around a third of all households in my constituency—that is 35,000 people who will directly benefit from this legislation.
My constituents work hard. Northampton South has a higher economic activity rate than the UK average, yet despite working hard, many people still face incredibly high levels of housing insecurity, high rents and low housing standards. Housing remains the No. 1 issue in my inbox, and the Renters’ Rights Bill will help to address the insecurity and unfairness that my constituents have faced when renting. This Government are taking the decisive action that people in Northampton have long asked for.
I will speak to the amendments, but I have to start by addressing section 21. Ending no-fault evictions will protect my constituents. Right now, millions of renters across the country live with that sword hanging over their heads—that they could be forced to leave their home through no fault of their own. That means parents lying awake at night, worried that they will have to move their children mid-term; it means nurses and teachers being forced out of the communities that they work in; and it means families being unable to put roots down or plan for their future because they can be uprooted at any moment.
The numbers impacted by this insecurity are shocking, and it is really positive that the Government have not only recognised this, but included further protections through their amendments to strengthen protection for renters. I am particularly pleased by the amendments that limit rent to be paid in advance. We have heard some shocking stories today—my mouth dropped when I heard some of the rents being asked for in advance in certain parts of the UK. Protecting renters in this way is definitely the right thing to do.
I welcome the provisions that expand the decent homes standard. I have heard from people in my constituency who live in properties plagued by damp, mould and electrical hazards. Having spent nearly 20 years working in the construction industry and having worked with some great private and social landlords, I can say that it is not that difficult for people to maintain and look after the properties that they run. The fact that 21% of private rented homes in this country fail to meet basic standards is simply unacceptable. Landlords who do not properly maintain safe properties are irresponsible and deserve to be held to account, and this legislation will make sure that that happens.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill will recognise the impact on guarantors in the awful situation where a tenant who they support passes away. The new clauses that have been tabled will mean that guarantors are protected, while also providing fair recourse and support for landlords in that awful situation. I encourage Members to support those amendments.
I am encouraged by the provisions relating to the landlord redress scheme, which provides a clear route for tenants to resolve issues without costly court proceedings. However, I have had extensive conversations with students in Northampton and the Northampton Landlords Association, and with a number of my constituents who are part of the HMO action group, and they told me that, while they support the aims of the scheme—and they have been following the stages of the Bill up to Report in detail—they have concerns that the courts system or the justice system just will not be up to scale. I am encouraged by the Minister’s statement that this is being looked at, but it is critical for professional HMO landlords in my constituency, who will need quick resolution to disputes, and measures to deal with antisocial tenants and tenants who negatively impact on their co-habitees.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak on new clause 10 in my name and Government new clause 15, but before I do so, I would like to make some brief remarks about other aspects of the Bill. In my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood, housing is overwhelmingly the biggest challenge that my constituents face. Housing costs have spiralled, and the previous Government wasted more than a decade failing to build the homes we need. The effect of this has been that more and more of my constituents are living in privately rented homes, in which they are currently systematically denied the basic stability and security that most of us would agree are essential to being able to function properly in the rest of life.
Private tenants live with the constant fear that their landlord can at any time, without reference to the terms of their tenancy agreement, decide that they want their property back and serve an eviction notice. I have seen this happen time and again. It stops people putting down roots in their community, because they know that they are likely not to be able to stay. It means that parents live with the constant anxiety that they may have to move far away from their children’s school. It means that older people are denied security of tenure in their retirement. In return for extortionate rents, tenants all too often face appalling standards, and find it far too difficult to get basic health and safety issues addressed.
I therefore welcome this Bill, which delivers the biggest package of reforms to private renting for 40 years, redressing the current imbalance between landlords and tenants, strengthening tenants’ rights and providing much-needed additional security. I particularly welcome the scrapping of section 21 evictions—I have been speaking on them in this place since 2016—the strengthening of local authority enforcement powers and the creation of a new private rented sector ombudsman, and the application of Awaab’s law to the private rented sector.
There is a very great challenge about the affordability of private renting, particularly in London, and my constituents experience that every day. I hope the Minister will keep under review the measures in this Bill that are designed to limit the rate of rent increases to ensure they are as effective as they need to be to create a functioning rental market. I trust that the Minister will do that, and will not hesitate to take further action in future if it is needed.
I now turn to my own new clause 10 and Government new clause 15, which would ban the use of guarantor agreements in the event of the death of a tenant. In this place, all of us know that there are sometimes emails that stop us in our tracks. So it was for me when, in 2023, I received an email from a constituent that read as follows:
“Late last year I became a guarantor for my son so that he could secure accommodation with some friends for his second year at university; without me doing so, he would have lost the house. I had no real concerns about my son paying the rent as he had shown he was a hard worker in a variety of jobs he engaged with to supplement his student loan, which would have covered the rent anyway. The tenancy was due to start at the beginning of July. Tragically, two weeks ago he took his own life, leaving myself, my wife and his sister utterly devastated. On top of everything, I now find myself liable to pay the rent for his room for the entire length of his tenancy if a replacement tenant cannot be found…I wonder if there might be scope to look into the practice of expecting bereaved parents to continue in a role of guarantor to a loved one after they have died.”
I do not think anyone could read that email and think that what happened to my constituents who were facing the worst kind of pain was remotely acceptable. I contacted the letting agent who refused to budge, simply stating that they were following the contract that had been signed.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for making such a powerful speech and reading out what must have been a difficult email to receive on behalf of her constituent. Does she agree that, sadly, many other tenants up and down the country might have had to go through that, and suffered in silence because they were grieving?
Helen Hayes
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will speak in a moment about evidence I have received that this issue is more widespread than any of us might have imagined. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, and after that I was contacted by many people, including families who had experienced exactly that, as well as letting agents who told me that they explicitly did not use such clauses, and that such clauses were not necessary because the loss of rental income in the event of the death of a tenant is an insurable risk for landlords.
I am grateful to Members across the House who have supported my campaign, including 48 Members who signed new clause 10, and those who signed my amendment to the Renters (Reform) Bill in the last Parliament. I engaged extensively with two different housing Ministers in the previous Government, both of whom said that they were sympathetic but declined to take action in that Bill or support my amendment. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his compassionate and rigorous engagement on this issue. He has listened and, more importantly, he has acted where his predecessors did not. Government new clause 15, tabled this week, bans the use of guarantor agreements in the event of the death of a tenant who is a family member. That is what my constituent asked of me, and I am proud that that is what we will achieve today. I hope my constituents will take some small comfort from knowing that by speaking out and contacting their MP, other families faced with the heartbreak of losing a loved one will not be pursued by a greedy landlord or letting agent, adding financial stress and hardship to an already unbearable situation.
New clause 15 does not go as far as new clause 10, extending protection only to bereaved guarantors who are related to the tenant. While that protection would have helped my constituent, and while I agree that institutional guarantors should not automatically be released from their responsibilities on the death of a tenant, the limitations of the new clause mean that there could still be hard cases in future—for example, a close friend who is bereaved. I therefore trust that the Minister will keep the situation under review to ensure that new clause 15 is as effective as he intends. As a consequence of the Minister’s engagement on this matter, I am content to withdraw new clause 10 and support Government new clause 15. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to do the same, and to support this Bill, which will deliver the step change in regulation of the private rented sector that we have all been needing for far too long.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and I pay tribute to her for the work she has done in trying to alleviate the pain caused when someone dies and all the demands then descend unexpectedly on those who were rent guarantors. She has done a very good job on that and I welcome Government new clause 15.
My constituency, like other constituencies in London and most of our big cities, has a huge number of people living in the private rented sector, with probably more than one-third of the electorate living in private rented accommodation. Collectively, they face insecurity. Collectively, they are often stressed. Collectively, they are often paying high and excessive levels of rent. It is heartbreaking to see the number of people who make their home in the area, become active in the community and make a huge contribution to our community life in lots of ways, but then the rents go up and up, and they simply can no longer afford to stay. Anyone looking for private rented accommodation within the local housing allowance in most inner London constituencies would search for a long time and be unlikely to find anywhere remotely near that allowance. I see my friend the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) nodding, and the same situation exists in many other cities across the country.
People on average earnings and working-class communities are simply being driven out by the greed of the private rented sector and the market that goes with it, with rents going up by 10%, 15% and sometimes 20%. That is why I intervened on the Minister earlier, and I am grateful that he gave way and acknowledged the real crisis happening day in, day out across the country. Long-term private sector tenants are at threat, because their landlords know this Bill is coming and that there will be greater restrictions—perhaps there should be more—on their raising of rents and doing no-fault evictions, so they are presently trying to evict large numbers of tenants. I meet many constituents who are going through incredible levels of stress about that. I realise that the Bill is not yet law and has to go through the House of Lords, and I am not clear what date it will be finally enacted; I just hope it is soon. I urge the Minister to consider any kind of urgent action and advice he can give to protect existing tenants in the run-up to the introduction of this legislation.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for the amendment she has tabled on rent levels. While there is much in the Bill that I welcome, it is sadly a bit of a missed opportunity. Although it restricts the ability of landlords to raise rents in the future, it does not protect those rents being at a reasonable level. Her amendment, which is a good step forward, would link all rent increases to a combination of wage levels and CPI and give local authorities the power to enforce that. We surely should return to that. I hope that the Government will accept one or other of the many amendments that talk about the ability to review this legislation a year on and two years on to see its effects on rent levels and, above all, on security of tenure and whether ways have been found to get around it.
New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central, concerns the protection of tenants with disabilities to ensure that they are not discriminated against, and it is important. It has been widely supported across the House, and I hope the Government will agree it, or at least introduce something similar on Report in the Lords if necessary. The hon. Member is representing an important and genuine need across the country.
Lastly, we have a housing crisis in Britain that is utterly beyond belief and utterly unnecessary. I talk to people every day where I live who are rough sleepers. They are walking around, spending the whole day trying to sell The Big Issue to raise £10 or £20 to pay for a bed in a night shelter that they can only access in the evening and have to leave in the morning. It is not accommodation, it is literally just that: a night shelter. Their life is searching for £20 in order just to survive. I am not saying that the local authority does not do all it can to help—it does. I am not saying there are not lots of housing charities that do the same—there are.
But we have a well known number of people living in destitution in our society, grotesque overcrowding in many council and housing association homes, and insecurity in the private rented sector. The Bill goes a long way in reducing insecurity in the private rented sector, but it must be a wake-up call for our society to invest far more in council housing and in sustainable, affordable social housing.
Alex Sobel
I express my gratitude to the Minister and the Secretary of State for tabling amendments on regulating the student lettings season, and on rent in advance. Both are issues that I have been campaigning on. Over a year ago, I went to Leeds University Union’s cost of living event, where those issues and others were brought home to me starkly. They were also brought home to me by the National Union of Students’ cost of living inquiry, and the all-party parliamentary group on students, which was led by our former colleague Paul Blomfield, and on which I served.
I really thank the Government for tabling amendments 18 and 53 on regulating the student letting season, building on the work of Paul Blomfield, who spearheaded work on this in his constituency of Sheffield Central. I will not press my new clause 4, and I urge Members to support those Government amendments. If there is no regulation of the letting season, students are pressured and intimidated by the rental market into signing tenancies with people they hardly know, sometimes nine months before they are due to move in. Students of all backgrounds are forking out deposits to hold properties. Care leavers, estranged students and students from low economic backgrounds are left to either spend money that they do not have or risk housing insecurity for the next academic year. The Government’s decision to limit the letting season to six months gives students the space and time to create healthy social relationships and save money for a deposit for the next academic year, drastically improving their mental wellbeing.
Government new clauses 13 and 14 are landmark measures that ensure that students are not subject to excessive and exploitative up-front costs by limiting rent in advance. That creates a fairer, more accessible rental market. For example, my constituent Olivia was once required to pay £2,500—six months’ rent up front—to move into a four-bed shared property. She is moving to Leeds to begin her masters. Leaving her without savings for a move to a new city is not how we should treat any person vulnerable to the rental market or looking to be an asset to the community. The Government new clauses will help prevent such unreasonable demands and alleviate financial pressure on tenants, so I am withdrawing my new clause 3 on limiting rents, and urge support for the Government new clauses.
My constituent Olivia’s up-front costs were so high because she could not get a guarantor. Now that we have set limits on rent in advance, we must deal with the other side of the issue: the requirement for tenants to provide guarantors. The practice can exclude individuals who cannot meet those demands, or limit their access to secure housing. Adults who earn their own income can be excluded from signing up to rent basic accommodation in a shared house simply because they are not related to someone who owns UK property. My new clause 11 would place tighter restrictions on the requirement for tenants to provide a guarantor, especially when a tenant’s rental history or income offer sufficient security. By refining those provisions, we can balance the legitimate interests of landlords with the rights and needs of tenants.
My new clause suggests that the need for a guarantor should be restricted when the following circumstances apply: when a reasonable assessment shows that personal income, including state benefits received and any other lawful source of income, is sufficient for the tenant to pay the full rent due under the tenancy; when arrangements are made for housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly to the landlord; when the landlord has entered into a contract of insurance, through which they are insured against non-payment of rent—that has been covered by other amendments—and in such other circumstances as may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State. That gives the Government a wide avenue for implementing my new clause.
The expectation that tenants, despite entering into legally binding rental agreements, must secure a third-party guarantor undermines the very purpose of their rental contract. For many students, particularly those who cannot rely on family support, such as care leavers and estranged individuals, that requirement can make renting nearly impossible. The Bill provides a generational opportunity to raise standards of living in the UK to where they should be. As I will not push my new clause to a vote, I would welcome further discussion and engagement with the Minister as the Bill progresses on how we can change the reliance on guarantors in our rental markets. I know that he is open to that discussion.
In my constituency, 44.8% of constituents live in private rentals, compared with a national average of 19.4%. Leeds is home to a population of over 36,000 non-home students. The Bill is imperative to my constituents. Through its measures, I am hopeful that we can establish a rental market that promotes fairness, reduces inequality and strengthens communities across the UK. I am very happy to support the Government amendments.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, and all hon. Members on the Bill Committee who gave their time to consider with gravity this long-overdue reform, which will provide greater security and stability for millions of renters across the country. The Bill is particularly important to my constituency, where more than 31% of households are in the private rental sector. That figure is as high as 55% in some wards such as Bournemouth Central, and up to 45% in the wards of Winton, Westbourne and West Cliff.
The private rental sector should provide people with flexibility and be a stepping stone to home ownership, and it should support our local economies, but for too many, as we have heard from many hon. Members, it exacerbates instability and adds financial stress, locking people out of building the savings that they need to get on the housing ladder, as well as adding to mental health issues. That is particularly salient in my constituency, where the cost of housing is disproportionately expensive, given the wages that people can command. The average rent and property price is above the national average in Bournemouth, but average wages are 5% lower than the national average.
The Bill is timely, because in recent months I have been deeply concerned about the growing number of residents who have been in touch to raise issues about housing, to the point that we are hosting three additional housing super-surgeries, aimed at providing constituents with the opportunity to share specific issues, and at giving them advice and guidance from many local organisations that specialise in these issues.
I want to raise a few issues relating to the amendments that many hon. Members will find apply in their constituencies. The first is poor-quality accommodation. In my constituency, one young woman and her daughter have been bounced from mouldy bedsit to mouldy bedsit while they wait for an appropriate social home. In the process, the woman’s daughter has developed asthma. I welcome the reforms relating to the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law.
Lots of people have been in touch who are being forced into homelessness by eye-watering rental increases or section 21 notices. The average increase last year for a one-bed flat in my constituency was 10%. Another young woman and her daughter were made homeless by a section 21 notice following an unaffordable rent increase. She has been unable to find anything that meets her physical and mental health needs—but in any case, she cannot meet the up-front cost of much private rental sector accommodation in our constituency. I welcome the amendment to address up-front costs. Her situation is compounded by long social housing waiting lists. I welcome the wider housing reforms that the Government are bringing forward, including the increased targets for social housing and the wider house building programme.
There are almost 20,000 students living in my constituency. I recently met student union representatives from Bournemouth University and the Arts University Bournemouth, who told me about the struggles their students face, from the stress of finding an appropriate place to live to the timetables for finding accommodation and the struggle to rent. Many students are forced to couch surf because they cannot afford the deposit money or do not have a guarantor who meets the requirements.
Bournemouth is one of the top 10 most expensive places to be a student in the UK; some 95% of the maintenance loan is eaten up by housing costs, leaving many students with about £4 a week afterwards. That is not a sustainable situation. I therefore welcome the measures to protect student tenancies and address the up-front costs for students. It is my hope that in the longer run, many students will benefit from these reforms, will fall in love with Bournemouth and want to stay, and will be able to find appropriate and affordable places to live.
As we have heard, good and responsible landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms. I welcome the measures to give landlords more clarity and a better understanding of their legal obligations, and to address repossession rights. The abolition of section 21, Awaab’s law and the up-front cost provisions will allow my constituents and many across the country to breathe a sigh of relief. I therefore welcome the Bill and new clause 13.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
For years, renters have faced instability, insecurity and, in many cases, exploitation. Today, we are taking a decisive step towards confronting these injustices. It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee; I believe that we will look back on the Bill as one of the proudest achievements of this Labour Government.
I am proud to support the Government’s new clause 13, which limits the security deposit that a landlord can demand from tenants to just one month’s rent. This change addresses one of the most significant barriers for renters in my constituency: the crippling up-front cost of high security deposits. Previously, landlords were able to demand deposits of up to six months’ rent, a practice that has often priced out renters and left many unable to secure a home. By capping deposits at just one month’s rent, we are making it far easier for tenants to move into their home without facing a financial burden that has long been a barrier to entry to the rental market. New clause 13 is a vital step in making the rental market more accessible and affordable, particularly to those who have been excluded from the market due to high costs. This change will ensure that renters are treated fairly and can more easily get the stability that they need, without facing financial hardship.
The Bill is just one part of a package of measures that support renters and tackle the housing crisis in this country. Those measures include getting on with building those 1.5 million new homes through planning reform; an industrial strategy that gives us the tools to build those homes; and the technical excellence colleges that will deliver skilled people. This Government recognise that the housing crisis is not a problem that can be solved in isolation.
As one of the younger Members of this House, I am part of a generation that feels that we have been trapped in renting. Recent data shows that under-30s are spending more than 30% of their income on rent, which is more than any other group. The people who told us to stop eating avocados and cancel Netflix were not serious about confronting the gravity of the situation. They failed my generation; it is this Government who are taking action today.
The previous Conservative Government had ample opportunity to enact meaningful reform, and I note that Conservatives continue to fail to stand up for renters. Despite their promises to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions—a leading cause of homelessness—they failed to deliver. Instead, under their watch, Parliament was clocking off early while the problems in the country mounted up. They retreated from their housing commitments, and prioritised the appeasement of powerful landlord interests over the welfare of millions of renters.
On Second Reading, the Leader of the Opposition said that resolving the housing crisis hinges solely on increasing housing supply and reducing immigration. Need I remind her that her Government did the exact opposite? In response to comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), let me note that the Government have already increased housing targets and acted decisively to address illegal migration. However, I reject the premise that renters rights’ should be contingent on these factors alone.
The protection and empowerment of renters is entirely independent of such matters.
As we heard from Shelter and Generation Rent in the Bill Committee, we need to rebalance the power between landlords and tenants. In recent years the balance has favoured landlords over tenants, but the Bill and the Government amendments introduce several key reforms designed to rebalance that relationship. For renters in my constituency, the Bill presents transformative change: families will no longer face the fear of sudden, arbitrary evictions and can truly make their rented properties their homes.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
A third of people in my constituency live in private rented accommodation. That is already pretty high, and well above the national average of 19%, but in some wards, such as Southall Green, it rises to almost 50% of people living in rented homes. Ealing borough is what is known as super-diverse, with people from all over the world having made it their home. For many of my constituents in Southall, English is a second, third or even fourth language that they sometimes struggle with. That leaves them wide open to abuse by rogue landlords, and under the previous Government there was nothing they could do about it.
The Conservatives made promise after promise to renters but never delivered. In hock to vested interests, they reneged on every pledge they made to renters, and some of the amendments tabled by the Opposition today continue to prioritise the needs of bad landlords over those of renters.
In 2023, Generation Rent produced a report into renting by the British-Indian community, using data from renters in Southall. The report found that over a third had not received any of the six important documents they were entitled to from their landlord. A third stated that their landlord had threatened them with an unaffordable rent increase. Over half said that their rent had increased in the previous six months, with the average increase being £200 per month, and many were living in damp, overcrowded conditions. The Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that vulnerable tenants such as those in Ealing Southall are able to go to the housing ombudsman for help. They will also be able to challenge arbitrary evictions and unfair rent rises.
I welcome the Government’s amendments today, which strengthen the Bill even further, particularly new clause 13, which will end the astronomical deposits often demanded from tenants in advance. That is a very important change, particularly in Ealing Southall, because where people face low pay and massive rent costs, it will reduce a barrier to them getting into good-quality, safe housing and ensure that we do not continue to see people sleeping on the streets.
The previous Government sat back while renters in my constituency were condemned to mouldy flats, huge rent rises and the threat of no-fault evictions, but Ealing’s Labour council took action. It introduced a new selective licensing scheme for private landlords, and these schemes were discussed in Committee. Selective landlord licensing schemes require private landlords to have a licence to rent out properties in designated areas of high deprivation or poor housing conditions. They have to meet certain conditions to obtain the licence, such as providing safe and suitable accommodation, complying with fire safety regulations and managing their properties in a responsible manner. In the absence of action from the previous Government, these schemes have allowed councils such as Ealing to enforce higher standards for renters, as the licensing fees and any fines raised from irresponsible landlords are ringfenced for enforcing standards. In Ealing it has also increased awareness for vulnerable tenants of the minimum standards to be expected in rented accommodation.
The previous Government were not big supporters of licensing landlords in this way. They preferred standing up for landlords, rather than standing up for renters. In fact, they changed the law to give the Secretary of State a veto on selective licensing schemes that covered more than 20% of a council area. It looks like the Conservatives still are not big supporters of these schemes, as one of the amendments they tabled in Committee would have removed selective landlord licensing altogether. That would be a massive backwards move, and I am glad the Minister agrees with me.
In fact, before Christmas the Minister announced that he would be removing the Conservatives’ veto, and councils will now be able to expand schemes such as the one in Ealing to the whole borough if they want to. I am delighted that the Government have taken fast action on this without waiting for the Bill to pass, and I look forward to more councils with poor housing and high deprivation levels being able to bring in successful licensing schemes such as the one in Ealing. I also welcome the Government amendments, which will give more power to local authorities to enforce renters’ rights and to pay for enforcement and investigation.
The Conservatives have proved today that they do not care about renters, and most of the points that they have raised are about protecting bad landlords—although so few of the party’s Members have turned up that I wonder whether they care about anything. By contrast, Labour believes that it is time we rebalanced the power relationship between landlords and tenants so that constituents such as mine know their rights and can enforce them, including the rights to fair rent, to safe homes and to secure tenancies. I welcome the real difference that this Bill and the Government amendments will make to the lives of families in Ealing Southall.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The reforms outlined in this Bill and the amendments are, of course, long overdue. When I stood for election last year, I promised that I would deliver on five missions for Mansfield, one of which was to fix our broken housing market and ensure that people have affordable homes to rent. Sadly, that mission is necessary because many of my constituents face the constant risk of eviction. They live in fear of massive rent hikes, or endure substandard and even dangerous conditions in their homes.
I will discuss two key aspects of the amendments. First, I support Government new clause 13, particularly in respect of rent and deposits in advance. I will read a few lines from a recent casework email that I received from one of my constituents:
“I saw a house listed for rent and paid a deposit and rent in advance to secure the property. There were a few things that needed doing, which the agency said they would let the landlord know about and get fixed. I received the keys and was shocked that the damp and mould was still there, the radiator in one of the bedrooms was left on the floor and the bathtub was still out of place. The agent told me that the gas engineers told them that ‘the pipes in the house are all botched’. Winter is around the corner and if the heaters were to stop working, I’d have to stay in the house freezing. I’m a nurse and it would not be ideal for me to be off work sick.”
My constituent further wrote:
“I tried every day to get an update and find out if the landlord had sorted out the problems. Every time I had to leave in disappointment. Expecting to move into the new house, I vacated my previous occupancy. I was so mentally, emotionally, physically and financially drained that I went to the agency and I gave them the keys back. I did not feel comfortable living in a house where the landlord is neglecting tenants. If I was to move in and something was to go wrong, he would never come out or get it fixed on time.”
Those are really powerful words from my constituent.
Following that, my constituent was denied any kind of refund for a period of months. They were only able to secure a refund due to a last-minute intervention by my office, after I had suggested that I would name the letting agent in my speech. The letting agent was kind enough to get back to my constituent and has provided them with a full refund today. That outlines the importance of Government new clause 13 and why I am pleased to support it, and it emphasises why the reform set out in the Bill and the amendments is needed. I understand that the decent homes standard outlined in the Bill will force landlords in the private rented sector to make their homes safe and secure, and to give tenants more avenues for financial redress when things go wrong, as in the case of my constituent.
My second point is that we have seen rents increase at a dramatic rate year after year, and it is time that people in the private rented sector got a better deal.
There are usually many applications from prospective tenants when a new property comes to market in my constituency, which often leads to bidding wars driving up the price that is paid to rent the property, pitting tenant against tenant. This leaves only one winner.
I am pleased that the Government have also set the target of building 1.5 million new homes in England over five years, which will make a huge difference. I recognise and welcome those measures.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I would like to echo the comments of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), and the references that she made to the housing problems in our area. Today marks a once-in-a-generation moment, with the biggest change to private renting since the Conservatives’ Housing Act 1988. The Thatcher reforms aimed to rejuvenate private renting by making it more attractive to landlords, but instead they helped to sow the seeds of the housing crisis we see today.
England’s 12 million private renters face some of the worst-quality housing in the developed world, with shocking levels of damp and mould and low rates of insulation resulting in health problems and unaffordable energy bills. Instead of producing competitive and affordable housing, decades of tipping the scale towards landlords has resulted in homes that are insecure, eye-wateringly expensive and often short term in nature. While renters in countries such as Germany enjoy secure, long-lasting tenancies with rights to redress when things go wrong, tenants in England can be put out on the street by a no-fault eviction if they complain about a leaky roof or a broken boiler.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 3, which would limit rent in advance of tenancy; new clause 7, which would limit proposed rent levels; and new clause 9, which covers the right to have home adaptations made to a property. We know that this legislation will end the exploitative bidding wars that drive up rental prices, stamp out discrimination on renting to families with children or those on benefits, and give renters the right to request pets in their home.
With section 21 finally consigned to history, tenants will also benefit from longer notice periods, giving them more security in their homes, and we will hold landlords accountable for health hazards in their properties. No longer should tenants and their families suffer damage to their health because a landlord refuses to act. However, to truly deliver a more secure future for renters in England, the Bill needs to close a loophole that would allow no-fault evictions to continue via rent hikes. Amendment 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), would cap in-tenancy rent rises. It would introduce a cap on the amount a landlord can raise the rent of a sitting tenant, so that no one has to face a rent hike higher than wage growth or inflation.
Everyone deserves to have basic security in their home, whether they rent or own. People with mortgages tend to have relatively predictable costs. Tenants have no such peace of mind. Today, there is nothing to protect tenants from extortionate, unjust rent hikes. The Renters’ Rights Bill does not do enough to change that. Last year, a Government survey of landlords found that rent increases of 15% or more when renewing or extending a contract are common. Despite the Bill’s passage, renters who cannot afford extortionate rent hikes will continue to have no alternative but to move, fall into debt or face eviction. There is a real danger that landlords will continue to evict tenants or threaten them with eviction at will, with unfair rent increases taking the place of section 21 evictions.
The Bill’s provisions to allow renters the right to appeal to a tribunal that can determine a market rate increase are insufficient. By definition, market rates are already unaffordable for many renters. Only capping rent increases will give renters genuine security in their home and stop landlords threatening vulnerable people with unaffordable rent hikes or homelessness.
Beyond security, the biggest issue most renters face is the fast-growing cost of having a home to live in. The amount of income that families in this country are losing to rent is rapidly becoming unsustainable. Nearly two thirds of working renters in England struggle to afford their rent, according to recent research by Shelter. Rent produces almost zero social benefit. It takes money away from working-class people who could otherwise spend it in their community, and it passes that money to property owners. What simpler, more effective way could there be to ease the cost of living crisis for millions of people and put money back in their pockets than by limiting their largest outgoing?
Rent stabilisation measures are common across Europe. In France, the annual increase is limited to 3.5%. Meanwhile, in England, rent has been rising faster than wages for well over a year, and the average annual increase reported in December was 9.3%. A cap on rent increases has the support of housing charities, renters’ organisations and major unions. It also has strong public support. When it comes to the housing crisis, we must keep all options on the table, and I hope the Government will back these changes to the Bill.
Ultimately, we need to increase the supply of council housing at affordable rents. In my constituency of Poole, we have some of the highest rents relative to wages in the country. Change, therefore, cannot come soon enough for those renters, and this Bill is a welcome first step.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I will address new clauses 5 to 7 and amendments 9, 5 and 6, which deal with rent controls.
Before I do so, I should say that I take a particular interest in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), which I have signed. I chair an unpaid carers group, and there is a real concern that even where renters have an assessment done for aids and adaptations, they cannot enforce it on their landlord, which leaves them vulnerable. They then have no choice but to move, with all the disruption that involves, particularly if they are caring for someone with significant disabilities.
I did not think that this was a contentious issue, and I hope the Minister will assure the hon. Member for Bristol Central that there can be further dialogue as the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If we have that dialogue, I think we can find something that will satisfy all concerned, to give strength to those with disabilities and those caring for them, while satisfying the Government about the ramifications of an amendment of this nature. If we can get that form of words, I would urge the hon. Member not to press her amendment to a vote. If it were voted down, it would send a message to the Lords that the Commons does not support it, whereas I think there is support in this House, but not necessarily for this form of words. Sometimes it is best not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I think we might have something here, but I will leave that to the hon. Member’s judgment.
Briefly, on rent controls, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned her constituency. Mine is next door, and I represent a working-class, multicultural community, where we have been going through a housing crisis for at least the last decade. I have lived there for 50 years and the crisis is on a scale that we have never seen before, caused, as others have said, by the selling off of our council houses. The irony here is that the same council houses that have been put into the hands of private landlords are now being rented back at very high rents to house the homeless people the council is placing in them.
With the Government’s policy of increasing housing supply and the 1.5 million new homes we are about to build, I hope that a large number of those homes will be social or council housing. As a result, we can start to tackle the housing crisis in my constituency. In the meantime, however, we will be dependent on the private rented sector.
The only reason I am speaking is the representations I have had from constituents, knowing that the Bill was coming up. I have also worked with Acorn, the Renters’ Reform Coalition and various other agencies. Those constituents have said, “Can you try to at least get across the plight we are facing at the moment?” That plight is dependent, to be honest, on landlords who are ripping them off. The concept of price gouging is emerging in all our discussions about the economy; well, here is an element of price gouging. With private rented landlords, particularly in London, we have seen profit ratios of anything between 5% and 20%. The argument is made that we can have a tribunal system. People can go to the tribunal, which will determine things on the basis of the market rent. In fact, the market rent is determined by what is almost an oligopoly of landlords in a particular area, who maintain high rents because they want to maximise profits.
The housing conditions in the private rented sector in my constituency are, in some instances, absolutely appalling. If a tenant complains, that is when the section 21 comes in. Indeed, tenants are terrified of complaining because if they get evicted, they probably face higher rent elsewhere. That is why we need a comprehensive system of rent controls. I do not see any other solution and I hope that, although the Government will not accept the amendments today, we can have a dialogue. That way, maybe between now and the Bill’s passage through the Lords or in future legislation, we can address the issue of rent controls.
The argument is very simple: we just want a system where rents are linked to wages or inflation. That way, people cannot be ripped off by higher rent increases. That is not rocket science. I am old enough to remember when we had rent controls, with a local rent officer who the local authority would send round. They would determine a fair rent and also what was fair in terms of wages and income for any future rental levels. Rent controls operate across Europe and it has not had an impact on the supply of private rented housing elsewhere. It is a system that could be readily introduced.
I worry that if we do not do that now, we will be back here in a couple of years’ time with the same problems. Although we want to build new homes at speed, we will still be dependent on the private rented sector and on some, but not all, landlords—we have good landlords as well—who are basically profiteering at the expense of homeless people.
Turning to my final point, the issue of developing a tribunal system was raised by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The tribunal system needs to ensure that people are properly represented and have time to take on the system. Most of us with a trade union background will have dealt with employment tribunals over the years. They can be effective, but the only reason for that is that we have the might and organisation of the trade union movement. We do not have that in the rental sector to represent tenants.
Although I welcome the idea that we will have a thorough tribunal system that is effective in dealing with hard cases, it is not realistic to expect tenants in my constituency to utilise that without the resources to do so, particularly as we have lost a lot of our advice agencies as a result of austerity. That is why we will need to come back and discuss again the solution of rent controls, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) brought forward.
Amanda Martin
Good-quality, secure and decent rentals should not be too much to ask, and I thank those landlords who do provide that in my city and beyond. I welcome the Government amendments to this detailed Bill, which will help residents in Portsmouth North to rent homes that are both secure and decent.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
There can be few places in our country that need this Bill more than Bournemouth East. A total of 33% of households in my constituency are in private rented accommodation, which is considerably more than the national average of 19%. In Boscombe West, a ward, 60% are private renting, and in East Cliff, where I live, it is 56%. Rents went up in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole by 9% in the year to October 2024, which is higher than the national average. Some 81% of respondents to Shelter’s Dorset survey in BCP said that they were struggling to pay their rent. As somebody who used to lead a mental health charity, I know the link between health outcomes, poor mental health and poor rented accommodation. For everybody living in poor rented accommodation in Bournemouth East, I know there will be a significant effect on health outcomes.
I want to talk briefly about the abolition of no-fault evictions and bring my constituents into the debate. My constituent Caroline from Boscombe had lived in overcrowded private rented housing with her two children with special educational needs and disabilities for 11 years before being given a section 21. Being forced to move at short notice has significantly negatively affected her mental health. The Labour Government’s abolition of so-called no-fault evictions in the Bill will go a long way to giving tenants like Caroline greater security.
I also welcome a decent homes standard now being applied to the private rented sector. My constituent Naomi, from Boscombe, recently contacted me about the repeated incidence of mould in her one-bedroom rented flat, which she shares with her partner and their 10-week-old baby. The flat also has dangerous loose floorboards, a leaking shower and fire doors that do not close. Her landlord continues to ignore her emails. The provisions in the Bill that apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector will give renters like Naomi safer, better-value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes from our communities.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I raise the case of one of my constituents? He is a dad with a young daughter, and he has a chronic illness. Not only did he have many unfair deductions to his deposit at the end of his tenancy, but the landlord refused to fix the shower because they claimed it was some other sort of device—what a disgrace. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get through that Division Lobby, fight for our constituents and reform renters’ rights once and for all?
Tom Hayes
I never disagree with my hon. Friend, and his point shows why we need the Bill.
I welcome the Bill’s protections against unreasonable rent rises and rental bidding. My disabled constituent Tracey, also from Boscombe, got in contact with me about how a substantial hike in her rent acted as an effective eviction as she was unable to pay. Despite looking to use her personal independence payment towards her rent, she was forced to look for alternative accommodation, and we all know how difficult that is in the private rented sector for people with disabilities. I welcome the protections in the Bill against unreasonable rent rises because they will provide much-needed security for renters like Tracey who struggle to find appropriate accommodation in the rented sector to meet their needs.
I also welcome the introduction of a new ombudsman service, which will provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolutions for tenants’ complaints about their landlord, bringing tenant-landlord complaint resolution on a par with established redress practices for tenants in social housing or consumers of property agent services. I welcome the move to make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants in receipt of housing benefit or other benefits or with children when choosing to let their property. That particularly affects James in my constituency, who is homeless and cannot secure private rented housing because he is in receipt of benefits.
All of us who hold constituency surgeries week in, week out will know these stories. All of us have campaigned for better renters’ rights because we have heard those stories on the doorstep, and I commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill at such an early stage in this Parliament. We must of course make the point that not all landlords are bad, but the Bill is important because it weeds out those bad landlords so that the good landlords—those who care about their tenants and who provide an important duty to the housing market—can continue to have a good reputation, and so the overall market continues to have that good reputation.
I commend the Bill and the ministerial team for bringing it forward. I am thrilled that renters in Bournemouth and across Britain will finally, after many years of delay, get the renters’ rights they deserve—no, that they are entitled to.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a thoughtful and good-natured debate, and while there are many genuine points of difference and emphasis, there is a consensus across the House that reform of the private rented sector is long overdue and must be taken forward.
In the time I have available to me, I will respond to a number of the amendments and key arguments. In his contribution, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), suggested that Government new clauses 13 and 14 risk locking out of the rental market those renters who are on the financial margins and fettering landlords and tenants coming to fair agreements on tenancies in the assured regime that we are introducing. I gently say to him that he seriously downplays the imbalance between landlords and tenants, and the fact that requiring multiple months of rent from a tenant in advance when agreeing a tenancy is unfair, places considerable strain on tenants and can exclude some people and families from renting altogether.
Landlords will continue to be able to take a holding deposit of up to one week, a tenancy deposit of five or six weeks’ rent and up to one month’s rent in advance before a tenancy has begun. They will also be free to undertake the necessary referencing and affordability checks to give them confidence that a tenancy is sustainable for all parties. If and when they are not satisfied by the outcomes of pre-tenancy checks, options are available to tenants and landlords to ensure that rent in advance need not be used—requesting a guarantor or engaging in landlord insurance, for example. I hope that provides the shadow Minister with a degree of reassurance on that point.
The shadow Minister tabled a number of amendments—several of which we debated in detail in Committee. With regard to amendments 57, 58 and 60, I restate the argument that I made in Committee: fixed terms mean that tenants are locked into tenancy agreements without the freedom to move should their personal circumstances change, and compel tenants to pay rent regardless of whether a property is fit to live in, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous landlords to complete repairs. For that reason, the Government remain firmly of the view that there is no place whatsoever for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces.
A number of hon. Members referred to problems with short-term lets. The Government are cognisant of the impact that excessive concentrations of short-term lets can have on the affordability and availability of local housing and the sustainability of local communities. We are committed to monitoring that issue and, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), knows, we are exploring what further powers local authorities need to bear down on it. However, putting an arbitrary deadline in law, as new clause 2 would do, is not the way to proceed.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for his response on that issue. Will he comment on the question of a use class order for second homes?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to engage in an entirely different debate. I am more than happy to update him, at the appropriate time, with all the measures that the Government will take forward in response to that issue. He can be assured, however, that we are giving it serious attention, and this will not be a case of the Government kicking something into the long grass.
The Government are clear that we will not delay on giving renters the long-term security, rights and protections that they deserve by making the necessary and long-overdue transformation of the sector, contingent on a broad and undefined assessment of the possession process, as new clause 19 and amendment 56 propose. The shadow Minister knows that I fully agree with him that court readiness is essential to the successful operation of the new system. That is why my officials and I are working closely with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services and her team to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals Service is ready when the new tenancy system is brought into force.
The shadow Minister also pressed the Government to place in the Bill a legal requirement to publish an annual review of its impact on the availability of homes. He will know that the Government have published a green-rated impact assessment. We will, of course, closely monitor the impact of the Bill on the housing market, but setting an arbitrary deadline in law for doing so would, we believe, detract from that work. Although I do not begrudge him for tabling new clause 20 to make that point, he will know that no Government could accept such an amendment.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and several Members of his party raised the issue of military accommodation and tabled amendment 3. There is no dispute about that amendment’s objective—namely to ensure that all service accommodation equals or exceeds the decent homes standard. The Government have made that commitment. Where we do disagree is on whether the approach that we are taking in the Bill is appropriate for the unique circumstances surrounding Ministry of Defence accommodation. We do not believe that it is, for various reasons that we discussed at length in Committee, including the problems that local authorities have in inspecting accommodation that is behind the wire on sensitive MOD bases.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Ministry of Defence is committed to reviewing its decent homes-plus standard for accommodation, with the aim of improving the standard of SFA across the estate, where it needs improvement, as part of its long-term strategy for service accommodation. That review will be informed by my Department’s work on housing standards, including our review of the content of the DHS, which Ministers in the Ministry of Defence are committed to aligning with. The Ministry of Defence will provide further information on the review of its target early in 2025.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is generous in giving way. On the question of accommodation behind the wire, to clarify, amendment 3 deals with service family accommodation. Service family accommodation is generally not behind the wire; it is on the street, where councils can access it.
Matthew Pennycook
That is only one of the issues; as the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated many others in Committee. I appreciate that there is a principled disagreement on this point. We share his objective, but we think that there is a different and more sensible way to go about meeting it. Addressing service accommodation through this Bill is not the way to proceed.
Calum Miller
I am very grateful to the Minister; I appreciate the time constraints that he faces. The critical question is when those in our communities who live in service accommodation can expect it to reach the standards that he and his colleagues intend to set out. I appreciate the co-operation with Defence Ministers, but can the Minister give us a date by which that standard will be in place?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s question and his desire for that information, but it is not for me to give a date from the Dispatch Box today; my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will provide further information on the review of that target standard early this year.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), spoke in support of their respective amendments to introduce forms of rent control. I assure each of those Members that I entirely understand their concerns about the affordability of rent generally, and specifically the potential for retaliatory no-fault economic evictions. Once section 21 evictions are done away with, unscrupulous landlords will no doubt attempt to evict tenants who assert their rights by means of extortionate rent rises.
However, as we debated extensively in Committee, the Government sincerely believe that the introduction of rent controls in the private rented sector could harm tenants as well as landlords by reducing supply and discouraging investment. While I fully appreciate that there is a broad spectrum of regulation that falls under the title of rent control, there is, as we debated at length in Committee, sufficient international evidence from countries such as Sweden and Germany, cities such as San Francisco and Ontario, and the Scottish experience since 2017, to attest to the potential detrimental impacts of rent control. For that reason, we believe that we should proceed on the basis of the protections that the Bill provides against unreasonable within-tenancy rent rises, as well as wider action to improve affordability, not least support for the growth of the build-to-rent sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree also tabled new clause 5, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the tenancy deposit protection schemes and requirements. The contracts governing those schemes are due to end next year, and their re-procurement provides an opportunity for the Department to review their objectives and how they operate. I am more than happy to engage with my hon. Friend on that process; on that basis, I ask her to not divide the House on her new clause. I am also more than happy to ensure that she is closely involved in the development of the PRS database. We believe that there are good reasons for the detail relating to that database to be laid out in secondary legislation, rather than put in the Bill, as her amendment 7 stipulates. However, it is our clear expectation that the database will capture key information about landlords, and we recognise that there may be clear benefits in using it to collect a wider range of information, as her amendment suggests.
My hon. Friend also tabled new clause 6, which would require local authorities, if requested, to pay or guarantee the tenancy deposits of care leavers seeking to access the private rented sector. I am of the view that local authorities, rather than central Government, are best placed to assess the best way of supporting care leavers in their area. I reassure my hon. Friend that while local authorities maintain their ability to support care leavers in their areas, the Government are committed to putting in place the support that local government needs to do so effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) made a strong case for new clause 11 on acting to limit guarantors. I appreciate fully that obtaining a guarantor can be difficult for some prospective tenants, and I understand the reasoning behind his amendment. However, I am also mindful that in some instances the use of guarantors can provide good landlords with the assurance necessary to let their properties to tenants who may otherwise find it difficult to access private rented accommodation. For example, there are those with a poor credit history—the kind of tenant who the shadow Minister worries our rent-in-advance amendments will harm. Having considered this issue in great detail, I ultimately concluded that limiting guarantors could inadvertently make life more difficult for certain types of renter. That said, I will keep the matter under review, and I am more than happy to engage in a dialogue with my hon. Friend about this in the weeks and months to come.
Several Opposition Members mentioned new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The Government are clear that all landlords must keep their properties in a fit state, and that there need to be robust routes of redress when they do not. However, tenants can already take their landlord to court if their home is unfit for human habitation, and if the courts find that landlords have not met their obligations, they can award compensation, as well as requiring landlords to carry out repairs. For that reason, while agreeing entirely with the objective, I believe that the hon. Lady’s amendment is unnecessary.
I will briefly refer to two amendments on the amendment paper that were not spoken to by the Members who tabled them. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) rightly called for protection from discrimination for renters who require home adaptations. The rental discrimination provisions in the Bill are specifically designed to protect victims of discrimination who may not be eligible to make a case under the Equality Act 2010, such as those who have children or are in receipt of benefits. People with a disability are already afforded protections from discrimination relating to the provision of housing or services under the Act. For that reason, we do not believe her new clause 24 is warranted, but I am more than happy to discuss the matter with her outside the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) tabled amendment 11 to make rent repayment orders available for initial failure to be a member of the PRS landlord ombudsman or to register with the PRS database. She will recognise that we have significantly strengthened the RRO provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill. However, I took the view that it would be inappropriate to extend rent repayment orders to non-criminal breaches of the kind that her amendment covers. Instead, local authorities will be able to issue civil penalties for the initial failures in question, with the possibility of higher financial penalties and RROs if landlords fail to sign up, having been fined.
Finally, I will mention the amendments relating to home adaptations—both new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol Central, and new clause 23, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Both amendments seek to require PRS landlords to permit home disability adaptations for assured tenants when these have been recommended in a local authority home assessment. The hon. Member for Bristol Central tabled the same amendment in Committee, and as we discussed then, the Equality Act already provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a request for reasonable adjustments to a disabled person’s home. As I said in Committee, measures already in this Bill will improve the situation for disabled renters who request home adaptations. The abolition of section 21 notices will remove the threat of retaliatory eviction, empowering tenants to request the home adaptations they need and to complain if their requests are unreasonably refused. In addition, we are establishing the new PRS ombudsman, which will have strong powers to put things right for tenants where their landlord has failed to resolve a legitimate complaint.
I must say candidly to the hon. Lady that I remain somewhat unconvinced that these amendments are the way to address this absolutely legitimate issue—I recognise the problem she identifies—and for that reason, the Government will not be able to accept them. However, I can give her the assurance that we will commit to continuing to consider what more we may need to do to ensure that requests for reasonable adjustments cannot be unreasonably refused, including those recommended by local authority home assessments. I am more happy to engage with Members across the House, and to meet her, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and other Members who have concerns on the subject, to discuss her amendment and the problem generally in more detail. I hope that, on that basis, she will consider not pressing her new clause to a vote.
Carla Denyer
If the Minister can confirm that the cross-party meeting will include the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and that it will take place before the Bill goes to the Lords, I will be happy to withdraw my new clause.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily give the hon. Member that assurance, and I am more than happy to ensure that my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee attends, as well as any other Member with an interest in this issue. It is important, and I understand the problem that the hon. Member outlines. There are reasons why we do not think the new clause is necessarily the best way to approach the issue, but I am more than happy to have a dialogue on that point.
In conclusion, today we are making targeted amendments that aim to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. In many cases, we think that the amendments pushed by hon. Members are unnecessary, because we think that the Bill strikes the right balance between the interests of landlords and those of tenants. On that basis, I hope the whole House can get behind the Bill this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Prohibition of rent in advance before lease entered into
(1) Schedule 1 to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (permitted payments) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After paragraph 1(1) (rent is a permitted payment) insert—
“(1A) But a payment of rent is a prohibited payment if—
(a) it is payable before the tenancy is entered into, and
(b) the tenancy is an assured tenancy.
(1B) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 1A.”
(3) For sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 substitute—
“Increased rent
1A (1) If the amount of rent payable in respect of any relevant period (“P1”) is more than the amount of rent payable in respect of any later relevant period (“P2”), the additional amount payable in respect of P1 is a prohibited payment.
(2) That is subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.”
(4) After section 5 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 insert—
“Other provision about rent in advance
5A Pre-tenancy payments of rent: prohibitions
(1) A landlord must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the landlord in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the landlord in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a relevant person a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(2) A landlord must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a third party a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(3) A letting agent must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the letting agent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to the letting agent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a relevant person a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(4) A letting agent must not—
(a) invite or encourage a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connections with an assured tenancy of housing in England,
(b) accept an offer from a relevant person to make a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent to a third party in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England, or
(c) accept from a third party a prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent in connection with an assured tenancy of housing in England.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend this section for the purpose of making provision about the descriptions of rent due in advance to which any provision of subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) applies.
For this purpose “rent due in advance” means rent due before the period for which it is payable.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5)—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) may make supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision;
(c) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section “prohibited pre-tenancy payment of rent” means a payment of rent that is prohibited by paragraph 1(1A) of Schedule 1.
5B Effect of a breach of section 5A
A term of an agreement between a letting agent and a relevant person which breaches section 5A is not binding on a relevant person.
Where a term of an agreement is not binding on a relevant person as a result of this section, the agreement continues, so far as practicable, to have effect in every other respect.”
(5) The Tenant Fees Act 2019 is further amended as follows—
(a) in section 6 (enforcement by local weights and measures authorities)—
(i) in subsection (1), in paragraph (b) omit “and” and after that paragraph insert—
“(ba) section 5A (pre-tenancy payments of rent: prohibitions), and”;
(ii) in subsection (3), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”;
(b) in section 7 (enforcement by district councils), in subsection (1), for “and 2” substitute
“, 2 and 5A”;
(c) in section 8 (financial penalties), in subsection (1), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”;
(d) in section 10 (recovery by enforcement authority of amount paid)—
(i) in subsection (1)(a), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”;
(ii) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) But that obligation to pay the amount, or remaining part, of the prohibited payment is subject to subsection (3), unless it is a case where the payment is prohibited by paragraph 1(1A) of Schedule 1 (pre-tenancy payment of rent).”;
(iii) in subsection (3), for “But subsection (2) does not apply in relation to a prohibited payment” substitute “Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the prohibited payment”;
(e) in section 15 (recovery by relevant person of amount paid), in subsection (1)(a), for “or 2” substitute “, 2 or 5A”.”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amends the Tenant Fees Act 2019 so that rent in advance payable before the tenancy is entered into is a “prohibited payment” for the purposes of that Act. The new section 5A then also adds new prohibitions relating to that kind of prohibited payment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 114
[Division lists to follow.]
Question accordingly agreed to.
New clause 14 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a real privilege to take this vital piece of legislation through the House. I want to thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage: my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for her passionate commitment to improving the lives of England’s 11 million private renters; the Department’s Bill team who have worked tirelessly on the legislation for the past six months; my outstanding private office, including my fantastic private secretary Will Gaby, who has led the team on the Bill; the Clerks, Chairs and parliamentary counsel for facilitating its progress; the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee; and hon. Members from across the House who provided valuable input today and at previous stages.
The current system for private renting is broken. While the Government recognise that the majority of landlords provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants, it remains the case that the private rented sector still provides the least affordable, poorest quality and most insecure housing of all tenures. This intolerable state of affairs is why renters have been demanding change for many years, and I am extremely proud that this Government have acted so early in the Parliament to deliver it.
The Renters’ Rights Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to overhaul the regulation of the private rented sector and to decisively raise standards within it. It is bitterly disappointing that despite not forcing a single Division in Committee, the Opposition decided today to set their face firmly against private rented sector reform on the basis of a series of specious and, indeed, spurious arguments. They may be intent on letting down England’s private renters once again, but this Labour Government will not put tens of thousands of them at risk of homelessness, nor will we prolong the uncertainty that responsible landlords across the country have experienced over recent years by hesitating. We will finish the job and give England’s 11 million private renters the greater security, rights and protections they deserve. I wish Baroness Taylor the best with moving the Bill forward in the other place, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Kevin Hollinrake, who has 35 seconds.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is not wrong, spurious or specious to stand up for 11 million tenants. We know that tenants and landlords are two sides of the same coin. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we agree that tenants need a better deal, but this Bill will not give that to them. The Minister is following in the footsteps of Scotland. The Bill will reduce supply and push up rent, and that is why we are against it—
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am grateful to have secured this debate on this important topic for my constituents, and to the Minister for her attendance. I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) in his place. As constituency neighbours, albeit from different parties, we have come together to work closely on this issue for the good of our constituents. I want to talk about the lack of secondary school educational provision available to my constituents in south Buckinghamshire, particularly in the beautiful village of Burnham and the surrounding area. Burnham is a growing and thriving village that is part of both Buckinghamshire and Slough. It is a unique place, which is why the debate will focus on this topic.
Burnham is a place where families like to settle for its beauty, community and wonderful transport links. It is also place where children must travel long distances, at huge cost to their families, to attend a comprehensive secondary school. Burnham is the only community in Buckinghamshire that lacks a nearby secondary school alongside its grammar school. That situation is becoming increasingly intolerable, and I hope the Minister will join me and the hon. Member for Slough in our joint efforts to bring about change.
Let me start with a short history of the lack of school provision. In 2019, before I became the Member of Parliament for Beaconsfield, the Department for Education closed the Burnham E-Act Academy, a co-educational non-selective school for 11 to 18-year-olds. That followed several changes and challenging Ofsted reports. At one time, the school had served more than 600 pupils. As the school was failing, parents were forced to find alternatives for the sake of their children, and roll numbers began to fall, making the school potentially unviable. Instead of serious efforts being made to turn the school around, it was allowed to fail. That closure was a serious mistake.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and thank her for her kind words. It was a pleasure to join her recently at Burnham grammar school to meet activists campaigning for a new school. As she has explained, it was a mistake for the Government and Buckinghamshire council in 2019 to close the non-selective, co-educational secondary school. Obviously the numbers must stack up, but does she agree that it is vital to recognise the importance of children receiving good-quality, local school education? Is it not unfair for my Slough constituents and hers to have to travel great distances at great expense, just to get that education? Due consideration should be given to that when determining whether a new school is required in Burnham.
Joy Morrissey
The way that the hon. Member and I have been working cross-party is an example of how to move forward past council boundaries. I just point out to the Minister that Burnham is a large town that historically was its own entity, but uniquely is now part of two local authorities. The numbers are often looked at through the lens of one local authority or the other, but we need to combine those two, work together and submit a joint local authority bid to the Department for Education. That is the way to demonstrate the numbers and get the secondary school provision we need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. Does she not agree that by putting secondary schools out of reach of local populations, we close the door to character-building, to skill-learning and to socially imperative after-school programmes? That must all be weighed when considering educational provision, because if you close a school, you lose a generation of young people.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Member for always making such excellent contributions to every Adjournment debate. He is a true champion for Back Benchers.
The people who lost out in the school closure are the young people of Burnham and the surrounding areas. Moving forward, we want to see that problem rectified. Since 2019, the young people of Burnham who are not in selective education find themselves caught in excessively long journeys to schools in Maidenhead and other parts of Buckinghamshire and Slough, as my friend the hon. Member for Slough so eloquently pointed out. It is unfair for our residents, and it is having a significant effect on their mental health, physical wellbeing and finances.
The situation is absurd and almost intolerable. We have a site that housed a secondary school up until 2019, and it is now hosting the occasional Netflix filming. Meanwhile, young people waste hours travelling to school. The situation needs to change. I was equally robust in challenging our previous Schools Minister, and I spent much time speaking to Nick Gibb in the Tea Room. I am sure that the hon. Member for Slough can follow in my footsteps and finding the current Minister in the Tea Room to continue to press the point, formally and informally. Will she consider meeting me and him jointly after the debate, so that we can take this issue forward?
I pay tribute to the campaign group for Burnham secondary school. Since my election in December 2019, I have been pleased to work alongside the group and local families to try to right this wrong. They are at the epicentre of what makes community campaign groups so inspiring. They are totally dedicated to making their community better. I thank the local councillors, parish councillors and the hon. Member for working together to put the needs of our residents first.
Let me set out why the case for a secondary school in Burnham is clear, compelling and urgent. We know that education is the single silver bullet that can determine the life chances of young people, but we are placing an enormous barrier in the way of the young people of Burnham and south Buckinghamshire. Long journeys are impacting their mental and physical health and placing them at higher risk of educational disengagement.
We also know that south Buckinghamshire is significantly underserved in special educational needs and disabilities provision. Just before the election, I was delighted by the Department for Education’s announcement of a new SEND school for Buckinghamshire. I hope that the Minister will recommit to that school tonight and support my calls for it to be placed in south Buckinghamshire—it would be for the whole county, but I would love to see it in south Buckinghamshire. A reopened Burnham secondary school would represent a perfect opportunity to provide not only 11 to 16-year-olds with non-selective education, but increased SEND provision and a thriving sixth form.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about educational need in her constituency. Does she know of the work done by the London borough of Hillingdon in the village of Harefield in my constituency, where, as part of a multi-academy trust, an under-utilised secondary school has slightly reduced in size and the site is now dual-use, with both secondary mainstream comprehensive education and a brand-new SEND school at the same location?
Joy Morrissey
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. That example is the gold standard of what we would like to do to ensure that there is SEND provision and comprehensive school provision in our area as we move forward. Finding dual use for those facilities really is the way forward. With volunteers, we are trying to look at every option, working across parties and across local authorities to ensure that we find a solution that works for all of our residents, hopefully following in the footsteps of Hillingdon.
One of the frustrations that I and the campaign group have faced is the loop of accountability avoidance. We are on the border of many local authorities and we border London. The provision for our students is different from London, but because we are just outside London, that endless accountability loop is often difficult to close. The Department says that it is for local authorities to make the case, but oftentimes it seems that they are not working together for the collective demand because of their individual legal accountabilities. That is despite the practical reality that Slough and Burnham—and all of Buckinghamshire—border each other, and the two local primary schools are in close proximity to the site.
At Burnham grammar school, this is proven by the fact that half the pupils are from Slough. Our campaign group received a reply from a freedom of information request, which said:
“Any projects to try to evidence demand to reopen a new school on the Burnham site should not include pupils attending in Slough (regardless of how close the schools may be to Buckinghamshire).”
That is bureaucracy triumphing over common sense.
The campaign group and I have taken it upon ourselves to look at the data and make the case, because it seems that no one else will. I thank the hon. Member for Slough for joining us in that and trying to work together proactively to bring forth evidence from both local authorities of the demand and need of pupils for the secondary school. Even before I turn to housing expansion, they can make the case for a minimum of five forms of entry from the local primary school.
We also know that Beeches learning and development trust, which delivers Burnham grammar school, could take on a Burnham secondary school within its umbrella trust. We have a site for a school, we have demand across both local authority boundaries and we have a trust able to take on the school; all we lack is the will of the educational establishment.
In south Buckinghamshire we now have significant housing targets on our way. As a separate point, if something is to be built on the green belt, be in no doubt that I will oppose it tooth and nail, but I support the case for more housing in the right location and with the right infrastructure. Burnham and the surrounding areas are growing, as is Slough. Many people want to move to both areas because of their excellent transport links and the ability to come into London. Our area’s population is growing, and the housing demand means that the population will continue to increase. Buckinghamshire has one of the highest housing demands put on it—more so than any other local authority—so, to make the case, we will need more provision of places for students, because central Government demands mean that we will be building more houses in the county. That simply strengthens our argument for increased educational provision—we will not have the infrastructure in place to support the new housing that central Government will ask us to build.
We also have the Elizabeth line, which is attracting commuter families to the area. We face more housing coming, but without the infrastructure of a new school to support the area. It is time to make sure that the secondary schools are there and ready to support demand from our residents. It is time for the education system to come together to solve this problem. In the same way that the hon. Member for Slough and I have put aside party political differences in order to work together for the good of our communities, so the education system needs to put aside artificial boundaries and work together. It needs leadership from Ministers and the Department for Education to bring local authorities together to support the proper analysis of data across local authority boundaries.
I urge the Minister to join me, the hon. Member for Slough and the local community to help make a new secondary school for Burnham, south Buckinghamshire and Slough a reality.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing this important debate. She has been a champion for children in south Buckinghamshire and for every child to secure a school place that allows them to achieve and thrive. This Government recognise how important it is that every child gets a great education at a good school in their area. We work closely with our local authority colleagues to achieve that, including in Buckinghamshire.
Local authorities, including in Buckinghamshire, have a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places for children in their area, as the hon. Lady referenced. To support local authorities to deliver on that statutory duty, the Department provides capital funding through the basic need grant for mainstream school places. Funding is based on local authorities’ own pupil forecasts and school capacity data. They also receive the high needs provision capital allocation to invest in places for children and young people with special educational needs or who require alternative provision—the hon. Lady mentioned that specifically and I will come to it shortly.
The Department engages with local authorities on a regular basis to review their plans for creating additional primary and pre-16 secondary school places, and to consider alternatives where necessary. When local authorities experience difficulties, the Department offers support and advice, including through the pupil place planning adviser. I hope the hon. Lady finds it reassuring that all that support is in place.
At local authority level, Buckinghamshire is forecast to have an increasing surplus of primary places, especially in the year of entry—reception—and in key stage 1. There are, however, some areas of primary place pressure, including at Gerrards Cross and the Chalfonts in the south of the county. At secondary phase, Buckinghamshire is forecast to have a small, slightly declining surplus. However, in common with the primary phase, underlying the local authority-wide picture there are variations in place pressure. The academically selective element of secondary education in Buckinghamshire adds an additional element of complexity in place planning, as does cross-border movement into schools in neighbouring local authorities, which the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) referenced.
Nearly £1.5 billion has been announced to support local authorities to create the mainstream school places needed over the current and next two academic years, up to and including the academic year beginning September 2026. The funding is not ringfenced, subject to the conditions set out in the published grant determination letter, and nor is it time-bound, meaning that local authorities are free to use it to best meet their local priorities. They can use it to fund places in new schools or through expansions of existing schools, and they can work with any school in their local area, including academies and free schools.
Mr Dhesi
We have a hugely increasing population in Slough and south Bucks, as well as a high need for SEND provision. I just want to ascertain whether the Minister and her Department will factor those considerations into their determination over a new school in Burnham, on the boundary of Slough and south Bucks, to ensure that the right decision is reached for a new school.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises some important points, both of which are factors that the Buckinghamshire and Slough local authorities, where relevant, will have to take into consideration when determining how to use their allocation.
Buckinghamshire council has been allocated just below £11.3 million to support the provision of the new mainstream school places that it feels it will need over the current and next two academic years, up to and including September 2026. We have also announced £740 million in high needs capital for 2025-26 to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, or who require alternative provision, and we will confirm the specific local authority allocations later in the spring. The important point is that this new funding can be used to adapt classrooms to make them more accessible for children with special educational needs. It can be used to create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that could deliver more intensive support, to adapt them to meet pupils needs, alongside continuing to provide places to support the pupils in special schools with the most complex needs.
David Simmonds
Will the Minister commit to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review the impact of home-to-school transport rules on the situation? In Hillingdon, there is around a 20% vacancy rate due to falling pupil numbers. All London boroughs contribute to Transport for London, and therefore transport to school on London public transport is free. However, if Buckinghamshire wished to take advantage of those vacancies, bringing those children to schools in Hillingdon would be a general fund cost to council tax payers. Clearly, in efficiently providing those places, it may well be that by looking at those cross-border transport issues we could produce a beneficial outcome for my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for the schools that would thereby benefit from additional pupils.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman raises an import point, which is something the Department is very focused on. Indeed, we need to work with local authorities to deliver on that. The aim of the Department’s home-to-school travel policy is to ensure that no child is prevented from accessing education because of a lack of transport. Local authorities are required to arrange free travel for children of compulsory school age who attend their nearest school but cannot walk there because of the distance or because of a special educational need, disability or mobility problem, or because the route is not safe. There are also additional rights to free travel for low-income households, to ensure that they can exercise school choice.
However, I recognise the challenge that the hon. Gentleman raises. It relates to the investment that we would like to see in mainstream provision—indeed, it is why he jumped up as I was talking about this—to make it more suitable and to adapt it where necessary, in order to have much greater inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can be educated in their local area, wherever possible, with their peers. That will ensure better outcomes for those children, but it will also tackle some of the growing challenges that he quite rightly identifies with school transport.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned a specific request for confirmation on a local special school application—she tempts me to get ahead of announcements that will be made in due course. They are under consideration. Where children have highly complex needs, it is obviously important that we have those specialist school places available in the right place for the children who need them.
We are committed to ensuring that all schools co-operate with their local authority on school admissions and place planning to ensure there are sufficient school places where they are needed. Schools and academy trusts are expected to work collaboratively and constructively with local authorities and other key partners on place planning. We recently reinforced that expectation through the revised “Making significant changes to an academy” guidance. To strengthen it further, we are legislating to require all schools and local authorities to co-operate on admissions and place planning. This new duty will aim to foster greater co-operation between schools and local authorities in these important areas, as well as providing a backstop for addressing serious failures when co-operation is simply not happening.
We are also legislating to make changes to the legal framework for opening new schools. We will end the legal presumption that they should be academies in favour of prioritising any local offer that meets the needs of children and families, allowing proposals for other types of schools to be put forward where a new school is needed, including proposals from local authorities themselves. These changes better align local authorities’ responsibility to secure sufficient school places with their ability to open new schools.
The Government are entirely focused on the quality of education and experience that children are receiving at school, rather than the name above the door. All schools have an important role to play in driving high and rising standards so that every child can thrive, and, indeed, that will help local authorities to make the decisions that are right for the children in their areas. We want all children to be able to attend a high-quality school of their parents’ choice whenever possible. In 2024, 98.5% of children in Buckinghamshire were offered a place at one of their parents’ or carers’ top three preferred primary schools, and just over nine out of 10—91.1%—received an offer of their first preference. At the secondary phase, 91.2% of pupils in Buckinghamshire received an offer at one of their parents’ or carers’ top three preferred schools, with about three quarters—75.8%—receiving an offer of their first preference.
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for bringing this matter to the House’s attention, and I thank the other Members who contributed to the debate. It is obviously important for children to be able to gain access to school places—ideally in their local communities—that will enable them to achieve and thrive. I appreciate the case that the hon. Lady has made, but it is clearly to Buckinghamshire council that the case must be made. The Government will continue to work with our local authority colleagues, who have a statutory duty to ensure that enough mainstream school places are available. That includes providing funds through the basic need grant and continued support through our pupil place planning advisers, and introducing new legislation requiring all schools and local authorities to co-operate on admissions and place planning, so that every child in every community can have a good local school.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all their electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind hon. Members about the rules on declarations of interest, as set out in the code of conduct.
Schedule 6
Consequential amendments relating to Part 5
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 183, in schedule 6, page 135, line 6, leave out “‘Secretary of State’.” and insert
“‘Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or the Secretary of State’.”
This amendment would ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a “relevant document” that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under that Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration of interests and to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The amendment is essential to upholding legal continuity and to preventing any ambiguity or loopholes in enforcement. It will ensure that provisions under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a risk that any improper conduct in relation to documents issued before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could fall outside the scope of enforcement.
Fraudulent licences have been used to exploit vulnerable workers and to mislead employers, particularly in industries such as agriculture and food processing. The amendment will strengthen deterrence against document fraud and ensure that enforcement agencies retain the tools that they need to protect workers effectively.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell.
As the Minister has outlined, Government amendment 183 will ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under the Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.
Clause 109 will abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, a non-departmental public body that investigates reports of worker exploitation and illegal activity such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour provision, as well as making offences under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Significantly, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority also issues licences to employment agencies, labour providers or gangmasters who provide workers in the sectors of agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and any associated processing or packaging. That is important work; we do not in any way, shape or form deviate from that.
The Government amendment will rightly ensure that providing false licences remains an offence, including where that was identified before the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act at some point this year, but I would like to be reassured about the work of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with the provisions of the Bill. For example, what will happen to the staff at the authority once it has been abolished? The Bill provides for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State envisage redundancies or envisage that the same staff will continue to do the same work under a different ultimate authority? Will the reorganisation lead to any disruption? I think we all accept that any change will bring with it some level of disruption, but how can the disruption be minimised?
Likewise, the amendment appears to ensure continuity with existing legislation once the Bill has passed. I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that that is the case. If any new powers are being taken, please could they be explained?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the clarity offered by the Government in the amendment.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
The amendment will ensure that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain effective even in the context of the changes proposed in the Bill. Section 12(2) will make it a criminal offence for an individual to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false, is forged or has been improperly obtained with the intention of deceiving others into believing that the individual holds a valid licence under the Act. It is essential that that provision continues to apply to documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority before its abolition, ensuring that any fraudulent documents issued before the GLAA is dissolved can still result in prosecution. Maintaining that provision is crucial to preventing exploitation and ensuring that individuals and businesses cannot evade accountability with fraudulent documentation.
Clause 109 proposes to abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which plays a significant role in tackling issues such as labour exploitation, human trafficking and forced labour in certain sectors. The dissolution of the GLAA marks a significant shift in how those matters will be managed. Given the importance of its work, the transition raises important questions about how those responsibilities will be carried forward under the new structures set out by the Bill. The GLAA has played a vital role in regulating the labour market in high-risk industries, so the Government’s proposal to abolish it must be accompanied by a clear plan to ensure continuity of its crucial work.
The GLAA is a non-departmental public body that has been responsible for investigating and addressing serious forms of worker exploitation such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour practices. Additionally, it monitors compliance with regulations under the National Minimum Wage Act and the Employment Agencies Act. By issuing licences to employment agencies, labour providers and gangmasters in high-risk sectors, including agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and associated processing and packaging, the GLAA has been instrumental in safeguarding vulnerable workers and preventing exploitation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
For the four years before I was elected to this place, I worked in Scotland on combating human trafficking and labour exploitation, and I did a lot of work with the GLAA. Quite properly, the hon. Gentleman lists the industries with which it was associated, such as shellfish, agriculture and horticulture. Although the GLAA was set up to address those things, in Scotland we had only one member of staff inspecting all that coastline and all that land, and the authority was not really equipped or able to do the job that it was set up to do.
Having reflected on how the GLAA has operated and on its lack of power and capacity—that is absolutely not a comment on the ability of the staff, who are severely overworked—and given the scale of the crisis, I would argue that it is appropriate to look at how effective the GLAA is and then bolster that by putting it into a fair work agency, rather than having a very small group of people unable to deal with the task that they face. Things like labour exploitation and human trafficking have not gone down as a result of the GLAA, which tells us that we do need to revisit and restructure the organisation.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Member makes a number of valuable points. The proposed removal of the GLAA raises concerns about how its important functions will be handled. It is imperative that a robust alternative structure be put in place to address those critical issues and to continue protecting workers’ rights and preventing exploitation.
The GLAA’s work is crucial in specific sectors in which workers are at a heightened risk of exploitation. They include agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and the associated processing and packaging industries. Such sectors often rely on seasonal or temporary labour, which makes workers more vulnerable to abuse. The GLAA has been tasked with ensuring that employment agencies and gangmasters in those areas are properly licensed and comply with legal and ethical standards. Without a continued effective regulatory body, there is a risk that workers in those sectors could face greater vulnerability to exploitation. The amendment ensures that even after the GLAA is abolished, protections relating to fraudulent licences remain in place to help to prevent future abuses in those critical sectors.
Although the amendment will rightly ensure that the offence of providing false licences will continue, including for cases identified prior to the passage of the Bill, there remains a need for reassurance about the future of the GLAA’s core responsibilities. The work of the GLAA in investigating and responding to incidents of worker exploitation is vital. As the Bill progresses, it is crucial that there is a clear and publicly communicated plan for transferring and maintaining those functions under the new framework. The question remains of how those critical duties will be continued effectively under the new system. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the same level of oversight and enforcement will be maintained without compromising workers’ protections?
One significant issue that arises from the abolition of the GLAA is the future of its staff. The Bill stipulates that staff, property, rights and liabilities will be transferred to the Secretary of State. However, there is a need for further clarity on the fate of staff members, who have been dedicated to the GLAA’s mission. Will there be redundancies, or will staff members be reassigned to continue their work under a new authority such as the fair work agency? In the latter case, it will be essential to understand how that transition will be managed. Will those staff members continue to do the same work, or will there be changes to their roles? Furthermore, will the reorganisation cause any disruption to the ongoing work of tackling labour exploitation and illegal labour practices? Minimising disruption in that process is crucial to ensure that there is no gap in the important regulatory and enforcement work carried out by the GLAA.
Government amendment 183 appears to be designed to ensure that existing legislation, particularly in relation to worker protections and the regulation of labour providers, continues to apply once the Bill passes. It would have been reassuring to have confirmation that the intention behind the amendment is to maintain the existing legal framework and obligations. The continuity of those provisions is critical to ensuring that workers remain protected and that the work of tackling exploitation and human trafficking continues without interruption. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the amendment will ensure that the key elements of existing legislation remain in force.
Finally, if the Bill introduces any new powers, it is important that the need for those powers be fully explained and understood. The amendment and the Bill more broadly implement changes that could have significant implications both for employers and for their employees. It would be helpful to have clarification on whether the new powers will be used to expand the role of the Secretary of State or the fair work agency in monitoring and regulating sectors previously overseen by the GLAA. How will those new powers affect existing regulations? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that they are used appropriately and effectively?
Justin Madders
That was quite a lengthy debate for a technical amendment. This amendment to schedule 6 will ensure continuity of function, which was one of the main points that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater made. We are alive to their concern that there is a hole through which provisions can fall: there are a number of amendments to make sure that there is continuity of legal force and in the ability to carry out the functions of the predecessor authorities.
Both hon. Members asked about redundancies. It is premature to talk about operational matters of that nature. The impact assessment is being carried out on the basis of the existing budgets of the relevant agencies. No reduction in staff members is anticipated, but as we move forward, efficiencies and duplications may become apparent when the agencies are merged, which may lead to other changes to the way in which matters are carried out, and those will clearly be dealt with.
There was a concern that the reorganisation could lead to disruption, which is certainly not our intention. We expect the agencies to be able to continue to carry out existing investigations—indeed, many of the amendments are being made with that in mind to ensure that continuity is preserved. I remind Opposition Members that the purpose of the fair work agency is to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are pooled so that we can be more effective in our labour market abuse enforcement mechanisms. That has been widely supported across the entire group of stakeholders.
In terms of oversight, there will be an advisory board, reports and strategies and the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for the work of the fair work agency. We will no doubt return to that on a number of occasions as the detail is fleshed out. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 183 agreed to.
Amendments made: 102, in schedule 6, page 137, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) In the italic heading before paragraph 10, omit “of Authority”.”
This amendment makes a minor drafting correction.
Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 137, line 15, leave out “the heading and”.—(Justin Madders.)
This is consequential on amendment 102.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, leave out “and (4)” and insert “, (4), (8) and (9)”.
This amendment, and amendments 105 and 106, make further minor amendments of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other legislation and will ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Bill. It will also ensure that our legislative framework is cohesive and functional.
The amendments will make essential technical adjustments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to reflect the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers, as defined in part 5 of the Bill. They will update references, revise definitions and ensure consistency between this Bill and existing legislation. The amendments will avoid confusion and ensure that our statutory framework functions effectively. I commend these minor technical amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining these further minor amendments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, being made as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers under part 5 of the Bill. The amendments are another consequence of centralising the different enforcement agencies that operate under the auspices of the fair work agency.
I would be grateful to have the Minister’s reassurance that all current enforcement work will still be able to be carried out to the same standard during the period of reorganisation. In the previous debate, he indicated that he did not expect disruption; I gently put it to him that that is probably on the optimistic end of the scale. No matter the good intention behind any reorganisation, or the will, endless planning and everything that goes into it from a lot of good people putting in a lot of hard work, the reality is that any reorganisation can cause disruption, either in its own right or through unexpected events.
I will give a parallel closer to home. In my constituency, Buckinghamshire unitary council was created to go live just as the pandemic was starting. Four district councils and a county council were put together at the point at which we were all sent home, so everyone was working from home and having to rise to a local authority’s duties to put in place resilience measures to support people through the pandemic.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendments 104 to 106 propose minor but necessary changes to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arising from the changes introduced under part 5 of the Bill, particularly the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers. The intention behind the change is to streamline and update the regulatory framework in response to the restructuring of enforcement roles. By introducing enforcement officers under the new structure, the Government aim to enhance the effectiveness of labour abuse prevention while ensuring that there is no gap in oversight and enforcement. These minor amendments are crucial to align existing legislation with the nearly structured responsibilities and authority of enforcement officers, who will now take on the duties previously held by labour abuse prevention officers.
The centralisation of enforcement agencies under the fair work agency is part of a broader effort to centralise and co-ordinate the various enforcement agencies that currently operate. By bringing the enforcement bodies together under a single umbrella, the Government aim to create a more co-ordinated, efficient and consistent approach to tackling labour abuses and ensuring that workers’ rights are upheld across different sectors. The centralisation process is designed to improve the effectiveness of enforcement and simplify the regulatory landscape for both businesses and workers, but as we move through the reorganisation period, it is essential that all enforcement activities continue to be carried out seamlessly, without any disruption or decrease in the standard of oversight. That is particularly important as the new system is put in place, as workers rely on enforcement mechanisms to protect their rights.
I seek reassurance on the continuity of enforcement standards during the reorganisation. Given the significant structural changes involved, I ask the Minister to assure me that all current enforcement work will continue to be carried out to the same high standard during the transition period. The centralisation of enforcement agencies is a significant undertaking, and it is vital that the effectiveness of enforcement operations is not compromised during the restructuring process. Workers and businesses must be confident that the protections afforded by the existing enforcement framework will remain intact, and that enforcement officers will have the tools, resources and authority that they need to address breaches of the law effectively. I would appreciate clarification on how the Government plan to ensure that no enforcement gaps occur during the reorganisation, and that current and future enforcement work will be conducted at the same high level of competence.
Justin Madders
It seems we have a little double act developing on the Opposition Front Bench. It reminds me a little bit of Waldorf and Statler, without the puns. Both the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought similar and important assurances that the work of the agencies would be able to be carried out effectively during this period of transition. I note what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire mentioned about the Mid Buckinghamshire reorganisation.
Justin Madders
All of Buckinghamshire, yes—with the hon. Member right in the middle where he truly belongs. I do recall that the previous Government decided to set up the UK Health Security Agency in the middle of the pandemic, which was a challenging time to do that. It has been shown that the people doing the job day to day can continue to do it while the institutional reform carries on, making it more likely that they will be effective in carrying out their work through the sharing of resources, evidence and expertise, as well as, hopefully, a more unified approach to enforcement. Clearly, we want those doing the day-to-day work to be able to carry on doing that and a number of these amendments enable them to do that. We hope that, as the agency forms and more joint working is developed, they will become more effective.
Amendment 104 agreed to.
Amendments made: 105, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) In subsection (10), for “Any other” substitute “A”.’
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Amendment 106, in schedule 6, page 140, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
‘(5) For subsection (11) substitute—
“(11) In this section—
“enforcement officer” has the meaning given by section 72(3)
of the Employment Rights Act 2025;
“labour market offence” has the same meaning as in Part 5 of that Act (see section 112(1) of that Act).”’—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 184, in schedule 6, page 141, line 7, at end insert—
“Employment Tribunals Act 1996
70A In section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (conciliation: recovery of sums payable under settlements), omit subsection (10A).”
This amendment provides for a minor consequential amendment relating to Part 5 of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Schedule 6 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill. The amendments make essential technical adjustments to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, updating references and ensuring consistency between the Bill and existing legislation.
Government amendment 184 omits section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which makes provision for the disclosure of settlement terms to an enforcement officer appointed under section 37M of the same Act. Section 37M is repealed by the Bill, as it has been superseded by the new provisions of the Bill on the appointment of fair work agency officers. Clauses 98 and 99(1) of the Bill provide gateways for the disclosure of information to fair work agency officers. Government amendment 184 repeals section 19A(10A), as the provision is no longer required in the light of the new provisions introduced by the Bill. Government amendment 188 is consequential to Government amendment 184. The amendment prevents confusion and ensures our statutory framework continues to function effectively.
Greg Smith
For the next part of the double act —I will casually ignore the Minister’s comparison—I will speak to Government amendments 184 and 188. Amendment 184 is a minor amendment relating to part 5 of the Bill and amendment 188 is consequential on amendment 184. As the Minister said, amendment 184 removes section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 19A concerns the
“recovery of sums payable under settlements”
and subsection (10A) provides that the court may make provision as to the time within which an application to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4) is to be made. Subsection (4) states:
“A settlement sum is not recoverable under subsection (3) if—
(a) the person by whom it is payable applies for a declaration that the sum would not be recoverable from him under the general law of contract, and
(b) that declaration is made.”
Notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation, it is still not entirely clear to the Committee, or indeed to the whole House, why it is necessary to delete subsection (10A) from the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. I am sure there is a very convoluted reason for it out there somewhere, but it seems to us that the will of the Government in putting this legislation before Parliament does not need that deletion in order to function. I would be grateful if the Minister gave a fuller explanation of the need for that deletion in his summing-up.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 184 proposes the removal of subsection (10A) from section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which deals with the recovery of sums payment under settlements, specifically addressing situations in which a party seeks a declaration from the court regarding the recoverability of a settlement sum.
Under subsection (10A), the court has the discretion to make provisions regarding the timeframe within which an application must be made to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4). Subsection (4) essentially provides that a settlement sum will not be recoverable if the person liable to pay the sum seeks a declaration from the court that, under general contract law, the sum is not recoverable from them. The removal of subsection (10A) raises important questions about the implications of the timing and procedure of such applications.
Given that the removal of subsection (10A) may have significant consequences for how significant settlement sums are handled and claims are processed in the future, will the Minister explain why this provision is being deleted? Understanding the reasoning behind the change is important for assessing its potential impact on workers and employers. Will the removal of this provision simplify the process for parties seeking a declaration regarding the recoverability of settlement sums or will it introduce new challenges or delays in the legal process? Furthermore, how will this change affect the ability of individuals to seek a fair resolution in cases where disputes over settlement sums arise? Clarification from the Minister on these points would be appreciated as it would help ensure that stakeholders fully understand the intended effects.
Justin Madders
Hopefully, I can put Opposition Members’ minds at rest about the need for the amendment. It is about simplifying the legislative framework. Section 19A(10A) of the 1996 Act is about disclosure of settlement terms to enforcement officers who are appointed under section 37M of that Act. As that is now being repealed by and superseded by the provisions in this Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, that provision is no longer required in the 1996 Act. That is why it is being removed; the current arrangements remain in place, but they will all be in one place, in this Bill. We hope that will provide clarity and certainty for those who wish to avail themselves of the rights and obligations under this legislation.
Amendment 184 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 185, in schedule 6, page 141, line 33, leave out from “2025)” to end of line 2 on page 142 and insert
“acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;”;”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 186.
Justin Madders
The amendments make essential adjustments to the Employment Rights Bill ensuring that there is a process for appropriate oversight of police powers used by officers within the fair work agency. There will be a subsection of enforcement officers within the fair work agency who will be able to use police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It is important that there is appropriate oversight of officers using these powers as part of their investigations.
This is not a new power. Currently, Labour abuse prevention officers within the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority are able to use these Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers. Any complaints or allegations of misconduct are investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, thereby ensuring that enforcement officers use their powers responsibly and within legal boundaries. The amendments ensure that the existing oversight arrangements with the IOPC can continue with the fair work agency on abolition of the GLAA. On that note, I hope the Committee will accept amendments 185, 186 and 187.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s brief explanation of Government amendments 185 to 187, which enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. Amendments 186 and 187 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to deal with complaints. Misconduct relating to enforcement officers created by the Bill who exercise the powers in amendment 185 is consequential to amendments 186 and 187. Amendment 186 states that the Secretary of State
“may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”
Can the Minister provide examples of the sorts of functions it is envisaged the Secretary of State will confer by regulations and how those powers will be used? Probably more significant to this debate and to give us the full picture, will the Independent Office for Police Conduct be granted greater powers to investigate misconduct claims? Will it have additional sanctions compared to that which it is already able to impose? If so, what are they and what will be the resourcing implications for the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation?
We can all accept that many elements of the public sector are incredibly stretched. Whenever any reorganisation comes about or there is a need to oversee new bodies, there will be a resource implication. No matter how well intentioned the provisions of the Bill and the three amendments are, there will be a resource implication, even if it is a minor one. It is important that the Government acknowledge that and make a clear, unambiguous commitment to the resourcing of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation and future enforcement officers and their functions.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendments 186 and 187 propose important changes that would grant the Secretary of State the power to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to handle complaints and misconduct related to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. This would involve granting the IOPC the authority to oversee complaints regarding enforcement officers as they carry out their duties, particularly when acting within the scope of the powers given to them under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Amendment 185 is consequential to those changes, ensuring that the necessary legislative framework aligns with the proposed regulations. Specifically, amendment 186 outlines that the Secretary of State will have the authority to make regulations that will confer specific functions on the director general of the IOPC. Those functions would relate to enforcement officers when they exercise powers granted to them through section 114B of the 1984 Act, which provides enforcement officers with certain powers, and this amendment ensures that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to address any complaints or allegations of misconduct arising from their use of these powers.
I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarification on the scope of these regulations. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand what types of function the Secretary of State is likely to impose on the director general of the IOPC. For instance, will the regulations specify procedures for investigating complaints, the methods of oversight, or protocols for handling disciplinary actions against enforcement officers? What types of misconduct or complaint are anticipated to fall within this framework? Moreover, how do the Government envisage the IOPC’s role evolving, with the additional responsibility for overseeing enforcement officers under these amendments?
Understanding the intended use of these powers will help stakeholders anticipate the practical effects of these changes and their potential impacts on enforcement officers’ accountability. A key concern is whether the IOPC will be granted greater powers under this proposed framework. The IOPC’s current remit covers complaints and misconduct relating to police officers, but the introduction of enforcement officers who possess police powers raises important questions about whether the IOPC will have the authority to investigate misconduct claims against those officers in a similarly robust manner. Will the IOPC be granted expanded investigatory powers to ensure that complaints involving enforcement officers are handled thoroughly and impartially?
Additionally, will the IOPC have the authority to impose sanctions on enforcement officers found to have committed misconduct? If sanctions are available, it would be useful to understand what types of action the IOPC could take, such as recommending disciplinary measures, issuing fines or referring cases for criminal prosecution.
Providing clarity on the scope of the IOPC’s powers in relation to enforcement officers will be crucial for ensuring that those officers remain accountable for their actions while exercising their police powers.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising those questions. I can reassure them that this is not about creating new powers, either for enforcement officers or for the IOPC. It is about transferring the existing responsibility that the IOPC has for designated officers with police-style powers to the fair work agency. The discussions have been on the basis that there would not be any additional resource implications for the IOPC. Obviously, if that were to change in due course, when the fair work agency is under way, there would be discussions about that. It is simply about the existing powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act being applicable to the enforcement officers of the fair work agency on exactly the same basis as they are now. I hope that that has put Opposition Members’ minds at rest. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. ‘Employment Rights Act 2025 section 90 labour market enforcement order labour market offence within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act.’”
Amendment 185 agreed to.
Amendments made: 187, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, after “(3)” insert “—
(i) after paragraph (bc) insert—
‘(bca) any regulations under section 26CA of this Act (enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025);’;
(ii)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 186.
Amendment 186, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 26C insert—
‘26CA Enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
(2) In this section “enforcement officer” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 72 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.
(3) Regulations under this section may, in particular—
(a) apply (with or without modifications), or make provision similar to, any provision of or made under this Part;
(b) make provision for payment by the Secretary of State to, or in respect of, the Office or in respect of the Director General.
(4) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may jointly investigate a matter in relation to which—
(a) the Director General has functions by virtue of this section, and
(b) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has functions by virtue of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
(5) The Secretary of State or an enforcement officer may disclose information to the Director General, or to a person acting on the Director General’s behalf, for the purposes of the exercise by the Director General, or by any person acting on the Director General’s behalf, of a relevant complaints function.
(6) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may disclose information to each other for the purposes of the exercise of a function—
(a) by virtue of this section, or
(b) under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
(7) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make—
(a) further provision about the disclosure of information under subsection (5) or (6);
(b) provision about the further disclosure of information that has been so disclosed.
(8) A disclosure of information authorised by this section does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or
(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).
(9) But this section does not authorise a disclosure of information that—
(a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, the power conferred by this section is to be taken into account), or
(b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
(10) In this section—
“the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);
“relevant complaints function” means a function in relation to the exercise of functions by enforcement officers.’”
This amendment and amendment 187 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who are exercising police powers.
Amendment 188, in schedule 6, page 143, line 19, leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (4) and”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 184.
Amendment 189, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—
“Sentencing Act 2020
92A In section 379(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (other behaviour orders etc), after the entry for the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 insert—
—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment makes a consequential amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to include labour market enforcement orders in the list of orders that may be made on conviction by a criminal court but are not dealt with in that Act.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 190, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—
“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
92B In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (extraction of information from electronic devices: authorised persons in relation to all purposes within section 37), after the entry relating to section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 insert—
‘A person who is an enforcement officer for the purposes of Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.’”
This amendment would authorise enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.
Government amendment 190 is another technical amendment to ensure continuity and effectiveness of the enforcement power under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Bill provides the building blocks for us to set up the fair work agency, which involves transferring enforcement functions that are currently split between multiple bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. The GLAA office currently exercises its power across the UK under section 37 of the 2022 Act. Without this amendment, enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland would not have access to critical investigatory powers under that Act. Only officers enforcing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 in Northern Ireland would retain those powers, creating an unjustifiable enforcement gap.
Investigations increasingly rely on access to electronic data, such as payroll records and communication logs. Excluding fair work agency officers from these powers would severely hinder their ability to obtain critical information, leaving them ill-equipped to tackle non-compliance and labour exploitation effectively.
The amendment ensures that enforcement powers remain consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aligning with the policy aim of the fair work agency to deliver robust and uniform enforcement. Fair work agency officers would exercise the section 37 power in relation to labour market offences. That expands the scope of the power, as currently the power is exercised by GLAA officers only in connection with enforcement of the 2004 Act.
This amendment would mean that the power is used by fair work agency officers to enforce the broader range of legislation under their remit, which means that the power could be exercised in relation to any labour market offence, instead of just offences under the 2004 Act. That will prevent any disparity in enforcement capabilities that could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable workers and uphold compliance.
This amendment corrects a minor technical oversight during the drafting process, ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects operational needs. It aligns with the overarching policy intention to ensure that there is no reduction in enforcement capability as enforcement bodies transfer into the fair work agency, and it directly addresses concerns and strengthens the Bill’s overall effectiveness. In conclusion, this amendment is essential to prevent enforcement gaps, ensure parity across jurisdictions, and equip enforcement officers with the tools that they need to combat exploitation in the modern economy.
Greg Smith
As the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, Government amendment 190 would authorise enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.
As I understand it, the power conferred by section 37 of the 2022 Act may be exercised only for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime; helping to locate a missing person; or protecting a child or at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm. How often does the Minister envisage that that power would be needed when enforcing employment law?
It is a very important power in the cases that I have outlined—not least for the critical work of protecting children and at-risk adults from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm—but, I repeat, how often does the Minister envisage that it will be needed in employment law? What safeguards will be in place to prevent an inappropriate or intrusive use of the power? It seems an odd fit in this Bill.
Those matters are all rightly—I have double underlined that word—covered in other parts of legislation and enforced daily by the police and other agencies. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition salute everyone involved in the prevention of harm and the prosecution of its perpetrators, but I repeat that the power seems an odd fit with this Bill.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Government amendment 190 seeks to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 by extending the powers conferred by section 37 of that Act to enforcement officers for the purposes of part 5 of this Bill. Section 37 of the 2022 Act allows the authorities to extract information shared on electronic devices for the purposes, among other things, of criminal investigations. I have some familiarity with these issues from my time working with the police, security and intelligence agencies and other public bodies with investigatory responsibilities when I worked in the Home Office between 2010 and 2015. Then, we were confronted with the danger that changing technology meant that the ability of these important public agencies to access the communications data necessary for their work was diminishing. That was because the nature of the way we communicate was changing from conventional phone calls and written material to internet-based communication. That obviously included methods such as messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal but also messaging within other apps like Facebook or even within online gaming systems.
Sir Ashley Fox
The amendment would grant enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, the authority to exercise the powers outlined in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Specifically, it would enable those officers to extract information from electronic devices in certain circumstances. Of course, everyone now carries one of those electronic devices.
The amendment is designed to support enforcement officers in carrying out their duties, including the investigation and enforcement of employment laws, particularly in cases that may involve criminal activities, such as exploitation, trafficking or financial misconduct. The ability to access electronic devices and retrieve relevant data will aid in gathering evidence and conducting thorough investigations, especially when digital evidence is critical to uncovering illegal practices.
To clarify the scope of that power, section 37 of the 2022 Act limits the use of the power to specific purposes. The powers can be exercised for the following objectives: preventing crime, which could include investigating cases of worker exploitation, trafficking or other forms of criminal behaviour related to employment law; detecting criminal activity, such as fraudulent schemes or illegal practices by employers; investigating crimes, especially where there is a digital trail or evidence related to labour abuse, fraud or similar issues that could be crucial to the case; prosecuting crime and ensuring that the evidence gathered can be used in legal proceedings to hold perpetrators accountable; locating missing persons, which could be relevant in situations involving forced labour or human trafficking; and protecting vulnerable individuals, such as children or at-risk adults, from harm, including neglect or physical, mental or emotional abuse in the workplace.
Those strict conditions are in place to ensure that the powers are used appropriately and only when there is a legitimate and necessary reason to extract information from electronic devices. While that power can be extremely valuable in investigating serious crimes, it is important to consider how often such powers will be needed when enforcing employment law specifically. The nature of employment law enforcement does not always require the same level of investigation into criminal activities as, for example, police work or national security investigations. Thus, I would appreciate an insight from the Minister regarding the frequency with which the power is likely to be used in the enforcement of employment laws. Is the power expected to be a routine tool, or will it be reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is significant evidence suggesting the need for such an intrusive measure?
Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any inappropriate or intrusive use of the power. Given the sensitivity of extracting data from electronic devices, there is a need for strict guidelines and oversight to ensure that the power is not abused. How will the Government ensure that the power is used proportionately and responsibly? What measures will be put in place to prevent overreach and protect the privacy of individuals who are not involved in criminal activity? For example, will there be a requirement for judicial authorisation before enforcement officers can access private data? Will there be any independent oversight to review the use of these powers and prevent misuse?
I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the safeguards and controls that will be implemented to ensure that the power is not used excessively or for purposes outside its intended scope. Furthermore, what will the procedures be for ensuring accountability and transparency in the use of this power?
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater asked me the “how long is a piece of string?” question—that is, how often the powers will be used. The best thing I can do is to come back to both of them with how often they have been used in recent times because, of course, there is an existing power with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
I was asked various questions about the use of powers, oversight and so on. Clauses 78 and 79 set out the powers that officers have. As we have discussed, we expect that these things will be the culmination of an ongoing dialogue between a particular business and the fair work agency. When there is non-compliance, these powers can be used as a last resort. Clause 83 sets out some of the oversight provisions.
Nick Timothy
Government amendment 190 is about the powers in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which relate to the voluntary provision of a device for an enforcement officer to access. If there is not agreement, I am not sure what arises. The Minister just said that the proposal is about dealing with a situation whereby a negotiation between the fair work agency and the company has not led to a resolution. What happens if there is not agreement?
Justin Madders
As I said, if there is not agreement, the provisions in clauses 78, 79 and 83, which we debated last week, will come into play.
On the existing framework, the powers that we have set out are already in use. The Bill will make them available to all enforcement officers. They will be used only by people who have sufficient training and oversight within the organisation.
I was asked whether the code of practice will be updated. We are engaging with the Home Office on that. That is something that needs to be considered, given that the agency is being formed.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk was right to ask about proportionality. We do not see that there will be any change in how the system works on an operational basis as a result of these amendments. They really are about transposing the existing powers and safeguards into the Bill.
Amendment 190 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
Part 5 of the Bill lays the groundwork for the creation of the fair work agency. It involves abolishing the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, and transferring their functions to the Secretary of State.
Schedule 6 sets out consequential amendments that we are making to various Acts of Parliament as a result of these reforms. Part 1 of the schedule covers the consequential amendments to existing powers under relevant pieces of labour market legislation. Part 2 sets out the changes required to other Acts. The schedule is necessary to deliver a functioning and cohesive statute book and to deliver the policy intention of upgrading enforcement of workers’ rights.
Greg Smith
Through this morning’s debate on the 10 Government amendments to schedule 6, most of the points about the schedule have been well aired. As we consider whether it should fully stand part of the Bill, however, I genuinely believe that a number of questions posed—in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk and for Bridgwater—on the practicalities of the transfer of some of the powers have not been adequately addressed during the debate by the Minister.
We do not challenge or seek to undermine in any way, shape or form the intention of the schedule. I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to write to me on a couple of the points I made, and I accept the good faith in which that offer was made, but any transition involves some disruption. That is simply a fact of life, and I think that the Government would do well, given the good intent of what the schedule seeks to do, to reassure not just the Committee, but the whole House and the country at large, that that disruption will in fact be minimised and practical steps taken to make that the case.
Fundamentally, however, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand and accept the necessity of the schedule. We just think that some unanswered questions remain.
Steve Darling
I echo the shadow Minister, who sits to my right—in more ways than one. Definitely, further clarity from the Minister would be welcome.
Justin Madders
I understand what the Opposition Members are saying. They seek reassurance that there will be no disruption to the good work that goes on already, and clearly, that is our intent. We will keep a close eye on how this works when the Bill has passed and received Royal Assent. A lot of the operational questions that have been asked will emerge during that time. Whether the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire remains my shadow—either of us could of course be moved on at any point—it would be perfectly reasonable for us to keep the Opposition updated on operational decisions and how the fair work agency emerges. There will of course be further parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny as more detail emerges.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 7
Transitional and saving provision relating to Part 5
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 191, in schedule 7, page 146, line 19, after “by” insert “or in relation to”.
This amendment and amendment 192 ensure that things done in relation to existing enforcement officers, for example, before the coming into force of Part 5 of the Bill continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 192, 197 and 200.
Justin Madders
The schedule sets out transitional and savings provisions. It ensures a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions introduced by the Bill. That is of course important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional.
Government amendment 191 is a necessary technical provision to ensure that the transition of enforcement responsibilities under part 5 of the Bill is well ordered. By clarifying that actions taken not just “by” but “in relation” to enforcement officers will continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State, we are safeguarding a continuity in enforcement processes and ensuring no disruption to ongoing cases or decisions, which I am sure Members will be relieved to hear.
Government amendment 192 makes a consequential change to align with Government amendment 191, and Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes in schedule 7. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but they improve its clarity and accuracy. I hope that hon. Members will support what I imagine are uncontroversial amendments and support achieving the aim of ensuring continuity and cohesiveness as we move forward. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
Government amendments 191 and 192 ensure that things done “in relation to” existing enforcement officers—for example, before part 5 of the Bill comes into force—continue to have effect as if done “in relation to” the Secretary of State. I fully accept that Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes, which look as though they ensure legal continuity—that would be the case, based on the Minister’s opening remarks—and therefore seem sensible, given the policy direction.
I can conclude my comments on the amendments only by asking the usual question, which I have asked many times in Committee and fear I will ask a few more times during the debate over the remainder of today, Thursday and next Tuesday: should the amendments have been included in the Bill on its introduction? This is yet another example of why it is foolish to rush anything, particularly getting a Bill out in 100 days and its consideration in Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendments 191 and 192 are designed to ensure legal continuity for actions and decisions made regarding existing enforcement officers prior to the implementation of part 5 of the Bill. They stipulate that any actions or procedures carried out “in relation to” enforcement officers before the new provisions come into force, such as appointments, disciplinary actions or administrative functions, will continue to have the same legal effect as if they had been made “in relation to” the Secretary of State. That is important, because it prevents any disruption or confusion in the legal standing of prior actions, ensuring that they are not rendered ineffective by the changes introduced by the Bill. Essentially, the amendments provide a mechanism to ensure that the transition to the new legal framework does not invalidate or interfere with prior administrative or operational activities.
The rationale behind the amendments is straightforward: it is legal continuity. As enforcement officers are brought under a new regulatory framework, it is crucial that past actions related to their roles, such as those conducted before the Bill takes effect, are preserved and do not need to be revisited or re-executed under the new provisions. That ensures that there is no disruption in the functioning of enforcement operations and that any ongoing matters involving enforcement officers continue seamlessly under the authority of the Secretary of State. The amendments clarify that past decisions and procedures will be treated as if they were made under the authority of the new system, which will help to avoid any potential legal challenges or confusion.
Amendments 197 and 200 involve relatively minor drafting changes. Although the specifics of those changes may not substantially alter the substance of the Bill, they are important for clarity, consistency and precision in the text. These types of amendments typically address technical issues, such as language inconsistencies, ambiguities or minor adjustments to improve the readability and legal accuracy of the provisions. Although they do not represent major shifts in policy, such amendments are crucial in ensuring that the Bill’s provisions are clear, unambiguous and legally sound. Even small drafting changes play an important role in improving the overall functionality and effectiveness of the legislation.
Amendments 197 and 200 help to fine-tune the Bill’s language, ensuring that there are no interpretive uncertainties that could arise during its application. By addressing potential issues in the drafting, the amendments help to streamline the implementation process and reduce the risk of legal challenges or confusion in future interpretations of the law.
Taken together, the amendments—particularly amendments 191 and 192—help to ensure that there is no legal disruption when the provisions in part 5 of the Bill come into effect. That is an essential part of the legislative process, as it guarantees that previous actions remain valid and that transition to a new regulatory framework is smooth. In addition, the minor drafting changes provided by amendments 197 and 200 contribute to legal clarity, ensuring that the Bill’s language is precise and consistent, which will help to avoid any future complications in the application of the law.
Although these changes are reasonable and sensible, in the light of the Bill’s policy objectives, it is worth noting that they should ideally have been included at the time of the Bill’s introduction. The legal continuity ensured by amendments 191 and 192, as well as the technical refinements in amendments 197 and 200, could have been addressed earlier in the drafting process, to ensure that the Bill was as comprehensive and clear as possible from the outset. None the less, these changes at this stage still serve to enhance the legal robustness and practical application of the Bill, which will ultimately contribute to more effective enforcement and smoother implementation.
Justin Madders
I think both Opposition Members who spoke were supportive of the amendments, although they raised legitimate questions about why they were necessary. As the shadow Minister pointed out, we had an ambitious timetable—a manifesto commitment—to issue the Bill within 100 days. Even when Bills are many years in gestation, there are often amendments in Committee to clarify issues, and to ensure that the Bill does what it says on the tin and is legally coherent. These amendments are an example of that process. I am sure Members appreciate how important it is that the amendments are passed, so that we can ensure that everything carries on and is as effective as possible.
Amendment 191 agreed to.
Amendment made: 192, in schedule 7, page 146, line 24, after “by” insert “or in relation to”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 191.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 193, schedule 7, page 147, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) an officer acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996;”
The effect of this amendment is that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Bill would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards). The functions of such officers are being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill.
Justin Madders
Government amendment 193 makes transitional provision in relation to the transfer of functions of officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to the Secretary of State. That transitional provision will ensure that anything done by those officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of that Act, relating to enforcement of financial awards by employment tribunals, will continue to have effect. As such, the amendment allows for the continuity of enforcing employment rights once the Bill has passed.
Amendment 194 facilitates a minor drafting change as a consequence of Government amendment 195. Amendment 195 ensures that officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, acting under any enactment other than the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, are within the scope of schedule 7. That ensures that things done by them before commencement of the Bill continue to have effect after commencement. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that the effect of the amendments is solely to ensure that the legislation is clear and unambiguous and that any activity will continue on that basis.
Greg Smith
Government amendment 193 ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. The function of such officers is being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill. Amendments 194 and 195 are similar to some of the amendments in the previous group—I fully accept that these are minor drafting changes.
Overall, the changes introduced by this group look as though they ensure legal continuity so that the fair work agency can act as the enforcement authority. That seems sensible, given the policy direction behind the Employment Rights Bill that has been outlined by the Minister and the wider Government. However, I ask again for updates on ensuring the effectiveness of the enforcement of employment law during the period of transition, and about the processes that will be put in place to minimise disruption for businesses, which we have spoken about at length earlier, and to ensure effective enforcement. Again, it is hard to envisage why this set of amendments were not considered at first publication of the Bill; they seem entirely sensible, but it is a mystery why they were lacking the first time round.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 193 addresses the need for a seamless transition in the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. It specifically ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 to the Bill will apply to officers acting under part 2A of the 1996 Act, which governs the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. This is an important step as the enforcement of the tribunal awards will now fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as stipulated in the Bill. By making the provision, the amendment ensures that the functions previously handled by officers enforcing tribunal awards will continue smoothly during the transition, even as the legal authority for enforcement shifts.
The inclusion of the amendment is crucial for legal continuity. It guarantees that actions taken by officers acting under the 1996 Act will still have legal effect even as their functions are transferred to the Secretary of State and the fair work agency. The amendment essentially ensures that any ongoing enforcement activities related to employment tribunal awards remain valid, preventing legal confusion or disruption during the reorganisation. It also ensures that the change in responsibility from individual enforcement officers to the Secretary of State does not cause any delay or interruption in enforcement actions. This will help to maintain confidence in the process, both for workers seeking to enforce their tribunal awards and businesses affected by these decisions.
Justin Madders
Opposition Members raise the same point as before about why we have had to introduce this amendment now. I refer the shadow Minister to my previous comments on that matter; no doubt I may do so again.
Both Opposition Members have rightly raised the concern about ensuring continuity when the body is instigated. Clearly, what we would expect and hope is that the day-to-day operations of enforcement officers on the ground are not impinged or affected by the creation of the agency. The Bill and a number of amendments are about ensuring that their functions continue smoothly.
Amendment 193 agreed to.
Amendments made: 194, in schedule 7, page 147, leave out line 6.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 195.
Amendment 195, in schedule 7, page 147, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) an officer of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority acting for the purposes of any other enactment.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment and amendment 194 make a minor drafting change.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 196, in schedule 7, page 147, line 11, at end insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to the remaining provisions of this Schedule (and see also section 114, which confers power to make transitional or saving provision).”
This amendment makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that Schedule.
Justin Madders
Amendment 196 will ensure that there is a smooth transition in the frameworks. Amendment 198 is a transitional provision ensuring that anything done by a labour abuse prevention officer before the abolition of the GLAA continues to have effect as if done under the fair work agency. Amendment 199 is another transitional provision for warrants that have been granted under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, but not yet executed. It allows those warrants to have the same effect as before. It is a continuation of the amendments we have debated this morning, ensuring that enforcement officers have continuity when delivering their functions.
Greg Smith
Amendment 196 makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that schedule. Amendment 198 makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Amendment 199 makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act, which is being re-enacted for England, Wales and Scotland, with some changes, through clause 83. In particular, proposed new paragraph 7C of schedule 7 of the Bill provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 —in particular the additional requirements in part 3 of new schedule 1—are disapplied.
On the face of it, these are sensible amendments to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. A number of Government amendments of this nature have been considered by the Committee. This set of amendments therefore leaves me slightly nervous, not about the intention, but about whether anything else has been missed. I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on that point.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 196 seeks to clarify the applicability of general and specific provisions and the relationship between the general provision outlined in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 and any more specific provision within that schedule. The amendment ensures that, in the event of a conflict or overlap between general and specific provisions, the more detailed or specific provisions will take precedence. This is an important measure for maintaining legal clarity and consistency in the application of the Bill. By prioritising specific provisions where applicable, the amendment prevents any unintended gaps or inconsistencies in the legal framework, ensuring that enforcement activities and related actions are governed by the most precise and relevant rules.
Amendment 198 introduces a transitional provision designed to ensure that actions taken by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers prior to the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority will continue to be recognised as valid. Specifically, it ensures that any activities, decisions or functions performed by those officers before the GLAA’s dissolution will have the same legal effect as if they had been carried out by or in relation to enforcement officers who have been granted equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is critical because it provides a seamless transition as enforcement responsibilities are transferred, making certain that actions taken by the GLAA’s officers before the abolition of the agency are not rendered void or ineffective.
The amendment is vital for legal continuity. It guarantees that there will be no disruption in enforcement activities during the transition period. Officers who previously worked under the authority of the GLAA, particularly those involved in tackling labour abuse, will carry out their roles without interruption, as their actions will be treated as if undertaken by enforcement officers with the equivalent legal powers. The measure strengthens the overall framework for worker protection and labour abuse prevention, ensuring that the enforcement of relevant laws continues smoothly as the responsibility shifts to new authorities.
Amendment 199 focuses on the transitional provision for warrants issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act, which is being re-enacted in a revised form as clause 83 of the Bill. The amendment introduces new paragraph 7C, which addresses the scenario where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed at the time of the change. In such cases, the warrant will be treated as if it were issued under the new provisions in clause 83, but with a critical distinction. Any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied under section 17, such as the additional requirements in part three of new schedule 1, will be disapplied.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any ongoing enforcement actions involving warrants issued under the old regime are not hindered or invalidated by the transition to the new framework. By allowing the warrants to be treated as though they were issued under the new clause, the amendment facilitates a smoother enforcement process and reduces the risk of legal challenges or procedural delays. This is an important safeguard for the enforcement of labour laws and ensures that the power to execute warrants continues without disruption, regardless of the legislative changes.
Justin Madders
I sense that the Opposition Members are supportive of the amendments. The shadow Minister challenged me on whether there will be any more minor or consequential amendments. I cannot give him an absolute guarantee on that; it is always an iterative process when Bills are issued; we take notice of what stakeholders say in their feedback, as well as other Government Departments. Of course, it is important that we get these things done before the Bill becomes law, by which time it is too late. I hope the Committee is reassured that there is an ongoing process to ensure that there is certainty and coherence in the legislation as we prepare for Report.
Amendment 196 agreed to.
Amendments made: 197, in schedule 7, page 147, line 25, after “repeal” insert “of that provision”.
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
Amendment 198, in schedule 7, page 147, line 27, at end insert—
“Labour abuse prevention officers
7A (1) Anything which—
(a) was done by or in relation to a labour abuse prevention officer in, or in connection with, the exercise of a function conferred on the officer by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”), and
(b) is in effect immediately before the day on which paragraph 67 of Schedule 6 comes into force (“the relevant day”),
has effect, on and after that day, as if done by or in relation to a relevant enforcement officer.
(2) Anything which—
(a) relates to a function conferred on a labour abuse prevention officer by virtue of section 114B of PACE, and
(b) immediately before the relevant day, is in the process of being done by or in relation to such an officer,
may be continued, on and after that day, by or in relation to a relevant enforcement officer.
(3) In this paragraph—
“labour abuse prevention officer” has the meaning given by section 114B of PACE (as that section had effect immediately before the relevant day);
“relevant enforcement officer” , in relation to a function conferred by virtue of section 114B of PACE, means an enforcement officer on whom that function is conferred by virtue of that section (as it has effect on and after the relevant day).”
This amendment makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by virtue of section 114B of that Act.
Amendment 199, in schedule 7, page 147, line 27, at end insert—
“Warrants
7B (1) This paragraph applies to an application for a warrant under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) which—
(a) is made in England and Wales or Scotland before the day on which paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 comes into force, and
(b) is not determined or withdrawn before that day.
(2) The application is to be treated, on and after that day, as an application made by an enforcement officer for a warrant under section 83 of this Act.
7C (1) This paragraph applies to a warrant under section 17 of the 2004 Act which—
(a) is issued under that section before the day on which paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 comes into force, and
(b) is not executed before that day.
(2) The warrant is to be treated for the purposes of section 83 of this Act as if it had been issued under that section.
(3) That section applies in relation to the warrant as if—
(a) in subsection (4)(a) , after “bring” there were inserted “any persons or”, and
(b) after subsection (4) there were inserted—
“(4A)On leaving any premises which an enforcement officer is authorised to enter by a warrant under this section, the officer must, if the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent, leave the premises as effectively secured against trespassers as the officer found them.”
(4) Section (Warrants) and Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision) do not apply in relation to the warrant.”
This amendment makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which is being re-enacted for England and Wales and Scotland (with some changes) as clause 83. In particular, new paragraph 7C provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill which would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 (in particular, the additional requirements in Part 3 of NS1) are disapplied.
Amendment 200, in schedule 7, page 147, line 40, leave out “that person” and insert “the enforcing authority”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 201, in schedule 7, page 148, line 16, at end insert—
“8A “(1) This paragraph applies to information which—
(a) was obtained in the course of—
(i) exercising the powers conferred by section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”), or
(ii) exercising powers by virtue of section 26(1) of the Immigration Act 2016, and
(b) immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6, is held by an officer acting for the purposes of the 1973 Act.
(2) On the coming into force of that paragraph, information to which this paragraph applies vests in the Secretary of State.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 202.
Justin Madders
Existing enforcement bodies will have obtained information prior to the creation of the fair work agency. This information may be needed by the Secretary of State once part 5 of the Bill comes into force. Schedule 7 therefore provides for transitional and saving provisions to enable that. Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information obtained by officers acting under existing legislation prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill, and which is held by the Secretary of State, can be used or disclosed in accordance with clause 98.
Greg Smith
Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information that was obtained before the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98. These are sensible amendments on the face of it, to make sure nothing falls through the cracks as the enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency—very similar to the previous set of amendments that we have just considered. It is part of a continuing theme of amendments of this nature that we as a Committee are being asked to consider.
I heard the Minister’s response to the previous debate about this being an iterative process and about the need to listen and best understand concerns or practical points raised by those being asked to prepare for and ultimately do this work. It remains a legitimate point of nervousness that there will be more such cracks that need repairing as part of this Bill. Accepting the Minister’s good faith in his explanation on the previous set of amendments, I put on record that we remain a little nervous that more cracks will need that legislative repair as the Bill goes forward.
We urge the Government to get on at pace with the conversations necessary to ensure that they have best understood where any further edits may be required—preferably before Report stage in the House of Commons, but if it does have to bleed into the time when the Bill goes to the other place, so be it. However, I think it would a far more satisfactory position if we were able to consider at our end of the building any further amendments that may be required before we ask their lordships to consider the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendments 201 and 202 are designed to address a key aspect of the transition process under the Bill. Specifically, they are designed such that any information that was obtained prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers operating under existing legislation and is currently held by the Secretary of State, can still be used or disclosed in accordance with the provisions outlined in clause 98 of the Bill.
That is crucial because, as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency, there needs to be continuity in how information is handled. By allowing the Secretary of State to continue using and disclosing this information under the new framework, the amendments ensure that no critical data or intelligence gathered under the previous system is lost or becomes unusable during the transition.
This provision is particularly important for maintaining continuity in enforcement activities. The information collected by officers acting under earlier laws may be vital for ongoing investigations or enforcement actions. For instance, data about businesses that are non-compliant with labour laws, or evidence of potential worker exploitation, could be crucial for future legal proceedings or further investigations.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been better and more efficient for the Bill to come before the House in a more final version, which may have put at ease many of us with concerns about the cracks that may still exist?
Sir Ashley Fox
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The reason that the Bill is in such poor condition is that the Labour party was under a political obligation to its trade union friends to bring it forward within 100 days. Had it waited a month or two, we would not have needed such detailed scrutiny and so many Government amendments. Occasionally one hears a tut or a groan from Government Members as we try to scrutinise the Bill, but really it is entirely the Government’s fault for bringing forward such a poorly drafted piece of legislation.
As I was saying, without amendments 201 and 202, confusion or legal obstacles could prevent the use of such information, creating gaps in the enforcement process. By making it clear that the Secretary of State has the authority to use and disclose such information under clause 98, the amendments ensure that the enforcement process remains uninterrupted, effective and legally coherent.
Overall, the amendments are sensible and necessary to guarantee that nothing falls through the cracks as the responsibilities for enforcing labour laws transition from existing structures to the fair work agency. As the Bill centralises enforcement functions, it is essential that any information collected under the old system remains accessible and usable by the new agency. That is particularly important given the potential impact on ongoing investigations, compliance checks and prosecutions. By ensuring that previously collected information can still be used effectively, the amendments will help to prevent disruptions or delays in enforcement, safeguarding both workers and businesses.
It is worth noting that the transition to a new enforcement structure can often be fraught with challenges. The Bill will alter not only the bodies responsible for enforcement, but the way in which information and data are managed. The amendments will help address the practical aspects of the transition, ensuring that the fair work agency has the resources and information it needs to continue performing its duties effectively. In doing so, they will create a smoother handover of powers and responsibilities from the previous enforcement regime to the new framework.
Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have debated many Government amendments of a similar nature. Amendments 201 and 202 are necessary to fine-tune the Bill and ensure that all aspects of the transition are fully addressed, but the sheer volume of amendments at this stage leaves me with some concern, as it suggests that the Bill may not have fully accounted for all the transitional issues at the outset, and there may still be elements that have not been addressed. Given the complexity of centralising such a significant portion of the enforcement process, it is natural to be cautious about whether any areas may have been overlooked. While these amendments are clearly intended to provide clarity and ensure continuity, the volume of amendments suggests that there may still be unanswered questions or unforeseen gaps in the transition process, which leaves me somewhat nervous that issues may have been missed in the initial drafting of the Bill. We have certainly seen that happen often enough thus far. It is crucial that all challenges or concerns relating to the transfer of enforcement powers are adequately addressed before the Bill passes. As such, I believe it is important to consider whether there are any outstanding issues that might affect the long-term success of the transition.
Given the number of amendments and the complexity of the transition, I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there is a comprehensive understanding of the full scope of the changes and that no essential elements have been left unaddressed. Are the Government confident that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure a smooth and effective transition? In particular, can the Minister assure us that the fair work agency will be fully equipped to handle its new responsibilities, including that it will be able to utilise critical information from the prior enforcement system without any disruptions? I would also like to hear about the monitoring processes that will be in place to oversee the transition period and ensure that any unforeseen issues are quickly addressed, which is vital for maintaining business confidence and worker protections throughout the period of change.
While the amendments are crucial for ensuring that enforcement activities continue smoothly during the transition, they should ideally have been made earlier in the process to avoid the need for these later clarifications. Having a more comprehensive and cohesive framework in place at the outset would have reduced uncertainty and provided greater assurance to all parties involved. Never-theless, the amendments go a long way to addressing the issues that could arise during the handover of enforcement responsibilities, and ensuring that the transition to the fair work agency will be as smooth and effective as possible.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister asked whether it is our intention to have the Bill shipshape before we send it to the other place. That is absolutely our intention, and the amendments that have been debated today are part of that.
The criticism from the hon. Member for Bridgwater about the number of Government amendments has been noted. It was important that we kept to our manifesto commitment to issue the Bill within 100 days, but I have to say that when I was an Opposition Member I do not think I ever sat on a Bill Committee where the Government did not introduce their own amendments. If he is able to come up with some examples, I would be delighted to hear from him. I am afraid he will probably have to sit on a few more Bill Committees, and he will see that that is perfectly normal in the way these things work. After a Bill is published, it has more eyes on it; other stakeholders, Government Departments and agencies get to see it, and they offer views and feedback. It is right that we take account of those views and make what are often technical and minor amendments to make sure that the Bill has the intended legal effect.
The hon. Member asked whether any other essential elements have been omitted. The amendments we are debating are about ensuring that the fair work agency is functioning and effective from Royal Assent. I cannot give him a guarantee that there will not be other things that come out, but we have been doing a considerable amount of work, as can be seen by the number of amendments, to make sure that the Bill will be fully operational and that there will be no effect on the day-to-day running of the work of the enforcement officers and the creation of the fair work agency.
Amendment 201 agreed to.
Amendment made: 202, in schedule 7, page 148, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 20 and insert “—
(a) any information which the Secretary of State obtains by virtue of paragraph 8A;
(b) any information which, immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 20 of Schedule 6, the Secretary of State holds by virtue of section 15(2) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;
(c) any information which, immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 21 of that Schedule, the Secretary of State holds by virtue of section 16(2) of that Act;
(d) any information which the Secretary of State obtains by virtue of a property transfer scheme under paragraph 2 of this Schedule.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment and Amendment 201 would provide that information which was obtained before the coming into force of Part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 7, page 148, line 20, at end insert—
“9A The repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (inspection) by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 does not prevent the use in evidence against a person, in criminal proceedings taking place on or after the day on which that repeal comes into force, of a statement made before that day by the person in compliance with a requirement under that section (subject to subsection (2B) of that section).”
Section 9(3) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement made under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. This amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.
Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions ensuring a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions. That is important, as Members have debated at length already. Amendment 203 addresses the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the evidentiary treatment of statements obtained under that provision. The amendment will ensure that such statements can continue to be used in criminal proceedings post repeal, subject to existing protections against self-incrimination under section 9(2B). This is a targeted, proportionate and necessary amendment, which safeguards the integrity of enforcement proceedings during a period of legislative transition. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister outlined, Government amendment 203 relates to section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, which provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. The amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.
Similar to the previous two groups of amendments we have considered, this is a sensible amendment to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. It is all part of a continuing theme, and the points that I made in the previous debate apply as much to amendment 203 as they did to the previous amendments.
I understand what the Minister said about every Bill being subject, during its passage, to a number of technical amendments by Governments of all different political compositions. I gently it put back to him that this Bill seems to have had an extremely high number of technical Government amendments, and that all tracks back to the unnecessary speed with which it was presented to Parliament.
Government amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015—
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendment 203 seeks to address an important transitional issue arising from the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 by the Bill. Section 9 currently stipulates that a statement made by an individual in compliance with a requirement to provide information under that section may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against them. The amendment ensures that any statements made under the provisions of section 9 prior to its repeal can still be used in criminal proceedings that occur after the repeal takes effect.
The amendment is a necessary adjustment to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It will ensure that evidence obtained while section 9 was in effect remains valid and admissible in criminal cases, even after the section’s formal removal from the statute. Without the amendment, there could be ambiguity and potential legal challenges regarding the admissibility of evidence, which could undermine ongoing enforcement efforts and hinder the administration of justice. By making this provision, the Government ensure that no gaps are created in the legal framework, preserving continuity and clarity in the application of the law.
As we transition enforcement functions to the fair work agency, such amendments are vital to ensure the process is as seamless as possible. The purpose of amendment 203, and others like it, is to safeguard that critical aspects of the previous legal framework remain intact, even as the functions are reassigned or modified under the Bill. The changeover to the fair work agency is a significant shift, and these amendments are an important step in maintaining enforcement consistency. Given the complexity of transferring powers and responsibilities between agencies, the amendments ensure that no legal actions or evidence will fall through the cracks during the transition. They will ensure that enforcement remains robust, and that any evidence gathered or actions taken before the changeover still hold legal weight under the new system.
Although the adjustments are sensible and necessary, the number of Government amendments made in Committee leaves me with some concern about whether every possible issue has been addressed. The amendments we have seen so far have been well intentioned and critical for ensuring legal continuity, but I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that nothing has been overlooked in this important process.
As we know, the task of realigning enforcement powers can be complex, and with numerous provisions being amended or repealed, the risk of something slipping through the cracks is a valid concern. Opposition Members are asking for clarity that even with these detailed and helpful amendments, the transition to the fair work agency will not inadvertently create gaps or unintended consequences. I urge the Minister to provide additional assurances that all potential legal or procedural pitfalls have been anticipated, and that the Government have taken every necessary step to guarantee that the work of enforcement officers and the legal process will continue without interruption. Although the amendments are certainly a step in the right direction, we must remain vigilant to ensure that the full scope of the transition is properly managed and that the system continues to protect the rights of workers effectively.
Justin Madders
I believe I have already addressed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater on several occasions this morning, although I take his points.
Amendment 203 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 7, page 148, line 28, at end insert—
“10A (1) Where—
(a) a slavery and trafficking prevention order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and
(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 53 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,
that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.
(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 54 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 20(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking prevention order made on an application under section 15 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking prevention order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.
10B (1) Where—
(a) a slavery and trafficking risk order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 26 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and
(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 56 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,
that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.
(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 57 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 27(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking risk order made on an application under section 23 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking risk order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.”
This amendment contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended.
The amendment is essential to ensure the seamless and effective operation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 during the transition of functions from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the Secretary of State. At its core, it is about continuity and clarity. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders are critical tools in the fight against modern slavery. They impose important requirements on individuals for the purpose of protecting people from being victims of modern slavery, including requirements to notify enforcement authorities, and those obligations must remain enforceable.
Without the amendment, there is a clear risk that existing legal obligations could become unclear, creating loopholes for offenders to exploit. The amendment ensures that notification requirements transfer seamlessly to the Secretary of State, safeguarding our ability to hold individuals accountable and protect victims of exploitation. It also ensures that where an application is made to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking order, the courts can treat orders originally made by the GLAA as if they had been made by the Secretary of State. That provides legal certainty for courts, enforcement agencies and affected individuals alike.
This is a technical but vital amendment that protects the integrity of the legal framework and ensures continuity.
Greg Smith
Apologies for my premature comments on amendment 204, Mr Mundell; I accidently believed it had been grouped with the previous amendment.
Amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of how the creation of the fair work agency will allow for more effective identification and prevention of modern slavery offences. As we debate the amendment, it is important that we are fully appraised of the detail and the assessment that the Minister, the wider Department for Business and Trade and the Government have made. This is an important matter that all Committee members, and Members of the wider House of Commons, take incredibly seriously, and I urge the Minister to do so.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
New clause 3—Age verification policy—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business, and
(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of premises at which the person carries on the tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises (‘the business premises’) from which—
(a) tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products are, in pursuance of a sale, despatched for delivery to different premises, and
(b) no other tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business is carried on from the business premises.
(3) Before the specified date, an ‘age verification policy’ is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, a vaping product or a nicotine product on the premises (the ‘customer’) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, vaping product or nicotine product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(4) After the specified date, an ‘age verification policy’—
(a) in relation to a tobacco business or herbal smoking product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers on the premises (the ‘customer’) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers that the customer may have been born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy);
(b) in relation to a vaping product business or nicotine product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product, or a nicotine product, on the premises (the ‘customer’) if it appears to the person selling the product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(5) In relation to times before the end of 2033, the reference in subsection (4)(a) to the customer being born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy) has effect as a reference to the customer being under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).
(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (3) or (4)(b).
(7) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—
(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age,
(b) documents that may be shown to the person selling a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product as evidence of a customer’s age,
(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product,
(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed in the premises,
(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.
(8) A person who carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business must have regard to guidance published under subsection (7) when operating an age verification policy.
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(10) Regulations under subsection (6) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(11) In this section—‘the appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,
‘herbal smoking product business’ means a business involving the sale of herbal smoking products by retail,
‘nicotine product business’ means a business involving the sale of nicotine products by retail,
‘the specified date’ is 1 January 2027,
‘tobacco business’ means a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail,
‘tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business’ means a business which involves any one or more of the following—
(a) a tobacco business,
(b) a herbal smoking product business, or
(c) a vaping product business,
‘vaping product business’ means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail.”
This new clause introduces a requirement on businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping/ nicotine products, or cigarette papers. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland to be amended by the Bill.
Amendment 68, in clause 50, page 25, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 4A (Sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18) insert—
(a) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to a recorded police warning.’”
This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to the sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.
Amendment 69, in clause 50, page 26, line 26, at end insert—
“(ba) in subsection (7), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’
(bb) after subsection (7) insert—
‘ (7A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”
This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to a failure to operate an age verification policy in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 2 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.
Clause 50 stand part.
Clause 68 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Before we were rudely disturbed by the weekend—I hope that all Members had a good one—we were coming to the conclusion of the debate on this grouping. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to discussions last week; I will continue to respond to the outstanding points raised in the previous sitting.
On the Windsor framework, we are proud to say that the Bill is UK-wide and has been developed in partnership, in full, with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive. This Government, and I hope this House, intend the smoke-free generation policy to apply to all four nations.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I have a quick question for the Minister about some of his answers last week about the clause. He said that tobacco products would include bongs, and was quite passionate about that. But clause 48, which is meant to be read in relation to clause 1, defines “tobacco product” as something that contains tobacco. I have seen bongs made of glass, ceramics and various other things, but I have never seen one that contains tobacco. It is certainly easy to make one that does not contain tobacco. I am therefore interested in why the Minister believes that the Bill equates bongs and tobacco products.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that. We will come on to those issues in more detail when we eventually reach those clauses, which given the rate of progress so far may be in the early hours of tomorrow morning, if Members decide so. The only reason why such paraphernalia is on display and legally sold is to consume tobacco, but we will get more information on that for her when we get to clause 45, which covers that issue.
I was talking about the Windsor framework. We believe that this policy is in accordance with our international obligations. In terms of what products are in scope, the Bill captures all tobacco products, including shisha, cigars and heated tobacco. That is because all tobacco products are harmful. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption. For example, tobacco smoke from cigars leads to the same types of disease as the smoke from cigarettes. In England alone, around five times as many people smoke other tobacco products, such as cigars, as did a decade ago, and children are a part of that increase. Shisha, to which the hon. Member for Windsor referred, also causes the same diseases as cigarettes, including cancer, respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases. The volume of smoke produced in the average 45-minute shisha session is estimated to be the same as around 25 cigarettes’-worth of tar, 11 cigarettes’-worth of carbon monoxide and two cigarettes’-worth of nicotine.
Finally, there is clear evidence about the toxicity of heated tobacco. The aerosol generated by heated tobacco also contains carcinogens, and there will be some risk to the health of anyone using those products. The crucial point is that, unlike with vapes, there is no evidence that heated tobacco supports smoking cessation. We must ensure that the Bill is future-proofed to include new or novel products, such as heated tobacco, to protect the public from the harms of tobacco use.
Although cigarettes are the most used form of tobacco, we do not want to create loopholes in the Bill so that the tobacco industry can pivot and continue addicting people to tobacco. As I said previously, the issue is about saying, “The market share you’ve got now is it. We are stopping the conveyor belt.” As we know, if we block one road, the tobacco industry finds another route through. We are making sure that the Bill is as watertight and future-proof as possible so that the tobacco industry can no longer continue to trade with another product that harms and addicts future generations.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to look specifically at clause 1(3), which relates to identity documents. In the previous sitting, the Minister said that he would have powers to change the list of identity documents; I think he was referring to clause 46. But at the moment the definition of identity documents is very tight; only the six listed are permitted. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned veterans cards, and this would be an ample opportunity to include those, as was the intention, because the definition is very strict—people will be able to use only the listed documents.
A further question that has been raised is that the list rules out digital forms of identification, as those listed are physical. I want to understand how retailers can best enforce the measures in practice.
Andrew Gwynne
I do not want to go over the arguments that I have already put to the Committee in an earlier sitting, but there is an ability to use other forms of identification, as I set out. We will be working with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get in place procedures that retailers are confident with. They will be able to ask for veterans cards, for example.
Andrew Gwynne
Can the hon. Lady let me finish answering the point she put to me? In fact, I have now forgotten the point she put to me—[Laughter.]
Sarah Bool
I was talking from a legal perspective. Clause 1(3) is about what “identity document” means, which obviously means that those listed are the six that people are allowed to use. I take the point that later the Minister could introduce regulations to allow for veterans cards, but legally a retailer’s defence would have to be that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document, which means:
“(a) a passport,
(b) a UK driving licence,
(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,
(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or
(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.
The clause is very specific. Whatever the intention, the retailer would not technically be able to use having been shown a veterans card as a defence. Hence I am asking whether we should consider the issue at this point, rather than relying on the regulations mentioned in clause 46.
Andrew Gwynne
I stand by what I have already said. The intention is to work with the retail industry during the long lead-in time to get the mechanisms in place that allow them to adequately enforce the measures in the Bill. We do not want to get this wrong. I politely say to the hon. Lady, however, that in the first instance it is highly unlikely that a veteran born before 1 January 2009 will seek to purchase cigarettes or other tobacco products and be queried about their age. I will take on board what has been said and, if what I said earlier is incorrect, we can perhaps come back to the issue.
I want to come back to tobacco products because the point is crucial. We want to ensure that the tobacco industry has that conveyor belt cut-off. It is therefore rational for all the products that I have mentioned to be included in the smoke-free generation legislation. That will prevent anyone from taking up use of the products in the first place.
As I stated in my opening speech, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Windsor for bringing the discussion before the Committee, but while I appreciate his intention, it is not something the Government support. In relation to the amendments, I say to the Committee that the Government do not believe it is appropriate to establish a more lenient penalty regime for the offences, or to introduce a mandatory age-verification policy.
The clause seeks to change the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that no one born on or after 1 January 2009 will legally be sold those products. The Bill will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, and putting us on track towards a smoke-free UK. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. May I ask a procedural question? I heard some Members shout, “Aye”, and some Members shout, “No”. In the previous session we recorded what Members said, but we have not done so this time. Can I inquire as to what the reason for that is? Last time there was a vote that was then recorded for Hansard, but that has not happened this time.
The Chair
That is because a Division was not called. I made the decision that the Ayes had it in this particular case and that the Noes did not. If a Member wished to challenge that at the time and call a Division, they were free to do so. They did not—
The Chair
They would just indicate that they wished for a Division—keep shouting, in effect.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Dowd. I would like the chance to put my No on record, so I would appreciate a Division.
The Chair
Regrettably, we have moved on.
Clause 2
Purchase of tobacco etc on behalf of others
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 59.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or provides for a discretionary caution.”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 56, 57, and 58, prevents penalties under sections 1 and 2 beyond level 3 for a first offence and provides for a discretionary caution.
Amendment 75, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 76, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 73, 74, and 75, prevents penalties for a first offence under Sections 68 and 69 being beyond level 3 and provides for a cautionary warning.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 58 and 59 seek to amend clause 2. Will we get the chance to debate clause 2 later, Mr Dowd?
Dr Johnson
Amendments 58 and 59 go back to the principle of proportionality. I know the Minister gave his views on that last week, so I will not go on at length. But there is a difference between the individual shop assistant who may make an intentional error, and a shop that continues to repeatedly and recklessly sell to children or people who are too young to buy an age-restricted product. That is the principle of the amendments—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Can we be clear? If Members want to speak in the debate they should bob, just like in the Chamber. If you wish to intervene, Ms Jarvis—I assume you do, but I do not know—you could bring your request for the intervention to the person who is speaking.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Mr Dowd, I was just going to ask the shadow Minister to speak up because I cannot hear her at all.
Dr Johnson
My apologies. I was explaining the principle behind Opposition amendments 58 and 59, which are in my name. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Eastleigh was present on Thursday afternoon. Clause 2 refers to a “person” but does not specify who that person is, and there is as yet no guidance. The Minister said that the person could be the shopkeeper, the shop worker, the chief executive officer or whoever trading standards decided was the right person.
The fines to deter or punish illegal behaviour would necessarily need to be significantly larger for a large corporation than for a young chap of 19 working a few hours in the corner shop on a Saturday afternoon, for whom some fines would be quite punitive. The amendments allow for first offences to be treated leniently, in comparison with repeat offences, and their aim is to encourage the Government to think more carefully about guidance. When the previous Bill was introduced last Easter by the Conservative Government, with very similar wording in many cases, that Government produced guidance on how those charges would be applied. I am trying to encourage the Government to do the same thing. That is the purpose of the amendments.
I will endeavour to speak a bit louder. I do not know whether the hearing loop is working—
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion to the Committee. As we have already argued, the amendments would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of purchasing tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone under age—commonly known as proxy purchasing. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the amendments would create an exception to the maximum penalty that a person could face for committing that offence, if it was the person’s first offence. The amendments would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable, on summary conviction,
“to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”,
which is £1,000, or liable instead to a discretionary caution in England and Wales or to a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is one level lower than the fine for which someone who committed that offence would be liable under the current legislation in England and Wales—level 4, which is £2,500. It is two levels lower than in Northern Ireland, where the fine would be at level 5, which is £5,000.
The amendments would have a similar effect on first-time offences as amendments that we have already discussed. If the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself as the rationale for asking the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment remains the same as that for amendments that we have already covered.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 75 and 76 have the same principle behind them, so I will not repeat myself. They relate to clause 69; as hon. Members will recall, clause 69 amends Northern Ireland legislation that is similar to the legislation in clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We are considering amendment 59 to clause 2, which was debated with amendment 58 to clause 2. Dr Johnson, have you decided whether you want to press amendment 59 to a Division?
Dr Johnson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Johnson
On a point of order, Mr Dowd, I just wanted to understand. In this morning’s groupings, which were sent by the Clerks, it appeared that not only amendments 58, 59, 75 and 76, but amendments 19 to 21 and 34 to 37 were to be debated before clause 2 stand part. Why were those latter amendments not called?
The Chair
As I indicated, the point had already been debated, so it was my decision that we would move on.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
These clauses make it an offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for someone over the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers for someone born on or after 1 January 2009. That is called proxy purchasing. Clause 2 replaces the current offence under the Children and Families Act 2014 of someone aged 18 or over buying or attempting to buy tobacco products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone who is under 18 in England and Wales.
Clause 69 amends the offence of proxy purchasing in Northern Ireland to align to the change in the age of sale. That applies to tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister said that this measure was to prevent people from buying cigarettes, cigarette papers or tobacco products for people under the age of 18. Obviously, when the Bill is first passed, that will be true, but with every progressive year, it will prevent buying for people aged 19, 20, 21 and 22. Why has the Minister not made a differential in law to ensure that, once the Bill is in place, there is a separate and more serious offence of buying tobacco products for someone under 18, however far in the future, and a separate offence of buying them for an adult who is ineligible to have them?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The Bill ensures that no one over the age of 18 is legally able to purchase tobacco products on behalf of someone under the legal age of sale, and there is a differential over time there. The age of 18 was chosen as it avoids criminalising children. This measure applies to all adults, and it does not allow for any ambiguity in law in the future. For example, it captures a situation in which someone over the age of 18, but under the legal age of sale for tobacco, attempts to buy products for a child. This action would be restricted, and the liability would not only be on the person selling the tobacco product, but also on the adult attempting to buy that product for the child.
These clauses align proxy purchasing offences with the new age of sale restriction for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They provide a defence if a person charged with this offence can prove they had no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009 or they can prove that they had no reason to believe that the other person intended to use the cigarette papers for smoking, which is in line with existing defences. These clauses are essential to ensure that there are no loopholes in the age of sale legislation, and they build on what works in the current age of sale legislation. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clause 2 makes it an offence for a person aged 18 or over to make a proxy purchase of tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers for a person born on or after 1 January 2009. It essentially stops an older person going in and buying those products for a younger person, which we are aware has been happening for many years with both tobacco and alcohol. If found guilty, the person committing the offence faces a level 4 fine on the standard scale, which hon. Members will recall is £2,500.
The clause replaces the current offence under section 91 of the Children and Families Act of someone aged over 18 buying or attempting to buy tobacco products or cigarette papers on behalf of someone aged under 18 in England and Wales. In many ways, that seems a sensible consequence to clause 1. If we want it to be illegal for people born after a set date to have tobacco, it makes sense to ensure that people cannot buy it for them.
However, I have some questions, particularly in relation to cigarette papers. I did not particularly talk about cigarette papers in our discussion of clause 1 because they are more rightly talked about in relation to clause 2, which treats cigarette papers differently, in so far as it makes them illegal unless a person can prove that they are using them for something else. I looked into what that something else might be. I naively thought that cigarette papers were essentially just bits of paper of a particular thinness that could be rolled up and stuck together with a little gum arabic once somebody had rolled whatever they wanted to roll inside them; in fact, that turns out not to be the case because of the law.
The papers contain ethylene-vinyl acetate, which makes them more fire-resistant. The sad situation is that every year people smoke in bed or in their armchair, fall asleep and cause themselves burns, and sometimes even cause death or house fires. The ethylene-vinyl acetate—a sort of plastic—added to cigarette papers helps them to self-extinguish and reduces the risk of fires; we know that some particularly dreadful fires, such as the Kings Cross fire, are believed to have been caused by loose cigarettes.
The cigarette papers are essentially made from plant fibre, such as bamboo flax and rice, but they can be flavoured and coloured. In the evidence given to the Committee last Tuesday, we heard about the tobacco industry’s aim of ensuring that younger people are enticed by colours and flavours. A quick look at Amazon—other sellers are, of course, available—reveals that people can buy cigarette papers in a whole range of bright colours. People can also buy cigarette papers with pictures of cherries, apricots, bubbles and all sorts of things on them. I thought it was interesting that that has not been covered in relation to cigarette papers. Why give an exemption allowing them to continue to be sold when the reality is that they will continue to be used for rolling either illegal tobacco or other forms of illegal drug?
Gregory Stafford
Is my hon. Friend saying that cigarette papers have a specific definition in law and therefore that the papers she talks about, which have chemicals to make them fire-resistant and so on, will be banned, or is she saying that the clause will ban anything that could be used as a cigarette paper within the law? If she does not know the answer, perhaps the Minister can pick that up when he responds.
Dr Johnson
Clause 48, which we obviously have not come on to yet, gives the interpretation of part 1 and all the definitions. The definition of cigarette papers in the Bill includes
“anything…to be used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.
Different chemicals are put in, believe it or not, to make the ash whiter—people are concerned, when they have burnt their cigarette, with the colour of the ash that has fallen from it, which seems remarkable to me. Calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate and titanium oxide can be added to affect the colour of not just the paper, but the ash produced. Seignette salts—sodium potassium tartrate and sodium citrate—are also added to make it burn faster, so that people go through cigarettes slightly more quickly. Then there is the glue of the acacia gum.
As far as I can tell, it is impossible to find out what is in the cigarette papers that one might wish to purchase; if one looks online, it is very hard to work out what is in them. I have seen medical reports of people allergic to the ingredients having: cheilitis, or inflammation of the lips; circumoral—around the mouth—inflammation; and finger dermatitis. If one is selling a ham sandwich, it is important to include the ingredients so that people know what it is in it, but it seems that for cigarette papers that is not the case and I am not entirely sure why. It is also the case that some commercially available papers contain copper, chromium and vanadium. As they burn, the pigments can lead to very high levels of exposure. These are not inexpensive; Amazon sells a random choice of eight flavours for £9.99. The issues are worth considering. It has been proposed that individual cigarette papers have on them a message saying “Smoking is bad for you” or something along those lines, but does that not involve adding further chemicals to the paper and therefore further risk?
Clause 2(3) states:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence”
of proxy purchasing
“to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking”,
To which the somewhat obvious question is, “What on earth else would one use cigarette papers for?” With some trepidation, I asked Mr Google. Initially, all I could find was that they are used for smoking joints of cannabis, which did not seem to me a particularly good reason—the smoking of another illegal substance—for the Government to exclude them. Then I found out that some people use them for woodwind instruments. They place them underneath the key and press the key down, which allows extraneous water to be soaked up. They then release the key and pull the paper out. That helps to dry the instrument, prolong its life and prevent damage. Clarinet players—I did learn the clarinet but I did not know this; maybe that is why I was not so good at it—or players of the oboe, bassoon, flute or saxophone can buy cigarettes papers for that purpose.
The question of whether the Government need to provide an exemption for cigarette papers hinges on whether there is an alternative for the public to use for their woodwind instruments—and there is, of course. It is obvious in some respects that the market would provide one were cigarette papers banned. Connoisseurs of such instruments tell me that cigarette papers are not ideal to use for this purpose because of the additional, potentially toxic chemicals they contain—one is potentially inhaling bits of the chemicals back in—and because it is not ideal to get traces of the gum on one’s instrument. It is possible buy Superslick Pad and Yamaha cleaning papers. As far as I can tell, they do not contain toxic chemicals, because nobody would be interested in whether the ash burnt from them was white or otherwise since no one is going to set fire to them. Is it therefore really necessary to have a specific exemption for the use of cigarette papers for instruments, when in practice that is unlikely to be what they will be used for? There is an alternative and the most likely use—I think the Minister will understand this—is that they will be used for smoking joints.
Sarah Bool
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. My first question was, “Well, what else they would be using cigarette papers for?” The second question—which maybe the Minister can answer—is about the level of proof. This comes up not only in clause 2(3), but elsewhere in clause 2. I know that the Minister will say, in relation to clause 2(3), that this is in line with legislation as it currently stands, but if we are tightening up on the whole, perhaps this is an area that we should consider tightening up further?
Dr Johnson
Indeed, it does seem contradictory, if not counterintuitive. It also leaves us with a bizarre situation where, were someone to be a bassoon player, for example, and they wished to buy these products to use for the alternative purpose of drying their keys, then they would have to get someone else to buy them because they would not be able to buy them themselves. For a child born after 1 January 2009 and learning to play such an instrument, either the market will need to provide another opportunity to buy such a product, or the child will need someone else to buy the product for them. That does not make sense. The rolling age of sale that we discussed in clause 1 means that, over time, the number of individuals wanting to buy the product for their instruments but not allowed to, compared to the number of people allowed to, would inevitably diminish. We would have a larger group of people trying to find an ever smaller group of people to buy their cigarette papers for them for that purpose. To some extent, it would be more sensible to remove subsection (3) all together because it creates a loophole that will be used almost entirely for illegal uses of these papers. There is a market already providing a reasonably priced alternative for people to use for their instruments—which in practice are better for instruments in any case.
The final point is on the burden of proof. As a defence, someone purchasing the product on behalf of another has to prove they have no reason to suspect that the person was born on or after 1 January 2009. What does that really mean? Is that a reversal of the burden of proof? Is it saying a person has to prove their innocence rather than the state having to prove them guilty? In what circumstances would it apply? In what circumstances is it necessary for someone to buy cigarette papers, other than the oboe player or the saxophone player? I guess if someone in his or her 70s attends a corner shop but has forgotten their ID, they could ask somebody older to buy the papers for them; I guess that would be okay. They may find that they have come with a veterans card, thinking that they can use it because it is usable for voter ID, but that particular type of ID is not included; we have discussed widening the scope of those documents.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I understand that the term “cigarette paper” clearly indicates that the primary use for such an item is likely to be tobacco usage. However, it is not exclusive. As a model maker, I use cigarette papers in model making. I understand they are also used in art and in other activities. Although I am not suggesting that there are no alternative products to cigarette papers, it is not 100% exclusive. With respect, I think the clause refers to a person buying cigarette papers for another individual for a purpose other than smoking—if that can be proved. I accept what the hon. Lady is saying, but think she is stretching the point quite a lot.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I searched quite extensively for other uses of cigarette papers and had not come across that one; that is very interesting. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks they need to have pictures on them—perhaps that helps with the art. I think there is still a difference in a cigarette paper that contains extra toxic chemicals to help it burn a particular colour, for example. I am not sure whether there is any particular art or model making application for having the cigarette paper with all the chemicals in, as opposed to any other type of paper that is produced for the purpose. Inevitably, the market would produce a non-cigarette paper for the purpose, which would reduce the amount of toxic chemicals that are used and therefore also the amount of toxic chemicals in our environment—given that, inevitably, once they finish being used, they get wasted.
The point stands that the papers themselves contain toxins that would not be required for any other uses, whether that be for models, art or music. Therefore, since such products are available on the market to buy separately from cigarette papers, though they may currently be slightly more expensive, the Minister may want to consider removing that exemption, because it inevitably creates a loophole for these products to be used for the smoking of illegal tobacco or a joint.
Gregory Stafford
It is interesting—now that we have moved on to the alternative uses—to note that anyone who has ever had children knows that pipe cleaners are an essential part of any craft kit. Obviously, they can be used for cleaning a pipe, as well as making a spider or whatever else. The Minister has not sought to ban pipe cleaners in the same way. I wonder why he has picked out cigarette papers, which have alternative uses, but not pipe cleaners, which clearly have alternative uses as well.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is bringing back painful memories of trying to create things with pipe cleaners for my children, and trying to make them stand up straight when they simply are not quite that stiff—but some fun memories, too. Yes, I do see that they are used in art. That suggests another question. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I presume that the Government have chosen to ban cigarette papers because they want to reduce the amount of people smoking illegal tobacco; it is also an opportunity to reduce the amount of availability of papers for smoking cannabis and other illegal products, but why have they not included filters?
For many years, the tobacco industry has implied that smoking through a filter is safer and many in the population believe that smoking through a filter is safer, but it is a single-use plastic—and I am sure the Minister is very worried about the environment and the use of single-use plastics. The previous Government banned quite a lot of single-use plastic items to reduce waste. The cigarette filter is the most littered item globally every year and it is a single-use plastic. It contains a cellulose acetate filter, which I am told is a plastic pollution. It also increases the risk of a particular form of lung cancer, because the tiny little itty bits of plastic are inhaled into the individual who is smoking. They also increase the way that people draw on a cigarette, which means they could take in more of the toxins when there is a filter than when there is not. Will the Minister discuss whether he plans to include filters on Report?
Let us look at international examples. In 2011, the United States said that all cigarette papers should have Food and Drug Administration approval for their ingredients. Is the Minister considering publishing the ingredients on the packet here in the UK, so that if they are to continue to be sold, people are aware of the toxins they contain? Further, where these products are being used for modelling or art purposes, perhaps such steps will start to reduce the number of toxins contained in them.
As part of clause 2 we are also going to discuss clause 69 stand part. Clause 69 substitutes for article 4A of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That is, essentially, identical to clause 2, except for the fact that subsection (4) states someone guilty of an offence under the article is liable to a fine “not exceeding level 5”, whereas clause 2 says “not exceedingly level 4.” As the Minister is looking for consistency across the four countries of the United Kingdom, could he explain why he has chosen to have a lower level of fine for the proxy sales offence here than he has in Northern Ireland?
It should be noted that, although we have already discussed clause 50, that part of the Bill provides for legislation for proxy sales in Scotland, where the fine threshold is also set at level 5. I understand that the Minister is a fan of devolution, and wants devolved nations to be able to have different fines, so why has he chosen the fine level for this particular part of the country to be at level 4, which is lower than in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Additionally, section 5 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 says that it is illegal to buy, or attempt to buy, for oneself if under 18. Is it the Minister’s intention to amend that? That is my final question on clause 2.
Jack Rankin
I do not intend to go over the scope of the clause in great detail, because I think the principles largely flow form the principles of clause 1, but I will pick up on the cigarette paper point that my hon. Friend, the shadow Minister made, and talk about clause 2(3):
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of cigarette papers to prove that they had no reason to suspect that the other person intended to use the papers for smoking.”
I commend the shadow Minister’s researchers, because I can feel her thoroughness—I know a lot more about cigarette papers than I did an hour ago, and much more about cigarette papers than I thought there could possibly be to know, so she has answered some of my question.
Dr Johnson
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has found today interesting. Does he also find it interesting that some of these papers that can currently be bought legally from major retailers in the United Kingdom are not just coloured and have designs on, but flavoured? That is clearly not necessary for someone using them for a model or artwork. They may make people smoke more, because they disguise the taste of the tobacco and make smoking more pleasant.
Jack Rankin
I believe that is the case, and it is something I did not know before today. My questions were along the lines of: is this not just paper, and, if so, why is it excluded in some sense? I was racking my brain for legitimate reasons, and, in her speech, the shadow Minister gave some legitimate reasons, whether that is the woodwind instruments, or the model making mentioned by the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. It seems to me that—even though I disagree with the principle of the Bill—those extra properties would not be necessary for those legitimate uses in this instance.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, the market should be able to make a difference. Clause 2(3) should be struck from the Bill, because it does not seem that there is a legitimate use for cigarette papers that would not be picked up in another way, shape or form if that subsection were removed. I understand from the guidance I received as a new Member on my first day here that I have to three days to table an amendment before discussion, but I would suggest the removal of subsection (3). Perhaps the Government will consider whether the provision should remain fully in the next iteration of the clause later in this process.
I also want to speak to the term “no reason to suspect”, because I am not clear where the burden of proof sits. If someone goes into a newsagent to order cigarette papers, the overwhelming likelihood is that they will use them to smoke cigarettes. I accept that other reasons exist, but is the shopkeeper supposed to ask? The Bill says “no reason to suspect”; I would expect shopkeepers to have every reason to suspect that people who buy cigarette papers smoke cigarettes. It seems a little woolly. What would the Minister expect the shopkeeper to do in those instances? Is he supposed to ask? If the person says, “I am using this for a woodwind instrument,” is that sufficient? If I were a person who wished to get around the law, I could pretty easily work out that that would get me around the clause.
Andrew Gwynne
I shall answer some of the points made, which were valid. To answer the shadow Minister, cigarette papers are within the scope of the existing legislation. They are included because burning them adds to the volume of smoke and because, with their bleaches and dyes, as she rightly set out, the range of toxicants in the smoke contributes to the additional risks to smokers.
On filters, I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s premise. Although cigarette filters have historically been marketed to make smoking safer, there is no evidence of that whatsoever. All tobacco products are harmful. However, as with all regulations, it is important that measures are considered fully and that the evidence base is there, with no unintended consequences. I do not want to give the tobacco industry the opportunity to greenwash and to say, “Not only are filters healthier for you, but they are healthier for the environment.” We absolutely do not want that. We have powers in part 5 of the Bill to restrict the flavours in cigarette papers, so the argument set out by the shadow Minister is covered. On single-use plastics, it is for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to legislate, and it already has powers that enable it to consult on single-use plastics in cigarette filters.
As we have heard, a number of relevant products—for example, pipe cleaners and cigarette papers—can be used for musical instruments, as well as for crafting, art, model making and a whole range of other uses. We do not want to restrict those uses; we want to make it more difficult for people to access such products for the provision of smoking. As we said when we discussed clause 1, we are not making the smoking of tobacco illegal; we are preventing the next generation from getting hooked. The restrictions therefore strike a proportionate balance. A current smoker will be able to smoke until the until the day they die. Although we will do everything we can to give them the opportunity to give up, they will be able to access the products legally, but the Bill will introduce restrictions on them.
We think we have got the balance right, but we will take away the arguments and consider them, because they are valid arguments about how a musician, or someone who wants to use them for crafting and modelling, will still able to access these products if they want to use them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I have quick and pragmatic point about the different uses of cigarette papers. I am a mum and a saxophone player myself, and I suggest that other materials can be used in the place of cigarette papers. I appreciate the debate, but I do not think this is about a pragmatic use.
Andrew Gwynne
That is precisely the point I was coming to. We will take the argument away because it is a reasonable argument, and we will perhaps consider returning to this issue on Report.
I know that the shadow Minister has every sympathy with the fact that cigarette papers are dangerous when used for the consumption of tobacco, which is what we want to bear down on. As I have said, there are powers in part 5 to restrict the flavours of cigarette papers, but we want to get the balance right so we will take the argument away and consider it.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I am reticent to extend the discussion about cigarette papers; I was unaware it was possible to discuss something to such an extent. I am not legally trained, so I ask this for my own understanding as someone who is not a learned Member. If the exact same product was renamed and rebranded as model paper or musical instrument paper, would this law still apply to it?
Andrew Gwynne
That is a good question. Of course, if it was to be used for the consumption of tobacco, it would come within the scope of the Bill. We have to be clear that many of these products have dual uses, as we have heard. I am as guilty as anybody of making pipe-cleaner characters for my children and grandchildren—grandchild, rather, because I have only one so far.
We want to make sure that those who want to continue smoking are able to do so, but that obvious restrictions and boundaries are put in place regarding the accessibility of these products, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 will ever legally be sold them.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Minister for engaging in this discussion, because although it is somewhat technical to discuss cigarette papers, it is important. The hon. Member for Worthing West made the key distinction, which is that it is about the ingredients that are in a product. It would be possible for the Minister to devise legislation that sought to ban cigarette papers, without preventing a market in a similar product that would be ineffective as a cigarette paper but useful for the average modeller.
Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps we will return to that on Report. I have every sympathy with what the shadow Minister says. We do not want to prevent the legitimate use—indeed, a whole variety of uses—of these products, which is why we have the exemption in the Bill. If we are able to do what she suggests under the powers in the Bill, that would be great; if we can do only some of what she asks for in respect of flavours, that would go part of the way, and we will need to look at how we can strengthen that. If the shadow Minister can be a little patient, I think we can come back to this on Report.
The Chair
Order. I do not mind Members seeking clarification, but when the Minister has sat down we need to leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Tobacco vending machines
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
The clauses restate the ban on tobacco vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and extend it to include vending machines that sell cigarette papers. The prohibition came into force in 2011 in England and in 2012 in Wales and Northern Ireland. Under the amendments made by the Bill it will be an offence for a person with management or control of a premises to have a vending machine available for use from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarettes may be bought.
The prohibition was originally introduced because tobacco vending machines were largely unsupervised and allowed under-age access to tobacco. In 2010, 8% of 11 to 15-year-olds who regularly smoked said that vending machines were a usual source of cigarettes. The policy has successfully contributed to reducing smoking rates in young people and has been effective at enabling the age-of-sale restrictions to be implemented and enforced properly.
The existing legislation is consolidated in the Bill to replace the regulations that cover an automatic machine from which tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers may be bought. With all the restrictions that apply to such products covered in one Act, those who are affected by and who apply the legislation will find it easier to access them. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister says, clause 3 outlaws the use of vending machines that sell tobacco or tobacco products, as well as herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I note that there are no amendments to clause 3, presumably because it is somewhat settled and established law.
In the same way as vapes and other nicotine products, which we will come to later, vending machines make it much easier for people under the age of 18—or, under clause 1, those born after 1 January 2009—to buy age-restricted products that they are not legally allowed to purchase. They are self-service machines, so it is difficult to prove age and easy to get around if it is machine led. Historically, such machines have often been unsupervised by staff in a shop, thereby providing easy opportunities for younger people to buy from them.
It was coalition Government legislation—the Protection from Tobacco (Sales from Vending Machines) (England) Regulations 2010—that banned the sale of tobacco products from vending machines from 1 October 2011. That statutory instrument was made under section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which was inserted by section 22 of the Health Act 2009. That is a complex chain to follow, so having this clause where everything is in one place is much simpler. The clause also adds herbal smoking and cigarette paper vending machines to the legislation—on a personal level, I welcome that, for the reasons I have given already—and clarifies the penalty, which was more difficult to establish when looking at the previous trail of legislation.
However, the clause does change the terminology. Previously, it was illegal on the basis of sale “from an automatic machine”; the Bill talks about an “automatic machine from which” products “may be bought”. It seems that they are the same thing, but of course we heard repeatedly in evidence how the tobacco industry tries to get round these things.
I found a trail of people discussing online how to get round the vending machine legislation, which raised various questions. If I buy a product from a major retailer online, I can choose to get that delivered to my home, I can collect it from one of its stores, and I can also pick it up from our local Co-op, the local post office, or from a box with a keypad door, at the garage and in other locations. If one were to buy tobacco products, herbal smoking products, or cigarette papers using an online app, and collect them from a dispensing machine—an automatic machine that dispenses cigarettes—in a pub, would that be covered by this legislation, or is that a loophole that could be exploited? I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that, because we have heard how inventive the industry is. Would it be possible for people to circumnavigate the Bill’s intent by creating a machine that does not sell the product but simply gives to a person the product they have already bought?
Clause 70 applies to Northern Ireland. It will insert into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 the new article 4B, which is essentially the same as clause 3, so the same questions and comments apply. The only difference between the two clauses that I can see is that in Northern Ireland we have a level 5 offence, and in England and Wales we have a level 4 offence.
I wondered briefly why there was no clause for Scotland, but section 9 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 makes it illegal to have an automatic machine for the sale of tobacco products, regardless of whether the machine also sells other products, with a level 4 fine, so Members can be reassured that that is covered. I do not think the Minister answered this point in relation to the previous clause: clearly he chooses the fine levels for England and Wales in the Bill; why has he chosen to have the same penalty as Scotland but a lower penalty than that in Northern Ireland?
Sarah Bool
Clause 3(1) says:
“A person commits an offence if the person has the management or control of premises on which a tobacco vending machine is available for use.”
My first point goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made about the concept of that person, because that leads to some questions and confusion about where the liability sits. When it comes to the person who has management or control of the premises, we might expect there to be a landlord and a tenant, in which case perhaps the tenant has control legally under the terms of their lease. But if the landlord has a managing agent—the hint is in the name—could they be caught within the scope of the Bill if they have not done enough to prevent the machine from being on the property?
What about cases in which a landlord who is a licensor has a licensee? The concept is slightly different: it is not as official as a lease, but someone has the right to use the premises but not exclusive use or possession of the premises. We could potentially argue about who actually has the management and control of the property in that instance. It would be interesting to know whether in future landlords could be in trouble if they do not include in the lease a provision that bans the location and siting of a vending machine in the property. I do not think that would be where landlords currently stand, but that is perhaps worth considering. It seems pedantic but, knowing the way the legal system can go when people want to find defences, we do have to stress test the wording we use, so we need to examine the concept of a person having management and control.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very important point that I had not fully considered: who is responsible where you have a larger corporation with a group of shops beneath? You have the board level, the regional managers, the local shop manager, the shift supervisor and then the shop worker, so who has the control? Is that something the Government have a fixed position on, or would each company individually need to prove who that was? If trading standards was prosecuting such an offence and chose the wrong individual, would the Government allow the corporation to get off scot-free?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. It is something we are duty-bound to explore and test, to make sure we can avoid any problems with the roll-out and implementation of this.
Jack Rankin
The nub of clause 3 is age verification. The reason the Minister and the Government do not want tobacco vending machines in operation is not that they do not want convenience for the customer, but rather that they want to make sure that people are of a suitable age under the law. Without somebody to check, that is a problem.
In my youth, I used to play snooker in what was the Minister’s constituency. There was a little area of the club, with a little gate, where the gambling machines were, and there was a tobacco vending machine in there. The only thing preventing us from going in there was honesty. Whereas it stopped me as a teenager, I do not suppose that it would have stopped adults in the same way—if you wanted to restrict adults from being a smoker in the future, that would not serve as a deterrent.
My question is about nicotine products, which I was hoping the Minister could come to, perhaps when he winds up. Nicotine products are defined separately from tobacco products in this legislation, so it would still be acceptable for things such as nicotine patches to be sold through vending machines. That does not sound unsensible, because it does not seem to me that people trying to evade this law would be attracted to nicotine products in the same way they might be to other tobacco cessation devices. Perhaps the Minister can comment on how he proposes to treat them when he winds up.
Andrew Gwynne
Let me first say to the shadow Minister that we are aware of the new type of machines she mentioned, and we are concerned by their presence. The Department is looking to ensure that there are no loopholes in this legislation and that these machines, which may seek to bypass the age of sale restrictions, are not able to. Secondly, she has already answered the point about Scotland: the reason these measures do not appertain to Scotland is that Scotland already has legislation covering them.
To other Members, I say that we are overcomplicating this. As I said in opening, the clauses merely restate the existing ban on tobacco vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are consolidating the legislation to make it easier to understand the law but also to enforce it from one place—and that is it. This is the consolidation of existing powers that are working now.
The hon. Member for Windsor is absolutely right when he says that we want to ensure that age of sale is absolutely enabled to be enforced. As he said, when he was playing snooker in my old constituency, he would have been able to purchase tobacco products from a vending machine, and it was basically on the basis of trust that people were able to do that. That is no longer acceptable. We are bringing in the age restrictions, and we therefore need to make sure that they are adhered to.
I do not wish to stray on to nicotine products, because those are subject to a debate further on in the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw a distinction in the way he has. That is why the whole Bill treats nicotine products separately to, and very differently from, tobacco products, for reasons we will get to in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Sale of unpackaged cigarettes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
These clauses restate that it is an offence for tobacco retailers to sell cigarettes that are not in the original packaging they were supplied in. Selling unpackaged cigarettes is currently an offence in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and these clauses re-enact that offence. The prohibition was originally introduced to reduce smoking among children, because there was evidence that children were being sold single cigarettes. The clauses ensure that the sale of loose cigarettes continues to be prohibited and that cigarettes are sold in the appropriate packaging. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister says, clause 4 makes it against the law to sell cigarettes that are not in their original packaging, so that individual or small amounts of cigarettes cannot be sold separately. That is in part because cigarette packets now have standardised formats, warnings and information designed to alert the smoker to the health problems caused by the smoking habit, and selling cigarettes outside the packets means the smoker avoids that information.
I asked the Minister earlier about proposals for warning notices about smoking on the cigarette paper itself, but I did not hear his thoughts. The notices might ensure that, were individual sales to happen despite the law, the warning would still be received by the child or smoker, but there is also the risk of adding additional chemicals to the paper. Where does he think the benefit or balance of risk lies in that respect?
Everywhere else the Bill makes it an offence for a “person” to do something, so why does the clause mention a “tobacco retailer” rather than a “person”? If the Minister does not wish cigarettes to be sold individually, why would it be more of an offence for a proper tobacco retailer to sell them individually than it would be for an individual who is not a tobacco retailer? Why the change in wording? I do not understand. If someone is not a tobacco retailer, it would clearly be illegal, because they would have no licence. Why not have this additional offence for the most reckless people, so that they can be dealt with more severely?
As the Minister says, the minimum pack size of 20 was brought forward in 2017, because it was felt that packs of 10 were closer to the level of pocket money and were encouraging the uptake of cigarettes by children. When we come to vaping, we will discuss the pocket money nature of some of these products.
Jack Rankin
Certainly in my experience, the only reason people sell unpackaged cigarettes is to make them cheaper for schoolchildren, so I find it strange that subsection (2) states that the fine is level 3 on the standard scale. If I understand what my hon. Friend said in the last sitting about the standard scale, level 3 is lower than the level 4 fine for sale. A sale could have been in error, but unpackaging cigarettes to sell to schoolchildren seems deliberately malicious, so I am surprised that it is not treated more severely. Perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on that.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is right that the offence of selling a product to a person born on or after 1 January 2009 is something someone could do unintentionally. They could genuinely believe the ID in front of them, or that the person looked so significantly older that it was not even necessary to ask them for ID, whereas selling cigarettes outside the packaging requires the deliberate act of removing them from the packet and selling them individually, in a way that is not normally done. I think my hon. Friend is right, and it is perhaps surprising to have a deliberate act at a lower fine level than a potentially unintentional one.
Sarah Bool
Why are we limiting this to cigarettes? Forgive me, I am not an expert—I have never bought herbal smoking products—but if we are applying the same rules and we just want an outright ban, perhaps we should apply it generally, in case there are rule changes, to the sale of not only unpackaged cigarettes but unpackaged herbal smoking products. That would add further to the emphasis on changing the term from “a tobacco retailer” to “a person”, as my hon. Friend suggested.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and she is right to talk about the quantity. If the principle behind this clause is to ensure that the quantity of sale is such that it restricts younger people from purchasing these products with their pocket money, what consideration has the Minister given to the quantities of herbal cigarettes, or herbal smoking products, and cigarette papers, so that they would be purchased in quantities not easily accessible to young people?
On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about the fine levels, the fines are level 3, which in this case is consistent across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Clause 51 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to add proposed new section 4E, which essentially has the same effect—it is different wording, but it has the same essential effect of banning the sale of loose cigarettes. Clause 71 adds proposed new section 4C, which is essentially the same as clause 4, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to have the same effect. Again, it has the same fine, so there is some consistency across the four nations of the country, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the hon. Lady for raising these matters. Again, it is a case of perhaps overcomplicating what the clause does. As with clause 3, clause 4 merely restates that it is an offence for tobacco retailers to sell cigarettes that are not in the original packaging they were supplied in. We are not talking about proxy purchasing, or somebody breaking up a packet of cigarettes and selling them as an individual; we are talking here about retailers. This practice used to be quite common, but thankfully, because of the measures that are already in place, it is already an offence and we are reaffirming that offence in the Bill.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that it has been illegal for some time and that is an offence to sell loose cigarettes, and of course it has been. However, we heard in evidence from the Royal College of Physicians last week that the sale of loose cigarettes to youngsters was still a problem—it is an entry way into cigarettes. Does the Minister have any comment on whether reaffirming the offence with this legislation will actually help to enforce it to any greater degree?
Andrew Gwynne
Yes, I believe it will. Of course, this measure is not being taken in isolation, and it is not just a stand-alone measure. This is part of a whole package of tobacco control measures that form this part of the Bill. Taken together, these things will ensure that we drive down even further smoking prevalence in young people. However, we do not want to undo the legislation as it stands; we need it to be part and parcel of the whole raft of measures we are bringing forward.
Sarah Bool
I am concerned about whether we are accidentally and inadvertently creating a loophole here. If we are not going to ban someone from breaking down a cigarette packet and selling it, that is the way they will go about doing it. We should be going for consistency and tightness on this. I appreciate that that is the law as it stands, which is why we have applied it, but have we had the foresight to ensure that we do not create a loophole? It seems quite possible that we have.
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady is not talking about retailers breaking up packets, which is illegal, she is talking, effectively, about proxy purchasing—an adult buying tobacco products for children, splitting up the packet and selling those products on. It is already an offence for those children to get cigarettes—whether a full packet or part of a packet—even if they are not from retailers. It is proxy purchasing, and we have already covered that.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of messaging on individual cigarettes. I am not sure whether she was under the misapprehension that it is not covered in the Bill. The Bill restates the existing power to make regulations on the appearance of tobacco products, including cigarette sticks. Not only that, but it goes further by extending the power to other products, including cigarette papers. Although we do not plan to introduce dissuasive cigarettes at this time, as we believe we already have strong health warnings in the existing measures, we will continue to monitor the situation. We do leave an open door to it, and the powers are there. We will, however, mandate pack inserts into cigarette packs. We believe that that is proportionate at this time, while not closing the door to going further.
Lastly, the shadow Minister noted that, in some cases, fines are consistent across the United Kingdom, but that, in others, there are differences. I am afraid that that is the result of the devolution settlement. We have built into the Bill the ability for all four nations to walk together on making our country smoke-free, but the levels at which fines are levied are entirely a matter for the devolved Administrations. That is why there is sometimes an inconsistency in fine levels.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Age of sale notice at point of sale: England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Clauses 5, 6 and 72 replace the requirement for age of sale notices in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to reflect the new age of sale for tobacco products. Clause 55 provides Scottish Ministers with the power to set requirements about warning statements, which are notices that reflect the new age of sale requirements there. Age of sale notices are required under current legislation and must state in a prominent position:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18.”
The Bill will replace that requirement with a requirement for notices to reflect the new age of sale, stating:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.”
The notices must comply with any requirements set out in regulations on the size or appearance of those notices. This updated wording on age of sale notices will support tobacco retailers in implementing the new age of sale restrictions by helping to clarify and underline them for customers and staff. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 5, 6, 55 and 72 make provision for age of sale notices. Clause 5(1) makes it clear on which premises the notices must be displayed. In some respects, that is obvious, but the fact that the Bill makes clear that the notices must be on the same premises where the tobacco is being sold is perhaps a sign that the Minister has the measure of the tobacco industry: if that was not clearly stipulated, there would be temptation to display the notices in head office or somewhere else where no one could see them. The fact that it is thought necessary to state what is blindingly obvious—that the notice must be displayed in the right place—is somewhat sad.
Subsection (3) deals with positioning. The statement that the notice must be prominent and readily visible at each point of sale is relevant to shops that have more than one till at the counter. One sometimes goes to the counter of a large supermarket, or similar, and sees a whole row of tills. It is therefore important that the signs are visible from all the tills, not just the one closest to the tobacco.
What the notice must say is provided for in subsection (2):
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009”.
That is clear, simple and informative, which is good. However, it does not mention cigarette papers or herbal smoking products. Why has the Minister chosen not to include the other items included in the rolling age of sale and the Government’s smoke-free generation on the notice for clarity? That is important because we heard in evidence, and have all read in the news, of examples where people who work in our retail sector have been treated in an abusive—sometimes violent—fashion or people have been very rude to them.
If the purpose of the notice is to be clear on what the law is, providing clarity that it also includes herbal smoking products and cigarette papers would enable the public to be aware of the law and the retailer to point to the sign and say, “I can’t do this—look.” The message as currently drafted does not do that, and that could cause shopkeepers or shop assistants more difficulty. I notice that under subsection (4), any aspect of the notices, including the appearance and wording, can be amended, so that could be done at a later date if the Minister feels that the shopkeepers’ evidence is that herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are proving a challenge. Why has he chosen not to do that at the outset?
Subsection (7) talks about a defence of having taken reasonable steps. I have two questions on that. First, is “It fell down and I hadn’t noticed, your honour” an adequate defence? How does the Minister envisage the reasonable steps defence? What are the reasonable steps? If the Government choose under subsection (4) to change the appearance or wording—perhaps if they discover it is inadequate in some way—what steps will need to be taken to ensure that all retailers are aware of those changes, and within what timeframe will retailers be expected to react to those changes?
The impact assessment says that the cost of putting up a new sign is not prohibitively expensive for an individual business—it is about £4 per retailer—but it means that there is an overall cost to small and micro-retailers of around £124,000 in England, and £143,000 in the UK. That is a cost to business overall, even if a small one to individual businesses. The impact assessment also notes the cost of staff training and awareness. There are an estimated 42,582 convenience stores in England, each with a store manager who would have to disseminate that information to the estimated 299,957 members of staff. Of those stores, 71% would be considered small or microbusinesses.
The cost of amending those things means that the Opposition invite the Minister to get the notice right the first time so costs are not incurred twice. There is an estimated cost of around £2 million in total on training. Although the cost to any one small or microbusiness is likely to be small—around £70 on average—that cost combined with £4 for a sign, at a time when small businesses are being squeezed by other budgetary measures the Government have brought in, is another potential straw to break the camel’s back.
The fine is at a level 3, and the person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail is the person who is liable. But what does it mean to be
“a person who carries on a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail”.
Is it the director of the business? Is it the store manager who is on duty that day? Is it the overall store manager, or is it the licence holder?
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend has previously sought to amend the Bill in various places to add the qualifier “save for the first offence”. It seems to me that, particularly in the first instance, this could be a genuine oversight and that it would be appropriate for a council officer or someone from trading standards to simply bring it to the attention of store management and ask them to rectify it over a period of time. Does she think this clause should be tweaked in such a way, on the same principle on which that she has sought to amend other clauses?
Dr Johnson
I am going to disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. There will be licensing for tobacco products, and part of the due diligence of setting up to sell such products includes familiarising oneself with the legislation as it stands and thus with the regulations around signage, buying and putting up the appropriate signs, and providing the appropriate training. The challenge occurs if the Government seek to amend the notice, at which point they would need to ensure that they had given adequate notice and information to the company to ensure that it had the time, resources and information to put up the correct signs.
Tristan Osborne
On signs, if we accept the premise that the law is changed—as we have done in clause 1—to include a rolling scale with the date being 1 January 2009, signs will have to be updated in any event to reflect that. The current signs about being 18 would have to be removed. On the definition on the signs—tobacco products versus relevant products—is it not clearer to the public, who are going to be the purchasers of the products, if it is tobacco products? It does not preclude extra signage, which exists in many stores, of what can and cannot be purchased. While I accept the premise of the idea of relevant products versus tobacco products, for the public it would be clearer if it were tobacco products.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that those selling tobacco products legally now will need to change their signs to have the date of 1 January 2009 on them, as opposed to the age of 18, because that will be the law: that clause has now passed, and I expect that it will continue its passage through the House and the other place, because it has broad support among the public and within Parliament.
Dr Beccy Cooper
I just wanted to clarify something with the hon. Lady, because she is talking about the size of the signs in Wales, under clause 6, I think. Clause 6(4) says:
“The notice must comply with any requirements set out in regulations made by the Welsh Ministers”.
I presume that that is the response that she is looking for: the Welsh Ministers will absolutely be able to decide on the size of the signs.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making, I think, an important point about whether Ministers, either in England or in the devolved Administrations, can put signs together in order to reduce the burden on a business of having multiple, potentially confusing signs. I understand the point about devolution, but most ordinary people will look for a single regulated sign for this. I wonder whether there is any discussion—even if the Minister cannot legally enforce it within the Bill—about working in tandem with the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that there can be a standardised sign, so that it is abundantly clear, whether someone is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, that that is the sign, and that it is both clear to consumers and it is clear to businesses what they are supposed to be displaying.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is of course correct that we have devolution, and the hon. Member for Worthing West is of course right that Welsh Ministers—in the same way as Scottish Ministers, and, as I will come to, Northern Irish Ministers—have the capacity to deal with changes to the signs, but it will be easier to have clarity. I am merely suggesting that the Minister could discuss these details with his devolved counterparts and put such measures on the face of the Bill now, rather than not do so and then require, for example, as I said before, the Scottish Ministers to then introduce an SI for something that could be changed much more cheaply with drafting now. It would require much less time and energy from the civil service in Scotland—and spend less taxpayers’ money—to achieve that.
I am interested by the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about joint signs. The point I was making was about the display space: if someone has to put a lot of different signs up—particularly given that the Minister has shown reluctance on the principle of a nicotine-free generation, which I suspect is where we will end up—and we need to do that at a later date, we will end up with yet another sign with yet another date on it. There comes a point at which the amount of display space available to retailers starts to become smaller, given the required font size.
Before I finish, I have one more quick point, which is just to note that clause 72 is the Northern Irish equivalent added to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, so it is the same as clause 5, with the same effect.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 6, 55 and 72 stand part.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
At first sight, the clause can appear to follow on naturally from the rest of the Bill, and in some sense it does, but I think it is important. We heard from shopkeepers in the evidence session last week, from the British Retail Consortium, and in the representations to us made in writing that it can be difficult for younger shopkeepers to hold the line on this, and they might be at the wrong end of unacceptable verbal abuse. In my view, the Bill will increase that risk.
With younger people often manning retail stands, in the future we might have 18 or 19-year-olds having to refuse to sell tobacco products to people a decade or so older than them. That will be increasingly challenging, even compared with the existing situation. I have spoken about being opposed to the principle of the Bill and finding it somewhat unworkable, but putting that to one side, I think that if we are to proceed with it, we have a particular obligation to make things as easy as possible for shopkeepers. I am sure that everyone agrees.
The language used, or proposed to be used, in the age of sale notice in subsection (2) is quite legalistic, being presented as:
“It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009”.
That is a statement of fact. It mirrors what we see today, but it is very legal. I think it would benefit from being a bit more practical. For example—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made this point—it is illegal to sell herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and not just cigarettes, but cigars. We might help our shopkeepers if we made the list a bit more practical, so that the shopkeeper could turn around to say, “Sorry, guvnor, but this is the law,” whereas with the Bill saying “tobacco products”, the verbal altercation might include, “These are not cigarettes, though.” Perhaps we should move away from legalistic language to help staff, especially younger members of staff. That is particularly necessary, given what seems to be a general coarsening in our society, I am afraid to say.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The regulations will need to be enforced not just in a large supermarket, where the shop assistant has the benefit of a security guard and other—
Dr Johnson
I am sorry, Sir Mark. The regulations will need to be enforced whether one is a shop assistant in a small shop or in a large shop. In a large shop that sells tobacco, such as a large supermarket, one might have the benefit of a security guard, additional staff and many more people around. Alternatively, a 19-year-old might be trying to enforce the regulations on a Saturday evening in a rural shop many miles from the local police station, with no security guard or anyone else around.
Jack Rankin
That is exactly the kind of situation I am thinking of. The language could be a bit more practical, less legal and it might aid that shopkeeper to point to an external source for validation.
I have two further points. One is a point of ignorance for me as a new Member, for which I apologise. I do not know what subsection (5) means when it says that
“Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
I hope someone can help me with that. Clause 6 is being taken together with clause 5, because clause 5 applies to England and clause 6 applies to Wales. To me, they appear to be exactly the same, apart from the age of sale notice described in clause 6(2) and the fact that clause 6 obviously also includes the Welsh version. I am going to take at face value that it says the same thing in Welsh, although I do not speak Welsh. It would be nice to clarify whether it is either/or whether it is both together. That is of interest.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to follow up on the points made on clause 5(3) and clause 6(3) in particular. Both specify that
“The notice must be displayed in a prominent position”.
I agree with many of the points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made about what that means in practice. In the information pack that we have been given, there is a quote from the Scottish Grocers’ Federation, which I want to read for the record. It explicitly states:
“In most convenience stores, space is at a premium and the suggested wording set out in UK Government proposals will require a significant surface area in order to be legible and accessible to all customers. The complexity of a moving ban will require very clear public messaging. Appropriate and mandatory signage is essential for good practice and the sale of age restricted items, SGF is concerned that multiple messages throughout the store relating to various product ranges and items could potentially create confusion and lead to challenging interactions between customers and staff.”
To protect our retailers, we must ensure that we enforce these regulations correctly. When making the regulations, the Secretary of State should take into account the voice of the retailers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. In responding to points that have been made, I want first to reiterate that these two clauses do not relate to enforcement; they concern the nature of the signage that will be required to be displayed. We can come to those other matters later in the Bill’s proceedings. I remind Opposition Members of what has been said in previous debates: we will use the very long lead-in time to engage fully with the retail sector to ensure that we get the delivery in shops right and to ensure that the Bill’s provisions can be implemented without any hiccups.
I also reiterate that we abhor any violence and abuse towards retail staff—or anybody else—and it is the intention of this Labour Government to introduce a new offence in this respect. Given the comments that have rightly been made in the course of this and earlier debates, I hope that it will command full support from all parts of the House.
The hon. Member for Windsor asked what is meant by “negative resolution procedure”. It is the procedure for the statutory instrument that will be have to be made to introduce these regulations. The fact that it is “negative” means purely that it will not require a parliamentary debate. It will be done through the usual secondary legislation processes.
There were questions about the nature of the clauses relating to different parts of the United Kingdom, and why we are approaching this with slightly different methods. I must say politely—particularly to the shadow Minister—that we have to respect the devolution settlement. These matters are entirely within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. Some things remain reserved for the UK Government, but for a lot of the measures in the Bill, the legislative competence rests with the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments.
Dr Johnson
I have at no point suggested that I do not respect the devolution that is in place. I made two remarks that reference devolution. One was about the different penalties that apply for the same offence in different parts of the United Kingdom. While I recognise that Ministers in other parts of the country have the competence to change the penalties to make them different from those that apply in England, it is clearly the Minister here who decides what the draft legislation should say with regards to the penalty in England. My questions focused on why he has chosen to make it different in England from other parts of the United Kingdom. Clearly, if the Northern Irish had chosen a higher penalty, it is up to him if he wishes to join them, or to have a lower penalty.
The other issue I have raised regarding devolution was in relation to clause 5. The Bill as drafted says that tobacco cannot be sold to people born on or after 1 January 2009, and much effort has gone into ensuring that that is replicated in Scottish legislation all the way through, even though the Scottish Parliament could do that itself if it wanted to. It makes sense to do it in one go here because that is more efficient in terms of both time and financial expenditure for civil servants across the country. So my question was why the Minister has chosen not to include in the Bill the change to the notice in clause 5, saying that tobacco cannot be sold to people under 18. Why not change that now?
Dr Johnson
I am defending myself, as the Minister has accused me of something, Sir Mark.
Dr Johnson
I am merely suggesting that changing the notice in clause 5 to
“born on or after 1 January 2009”
instead of “under 18” now would be more efficient, and help our Scottish colleagues, rather than implying they are not capable of doing so.
Andrew Gwynne
Sir Mark, the hon. Lady protests too much here, because while it is true that she was questioning why, for example, the English fines could not be the rate of the Northern Irish fines, she was also pretty much calling for us to legislate for Scotland and Wales to bring consistency across the whole United Kingdom. Likewise with clause 5, she asks why we in this place are not legislating for Scotland in respect of the notices that will be displayed in Scotland. It is not our job to legislate where the Scottish Government do not want us to do so.
Andrew Gwynne
No, I will answer the hon. Lady. My officials and I have been in contact throughout the production of this Bill with officials and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. I have had umpteen meetings personally with my counterparts in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and there is an open offer. They are genuinely excited, Sir Mark, that we are able—as far as possible—to legislate with their consent to make smoke-free UK a reality, and we have sought to design this Bill in co-production with the devolved Administrations. None the less, there are some things that the devolved Administrations do not wish this Parliament to legislate on. For example, in respect of clause 5, on the notices, the Scottish Government have made it very clear that this is something they wish to do in their own way, in their own time, notwithstanding the fact that they have given us assurances that the measures will be in place to give enough time for retailers north of the border in Scotland to implement them. It is not for me to overrule the will of Scottish Ministers, who have the legislative competence to do this, if they do not wish this Parliament to do it on their behalf.
I hope that that answers future similar questions about the differences in different parts of the United Kingdom. We are legislating with the permission and consent of the three devolved Administration Governments, and we are not going to overstep. I have already said to my ministerial colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom that if, during the course of the Bill through this House and the other place, they think, “That is not quite right and we need it to be amended,” or, “You know, it does make sense for Westminster to do it all in one go and do it for us,” we will respect that.
I have given Ministers my promise that if, as an afterthought, they want us to do some of this for them on their behalf during the Bill’s progress through its stages in both Houses, we will facilitate that. However, I am not going to overstep the powers given to me by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers to legislate on their behalf and to ensure that we have a United Kingdom-wide Bill that meets the separate and different needs, ambitions and expectations of our devolved settlement.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for making clear that the reason that the text contained within the age of sale notice is not being amended at this stage is because Scottish Ministers have told him they would prefer to amend it themselves at a later date.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful for that, and if any offence was caused by my earlier comments, I apologise to the hon. Lady. We need to set out clearly that we are doing something quite ingenious, and that is only because of the goodwill and the desire of Ministers from different political backgrounds in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get this legislation through the United Kingdom Parliament with the ability for them to then differ on consultations and other matters once the legislation is on the statute book. That would have been unheard of in years gone by, when relationships were not necessarily as good as they currently are between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government.
The same argument applies to clause 6. The sign will be a matter for Welsh Ministers. Although the framework of the sign is set down in the Bill for Wales, because that was how they wished us to approach it, any changes would be a matter for Welsh Ministers. The hon. Lady asked the hypothetical question whether, if we changed the notices again, there would be adequate consultation or time for retailers. We are not planning on making life difficult for retailers. We think that the wording here is the right wording. I do not take it to be legalistic and technical in the way that the hon. Member for Windsor seems to think it is. It is the same wording that applies now, with the exception that rather than talking about people “under the age of 18”, it will say
“anyone born on or before 1 January 2009”.
I think that is pretty clear.
The wording on the signage was tested during the public consultation in January, and more than 70% of respondents supported it. Many respondents noted that we need to mirror the existing wording to ensure accessibility. Other products are more niche and were not deemed to be necessary on the sign, but I think most people understand what a tobacco product is, and a cigar is certainly a tobacco product. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Ban on manufacture of snus etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 60, in clause 9, page 5, line 10, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 62.
Amendment 61, in clause 9, page 5, line 12, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 62.
Amendment 62, in clause 9, page 5, line 12, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 60 and 61, prevents penalties for a first offence under section 9 being a fine beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clauses 56 and 57 stand part.
Amendment 70, in clause 58, page 29, line 19, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.
Amendment 71, in clause 58, page 29, line 21, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.
Amendment 72, in clause 58, page 29, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 70 and 71, prevents penalties for a first offence under Section 58 (pertaining to restrictions on the possession of snus with an intent to supply in Scotland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.
Clause 58 stand part.
Clauses 73 and 74 stand part.
Amendment 77, in clause 75, page 39, line 19, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 79.
Amendment 78, in clause 75, page 39, line 21, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 79.
Amendment 79, in clause 75, page 39, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or conditional caution.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 77 and 78, prevents penalties for a first offence under Section 75 (pertaining to restrictions on the possession with an intent to supply of snus in Northern Ireland) being beyond level 3 and provides for a conditional caution.
Clause 75 stand part.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate. Amendments 60 to 62, 70 to 72 and 77 to 79 would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of possessing the relevant oral tobacco product, for example snus, with intent to supply it to another person in the course of business in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, by creating an exception to the maximum penalty that a person can face for committing that offence if it is their first offence.
The amendments would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction or indictment to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000, or provide instead for a discretionary caution in England and Wales, a recorded police warning in Scotland or a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is lower than the current maximum penalties, which are, on summary conviction, imprisonment for up to six months in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 12 months in Scotland, a fine, or both; or, on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
The amendments would remove the distinction between summary conviction and conviction on indictment for first-time offenders, meaning that the severity of the offence committed would not be taken into account in those cases as it would under current provisions. In creating a first-time offence, the amendments would have a similar effect to amendments that we have already discussed, so, if the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself, as my rationale for asking the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment remains the same.
Dr Johnson
This group of clauses and amendments all apply to snus, which we are trying to ban, so the first question is: what is snus? Snus is a tobacco product predominantly used in Sweden and, to an extent, in the USA. When the Health and Social Care Committee, which I was a member of in the last Parliament, visited Sweden at around the time the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill was introduced, we saw shops with massive displays of different types, brands and flavours of snus, which came in small round pots similar to those that we see nicotine pouches in; they were mostly kept in the refrigerator.
Snus is produced using tobacco leaves, salt and alkalis such as sodium bicarbonate or sodium carbonate. The alkali is there to help the nicotine to be absorbed more easily into the mouth and therefore into the bloodstream of the person using the product. Producers also potentially add a flavouring. As we have seen in cigarette papers, flavourings are used to improve the palatability of tobacco products. The mixture of tobacco leaf, salt, alkalis and flavouring is ground up, steam-pasteurised to inhibit the growth of bacteria, and then supplied loose or in small pouches.
The loose form is a moist, powdery product, which I understand is rolled between one’s fingers to create a sort of cylinder shape known as a pinch. It is placed under the upper lip, where it is held for about 30 minutes while the nicotine is absorbed into the bloodstream. Its moist nature helps to facilitate the absorption of nicotine and makes the nicotine hit faster; it is absorbed more quickly than it would otherwise be.
The second way that snus can be supplied is in a small pouch resembling a very little teabag, which comes in two formats: original and white. The original version is a sachet of material that is kept moist and is brown in colour. Again, the moistness allows a quick release, but the tobacco product does not need rolling and pinching; it just needs putting into one’s mouth, and it stays in its little pouch. The white version is not in all cases white, but the genre is known as white snus. It has a milder taste and a slower release because the powder in the pouch is dry. The dryness means that one needs to get it moist in the mouth before it will dissolve across the membrane and give the nicotine hit, which means that the dry snus is a slower-release product than the original. The American snus is a lower moisture product, again provided in a variety of flavours to suit the customer.
Why did I and others not know what snus was? I am sure you are familiar with it, Sir Mark. This specific form of tobacco product has been banned in the UK for some time. It was banned by the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992—I was still at school—and then EU tobacco products directive 2014/40 created a European-wide ban, which was incorporated into UK law by the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. The Committee might be interested to know that Sweden has a derogation specifically for snus under that EU regulation, so snus is still sold there, as I described.
Advocates of snus believe it is less harmful and causes less respiratory disease and less cancer than does an inhaled form of tobacco. They try to market it as an alternative to smoking that is less harmful. However, the evidence shows a risk of cancer, particularly of the cheek and gums. Perhaps that is not surprising, given where it is placed to be used. Oral squamous cell carcinoma, a form of cancer of the mouth, often occurs in the site at which snus is commonly placed. It has also been shown that snus causes increased blood pressure, particularly in females, and despite not being inhaled it can contribute to an increased rate of asthma.
Aside from all that, snus contains nicotine, which we know is addictive. Regardless of the form in which it is taken, it creates the addiction and cravings that rob people of the choice not to use the product, which the Minister spoke about so powerfully last week. It is important that we consider this carefully, because otherwise people will become addicted to snus as another form of nicotine.
Jack Rankin
The shadow Minister is a doctor, so she is learned in this area, and she makes the case that snus is harmful in the same way as tobacco. What does she know of the relative harm? I am concerned that, in taking quite a studs-up and puritanical approach, we are taking away things that might not be as bad as cigarettes that could allow people to effectively tier down. Does she have any thoughts on that?
Dr Johnson
That was the second question I considered when preparing for the debate on this clause. My first question was: what is snus? My second was: if it is a tobacco product, why is it treated differently? We have talked about all sorts of different tobacco products—cigarettes, cigars, snuff—yet this one has particularly robust regulation and a robust legal framework. The only reason I could find was that it is new, trendy and coming forward very quickly, and there were concerns that it would quickly take over the children’s market in the same way as vaping. That is the only suggestion I was able to find. I am sure the Minister will be able to help us to understand why snus is treated so robustly, although I am not sad to see that.
Clause 7 makes it an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products. Oral tobacco products are defined quite particularly as those that are for oral use but not intended to be inhaled or chewed, so they do not include chewing tobacco, which would be included under clause 1. They also have to be in either powder or particle form—as I said, they are in the form of ground tobacco. Currently, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 define “tobacco for oral use” similarly, as tobacco “intended for oral use”, not to be inhaled or chewed, and
“in powder or particulate form or any combination”,
whether presented in a
“sachet portion or a porous sachet, or in any other way”.
Regulation 17 provides for a UK-wide ban on the production and sale of snus. Schedule 6 to the Bill, which we will come to, will repeal that measure and replace it with clause 7.
I want to ask the Minister why it is an offence to manufacture oral tobacco products in the UK, and not an offence to manufacture other tobacco products. He has talked about the need for a smoke-free generation and his worries that smoking tobacco harms individuals’ health, wellbeing and ability to choose, but he has not chosen to ban the production of other tobacco products. I found that the last time an English-produced cigarette rolled off the production line was at the Horizon Imperial Tobacco factory in Nottingham in May 2016, and the last UK-made cigarette was produced at Japan Tobacco International’s plant in County Antrim in October 2017. He may feel that such a ban is unnecessary because we are not producing any tobacco products, but I am interested in his thoughts on the matter.
The penalty here is the most severe so far. We have had some debate about different clauses containing fines at levels 3, 4 and 5 on the standard scale, but this clause contains a much more severe penalty for a product that may or may not be less harmful than cigarettes, although it has not been suggested that it is much more harmful. The fine for breaching clause 7 on the ban on manufacture of snus is, on summary conviction, imprisonment of six months, a fine or both. Six months is based on the current upper limit in a magistrates court, but the Lord Chancellor announced in October last year a plan to increase the maximum penalty for a magistrates court to 12 months’ imprisonment, which would presumably apply to this Bill. I will be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether that is the case and whether there have been any convictions under the existing legislation. The penalty for conviction on indictment would be imprisonment not exceeding two years, a fine or both—again, quite severe penalties when compared with other aspects of the Bill and other tobacco products. I am interested to understand why.
Sarah Bool
I apologise to my hon. Friend. I might have misunderstood, so may I clarify the intended purpose here? If snus is illegal under earlier regulations, what is this further provision? Is it to ensure that nicotine pouches are also caught? The UK has already banned the sale of all oral tobacco products, including snus, under the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992, which implemented European Union directive 92/41. I am hoping for some clarity about that, but perhaps it will come from the Minister.
Dr Johnson
My understanding—I am sure the Minister will leap to his feet to correct me if I am wrong—is that the Bill does not apply to nicotine pouches per se, because nicotine pouches do not contain tobacco. As I understand it, the brands we see in our local supermarket in similar round pots contain nicotine, and they are put in the mouth and absorbed in a similar way, but they are not tobacco products. As I read the Bill, clause 7 will not apply to them, and obviously they are not currently illegal, because they are widely sold.
Andrew Gwynne
I can easily clarify that point. The clause applies to relevant oral tobacco products, which are defined as tobacco products intended for oral use, not intended to be inhaled or chewed, and that consist wholly or partially of tobacco. It does not apply to tobacco-free nicotine pouches, which are sometimes informally referred to as snus; the Bill classes nicotine pouches as nicotine products.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for clarifying that so comprehensively.
Clause 8 deals with the sale of snus. Clause 7 having made it an offence to manufacture snus, clause 8 bans the sale of snus, which it defines, in the same way as described by the Minister, as a “relevant oral tobacco product”. In wording that is slightly different from that in other clauses, clause 8 also describes the offence as not only to sell, but to
“offer or expose…for sale”.
I had to look up what that meant. To help the Committee, apparently, to offer or expose something for sale means to expose it to attract an offer of purchase from the public. Something is put in the shop window—in the same way as the bongs the Minister described in a shop window the other day—to be visible to a customer and the customer may then choose to make an offer for the purchase of the product, and the product is thereby exposed for sale. In essence, this provision will make putting these products in a shop window an offence.
I am interested to understand why the wording in clause 8 is different from that for all the other tobacco and nicotine products in the Bill, where that wording is not used. If the Minister could explain that, I will be grateful. Again, the defence offered by clause 8 is “all reasonable steps”, but I am not sure what such steps would be, so I will be grateful for clarification on that, too, please.
The penalties for disobeying clause 8 are quite severe. The penalty on summary conviction is
“imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit”
in a magistrates court, which is six months, potentially rising to 12 months based on what the Lord Chancellor has said over the past few months, or a fine—of how much, the Bill does not state, so perhaps the Minister could help with that—or both. On conviction on indictment, the penalty is
“imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.”
That means that we have a contradiction within the Bill. For virtually any other tobacco or nicotine products that may not be sold, but are sold by an offender, the offender is liable for a fine at level 3, 4 or 5, but clause 8—the sale of snus, as distinct from all other tobacco products—creates an offence that carries a penalty of significant imprisonment. I am not saying that that should not be the case, but I am interested to understand the rationale for the difference, because, notwithstanding any devolution differences, the decision on what to do in England and Wales is clearly for this Government and this Minister.
Clause 9 concerns possession with intent to supply in the course of business of a “relevant oral tobacco product”, as has been defined in clauses 7 and 8. I am interested in what is meant by “the course of business”. If one looks at section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, where possession with intent to supply is most readily thought of, it is the intent to supply it to another person. However, does “the course of business” imply that money must change hands? If one had the intent to supply to another without being paid, would that not be in “the course of business” and therefore be legal? Also, does the word “business” itself imply a properly regulated business? It could not be a properly regulated business in so far as it would be an illegal sale. Does the Minister therefore make a distinction between the product being sold from a business premises as opposed to being bought down the pub from an acquaintance?
Amendments 60, 61 and 62 to clause 9 basically look once again at the principle of proportionality. If, for example, we were to prosecute someone for the sale of cigarettes to a 19-year-old born on 1 January 2009, and it was that person’s first offence, we would give them a fine—so why would we wish to consider imprisoning somebody at the first offence for selling snus? The crime would appear to be somewhat similar but the penalty is very different. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, although other hon. Members may wish to, but they are designed to provoke debate on the proportionality of different offences, and the inconsistency between the penalties for different offences that may appear to be very similar. Amendments 60 and 61 insert the phrase
“save if it is a first offence”
and amendment 62 says:
“A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence…is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”
I will be interested in the Minister’s comments.
Jack Rankin
I am sorry if this is my ignorance as a new legislator, but clauses 7, 8 and 9 applied to England and Wales. However, clauses 56, 57 and 58 apply the same measures to Scotland, and then we have the same for Northern Ireland. In previous clauses, we have also seen that replicated for Wales. Does that mean that clauses 7, 8 and 9 apply to both England and Wales, and how come that devolution is treated differently? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows the answer to that, or maybe the Minister could clarify.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. I believe that the Bill specifies somewhere which clauses apply under which jurisdictions, but I cannot remember exactly which page that is on. I am sure the Minister in his summing up will be able to identify where my hon. Friend can look to review that, but some of the clauses will apply to different jurisdictions. Some will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and others will apply to England and Wales, or England alone, depending on various different factors. My hon. Friend will be able to look at the relevant part of the Bill to find that out. My understanding is that clauses 7, 8 and 9 will apply in England and Wales, and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that point in his summing up.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has identified, clauses 56, 57 and 58 apply to Scotland; they essentially replicate clauses 7, 8 and 9. Clause 56 prevents the manufacture of snus, clause 57 prevents the sale of snus and clause 58 prevents the possession with intent to supply of snus. Amendments 70, 71 and 72 to clause 58 replicate amendments 60, 61 and 62 and say that there should be proportionality in relation to penalties.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments. Although I appreciate her intention to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders, these amendments are not appropriate. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously. We do not want to weaken the penalty regime for these offences, including offences relating to snus, by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone who has committed these offences. We do not want to remove the ability of the court to issue a higher-level penalty, where that is viewed as proportionate for a particular case, for anyone convicted of these offences.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments on clauses 7 to 9, 56 to 58 and 73 to 75. Those clauses make it an offence to manufacture, sell or offer for sale, or possess with the intent to supply, a relevant oral tobacco product, such as snus, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A relevant oral tobacco product is something intended for oral use—the clue is in the name: it is not intended to be inhaled or chewed and it consists wholly or partly of tobacco in powder or particulate form. That includes snus.
As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, snus has been banned in the UK and the EU since 1992. Snus was banned as it was a novel tobacco product that is harmful to health. Snus contains harmful compounds that have been demonstrated to cause cancer, including cancers of the mouth. The manufacture of snus with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector is currently banned, as she rightly pointed out, under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. These clauses re-enact that ban on manufacture but, unlike the 2016 regulations, do not limit it to supplying the UK or travel retail sector. In effect, that extends the ban to include manufacturing snus for export. That simplifies enforcement and reduces the possibility of such harmful products being available within the United Kingdom.
Andrew Gwynne
I will have to get back to the hon. Lady on that point. We will write to Committee members to update them, because I do not have that information to hand or in my mind.
As I was saying, the supply of snus for consumption in any part of the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector is also already banned under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, and these clauses recast the existing ban as a general ban on sale. The ban on possession of snus for intent to supply support the ban on sale, while preserving the current position under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, which allows possession of snus for personal use.
Under these clauses, it will not be an offence to possess snus for personal use or for personal gifting to friends and family; this is not about criminalising individuals who possess snus for personal use. These clauses maintain and simplify the ban, in place since 1992, on the sale of a harmful tobacco product. The clauses also make the prohibition on snus more comprehensive and make the legislation clearer and more accessible. We have no intention of allowing a banned and harmful product into the United Kingdom market. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
The hon. Lady asks about “all reasonable steps”. As we have already discussed, it will be for the discretion of trading standards as to whether all reasonable steps have been taken. As we know, they take a proportionate approach to these matters, and we know that their current procedures work. There is no expectation that they will not work with the legislation before us.
What would prevent a retailer from just giving some of these products to a customer, rather than selling them, to get round the law? Well, there is “brand promotion”, which includes free giveaways anyway. That covers all tobacco products—so it covers that situation.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for going through the questions thoroughly. I did not want to risk his getting to the end of his speech without answering the question of why snus is treated differently from other forms of tobacco. Is it merely a historical artefact?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady need not worry so much, because I have notes to clarify her points. Many people ask why we are banning snus but only gradually raising the age of sale for cigarettes, given that snus is less harmful than cigarettes. Consumption of any tobacco product is harmful. We heard that—[Interruption.]. We heard that very loudly and clearly from somebody upstairs, but also from the four chief medical officers. They made it very clear that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and that tobacco is uniquely harmful as a product in whatever form it is consumed.
It is this Government’s policy to support people to quit all forms of tobacco. Snus has been banned in the UK and across the EU since 1992. It was banned because it was a harmful novel tobacco product at the time, and it still is. It was agreed to prevent this new harmful product from ever coming on to the market. Why on earth would we now decide to give the tobacco industry a get out of jail free card and allow a product that has never ever been allowed on the market in the United Kingdom to enter the marketplace, irrespective of the age of sale?
Dr Johnson
To be clear, I am not suggesting that it should be on the market, as the Minister well knows, because I support both helping people using tobacco to quit and preventing people from starting to use tobacco. I merely want to understand why there is a difference in treatment. On the basis of what the Minister has said, why not make the penalties for cigarette sales the same as the robust penalties that already exist for snus sales? It is his choice.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady teases me, Sir Mark, and I get her desire for scrutiny of the issue of fines and of the measures we will take to enforce these laws in England, where they stand at different rates to other parts of the United Kingdom. There are different rates for different products as well. If somebody wants consistency across the four nations and consistency of approach across all products, I get that—that is laudable—but we believe that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and workable. If they turn out not to be—if they turn out to be an incentive rather than a disincentive—Ministers can come back and can look at these things again.
On territorial extent, the earlier clauses refer to England and Wales and the later clauses to Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the shadow Minister pointed out to the hon. Member for Windsor, a full breakdown of the territorial extent of clauses can be found in the annexe of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which hopefully will then be able to clarify in his mind which bits are UK legislation, which bits are devolved legislation and which bits have territorial extent across England, England and Wales, Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 10, page 5, line 33, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 64, in clause 10, page 5, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.
Clause stand part.
Clause 59 stand part.
Amendment 80, in clause 76, page 40, line 9, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.
Amendment 81, in clause 76, page 40, line 9, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or conditional caution.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.
Clause 76 stand part.
New clause 10—Age verification requirement for online sales of vaping devices and products—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) carries on an online vaping product business, and
(b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of online sales of vaping products and devices.
(2) An ‘age verification policy’ is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish and ensure the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product (the ‘customer’) is not under 18 years of age.
(3) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (2).
(4) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about—
(a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer’s age,
(b) documents that may be used as evidence of a customer’s age,
(c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling vaping products,
(d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed on websites; and
(e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(6) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(7) In this section—
‘the appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers,
‘online vaping product business’ means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail online.”
This new clause introduces a requirement on online vaping product businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy vaping products online. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland.
Dr Johnson
The amendments in this group are similar to previous amendments and are designed to provoke debate on the proportionality of the offences. Like other such Opposition amendments, amendment 63 would amend clause 10 to add
“, save if it is a first offence”.
Amendment 64 would amend clause 10 by adding that if someone has admitted guilt of a first offence under the clause they are liable for a fine at level 3 of the standard scale of caution. We are making a suggestion that the Minister could consider more lenience for someone who commits such an offence for the first time as opposed to someone who recklessly and repeatedly flouts this important legislation.
Did you want me to discuss the whole of clause 10 at this point, Sir Mark?
Dr Johnson
Clauses 1 to 9 of the Bill have predominantly dealt with tobacco products of varying kinds. Clause 10 moves on to the sale of vaping or nicotine products to under-18s, distinct from the measures on a smoke-free generation and the date of birth of 1 January 2009.
The first question is what are the vaping products of which we speak. Clause 48 deals with the interpretation and definitions within part 1. It defines a vape as
“a device which…vaporises substances, other than tobacco, for the purpose of inhalation through a mouthpiece”.
That applies whether it vaporises tobacco as well or not. It excludes medical devices, although we heard in evidence that no vapes are medically approved in the United Kingdom, and medicinal products that vaporise, including any aerosolisers. The clause also refers to an item that is intended to form part of a device, including anything to be attached to a vaping device with a view to imparting flavour. As the Government have already brought forward legislation to ban single-use vapes, it is important that individual components of reusable vapes are covered by the Bill.
A “vaping product” itself means a vape or vaping substance. A vaping substance means a substance other than tobacco that is intended to be vaporised by a vape. Vapes themselves can either contain nicotine or not and work essentially by heating up a liquid that creates a vapour to be inhaled. A nicotine vape typically contains nicotine, propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, and flavourings, which we will come to discuss because of their importance in enticing children.
Nicotine products are also relevant to clause 10, on the sale of vaping or nicotine products. Clause 49 defines nicotine products as
“a device which is intended to enable nicotine to be delivered into the human body”,
part of a device that does that, or anything that contains nicotine. That is important because we have heard again and again how the industry will continually evolve to entrap people in a lifetime of nicotine addiction. This wide definition of anything containing nicotine helps to future-proof this legislation such that it does not have to be revisited again and again as the industry continues to evolve.
The main type of nicotine product currently on the market, other than vapes, is oral nicotine pouches from brands such as Velo and White Fox. These are a tobacco-free product placed between the lip and the gum for oral nicotine absorption. They are similar to Swedish snus, which we have discussed; they are pre-portioned pouches and they are produced in a variety of flavours. We have seen flavours such as lemonade razz and others that are designed with childlike descriptions, perhaps to influence children to use them. Certainly, when I talk to teachers, they say that they starting to see them used in the classroom. They look to parents very much like a small square of chewing gum, and some parents may not be aware of the hazards that these items pose.
The nicotine content within oral nicotine pouches can vary and is typically between 4 mg and 18 mg of oral nicotine per pouch. That is important; I have seen amendments suggesting that they should be limited 20 mg, but 20 mg is a lot. When we look at the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, we have to look not at the amount contained within it in its packet, but at how much is absorbed by the end user, the customer, when actually smoking it. The amount absorbed by the end user is much smaller than the amount in the cigarette. When brands imply that the amount within a pouch is similar to what is in a cigarette, they are talking about the amount within the cigarette itself, not how much the person smoking it will absorb from the cigarette.
The difference is quite marked: people may only take 1.2 mg from a cigarette when they smoke it in the usual way, so 18 mg in an oral nicotine pouch is an awful lot of nicotine. Some online retailers will sell products containing up to 150 mg of nicotine per pouch, with examples of flavours including black cherry, citrus and coffee. The release of nicotine from oral pouches is similar to, or faster than, from smokeless tobacco products and, given the Minister’s robust approach to snus and novel products designed to create addiction, I hope he will take a strong approach to these too.
Oral nicotine pouches sit alongside other novel nicotine products such as nicotine toothpicks and nicotine toothpaste that have emerged on the market. They are regulated under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Under those regulations, there is no age of sale requirement for retailers to impose. As such, individuals aged under 18 can legally purchase nicotine pouches, as opposed to tobacco and vaping products, which require all purchasers to be aged over 18. Clause 10 will help to deal with that.
Furthermore, oral nicotine pouches are not regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, since no medical claims are made, and they are not an alternative to an authorised medicinal nicotine product—something like Nicorette gum, for example. I should note that some supermarkets have a voluntary age of sale; some supermarkets and larger retailers, or even smaller retailers, will voluntarily not sell these products to under-18s, but there currently is no legal requirement for them not to do it.
There is also no restriction on the amount of nicotine contained in an oral nicotine pouch under the current legislation, as such new products sold within the UK can contain levels of nicotine exceeding other nicotine or tobacco-based products such as cigarettes. We have heard about the addictive nature of nicotine; the higher amount transmitted so rapidly into the bloodstream is clearly stronger in its effect and therefore undesirable because it will remove people’s choice not to have those products.
What about the health impact? The health impact of nicotine is another reason why we need to invoke clause 10. Some people say, “If you take the nicotine out of the tobacco, maybe that will be safer.” However, it is safer but not safe. According to the impact assessment produced by the Government in response to the Bill, a recent scoping review found that oral nicotine pouches claimed to be less toxic than cigarettes and that they deliver comparable amounts of nicotine. However, the data for that review was mainly available from industry-funded studies. Despite potentially lower toxicity than cigarettes, oral nicotine pouches still contain nicotine, and that still has harmful effects.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight all the problems of vapes, especially for children, and the lack of evidence out there, other than that produced by the industry itself. Is she aware of any independent studies, either in the UK or abroad, that have done any substantive investigation into how harmful vapes are, either for adults or for children?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Last Tuesday, we heard in evidence from various medical sources, and both the Select Committee and our processor Bill Committee heard in evidence that nicotine is, of itself, harmful, and that the chemicals added to vapes are harmful. In some cases, they are extremely harmful. I will talk more about vaping chemicals later. Indeed, sometimes the products do not contain what they are expected to contain, and that can be worse still. I will return to that subject later, too.
Nicotine is highly addictive and can permanently affect the development of the adolescent brain. We have heard how the industry targets young people, and that is because the adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable. Nicotine can permanently affect its development. Nicotine also fulfils all the criteria for drug dependence. Giving it up is very difficult, and withdrawal symptoms can include cravings, irritability, anxiety, trouble concentrating, headaches and other mental symptoms. Symptoms associated with nicotine and dependence are often not recognised by novice smokers, particularly if they are young.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
On the subject of how nicotine affects the brain and brain development, one thing we have not really touched on—and we have touched on many physical health issues—is the incidence of smoking among people with mental health issues. One submission was from the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership, which said that 45% of people with a serious mental health issue smoke, and around 25% of people with clinical anxiety. It would stand to reason that the impact on a young person’s brain could also start to lead to serious mental health issues, as well as all the physical health and development issues.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of managing nicotine dependence for those with mental health conditions. We know that smoking, in particular, is more likely to take place among people with mental health conditions or those who are in mental health in-patient units. I am sure we will go on to discuss the issue of vending machines.
Last May, in the previous Bill Committee, we heard evidence from the Mental Health Foundation about the myth that tobacco helps with anxiety, and how that myth needed busting. We also heard about the importance of giving extra support to people with mental health conditions to enable them to kick the habit of nicotine—whether that habit is smoking or vaping—because it will help both their physical and mental health. However, it can be more challenging for them to complete. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue.
Returning to clause 10, a study considering the effects in adolescents of nicotine dependence after the initiation of smoking cigarettes found that the symptoms of nicotine dependence can appear only a few days after initiation. Given that oral nicotine pouches contain similar or higher levels of nicotine, similar symptoms may appear following initiation of oral nicotine pouch use, which is why it is particularly important for children that we pass clause 10 and ensure that children are protected from these nicotine products.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I applaud the hon. Lady for her admirable history lesson on the background of vaping. Can I ask how it is relevant to what we are discussing in terms of the penalties and the sale of products?
Dr Johnson
It is relevant because we are discussing a product in the UK that we are considering essentially doing away with, and banning completely for children. The hon. Gentleman may note that we discussed the history of tobacco when we debated clause 1, on tobacco, and no less than two Members of the hon. Gentleman’s own party talked about how interesting and relevant that was—[Interruption.] At least one of those individuals appeared very genuine.
Let me go back to Hon Lik, who invented the first e-cigarette as a way to cure his own smoking addiction and to try to prevent deaths such as his father’s from lung cancer—and we have talked much about the potential for smoking to cause lung cancer. The basic concept of mimicking smoking via vaporising liquids remains the same. The company he started was later bought as a subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco, which again demonstrates that the industry will continue to try, where it can, to be involved in nicotine addiction.
The World Health Organisation proclaims that it does not consider electronic cigarettes a legitimate smoking cessation aid. It demands that marketers immediately remove from their material any suggestion that it considers electronic cigarettes to be safe and effective. In 2011, the WHO released a report on e-cigarettes recommending that they be regulated in the same way as tobacco products. Clause 10 will do some of that, inasmuch as it will bring e-cigarettes in line with the legislation on tobacco products so that they cannot be sold to under-18s. However, it does not go so far as to bring it in line with the new smoke-free generation legislation. The Minister may wish to comment on why he has not done so.
In the last Bill, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment that would have included nicotine products in the smoke-free generation legislation, banning them for those born after 1 January 2009 rather than just for under-18s. Her concern, as I understand it, was that the industry would pivot to other forms of nicotine that did not contain tobacco, hook a new generation on them and use similar marketing techniques to hook them on a lifetime of nicotine addiction, as it once did with tobacco. The Minister could seek to avoid that by preventing non-medicinal products containing nicotine from being used by anyone born after 1 January 2009. That power is within his grasp. On a personal level—this is not necessarily my party’s view—I would like him to seize that power.
The sale of vaping products to under-18s is addressed in clause 10. One of the reasons for restricting the sale is the range of pulmonary and coronary conditions—lung and heart conditions—that can occur for people who vape. To help us to understand why they are so damaging, it is important to understand what is in vapes per se. This is not just about nicotine products; it is also about vaping products.
As I say, nicotine is an extremely addictive substance that disrupts brain development in adolescence. Because adolescence is a critical time for neural development, it makes young people particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of nicotine. Adolescence is marked by substantial neurodevelopment, including synaptic pruning and the maturing of the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain that governs decision making, impulse control and emotional regulation. Nicotine exposure during this period can disrupt those processes, leading to lasting cognitive and behavioural impairment. Research indicates that nicotine alters the neurotransmitter systems, noticeably those using acetylcholine and glutamate receptors, affecting the neural pathways essential for learning and memory development. Nicotine exposure during adolescence has been linked to deficits in attention, learning and impulse control. Studies have shown that adolescents using nicotine products exhibit diminished cognitive performance and are more prone to mood disorders, including depression and anxiety.
Another reason to get rid of these products, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, is that they can lead, in and of themselves, to problems with mental health. As hon. Members will know, these issues can adversely affect academic achievement—as we have heard from teachers’ evidence in the past and evidence to this Committee—and social interactions, potentially leading to broader physical challenges.
The Chair
May I ask the shadow Minister to shorten her very interesting and detailed explanation of why nicotine and other substances are harmful and focus more on the legislation and less on the historical and scientific background?
Dr Johnson
You will be pleased to know that I have concluded my remarks on history for now, Sir Mark, but with your leave, I want to talk about a couple of the chemicals that are found in vaping products. It is important for hon. Members to understand the reason for banning vaping products per se, as opposed to just nicotine products. There is a reason why both are included, rather than just one. That is why I wanted to discuss nicotine and its effects, as well as the effects of some other chemical constituents of the vaping product.
Propylene glycol is another main constituent of vapes. It is used in antifreeze, paint solvents and artificial smoke for fog machines and helps the vape to carry the nicotine and flavours to the user. When used in small amounts it is considered safe, but when used in high doses or over prolonged periods it can accumulate and cause lactic acidosis, depression of the nervous system and haemolysis, the destruction of red blood cells. When one’s red blood cells are destroyed, one becomes anaemic, which makes one tired and can make one very unwell.
Another component in some vapes is diethylene glycol, a toxic compound found in antifreeze that is associated with lung disease. It can be used as a sweetener, but it has resulted in many epidemics of poisoning since the early 20th century, perhaps most famously when it was found in wine and many bottles of wine had to be recalled. Believe it or not, some vapes also contain formaldehyde, which is classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, showing once again that the products that clause 10 seeks to ban are not as benign as some may believe or as their pretty colours and flavours may suggest. It can also cause respiratory and skin irritation on exposure.
The Chair
Order. May I ask the shadow Minister to cut down on some of the detail? Just tell us that it is harmful and give us the reason, without going through a full paragraph on every chemical.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Mark. Other chemicals found in some vapes that can be harmful are acrolein, which is a herbicide, and diacetyl, which is found in flavours such as chocolate milk and toffee because it has a buttery taste. Another is benzene, which is found in car exhaust fumes and is a carcinogenic chemical that can cause such things as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma—all conditions that we certainly do not want children, or indeed anyone, to get.
It is also worth noting that, because e-cigarette heaters contain a coil and cartridge with a metal component, the vapour can contain some heavy metals, including cadmium, which can cause chest pain, shortness of breath and cancer; nickel, which is carcinogenic; lead, which we know causes health problems; and chromium. That is a non-exhaustive list. My speech originally contained such a long list that I feared it would take up all the Committee’s time. I do not want to do that, Sir Mark, or to test your patience, but I want to emphasise that these findings come from the research that has been done on vapes so far. It took time for the scientific community to establish the fact that cigarettes and tobacco are harmful to health and the ways in which they are harmful. We are already finding the health challenges of vaping, so it is important for us to take these steps today.
On 8 February 2023, I presented the Disposable Electronic Cigarettes (Prohibition of Sale) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill that highlighted the challenges that vapes pose to the environment and to children’s health. I am pleased that the Government have now taken steps to ban them. Things have progressed, and I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House. It is important to see the progression of legislation on vapes, which is so important not only to me but to Parliament and the country.
On clause 10, it is already an offence to sell nicotine vaping products to under-18s in all parts of the UK, but it is not an offence to sell nicotine products to them. Currently, local authority trading standards in England can bring a prosecution under section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for the under-age sale of tobacco products or cigarette papers; magistrates courts can impose a fine of £2,500 on conviction and prevent the individual from selling those products for 12 months. Under the Proxy Purchasing of Tobacco, Nicotine Products etc. (Fixed Penalty Amount) Regulations 2015, trading standards officers can issue a fixed penalty notice of £90 to individuals for purchasing or attempting to purchase tobacco and nicotine products for someone under 18. However, it is the adult making or attempting to make the purchase who commits the offence, not the retailer.
Jack Rankin
We are talking specifically about under-18s. I disagree with some of the later regulations on vaping, but when it comes to under-18s being given vaping products, I am aligned with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that if companies are giving away free products to Members of Parliament and staffers who are over the age of 18—some of them may be smokers—they are actually supporting the Government’s aim of getting to a smoke-free generation, which is very different from what we see in clause 10? I agree with the Government’s aim.
Dr Johnson
I think my hon. Friend highlights something common across our party. Many members of our party are uncertain, as I understand my hon. Friend is, about the changes to tobacco legislation for adults with the competency to make risk-based decisions. I understand your points; I do not necessarily share them, but I understand them.
Dr Johnson
Sorry. Equally, I note that the vast majority of Members across the House, both in my party and in other parties, strongly agree with clause 10 and the other clauses that seek to ensure that children do not have access to these products. If someone sells a vaping or nicotine product to a purchaser who is under the age of 18, it is an offence. Under clause 10(2), the seller can defend themselves on the basis
“that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser and it confirmed the purchaser’s age as at least 18 years old, or…that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.”
The Minister has talked about the simplicity of the smoke-free generation and his view that it is easier for shop workers to look at a piece of identification and establish whether someone’s birthday was before or after 1 January 2009 than to establish whether someone was born 18 years ago by doing the mathematics in their head from the person’s date of birth. That brings me again to the question of why we will not have a nicotine-free generation as well as a smoke-free generation. Would it be classed as a reasonable step? If a shop worker had asked for ID, taken the proper ID, as defined in clause 10(3), and done the mathematics wrong in their head, would they have taken all reasonable steps or would their arithmetic error mean that they were to all intents and purposes a criminal? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Acceptable identity documents for the purpose of buying nicotine or vaping products if one is over the age of 18 include a passport, a UK driving licence, a driving licence from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, a European photocard driving licence or a proof-of-age standards scheme card with a hologram. During the discussions of voter ID, there was a debate about how many people had access to different forms of ID. Passports are reasonably expensive and not everyone drives a car, so how would someone who did not drive a car or have a passport provide ID? When it came to voter ID, the previous Government looked at a number of reliable sources of identification that could be used, which included the veterans card, certain travel documents and the like.
Sarah Bool
Recent announcements from the Home Office have confirmed that businesses will be able to legally accept the use of digital proof of age for alcohol products. I would like to see that approach extended to these products, to make the life of retailers easier as far as identification goes. It would be good to have further consistency and an extension of the definition of identity documents to allow for digital forms.
Dr Johnson
Digital ID is not something that I am particularly familiar with, but nevertheless it sounds sensible, where ID is reliable, reproducible, not easily faked and easily identifiable by staff. Broadening the forms of acceptable ID would ensure that when somebody is old enough to legally purchase a product, it is not excessively challenging for them to obtain an ID to do so. Clearly the Minister would want people to be able to buy age-restricted products if they are old enough, so I am interested to hear his view not only on my hon. Friend’s intervention about digital identification, but on veterans cards, bus passes and other cards that demonstrate the age of the user and include a photograph for added reliability.
Clause 10(4) states:
“A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”
On a personal level, selling vapes and nicotine products to children is a dreadful thing to do, as I am sure the chief medical officer has said. I am more than happy for the Minister to increase that fine if he wants to, but I am interested to understand why he has set it at that level. Notwithstanding any changes across the four nations, it is important that we look at the choices that the Minister has made. That is what we are here to scrutinise.
The problem that clause 10 seeks to address is vaping among children. Are children vaping? Yes, I am afraid to say that they are, in large quantities. The biggest report of which I am aware that looked specifically at rates of youth vaping was published in 2023 by Healthwatch Blackpool. It looked at over 4,000 children and found that just under a third of them—31%—said that they
“currently vape or sometimes vape”.
Of those children, 65%
“expressed a preference for fruity flavoured vapes”,
which we will deal with later in the Bill. There is clearly an issue that vapes are being directly marketed to children with bright, attractive colours. Some of the most popular flavours include bubble gum, cotton candy, strawberry ice cream and unicorn milkshake. What does unicorn milkshake taste like? I have no idea, but it is easy to see the appeal to children.
An investigation by The Observer in 2022 found that ElfBar, a company that makes vapes, was promoting its products to kids via TikTok. The TikTok platform is apparently used by half of eight to 11-year-olds and by three quarters of 16 to 17-year-olds. When I found that out, I had a look at the screen time of my own children to establish that they were not getting on it.
Jack Rankin
I support my hon. Friend wholeheartedly on restricting flavours aimed at children, which I think is the Minister’s intention, but does she agree that vape flavours that are being advertised more generally, so long as they are straightforward and descriptive, can help people to shake smoking and can be firmly aimed at adults? The Government should not restrict the flavours so generally that the smoking cessation tool is weakened.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid that once again I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that those who advertise brightly coloured vapes shaped like highlighters or SpongeBob SquarePants, or flavoured as unicorn milkshake and green gummy bear, are advertising them for the consumption of adults. I do not doubt that there are some adult smokers in their 40s who enjoy the flavour of unicorn milkshake and green gummy bear—perhaps those flavours are nice—but I do not believe that adults are the target audience for that marketing at all.
Jack Rankin
Perhaps I explained myself ineloquently —or maybe my hon. Friend was being mischievous in her characterisation. I agree with her wholeheartedly, but I would say that raspberry is a perfectly legitimate flavour for an upstanding vape seller to sell to an adult smoker as a cessation device. I would not want to go too hard on that so that we do not cut off that legitimate smoking cessation route.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying his intervention but, again, I am not sure about that.
The Chair
Order. Flavours will come up later in the Bill. The question really is not pertinent to clause 10.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend can ask me later, when we come to the colours and flavours.
To summarise, clause 10 is an important clause that seeks to stop children getting hold of vapes and nicotine products and, in so doing, aims to reduce the number of children who get hooked on nicotine, which has very harmful effects, and who may even damage themselves using vapes. In one school in my constituency, eight children collapsed after using vaping products. Lincolnshire police examined five of the vapes confiscated from the school and found that they contained antifreeze, poster varnish and other chemicals such as trichloroethylene, 2-methoxyethyl acetate, Steol-M and diethylene glycol diacetate—some very harmful chemicals that have no legal place in vapes at all. Some of those chemicals are banned, but are nevertheless being put into these products.
Clause 59 is similar, but, given the principle of devolution, applies to Scotland. It provides for the same principle of an extension of offences to vaping and nicotine products, but does so in recognition of the fact that Scotland has different laws by amending the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. It adds various substitutions to ensure that it is not possible to buy tobacco and vaping products in Scotland, in order to protect the children of Scotland.
Clause 76 provides continuity across the United Kingdom based on the principles of devolution in Northern Ireland and of working together to protect the interests of children. That is very important. The clause adds article 4H, on the sale of vaping and nicotine products, to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 after article 4G, which is itself inserted by clause 75. This provision essentially inserts the same provisions as those in clause 10, except that once again we see a higher penalty in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is clearly more concerned with punishing those who sell vaping and nicotine products to children than the Minister appears to be.
Amendments 63, 64, 80 and 81 look specifically at the proportionality of penalties and the balance in choosing them—whether they be as punitive as those in Northern Ireland, or those in place for snus for people who are reckless and do it often as opposed to those who have committed a first offence and do not do it so often.
Sarah Bool
I echo what my hon. Friend is saying, particularly in relation to online sales. I think we are all very aware that one aspect is being in the shop and physically trying to buy a product with ID; I take it from the ingenuity of our younger generation that they will always find ways around that, especially online, so we should perhaps give some further thought to how we can ensure that the companies are operating effectively—that there is robustness without over-regulation and that we have the methods to ensure that people are not following another loophole.
The Chair
Order. Before we proceed, let me explain that Sir Mark has had to leave the Chair and I am taking over for the duration—for as long as you choose to sit. I have, however, been briefed, so I am sure that nobody in the room will seek to take advantage of a change of Chairman to cover the same subjects all over again.
Dr Johnson
That is very kind of you, Sir Roger. It is good to see you in the Chair, and an honour to serve under your chairmanship again. As you have been briefed, we are discussing clause 10, the importance of banning the sale of vaping and nicotine products to children. We had just moved on to new clause 10, which is part of this group of amendments. It was tabled by the Opposition and looks at the online marketplace, because there is concern that the industry seeks every single workaround and loophole as creatively as possible. The new clause seeks to ensure that guidance is provided to prevent advantage from being taken in the online marketplace, particularly because we have seen adverts for “no ID” sales, which clearly are designed to entice children to buy products that they should not be able to get.
Subsection (4)(d) of the new clause talks about
“the form and content of notices…displayed on websites”,
so it looks at the messaging. I suppose that is the equivalent of clauses 5 and 6: “What should our billboard notice say?”
New clause 10(5) says:
“A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable…to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.”
The Minister may wish to change that—it was the opening point for that offence—but again there clearly needs to be a penalty for people who do sell in the online marketplace.
Subsection (6) says:
“Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
We did talk about the negative resolution procedure—my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is temporarily not in his place—but essentially the affirmative resolution procedure means that regulations would require, I believe, a vote in the House to push them forward.
Just to clarify, subsection (7) says:
“In this section…‘the appropriate national authority’”,
which would be able to provide the regulations and produce the guidance, would be the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh Ministers in Wales.
The principle of this proposal is that vaping businesses that operate online should be subject to the same regulations, rules and laws, enforced with the same stringency and severity, as corner shops, supermarkets and the like.
Sarah Bool
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, on banning those who are under 18 from vaping. Many know about the health risks of smoking. They see it as a bad habit and disgusting, as the children of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon noted, but vapes are seen as being new age and social. Parents are in danger of encouraging vaping by buying something that they think is safer than smoking or drugs. We must be very careful about that, so this ban will be important in restricting sales. Children fear being excluded, so, through peer pressure, they are forced into vaping. We need to stamp out this practice.
Children are often confused about vaping. The problem is that they get an accidental addition to nicotine and struggle to pay attention in school, which has a negative impact not just on them but on their classmates. Apparently, children vape to deal with stress and anxiety—they are almost self-medicating, which is appalling. It is right that we protect our children by introducing this offence.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend talks about children self-medicating, but are they not making the situation worse? The use of vapes and nicotine products may exacerbate, rather than ease, any mental health symptoms that they have.
Sarah Bool
Absolutely. Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a medical professional, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and we need to stop it as soon as possible to protect children.
Gregory Stafford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I want to make two points about this part of the Bill. First, I support new clause 10, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It is essential that we close off all avenues for children to purchase vapes. In the Bill, the Government have done a very good job of dealing with physical retailers, but there is a gap in relation to online retailers. I hope the Minister is minded to support the new clause, either when we come to a vote on it in a few moments, or by inserting something similar into the Bill on Report to ensure we close off online retailers.
In my opinion, online retailers are more dangerous than physical shops. A child—especially a very young child—has to depart from their guardian or their adult to go and buy something in a shop, whereas they can purchase products online on their phone or computer in the comfort of their own home, and it is very difficult for a parent or a senior person in their family to spot that. We know that that is where a number of children and young people are getting these products, so we have to close off that avenue.
My second point is about a more fundamental issue with the clause itself. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister has said this quite extensively, but it bears repeating so that we get some answers from the Minister. It does not seem obvious why the Government decided to ban vapes for anyone under the age of 18, whereas for other tobacco products it is for anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. I completely accept that vapes can be used as a smoking cessation tool; it is important that they are used in that way.
When we come on to vending machines, there are medical settings in which people require some form of intervention to help to stop smoking, and we should be looking at that. However, it is not beyond the wit of the Bill’s drafting to apply 1 January 2009 to tobacco products, and then to create an exemption specifically for smoking cessation. I want to understand why the Minister has decided to make this distinction. Does he not see the potential risks in doing so? Hopefully, we all want people not to be addicted to any products that are harmful to them, but both retailers and consumers, when faced with two sets of rules for very similar products, could become confused and accidently fall foul of the law. Because of that confusion, the law might not be enforced as the Minister would like it to be. I very much hope the Minister addresses those two points in his closing remarks on these clauses.
The Chair
Order. Forgive me, I have only just taken over as Chair, but the hon. Gentleman was not in the room for a chunk of this debate. Is that correct?
The Chair
In that case, I do not think it is quite appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak. I will allow him to speak very briefly, but I do mean brief.
Jack Rankin
I disagree with the Government on some of the clauses dealing with vaping, but I will come to those later, when it is more appropriate. I agree with what the Government are trying to do in clauses 10, 11 and 12 to toughen things up for under-18s. To that end, I encourage them to support new clause 10, tabled by the shadow Minister, which tries to make purchasing more difficult for under-18s online. We talked earlier about the principle of vending machines, which is addressed in clause 12 and by trying to ensure age verification when there is no one else present. It seems to me that new clause 10 is entirely in line with that, so I hope the Minister might consider supporting it.
Andrew Gwynne
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Sir Roger. Before addressing these amendments, the respective clauses and the proposed new clause, I want to make it clear that I will be using the generic term “vapes or vaping products” throughout to refer to vapes, e-cigarettes or nicotine vapour products. Likewise, I will use the term “nicotine products” to refer to consumer nicotine products, such as nicotine pouches. I am not referring to licensed nicotine-based medicines, which will not be further restricted by the Bill.
Under clause 10 it will continue to be an offence to sell a nicotine vape to a person who is under the age of 18 in England and Wales, and anyone who is found guilty of the offence will be liable to pay a fine of up to £2,500 if convicted. It is a defence if the person can prove they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser that showed they were over 18, or that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid committing an offence. The clause also extends this age of sale restriction to consumer nicotine products and non-nicotine vapes, as we know that children are accessing those products. There are currently no age of sale restrictions on those products, and non-nicotine vapes can easily have nicotine solutions manually added to them.
Clause 59 refers to Scotland and extends existing offences in Scotland for selling vaping products to under-18s, proxy purchases on behalf of under-18s, and failure to operate an age verification policy related to vaping products, so nicotine products are also covered in those offences. By amending that legislation, we will align the approach across the United Kingdom, which is the wish of the devolved Administrations. The clause amends Scottish legislation by replacing the term “nicotine vapour products” with the term “vaping products”, thus aligning the definitions across the UK.
Another of the changes to Scottish legislation in this clause makes it an offence for any person managing or controlling a premises to have a prohibited vending machine available for use. This effectively maintains the existing prohibition in Scotland on vending machines selling vaping and tobacco products; indeed, it extends it to include machines from which nicotine products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers can be purchased. Again, this aligns the approach across the UK.
Clause 76 applies similar measures in Northern Ireland to those in England and Wales, meaning that it will be an offence to sell a vaping or nicotine product to a person in Northern Ireland under the age of 18, thereby expanding current Northern Ireland legislation to cover all vaping products and nicotine products. Anyone convicted of the offence will be liable to a pay a fine of up to £5,000. All these measures for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will come into force six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to give retailers time to introduce them.
These clauses will play an important role in ensuring that we can tackle youth vaping successfully. They provide businesses with certainty as to who they may legally sell products to, and they reinforce our health advice that children should never vape.
However, the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister would undermine that approach by creating a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of selling vaping or nicotine products to someone under age. They would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would either be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—that is, a fine of £1,000—or be given a caution instead. Level 3 is one level lower than the level 4 fine of £2,500 that someone who commits this offence is liable to under the current legislation.
Dr Johnson
The Minister knows me well enough to understand that I would never seek more lenient penalties for those selling vapes to children; there is no excuse for selling vapes to children. However, I am concerned that there may be sales in the online marketplace that are not adequately covered by the regulations as they are currently drafted. The principle of new clause 10 was to ensure that such offences are properly covered, so I would be grateful for his reassurance in that regard.
Andrew Gwynne
I will come to that; I am just spelling out why I am concerned about the consequences of the shadow Minister’s proposals in the amendment, because they would lead to more lenient penalties for those committing an offence for the first time than they are liable to under the current legislation. Again, like the amendments that we have already discussed, the effect would be to create a first-time offence, and if the Committee is content, I will not repeat myself, as the rationale for my asking the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment remains the same.
The shadow Minister’s new clause 10 would introduce an offence in England and Wales for businesses selling vaping products online without applying an age verification policy. It would therefore create a requirement for businesses selling vaping products online to take steps to establish and ensure that any customer attempting to purchase those products online was above the age of 18.
Although I am incredibly sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intentions, as I said earlier, the Bill already makes it an offence in England and Wales to sell a vaping or nicotine product to anyone under the age of 18. As with in-person retail, online retailers must take all reasonable steps to avoid selling vaping products to anyone under age. Alongside the Bill, we are exploring how we can enhance online age verification to further tackle online under-age sales. The office for digital identities and attributes, which sits within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, is creating a framework of standards and governance, underpinned by legislation, which will enable the widespread use of trusted digital identity services. We are working closely with DSIT to consider how its work to enable the use of digital identities can best support retailers selling tobacco and vapes, whether online or in-person. It is for those reasons that I commend clauses 10, 59 and 76.
Gregory Stafford
I may have missed the Minister’s explanation, but why has he decided not to have the incremental increase for vapes when he has it for smoking? Does he feel that there is something fundamentally different about vapes, beyond the smoking cessation element, that could have been an exemption from the progressive age range that he has for tobacco?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman should panic not; I had not quite come to the end of my contribution. I was merely saying that it is for those reasons that I commend clause 10, clause 59 and clause 76 to the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady will allow me to first answer her hon. Friend, it may well be that I answer her thoughts in the course of answering him. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a difference here between our approach to tobacco and to vapes. The hon. Lady—the shadow Minister—has, rightly, always been, and will continue to be, a doughty campaigner for a nicotine-free generation and for a smoke-free generation. That may well be where we end up at some stage in the future. However, we believe that the measures in the Bill are entirely appropriate and proportionate. We are not planning to raise the age of sale for vapes in a similar way to that for tobacco; let me explain why.
Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. No other consumer product kills two thirds of its users. It is therefore entirely appropriate to create a smoke-free generation, as we are seeking to do in this legislation, and to gradually phase out tobacco so that it is a thing of history. Although vaping is not harm-free—I will come on to the harms in due course—it is less harmful than smoking and, currently, we do not believe that a generational age of sale restriction on vapes would be an appropriate response to the current evidence in relation to health harms. Instead, the Bill contains strong measures to stop the promotion and the blatant advertising of vapes to children, and so bring about definitive and positive change to stop future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine.
It may well be, over the course of the coming years, that greater evidence emerges about the harms of nicotine. Lots of studies of vaping are taking place and it may well be that we have to take further action; that is why the measures in the Bill are permissive. The tobacco industry has often, after having one route closed off to it, sought an alternative route to maintain market share and market presence. It may well be that the vaping industry employs exactly the same tactics—all the evidence so far would suggest that it does. That is why the measures in the Bill are not just proportionate for the here and now but future-proof, so that Ministers can come back to Parliament, on a whole range of issues, and seek to close off other routes.
I would hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon understands that there is a very big difference between tobacco and vaping. However, we reserve the right to return to Parliament and to utilise the powers in this Bill, should we be granted them, to ensure that, if there is evidence of harms, we can immediately respond to those.
Jack Rankin
I commend the Minister on making the evidence-based point about the difference between a smoke-free generation and a nicotine-free generation. Does he agree—I think he does, given the comments he has just made—that there are some somewhat sweeping powers here, which could be used to come back and ask for more legislation against vaping companies? Does he agree that that potential lack of certainty for legitimate vaping businesses might impede investment in this space, which is actually contributing to the benefit of a smoke-free generation?
Andrew Gwynne
There is nothing in the Bill that we are proposing to do that will restrict the legitimate sale of vapes. As a Government, we recognise that vapes have been used, and continue to be used, as a stop smoking tool. Our advice remains very clear: vapes are not harm free. We do not yet know the full extent of the harm, but as we heard from the chief medical officers from the four nations, it is unlikely that they are harm free. Indeed, there is limited evidence showing some harms, and there are lots of studies and research taking place to ascertain what the long-term impacts of vaping might be.
Our advice remains clear: if a person has never smoked, not smoking, and not vaping, is the best thing. If a person has smoked, vaping is safer than smoking, but it is not risk-free, and as a smoking cessation tool, it has proven to be successful for some. We do not want children to ever take up vaping—ever, and not in adulthood, either. Vaping is for people who have been smokers who want to give up; vapes are a safer product than tobacco.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for clearly explaining that children should never vape. In fact, if children are smoking and wish to quit, they can get support from their GP and others, but they should not use vaping, because vaping is bad for children.
To take the Minister back to my question about new clause 10, before he took the two previous interventions, he said that he is working with DSIT to provide regulations and legislation that would cover new clause 10 and ensure that online sellers of age-restricted products are obliged to check a person’s age before selling them. Will he advise when he expects such regulations to be available? Will they be in time for his smoke-free generation in a couple of years’ time?
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely hope that the measures will be worked on at pace and will be available for that. Officials from the Department of Health and Social Care are working closely with colleagues in DSIT to ensure that these matters are included in the online age verification legislation that it is seeking to introduce.
A couple of other points were raised in the course of the debate. On the issue of fines and why there are inconsistencies, I do not wish to over-labour the point, but the maximum fines that the shadow Minister quoted are consistent with existing tobacco and vapes legislation. We believe they are proportionate to the severity of the offences. There is a bit of a pushmi-pullyu argument here, because on the one hand we have had amendments that seek to have more lenient penalties, and on the other, arguments for harsher penalties. We believe that the current fine levels in England are appropriate, which is why we are remaining with them. It is for trading standards to take a proportionate approach to enforcement, deciding the appropriate action to take for a given case to achieve compliance based on the evidence before it.
On TikTok and advertising, I understand that the Advertising Standards Agency has issued an enforcement notice to vaping companies and brands instructing them to stop any advertising on TikTok. To date, it has reported around 300 posts, approximately 80% of which predated the notice to TikTok for removal.
On the issue of enforcement with physical sales, and online sales with age verification, it was interesting that in the evidence session we heard from National Trading Standards that it has undertaken test purchasing both in brick and mortar premises and online and that the failure rate in brick and mortar premises was 26%, compared with 10% online. We do not want any breaches of the law, but that puts into context that the current issues tend to be on the ground rather than online—although we need to cover all bases. I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendments and proposed new clause.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for providing the extra information. Amendments 63, 64, 81 and 80 were designed once again to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalties across the different clauses of the Bill. Sometimes the penalties are different for the same offence and, inexplicably, sometimes they are the same for different offences that perhaps one would expect them to be different for. However, I will not press those amendments to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
PURCHASE OF VAPING OR NICOTINE PRODUCTS ON BEHALF OF UNDER 18S
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 11, page 6, line 5, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 66.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, in clause 11, page 6, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 63, 64, and 65, prevents penalties for a first offence under sections 10 and 11 being beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary caution.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 82, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert
“, save if it is a first offence.”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.
Amendment 83, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert—
“(3A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”.
This amendment, together with amendments 80, 81, and 82, prevent penalties for a first offence under sections 76 and 77 (pertaining to age of sale restrictions for vaping and nicotine products in Northern Ireland) beyond level 3 and provides for a caution.
Clause 77 stand part.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 65 and 66 apply to clause 11. In line with other Opposition amendments tabled to various clauses of this Bill, they seek to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalties. They encourage the Minister to look in detail at those penalties before Report—specifically, to consider the differences between the shop worker, the shopkeeper and the shop owner in terms of the level of fine required, and also to consider the individual who inadvertently commits an offence on one occasion versus the person or company that deliberately and repeatedly flouts the law and require different handling.
Amendment 65 amends clause 11 to add at the end of page 6, line 5,
“, save if it is a first offence.”,
while amendment 66 inserts:
“A person who has admitted guilt”—
that is, a person who has owned up—
“of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.
I think I have explained what those are for.
Clause 11 makes it a criminal offence for a person aged 18 or over to purchase, or attempt to purchase, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of someone who is under the age of 18—essentially stopping adults from buying vapes for kids. Clearly, buying things for children that are so potentially harmful to them is not the action of a responsible adult.
If a person is charged with this offence, they can defend themselves by saying that they had no reason to suspect that the person they were buying for was under 18. It is not really clear to me when that sort of a situation would occur. If someone is under 18, it should be fairly obvious that they are quite young. Any responsible adult who knew the child would have an idea of how old they were, and any responsible adult who did not know the child would surely guess that there was a risk in buying something for someone who looked young, in case they were under 18 and incriminated themselves. I understand why the defence is there, but I am not really sure how it would be used. The Minister may be able to enlighten us further.
A person found guilty in relation to this offence is liable to a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale, which amounts to £2,500. This clause is very important, because we must stop children getting access to vapes. Popular culture tells us that vapes are very accessible to children. For example, we were all glued to our screens—I know we were in the Johnson household—watching Luke Littler, the recent BBC young sports personality of the year, win the PDC world darts championship. It was fabulous to see someone so young achieve such an amazing feat.
Luke Littler won half a million pounds, which is a wonderful thing for that young gentleman, but he reportedly said that he would celebrate by vaping. Of course, he is actually a 17-year-old young man, despite his great achievements. He is a sports prodigy, a national hero, and a wonderful example to young people of what can be achieved at a young age, but presumably, until he turns 18 very soon, he will need someone else to buy vapes for him. That will be illegal under the new law.
On a more serious note, we know through the various different reports that on county lines, where people are selling drugs, they are often giving vapes to children as a way of enticing them into feeling that they are favoured by those adults. They are using children’s addiction to nicotine and desire for further vapes, and for access to further vapes, as part of a grooming process to get them into dreadful situations with county lines. Clause 11, which prevents children’s access to vaping and nicotine products via a proxy adult, is a very sensible measure that I will support.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support. Clause 11 means that it will be an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of a person who is under the age of 18 in England and Wales. The clause replaces the existing restrictions, which only apply to nicotine vapes.
Similarly, for Northern Ireland, clause 77 means that it will be an offence for a person aged 18 or over to buy, or attempt to buy, a vaping or nicotine product on behalf of a person who is under the age of 18 in Northern Ireland. The clause replaces the existing restrictions that only apply to nicotine vapes and extends them to non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. Anyone convicted of the offence would be liable to a fine of up to £5,000. Both of these clauses contain the defence for those charged that, if they can prove they had no reason to suspect the person they were buying the product for was under 18, that would be considered.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 65, 66, 82 and 83 were specifically there to provoke debate on the coherency of the penalty portfolio across the Bill. The Minister has clarified his position on that. It is very important that we see those who are selling vapes to children or, in the case of clause 11, buying vapes for children, appropriately deterred from doing so or appropriately punished. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Vaping and nicotine product vending machines
Sarah Bool
I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 12, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 78 stand part.
Sarah Bool
This amendment states:
“The offence set out in subsection (1) does not apply to vending machines that are located within specialised mental health units that provide care for mental health patients.”
I tabled this amendment on the basis of the evidence provided to us. I put on record that the Committee received a letter by Peter Terry, a
“Smoke Free lead in a large Mental Health Trust in the North West of England”.
In his letter, he says,
“As you may be aware the success of hospitals and Trusts becoming smokefree environments (especially Mental Health units) is particularly challenging. Mental Health service users due to their conditions have little or no motivation to stop smoking. On the units of my trust the prevalence of smoking is consistently between 70-77%.”
He goes on to say:
“To ensure we allow service users who are hospitalized a safer way to manage their nicotine addiction...my Trust would require Vending machines. These would allow service users to purchase a closed pod system device, which is a lot less harmful than tobacco smoking. On admission they would be offered either free NRT products or to purchase a vape as described above.”
He is asking that we make an exemption.
The exemption was also supported in another submission from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS foundation trust. Ben Kingsbury, the tobacco dependency lead in that trust, wrote to express his concerns over the ban on the sale of vapes from vending machines. He indicated that his trust had installed vending machines back in May 2024
“to ensure that vapes are available to staff and patients at all times.”
He stated:
“Since installation of the vending machines in our Trust we have had over 2400 individual vends. Each vend represents a staff or service user making a positive decision to improve their health. 2400 individual vends in just 6 months represents a saving to the Trust of around £12,000.”
He argued:
“Removing the machines will reduce patients’ independence in buying their own devices while in hospital and will have a financial implication to our Trust, as wards would be expected to fund more vapes.”
He was also concerned that
“a lack of vape provision on our Trust premises may result in patients returning to smoking”,
which I am sure we all agree we do not wish to be the result. He also asked that we consider the financial implications, as well as health and wellbeing of service users, by implementing the exemption.
We can all empathise with those who are admitted to mental health units. They may have difficult and complex conditions that they need to work through, and coping with a potential addiction may be too much for them. There may be a logic to listen to the voices of the experts—especially if we end up having smoke-free places around hospitals and how that will work out—asking us to allow a mechanism to help someone with smoking cessation.
The Minister himself has just said that vaping can be good to help someone quit, but if they do not have access to a vape they may face difficulties such as cravings, anxiety, trouble concentrating and all the other elements that go with it, including potentially going back to smoking tobacco in its pure form. Taking away the option from those in mental health units will only make their recovery harder, longer and more expensive for the NHS. I heartedly commend to all members of the Committee that we all consider this amendment thoroughly, to ensure that we are not doing additional harm by taking an aggressive approach in this regard.
Gregory Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for moving the amendment. One thing we have seen across the debate thus far, and indeed during oral evidence, is that we have been led by the evidence—the Minister has clearly said that. The evidence that my hon. Friend has provided is from medical experts. These are not vape peddlers or people from the industry, or people who want to make a quick buck out of those who are addicted to nicotine. These are health professionals who are trying to ensure that there is a balance between what is absolutely right—we do not want to see people vaping—and the reality of the situation in medical settings, especially in mental health settings, where the ability for patients to have a certain amount of autonomy is often vital to their mental recovery.
My hon. Friend also made the valid point that if we remove smoking and tobacco products from in and around hospitals, which is a suggestion in the Bill that I think I support, we must ensure that those who are addicted—and we accept that it is an addiction—are dealt with appropriately. Obviously, in most regular acute trusts, that would be dealt with through a nicotine patch, but for mental health services, as I said, the requirement for autonomy should sometimes outweigh the functional nature of a nicotine patch. Indeed, my understanding is that nicotine patches do not work for everyone, because some of the addiction is in the holding as well as the imbibing.
I welcome the Minister’s response. As I have said to him on previous amendments, even if he is not happy with the precise wording my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire has put forward, I hope that he can bring in some kind of exemption on Report, so that the medical professionals who have written to us are satisfied that their concerns have been heard?
Dr Johnson
Amendment 96 and clause 12 relate to vaping and nicotine product vending machines. I support the clause; indeed, if one looks at proceedings on the previous, Conservative iteration of the Bill from earlier this year, one will see that new clause 4, which was signed by just under 40 Members proposed a ban on vaping product vending machines, and the lead name was mine. I was concerned that vending machines would be used by children to obtain vaping and nicotine products. That loophole in the law that would make it easy—as we have seen with cigarettes in the past—for youngsters to circumvent the age-restricted product legislation designed to protect them, by allowing them to buy things from a machine that was not checking how old they were. I am therefore clearly supportive of this legislation.
Clause 12 makes it an offence for a person who manages or controls a premises to have a vending machine that sells vaping or nicotine products—
“an automatic machine from which”
vaping or nicotine products “may be bought”. Again, I ask the Minister to look at the principle of machines “from which” these products “may be bought” and to reconsider the wording to ensure that the industry cannot sell products using an app or online platform that can then be collected from a dispensing machine, in the same way as someone might buy something off a retailer and collect it from another retailer or a lock box collection point.
Banning the sale of vaping products, nicotine products and cigarette papers from vending machines would, by virtue of the various clauses in the Bill, including clauses 12 and 17, be a UK-wide provision. That would be beneficial because it would have consistency across the UK in a positive direction. The clause introduces a new offence, as there are currently no restrictions on the use of vaping or nicotine product vending machines in the UK, in the way that there is with tobacco vending machines. This is a new offence, and in my view a welcome one.
Self-service vending machines provide an anonymous, unregulated environment where individuals under the legal age could otherwise purchase vaping or nicotine products without any face-to-face interaction with a retailer, clearly increasing the risk of under-age sales. The offence will come into force six months after Royal Assent, which means that premises that currently contain a vape or nicotine product vending machine will have time to remove it or to stock it with a product that can legitimately be sold to younger people.
The primary rationale behind the restriction on vape vending machines is to reduce vaping rates, particularly among minors and children. The Government’s aims, as I understand them, are to protect young people from the harmful effects of vaping by limiting their access to vaping and nicotine products. Vape or nicotine product vending machines, which may also be used for pouches, are seen as a mechanism to bypass the responsibility of retail staff in ensuring that restrictions are met, contributing to increased sales.
The fine is level 4 on the standard scale, which is similar to that for selling over the counter. That makes sense to me, but I want to ask the Minister who qualifies as a person who manages or controls a premises? If it is a tenanted property, does that mean the landlord or the tenant who has control of the premises? If it is a larger retailer, such as a large supermarket, who controls those premises? Who takes the blame there? Is it the person who was on shift as the supervisor? Is it the store manager? On a more general basis, is it the regional manager or the managing director of the company? Who is responsible for managing and controlling those premises? The Minister needs to provide guidance on that so that people understand their responsibilities and so that, in the event a crime is committed and a vending machine is put in place, fingers are not pointed in every direction, making it impossible to work out whose responsibility and fault it was, such that nobody is held to account for the breach.
The Department of Health and Social Care has produced an impact assessment for the Bill, and paragraph 477 says:
“Regulating vape flavours, packaging, and presentation, as well as point of sale displays, and banning vending machines which sell vapes and nicotine products is expected to reduce the number of people taking up vaping, and therefore it is expected that there will be environmental benefits from reduced litter from vaping products.”
The clause will therefore benefit the health of not just our children but the environment in which they live and grow.
Paragraph 781 of the impact assessment highlights the following information about vending machines and under-age sales:
“A survey conducted by ASH”—
which gave evidence to our Committee last week—
“found that 6.6% of 11–17-year-olds who currently vape used machines as a source of vapes.”
Given that vaping vending machines are not currently that common, that seems quite a high figure. Without a ban and the implementation of the clause, that figure will surely increase.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is making and those that other Members have made. As I understand it, we already have a law that bans people from purchasing vapes from a customer-managed vending machine. The only vending machines that should be selling vapes are managed by someone else. Can I just clarify that that is the case, because I think there is some confusion about how people are getting these vapes at hospitals and particularly in mental health settings? I have a concern about that because it puts vulnerable people, in a sense, with an addictive product. Can I just clarify that vending machines for vapes are currently not allowed in this country, except where they are not individually customer operated?
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come to amendment 96 and the mental health aspect shortly, but I will deal with the clause first, which makes sure that these vending machines are not available. At the moment, one can buy nicotine products in a vending machine where those exist. As I said, the ASH survey showed that 6.6% of 11 to 17-year-olds who currently vape have access to vapes through a vending machine, so this is happening in the UK already. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that, until this Bill passes, it is not illegal to sell nicotine products to children. Some responsible retailers have a voluntary scheme for not selling to under-18s, but it is not a legal requirement. Some irresponsible sellers do sell vapes to children.
Paragraph 782 of the impact assessment says:
“There is limited evidence presented on the number and locations of vape vending machines, however it is suggested by online retailers that they are currently predominantly placed in locations such as nightclubs, bars and pubs. It is anticipated that”
without this legislation
“the market will develop further and vape vending machines will become more prevalent in other locations such as supermarkets, train/bus stations and other locations accessible to under-18s.”
In my mind’s eye, I remember recently seeing a vape in a vending machine alongside sweets; I just cannot quite remember where it was, but it was certainly somewhere that was easily accessible to people.
The aim of the clause is to protect children and to ensure that vending machines—commonly found dispensing food and drink in child-friendly establishments such as canteens and leisure centres, and easily used by young people—are not available. The machines protect anon—anonymity; I might have to put my teeth in, Sir Mark—
Dr Johnson
It is catching—it is the time of day, I think.
Paragraph 787 of the impact assessment says:
“We know that one of the main reasons children take up vaping is due to peer pressure…It is therefore worth considering that instances of vape vending machines in easily accessible areas might be an enabler for those who would not otherwise seek out a vape or who would be deterred by having to speak to an adult”.
Children would have to seek out an adult to make a purchase, because they have to go to a till or counter to get the vapes. Under the new legislation, that adult would look for ID, while a vending machine would provide a circumnavigation, so this is a sensible clause.
Most of us recognise that the vending machines currently selling disposable vapes have a finite lifetime, because this Government have banned them in the future under a statutory instrument in the competence of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, British American Tobacco has already stated that it is working on a product to sell the Velo brand—one of its nicotine pouches—via “age-gated vending machines” and is hiring for the product. Again, that is taken from the impact assessment.
That further highlights the need for a blanket ban on vending machines, particularly given that, as things stand, they are clearly advertising tools for vaping. Wherever the machines are placed, they are visible to the consumer, and the consumer needs to know what is in the vending machine in order to choose what to buy. Given the regulations appearing later in the Bill, we will be looking at the display of such products. It therefore seems nonsensical to have restrictions on the display of products, but to allow vending machines, which allow the display of products, in contravention of that. One aim of the Bill is to ensure that non-smokers do not begin vaping and get hooked on nicotine. These provisions strengthen that through age verification and on the marketing front.
I will now deal with some of the issues to do with mental health hospitals. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire said that the 2,400 vends were evidence of 2,400 positive choices. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. The evidence is that 2,400 vapes were bought, but not that those individuals had ever smoked. We do not know whether the vending machines are being used by people who smoke or people who do not—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor comments from a sedentary position; if he wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so. A proportion of people out there smoke, and a proportion do not.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. Based on the behaviour of vape companies now, which is similar to that of tobacco companies previously, this proposal would allow further expansion of vending machines and further display on vending machines in more and more places. Is that the point that the hon. Member is making?
Dr Johnson
In essence, in relation to clause 12, yes. I do not think that vending machines including tobacco and nicotine products or vapes are a good idea, and I moved a new clause for inclusion in the previous Bill because a ban on nicotine and vaping products in vending machines had not been included at the outset. Without such a measure, we will see an expansion of vending machines as a way of selling products to children and getting children addicted. It will be done as a way of making products more available to adults, but its effect will be that the products are more available to children. I do not want to see such products available to children, because they are clearly harmful for them. All the medical evidence we have had states that clearly.
With regard to individuals in mental health hospitals, some may be there as voluntary patients, and some under a mental health section. When someone’s liberty has been taken from them because they are being treated for a mental health condition, we need to be careful that we are not restricting them in other ways in which we would not restrict other people. That is a fair point to make.
We also have to be mindful of the staff. As we go through the Bill, the Minister will rightly be looking at exposure to vaping inside hospitals and at extending the tobacco regulations that limit smoking in public indoor places to cover vaping in indoor public spaces. Indeed, he and you, Sir Roger, will have seen the signs placed in the Tea Room by the Speaker, who rightly wants to see that we do not have vaping there. The public do not want vaping in their tea rooms or in the public domain either, so that is the right thing to do. We need to consider that there are staff and other patients in mental health hospitals who may not wish to vape and should not be inadvertently and unnecessarily exposed to vaping products.
I do not support the idea that 2,400 vends means that this is a positive choice. For some of these people, vaping may have been a positive change from smoking, but for others it may have been a decision to vape.
Sarah Bool
I appreciate that; those were the words of the NHS trusts themselves when they talked about positive decisions. We cannot always be sure exactly why someone made that decision, but we have to hope in the first instance that that move away from smoking would turn into vaping and, ultimately, into a smoke-free generation.
I am minded to tighten the wording of my amendment on Report to ensure that the vending machines are in those mental health units for the purpose of facilitating smoke-free policies and smoking cessation, because I do not necessarily want nurses and those working in those units to be exposed to any unnecessary products. When we are dealing with addiction, we all appreciate how difficult it is, and I want to ensure that a process is in place that means that we deal with both the mental health issues patients are dealing with and the addiction in a suitable and balanced fashion.
Dr Johnson
I know my hon. Friend’s heart is in a good place when she thinks about how we can protect individual mental health patients who also have an addiction to nicotine. She said that having no vapes on the hospital site could lead to patients taking up smoking, but there are of course no cigarettes on the hospital site either. I do not support the idea that the removal of one product will automatically lead to the use of another unavailable product.
If a member of the Committee, for example, wanted to leave the room now and go and get some vapes, they would need to leave the House, go and find a shop, and purchase them, and the same is true of an average patient: they would have to leave their home, find a shop, buy their vapes and come home again. The availability of a vaping vending machine on a ward in a mental health hospital would make vapes much more available to an individual and much more proximal than they would be under normal circumstances, which may lead to a greater consumption of nicotine than would be the case if the vapes had to be accessed elsewhere.
As we have mentioned repeatedly, nicotine is a very addictive drug, and I will not reiterate that beyond saying that if one is in a hospital unit and unable to leave because one is on a section, and one is used to using nicotine, the cravings would be extremely unpleasant and the withdrawal could be very nasty indeed. With that in mind, we wish to ensure that those individuals are cared for, and I know that the Minister wants to ensure that they are cared for too, but I remind the Committee that other nicotine replacements are available.
Several treatments are available from shops and pharmacies to help to beat the addiction, and those are available on prescription to individuals currently residing in a mental health unit, voluntarily or otherwise. Essentially, they are nicotine replacement therapies, by which I mean a proper medicine, as opposed to a consumer product, that provides somebody with a low level of nicotine without the tar, carbon monoxide and other poisonous chemicals present in tobacco smoke. They help to reduce unpleasant withdrawal effects, such as bad moods and cravings, and may affect mental health treatment too. They can be bought from pharmacies and shops, but a doctor can prescribe them and NHS stop-smoking services can provide them, and they are available in a whole range of forms. There are skin patches that provide a slower release, chewing gum and little inhalators that look like a small plastic cigarette. There are tablets, oral strips, lozenges, and nasal and mouth sprays.
There is a huge variety of different nicotine replacement therapies. Some, such as the inhalators, gums and sprays, act quickly to provide nicotine, and some, such as the patches, release nicotine slowly. The treatment depends on the stage of craving and the stage of giving up that somebody is at, and on what is most suitable for them. Sometimes patients find that the best way to use nicotine replacement therapy is to have a low-dose patch that is worn all the time, with top-ups from a gum, inhalator or nasal spray if they have particular cravings. Treatment with such nicotine replacement therapy usually lasts eight to 12 weeks before the dose is reduced and eventually stopped.
Jack Rankin
I supported clauses 10 and 11 because I agree with the Government that under no circumstances should children be taking up vaping. I was heartened by the Minister’s comments on the principle of clause 10, the general point about evidence and balance when it came to vaping, and treating vaping differently from cigarettes and tobacco products.
However, I cannot quite go along with the Government on clause 12, because there they have the balance slightly wrong. I accept that vape vending machines should be prohibited, for the same reason that tobacco and cigarette vending machines were prohibited: vending machines cannot provide for age verification. That balance is well struck. However, I do not support the related measure for nicotine product vending machines. The Minister may seek to correct me, but I am not aware that any of the products described by the shadow Minister, such as nicotine patches and gum, is used recreationally or is attractive to children.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that, if other items are restricted, people will end up buying those items? We are going to restrict what is available, and that will surely open them up as an avenue if we do not close it now.
Jack Rankin
I do not think that nicotine products are attractive to children in any way, shape or form today. My concern is that, as the Government are seeking to stop children using them by restricting them in vending machines—I do not think they should be using them—
Dr Johnson
May I clarify the point that my hon. Friend is making? When he says that he does not think nicotine products are attractive to children, does he mean the medical nicotine replacement therapy products, as opposed to other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches or vapes?
Jack Rankin
I mean the former: nicotine patches and gum. The stated intention of the Bill, supported by the House on Second Reading, is to move to a smokefree generation, so it would seem sensible to make nicotine products pretty widely accessible, in so far as they do not attract children. We should largely welcome a vending machine selling nicotine patches or gum if the intention is to move to a smokefree generation. I do not think the Government have the evidence and the balance quite right on that point, so I cannot support clause 12 as it is currently written.
I would make a similar case in support of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. She has read to us evidence from a relevant professional, who has a legitimate concern. It might be sensible, in the interest of broader public health, to have such a vending machine. If the Government are concerned about evidence and balance, those are exactly the kinds of voices they should be listening to, and they should accept the amendment, which is very much in line with their intent.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence that there is a restriction on access to stop smoking products now? In my experience as a pharmacist, I have not seen that.
Jack Rankin
I do not think I can talk to that point, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it.
We have to find a balance. The Government can use their majority in the House to cast aside my hon. Friend’s amendment, but it seems to me that it is in line with the principle of the Bill, so it is a sensible thing to do.
Dr Johnson
I understand that my hon. Friend thinks that the amendment is sensible, but Dame Andrea Leadsom, the public health Minister in the previous Government, asked Mark Rowland, the chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation, the “chicken-and-egg question”, as she put it:
“Does smoking make you depressed, does depression cause you to smoke or is it both?”
He said:
“it is difficult to disaggregate exactly for many people, but we know that both are a real issue. We talk about this cycle of smoking increasing the risk of poor mental health and poor mental health increasing the chances of smoking and the number of cigarettes someone smokes. People with mental health problems smoke far more, and that addiction then exacerbates psychiatric symptoms. Those psychiatric symptoms also then lead to increased poverty and increased chances of being unemployed, and that leads to poorer mental health. It is a complex picture, but we are really starting to see the causal drivers of mental ill health.” ––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 1 May 2024; c. 116, Q179.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that one should not say that those in mental health hospitals need access to vapes or nicotine in the form of pouches from vending machines to ease their mental health? In actual fact, it may do quite the opposite.
Jack Rankin
I had not heard that remark, but I thank my hon. Friend for putting it on the record. To add to that theme, I would make the point that these things are multifaceted. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, who is the successor to Dame Andrea, was making is that people have quite a lot to be getting on with, so they do not need this added stress.
Dr Johnson
Does my hon. Friend see it as an added stress or an added opportunity to add in-patient support to quit smoking to further benefit the individual’s mental and physical health?
Jack Rankin
Perhaps it is an added thing that doctors in mental healthcare can try to address, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire read out a letter from someone at the coalface, who takes the opposite approach from that of the shadow Minister.
Sarah Bool
I will say a little about the intention behind the amendment. We have obviously stressed throughout this debate how addictive nicotine is, but I want to ensure that if we are trying to deal with mental health issues, we are not creating an extra burden. The intention was not to encourage people to smoke, vape or take up other bad habits, but to make sure that we offer the best possible healthcare in the round, which means giving support.
Nicotine is addictive and so stresses are associated with it. Perhaps there are alternatives to give patients, but if they are not suitable for a particular patient or they do not work as well for them as nicotine, they will effectively be going cold turkey, which has its own issues. The intention behind the amendment was purely to encourage us to listen to the evidence from trusts themselves, to try to come up with a practical solution to enable this transition and allow us to get to a smokefree generation.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I agree with everything she has just said.
I will just finish my remarks to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. She talked about this measure being a further opportunity; I would suggest that the easy availability of nicotine products in certain instances would be an aid on that journey.
We should be working pragmatically on amendments such as this in Committee, to ensure that the evidence is considered and that the right balance is struck. I will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. Because the nicotine product vending machine measure is part of clause 12, I will vote against clause 12 stand part.
Andrew Gwynne
Clauses 12 and 78 prohibit vape and nicotine product vending machines in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and similar provisions are made elsewhere for Scotland. However, it is really important that the Committee understands that Scotland already specifically prohibits vape vending machines.
Clause 12 makes it an offence for any person managing or controlling a premises to have a vaping or nicotine product vending machine available for use, which effectively prohibits the sale of vapes and nicotine products from vending machines. I will try to clarify this point for the shadow Minister. She asks, “Who is responsible? Who is that person?” The offence is linked to the person with management control of the premises, as that is the most appropriate mechanism; they have control over whether the vending machine is present. That is the answer to her question.
This Government will stop the next generation from becoming hooked on nicotine. To do that, it is essential that we stop children from accessing harmful and age-restricted products. Prior to the prohibition of tobacco vending machines, we know that children who smoked regularly used those machines as their source of cigarettes. We cannot allow the same thing to happen with vapes.
Vending machines do not require any human oversight, so it is much easier for determined individuals to bypass age-of-sale restrictions and, crucially, to undertake proxy purchases on behalf of individuals under 18 because there is a much lower chance of their being challenged about such a purchase. Additionally, by their very presence vending machines advertise their contents and the Bill will ban the advertising of vapes. We need to ensure that children are protected from harmful and addictive products. Ensuring that we remove the ability of children to access age-restricted products is an essential part of that approach.
I turn to amendment 96, regarding the exempting of mental health units from the vending machine prohibition. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire for bringing this important issue before the Committee today for discussion. Her amendment would allow vape and nicotine product vending machines to be available for use in specialised mental health units in England and Wales.
I am very sympathetic to the needs of adult smokers and vapers in mental health facilities, and I know that this topic came up during the evidence session. However, we do not currently believe that there is a need to exempt mental health settings or other healthcare settings from these requirements. Scotland did not exempt mental health units from its vape vending machine ban, and it has had no issues. I want to be clear, because it is really important that I make this point: we are not banning the sale of vapes and nicotine products in mental health settings. We are only prohibiting their sale from automatic machines that provide no means to prevent proxy purchasing. Facilities that contain shops will still be able to sell vapes to patients and staff. Additionally, patients in mental health settings may be able to benefit from stop smoking services and the swap to stop scheme.
The majority of in-patient trusts, both acute and mental health, successfully deliver stop smoking support to smokers. As part of the swap to stop scheme, localities can request free vaping starter kits to provide to adults engaging with their local stop smoking services. Awards have now been made to individual services in a range of settings, including NHS and mental health settings, and to specific populations. It will still be legal and possible for vending machines to dispense medicinally licensed nicotine replacement therapies such as gums, patches and inhalers. These important medicines will still be available to patients who are looking to quit smoking or who are struggling with their nicotine addiction.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for making the arguments on vending machines. From a public health consultant point of view, I have listened and think there is a reasonable debate to be had. I am convinced by the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister has given, but I would ask that following the debate the conversation continues as the Bill progresses and that the Department of Health and Social Care continues to have these conversations.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. This debate will not stop here at Committee stage; I am almost certain it will be raised on Report. If it is not concluded to the satisfaction of those who wish to see such provisions in the Bill, I have no doubt that it will be raised in the other place, too.
However, it is really important that we do not end up with unintended consequences. We have to get this legislation right. The smoking cessation services available are far-reaching in these settings, and I see no reason for an exemption, given that nicotine replacement therapies such as gums, patches, inhalers—important medicines—will still be still be available to patients with a nicotine addiction in mental health settings. It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire to withdraw her amendment.
Sarah Bool
I would like to press my amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 14 stand part.
Clause 61 stand part.
Clause 79 stand part.
Before we embark on this debate, because there is a series of stand-part debates coming up, I will make the point that it is not actually de rigueur to speak in every stand-part debate if you have no desire or need to do so—you do not have to read things into the record.
My second point is that we may be coming to a conclusion of the business on the Floor of the House fairly shortly, although I do not think we have yet got on to the winding-up speeches. I must make the point to the Committee that if a Member is on their feet when a Division is moved—and there will then be a sequence of Divisions, so we could be talking about an hour or an hour and a half—I shall have no choice but to suspend the Committee, unless the adjournment has already been moved. I call Dr Caroline Johnson.
Dr Johnson
In the provisional grouping provided by the Clerk, you have clauses 13, 14, 61 and 79 together. Would you like to—
The Chair
Order. I do beg your pardon; I am wrong. I am never wrong! But this time I am. I call the Minister to speak first.
Andrew Gwynne
Thank you, Sir Roger. I was doubting my officials, but perhaps I should have had more trust in the notes that they gave me, which say “AG to open”—heaven forbid that you, in the Chair, would ever be wrong.
Clauses 13, 14 and 79 provide a power for the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland, to regulate the display of relevant products, including prices and empty retail packaging, within retail establishments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Tobacco product displays are currently regulated under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. This Bill repeals and replaces that Act, so tobacco display regulations will be made under this new power for when the repeal takes effect.
Clause 61 provides Scottish Ministers with powers to regulate the display of herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products, and their prices, in retailers in Scotland. The powers also allow regulation of the display of empty retail packaging or anything that represents the products. It is slightly different to the equivalent clauses for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which also cover tobacco products. Tobacco products are not included in clause 61, because Scotland has made its own provision on tobacco displays under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010.
Evidence shows us that vapes and nicotine products are currently too easily accessible to children within shops. Vapes are sometimes displayed alongside sweets and confectionery in retail environments, and often promoted in shop-front windows. These products are too easily seen and too readily available for children. That is unacceptable. We must reduce the visibility and the accessibility of vaping and nicotine products to protect children from getting hooked on nicotine.
These clauses provide each of the devolved Governments with the power to regulate such displays and ensure that they are proportionate to the risks that these products pose to the audiences within retail establishments. They also ensure that the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers, will be required to consult before making regulations. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
The Chair
Let me just explain: the clause stand part is Government business, so it is absolutely correct that the Minister is entitled to move it. He is allowed to move it formally if he chooses to do so. He does not have to speak to it, but by moving it formally, he can then open the debate and come back later if he so chooses. He has chosen to take the path he has gone down and he was absolutely right to do so.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, Sir Roger. I am grateful for your guidance as Chair on the order of doing things. It has been, at times, quite confusing.
Clauses 13, 14, 61 and 79 regulate the display of products in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It does not take much to realise why that is necessary. Simply take a drive down a high street in any small town across the country, and one will come across a shop with an entire front window blocked out with pictures of sweets, other confectionery and chocolate, usually an energy drink or two thrown in, and a whole host of brightly-coloured vaping devices. The clear message is that these are fun and exciting products—not stop-smoking devices, but recreational products—and is clearly designed to entice children into purchasing them.
I had cause to go to a major service station on the A1-M25 junction, and as I came out of the bathroom I noticed that, at the eye level of about a six-year-old, there was a whole pile of coloured vapes in a shop front. Going into a major newsagent to purchase a newspaper, one will also find a whole load of pictures behind the counter. I have even seen electronic video displays advertising a vaping product in WHSmith—I think it was a Lost Mary—so one cannot get away from the advertising of those products even if one wishes to. It is clearly necessary for the display of those products within stores to be regulated to ensure that children are not enticed—the industry would say inadvertently, while others would suggest very deliberately—into wanting to buy them.
Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State with powers to regulate the display of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. It also regulates their prices. I wonder if the Minister could comment on what that means, and how the prices of all those products will come under some sort of Government control. Will the Government fix the prices and therefore the profit, or will they apply additional taxation to the product—something that they seem to like to do, although it would not necessarily be as unwelcome in this case as some of the other taxes they have applied recently—so that they create an overall price? How does the Minister intend this price fixing, as it were, to work?
Clause 13 also gives the capacity to regulate the display of empty retail packaging or anything else that represents the product, whether that be putting up a video display or large versions of the products at an entrance, so that the products can be kept away from children. Under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and regulations made under it, there are already restrictions on the display in the course of business of tobacco products and pricing, but not specifically nicotine and vaping products. Given all we have heard about the addictive nature of nicotine, the enticement of children into taking such products, and the harm they may cause children particularly in adolescence, this is a welcome change.
Clause 13(6) confirms that before making regulations, the Secretary of State must consult who he or she considers it appropriate to consult. I am interested to understand whether the Minister believes that such a consultation should include the tobacco industry and/or the vaping and nicotine product industry, whether that be medical or otherwise, and whether he sees a distinction between the two.
Clause 13 creates an offence for failure to comply with the regulations, and anyone convicted of an offence under this clause on indictment can be subject to imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both. If they are convicted of a slightly lesser offence on summary conviction, they can be subject to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a general limit in a magistrates court, or a fine, or both.
I refer the Minister to my previous remark that the general limit in a magistrates court is apparently going to double after the Lord Chancellor’s statement in October. As such, is the Minister content to have a fluctuating limit or would he prefer a fixed one? Perhaps that is something to consider before Report. Clearly, deliberately advertising vapes in a way that may be attractive to children requires a reasonably stiff penalty.
Under clause 13(1), the legislation explicitly allows for the regulation of physical displays of these products, including empty packaging and pricing information, which are often used to draw attention to them. Subsection (2) defines the “relevant products” pretty comprehensively, encompassing not just tobacco and vaping items but accessories such as cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. The broad definition ensures that the regulations cover a wide array of potentially harmful products. Subsection (3) further strengthens that by extending the rules to include representations of these products, such as promotional materials or images that might signify them at the point of sale, which is again welcome.
Currently, vaping products are often displayed prominently in retail settings, frequently at checkout counters or in bright, attention-grabbing displays. That placement encourages impulse purchases and can make those products more appealing to young people. Unlike tobacco products, which have strict display restrictions, vaping and nicotine products remain accessible and visible in shops, and the standard packaging laws for cigarettes do not apply, for example, to their shape and colour. Clause 13 aims to address that disparity by introducing measures to regulate the visibility and presentation of the products.
The collaborative approach to the consultation will hopefully strike the right balance between public health objectives and the interests of businesses, but I urge the Minister to give further information on how we can strike that balance while maintaining that the important thing is to protect the health of the public, particularly children, from vaping products. Both nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, unlike tobacco, are currently allowed to be displayed at the point of sale in shops on countertops, in eye-catching displays on the shop floor, and in the windows. It is somewhat ironic that sweeties and chocolate have been banned at the till because of the pester power of children, only to be replaced in some shops by vapes. I suggest that, if any parent were given the choice, they would rather their children were having sweets than vapes, which are clearly addictive and much more harmful. There is much to be considered on the nature of unintended consequences, as well as the nature of the industry with which we are dealing.
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case that we should not be advertising vapes, or their pricing and products, to children. What she is not doing is making a case for banning the display of products or prices of vapes to adults. Does she think it is incongruous to treat tobacco products and vaping products in the same way in this clause?
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Part of me wants to say, “Well, what do you do when the child goes into the newsagent? Put a blindfold on them?” If the displays are visible to adults, they will be visible to the children who are walking beside them. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend has any ideas on how we can ensure that, when walking into an average newsagent, children cannot see something that grown-ups can.
Jack Rankin
I suggest to my hon. Friend that advertising a vape with Mickey Mouse is obviously aimed at a child, but it would be very much aimed at an adult, and not attractive to a child at all, to advertise a vape with, “This is what smoking 40 cigarettes a day costs you over a year. This is what our product costs. This is what you would save.” That would very much be in line with the aims of a smoke-free generation.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which goes to the principle of advertising, and whether there needs to be an exemption for medical advertising of vaping as a stop smoking tool by health professionals, for example in doctors’ surgeries, where it may also be visible to child patients. That is not really the aim of clauses 13 and 14, which focus on the display of products in shops. They are less about how the products are advertised and more about where they are displayed and how visible they are to someone shopping.
To some extent, my hon. Friend has a point about how we convey the message to smokers that vaping devices are items they can use to help them quit smoking—a message given by the chief medical officer—and about the distinction between that advertising and the sort of advertising that sees sports stadiums and sports shirts emblazoned with the brands of vaping companies, such that young children watching their heroes on the pitch, playing football or rugby, see vaping as a good thing. We will come to that later, but it is distinctly different from clauses 13 and 14.
At the moment, the legislation most relevant to where products are displayed is probably the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, known as the TRPR, which brought EU tobacco products directive 2014/40 into law. The regulations, which are now in the form of retained EU law, set standards for nicotine vapes, including limits on nicotine strength, bottle and tank sizes, and rules on packaging and advertising. But when it comes to the display of vape products, there are no specific regulations. They are openly displayed in stores, in large and small shops, both household names and individual retail outlets. They are also displayed in outlets that we might not expect. I noticed that the place I took my son for a haircut was selling both haircuts and vapes, and that a shop in the local town that repairs mobile phones and sells second-hand devices also sells vapes. The number of places that sell vapes and display them in their shop window is remarkable.
The Department of Health and Social Care has expressed concern about the lack of regulation, warning that children can easily see and pick up vapes due to them being displayed within aisles close to sweets, and on accessible shelves and display towers on the shop floor close to children’s eye level. A particular concern to me—and no doubt to many others in the Committee—is the visual similarity between a vape display and a shelf of sweets. Vapes are often displayed in an array of eye-catching colours. It is not uncommon to see them in a rainbow, with a range of sweet and fruity flavours on offer, including specific sweet brand names like Skittles, Starburst and Sour Patch Kids. The way they are sometimes presented as a safe alternative to smoking—which we understand that they are for smokers—can mislead consumers into thinking they are risk free, which is concerning considering that they contain nicotine and other harmful chemicals. I have also noticed a fashion for an increasing number of products to be advertised as pure, fresh, natural and organic, potentially to give the impression that they are less damaging than they are.
Finally, I have not seen this raised before, but I would like the Minister to consider that the fact that these highly addictive products are so easily accessible on the shop floor and at children’s height makes it easy for children to pick them up and walk out with them, particularly if they want to avoid being asked for ID by the shopkeeper. Putting them behind the counter where they are less accessible to children may reduce that temptation.
Clauses 14, 61 and 79 relate to similar regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I do not intend to go through them and repeat my arguments.
Andrew Gwynne
I reassure the shadow Minister that the measures in clauses 13 and 14 will regulate only the display of pricing, not the actual prices. We are not yet in the realms of fixing prices for products—I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Windsor, too.
On engagement with the tobacco industry and the vape industry, the UK is party to the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control, so we have an obligation to protect the development of public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. We take that commitment incredibly seriously and, in line with the requirements of article 5.3 of the FCTC, we summarise the views of respondents with disclosed links to the tobacco industry when responding to consultations.
With respect to the display of vapes, we know—and the shadow Minister has expressed very powerfully—that research on vape packaging has shown that reduced brand imagery can decrease the appeal to young people who have not previously smoked or vaped, without reducing the appeal of vapes to adult smokers. That is why I believe the measures in clauses 13 and 14 are appropriate and measured, and will have the outcomes that both the shadow Minister and those of us on the Government side of the Committee desire. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Free distribution and discount of products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jack Rankin
I have supported the Government so far on the principle of not allowing under-18s to vape, but I am concerned that, as we get to these clauses relating to distribution and discount—we have just talked about display, and I will not talk about flavours and marketing in depth, because I know they will come later—we are at risk of moving away from the evidence, and from the balanced approach that the Minister talked about when he delineated between vaping and tobacco.
These clauses give quite wide scope to Ministers on all of these products together, but I think the products should be treated differently. There should be scope for legitimate, responsible vaping companies to offer free distribution and discount of products, in aid of the Government’s stated aim. We do not want to create new vapers, but vaping is a powerful tool to realise the aim of a smoke-free generation. As with most products, it is possible to promote price savings in a responsible way.
We have received a huge weight of correspondence on this topic and I cannot say that I have had the time to read everything that has come across our desks, but I read the letter from VPZ, which I understand is a vaping company. It talked about its partnership with the NHS in Essex, which had put out to tender for a process to help people successfully quit. There was a £55 voucher from the NHS associated with that partnership. As I understand the letter—perhaps the Minister knows more about this than I do—VPZ used that voucher to offer a cashback scheme such that that money came off the price of vapes. VPZ did not benefit directly, because it did not think it should be doing so from a public source, but it passed that saving on, and I suppose that counts as a discount on a product.
I might contend to the Minister that that is exactly the kind of thing we want responsible, legitimate vaping companies to do. I understand that he wants, through this mechanism, to strictly limit advertising to, and targeting of, children and new vapers, but—
Gregory Stafford
I accept the point that my hon. Friend is making: there might be an argument for some kind of promotion around the use of a vape for cessation from tobacco products. However, the reality is that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of medicines that we do not advertise in this country, because they are generally prescribed by a medical professional, and those that are not—those that can be bought over the counter—are generally harmless so long as they are taken according to the instructions. We would not want a situation like that in America, where specific drugs are promoted to the general public, because I think that would send us down a very difficult route. Does my hon. Friend not think that what he is suggesting on vapes is something like that, and that for products prescribed by a doctor for smoking cessation, or at least for over-the-counter products, we should not have advertising, marketing or promotional products?
Jack Rankin
It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I do not agree with him. The last thing we need is more people going through our GP surgeries. We should allow legitimate use of these discounts in a public health manner. Some of the problems I have with the structure of some of the clauses from here on in is that they give quite sweeping regulatory power to Ministers, perhaps through secondary legislation. The Minister might say that the Government do not necessarily want to restrict those things, but the lack of certainty may result in a chilling of investment by legitimate vaping companies. If we want genuinely to move to a smoke-free generation, I do not think that is something we should encourage; we should be advocating such responsible investment.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about the availability and visibility of products, and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon talked about the availability of vaping products as medical products. However, the Committee heard evidence from the MHRA that there are no medically approved vaping devices currently registered in the United Kingdom. While it continues to encourage vaping companies to come forward with a vaping product for regulation and medical assessment, that so far has not come to fruition.
Jack Rankin
I take the shadow Minister’s point, but I think the Minister said in summing up the clause 10 stand part debate that while vaping potentially was not harm-free, given its harm compared with cigarettes, that was something that the Government would want to see.
Clause 15 does not say that there should not be discounts on products for children or products for recreational use; it leaves the scope quite broad. I think the Government have got that wrong, and that it might have a direct adverse effect on the kinds of partnerships I described. I saw some polling recently that showed that the general public thought vaping was as dangerous as smoking, and this is the kind of messaging that gives that wrong impression, which is against the Government’s stated aim.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members that they should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes @parliament.uk. Electronic devices should be switched to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings but there is water—blue is still, silver is fizzy.
Clause 7
Automatic penalties for certain offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is lovely to see everybody again and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq.
Clause 7 will give the environmental regulators new powers to impose automatic penalties for specified offences. The current process for imposing fixed monetary penalties for minor to moderate offending can be time and cost-intensive. To impose a penalty, the regulators must evidence beyond reasonable doubt—the criminal standard of proof—that an offence has been committed. In addition, the fixed monetary penalty amount that regulators can currently impose for certain water industry offences to that standard of proof is set at just £300. That means it is generally not cost-effective for the regulators to impose financial penalties for frequent minor to moderate offending. Clause 7 introduces automatic penalties for specified offences, which will enable the regulators to impose penalties more quickly without having to direct significant resources to lengthy investigations.
I reassure hon. Members that we will consult on the specific offences that will be in scope for the new automatic penalties and on the value of the penalties. The proposed offences will cover information requests and reporting offences, pollution offences and water resource offences. The House will also have the opportunity to debate and vote on secondary legislation before any changes are made. I hope the Committee agrees that this measure is essential for improving compliance across the water sector.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship today, Dr Huq. We have no formal objection to clause 7, which imposes a duty on environmental regulators to impose penalties for offences by water company that the clause specifies. Offences have of course increased, and water bosses have been banned from receiving bonuses if a company has committed serious criminal breaches. Regulators have more powers than they used to in being able to impose larger fines for polluters without needing to go to court. The clause focuses on exactly the same principle and we therefore have no formal objections.
I raised in an earlier Bill Committee sitting—this is relevant here—that there has been an increase in the number of inspections that water companies can expect, from 4,000 a year by April this year to 10,000 a year by April of next year. In other words, what has been addressed in the past is not just regulation, but the whole pathway of the enforcement of regulations, so that regulations are not merely blunt instruments but active ones that water companies can expect to have to deal with if they do not act responsibly to their customers, the environment and the wider public.
On that last point, will the Minister clarify and ensure that these offences are and will be enforced and commit to making further amendments to the law, not only regarding the offences themselves, but also on their enforcement, if the Government believe that things need to be tightened up moving forward? Aside from those clarifications, we have no formal objections to the clause.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great privilege to serve under your guidance this morning, Dr Huq. We also have no objection to the clause and, in fact, we consider automatic penalties to be a positive move.
My concern is that we see water companies not paying the fines that are levied against them. We talk about minor to moderate offences, but water companies wriggle out of paying fines for much larger offences, too. I just want to probe the extent to which the automatic penalties might stretch to what are considered more serious breaches.
I mentioned an example last week in Committee. In November 2021, Ofwat launched an inquiry into sewage discharges and how water companies manage their treatment centres and networks. It found three water companies in particular to be in breach: Thames, Northumbrian and Yorkshire. It imposed fines on those three companies—a £17 million fine against Northumbrian Water, a £47.15 million fine against Yorkshire Water and a £104.5 million fine against Thames Water—but as of autumn last year, not a single penny of that has been collected. It is understood that Ofwat allocated a grand total of eight and a half people to pursuing that particular line of inquiry.
Large fines, which there is no doubt that these companies rightly face, make no difference if they are never collected. That underpins the failure of our regulatory framework—water companies clearly feel they can just run rings around Ofwat and the other regulators. We very much welcome the automatic penalties, but we remain a bit concerned and would like the Minister to clarify whether those automatic penalties would have covered fines of that size as well. Otherwise, we are very supportive of the clause.
Emma Hardy
It is good to start the day off with a bit of unity in the Committee Room and everyone agreeing. In terms of which offences the automatic penalties will apply to, we are looking at targeting minor to moderate offending. The purpose behind the clause, and much of the Bill, is to change the culture of the water industry.
As I said in my opening remarks, one of the concerns about how the water industry operates at the moment is that the standard of proof needed to impose fines for minor to moderate offending is often seen as not being worth the cost. Companies are therefore getting away with minor to moderate offences because of the cost of trying to prosecute them. These penalties will apply to those offences. If the offence turns out to be more significant—not minor to moderate, but more of a major pollution incident—obviously, penalties will apply in the usual way.
For an offence to be suitable for an automatic penalty, we consider that the Environment Agency must be able to quickly identify and impose the penalty and the offence must cause no or limited environmental harm. I describe it to colleagues as similar to speeding ticket offences. Everybody knows that if they go over 30 mph in a 30 mph zone where there is a camera, they will get caught and fined. That is the idea behind the fixed penalty notice. If someone commits an offence that they are not meant to do, they are automatically fined.
The proposed offences will cover information requests. The details will be dealt with in secondary legislation, on which colleagues across the House will vote. My thinking on information requests is that a situation where someone has to comply with a request for information and is given a timeframe, but does not deal with it in the timeframe, is the kind of thing we are looking at for automatic fines. As for reporting offences, pollution offences and water resource offences, we will consult on where the penalties can be used, and Parliament will debate and vote on them before any changes are made.
The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 provides for the enforcement of penalties if a company refuses to pay a penalty. That includes allowing regulators to use the same enforcement mechanisms available to a court. The Act also allows for interest charges in the event of late payment. Parliament will debate and vote on the details in secondary legislation.
I thank all hon. Members for their invaluable contributions to the debate on clause 7. The clause will fundamentally drive improved compliance across the water sector through introducing automatic penalties for specific offences, allowing the regulators to impose penalties more quickly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Abstraction and impounding: power to impose general conditions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
Clause 8 grants the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers the power to introduce conditions or general rules subject to which water industry abstraction and impounding licences will have effect. This provision is needed to ensure that automatic penalties under clause 7 can be applied to abstraction and impounding offences under the Water Resources Act 1991. Existing licences have been issued since the 1960s and have inconsistent conditions, making the use of automatic penalties nearly impossible.
More broadly, clause 8 allows for the harmonisation of requirements in relation to abstraction and impounding activities so that the sector operates under consistent and modern standards. A delegated power to introduce conditions or general rules through regulations is crucial in this context, because water resource management is dynamic and must be responsive to emerging challenges. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this power is needed to improve the water industry’s regulatory framework.
Dr Hudson
Clause 8 seeks to grant the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers additional powers to impose conditions or general rules on water industry licences relating to abstraction and impoundment activity. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not have any formal objections to the clause, but I would suggest that it reinforces some of my comments on clause 6 about the need to make the Government have the powers they need to regulate as necessary a more consistent principle across the Bill.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Modifying the licences individually is both expensive and time consuming, which is why we are hoping to modernise and harmonise the process under this clause. It is crucial that automatic penalties under clause 7 can be applied to abstraction and impounding offences, so this power is needed to improve the water industry’s regulatory framework. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Requirement for Ofwat to have regard to climate change etc
Tim Farron
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 9, page 14, line 11, leave out from duties to end of line 13.
Tim Farron
Let me clarify what we mean with this amendment. Among the myriad problems in the water industry, perhaps the greatest is the failure of the regulatory systems. We are concerned, particularly in relation to the Climate Change Act 2008, that the obligations placed on water companies via the regulator are not sufficiently clear. Let us look at the wording of clause 9:
“In exercising or performing any such power or duty in accordance with those provisions, the Authority must also have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with the relevant environmental target duties”,
and we are happy with that, but then it states
“where the Authority considers that exercise or performance to be relevant to the making of such a contribution.”
Basically, we are giving Ofwat wriggle room to do nowt if it wants to. As we saw earlier on clause 7, Ofwat has a track record of not even imposing the colossal fines due from water companies, and I am not filled with confidence that if we give it wriggle room, it will not use it.
My concern is that the clause is building in a qualification, an opportunity for the regulator to step back and the possibility—dare I say, the probability—that measures against water companies will not be enforced. If we care about tackling climate change and about a stronger and robust regulatory framework—and we surely do—we should remove these words to remove the wriggle room and to make sure that regulation is fit for purpose.
Dr Hudson
Clause 9 would introduce a new requirement for Ofwat to consider, as part of its regulatory decision making and the exercise of its powers and duties as given by the Water Industry Act 1991, the section 1 duty confirmed the Climate Change Act and section 5 of the Environment Act 2021. We have no formal objections to raise to that basic principle and no amendments that we wish to make to clause 9.
Can the Minister provide some clarity on the line that amendment 27 from the Liberal Democrats seeks to remove from the Bill? It states that Ofwat’s duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s duty to meet environmental targets applies
“where the Authority considers that exercise or performance to be relevant to the making of such a contribution.”
Will the Minister assure the Committee that she and the Government will work with Ofwat so that it has clear guidance on when these environmental targets would be relevant, so that there are no grey areas in Ofwat’s work as it looks to enforce those targets? Can she assure the Committee that the Government will also work with Ofwat to ensure that with regard to its powers and duties in the spirit of clause 9, consumers are protected should there be any subsequent financial costs to water companies, so that we get both environmental protection and the value for money that the tax-paying consumer deserves?
I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarification on some of those questions. However, his Majesty’s loyal Opposition have no formal objections to clause 9.
Emma Hardy
As I am sure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will agree, the Government heard the strong support in the other place for adding a further environmental duty to Ofwat’s core duties to support the Government in making progress against our environmental targets. I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman for her work on this.
We understand that there are concerns around the current core environmental performance of the water industry and around the role and responsibilities of the water industry regulators. It is for this reason that the Government tabled an amendment in the other place that will require Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to achieving targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and Climate Change Act 2008 when carrying out its functions.
This amendment will further ensure that Ofwat’s work to contribute to the achievement of environmental targets complements the work of Government, who are ultimately responsible for the 2021 Act and the 2008 Act targets. It is important to note that the independent commission announced by the Government will take a full view of the roles and responsibilities of the water industry regulators. Any changes made now to Ofwat’s duties may therefore be superseded by the outcomes of the commission. I hope the Committee agrees that this power is needed to ensure that the environment is considered in regulatory decision making.
Amendment 27 seeks to remove Ofwat’s discretion to exercise its duty to have regard to environmental targets where it feels this as relevant. It will be for Ofwat as the independent regulator to determine how it applies the Government’s new obligation to its regulatory decision making, and how this new duty will not take precedence over other duties. It is for this reason that flexibility has been built into the drafting of this duty, ensuring that Ofwat has discretion to exercise the duty where it feels it is relevant.
Mechanically applying a duty in circumstances where it is not relevant to a particular matter would be a waste of resource. That discretion is in line with similar duties for other regulators. For example, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was recently amended to provide an environmental duty for the financial regulators. It is right that as the independent regulator, Ofwat has the discretion to balance its duties and determine when it is appropriate that they are applied. The new duty introduced by the Government can be only a stopgap before more fundamental reforms are brought forward. For those reasons, we will not accept the amendment from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and I hope he feels able to withdraw it.
Tim Farron
I am not reassured that removing this discretion means that a mechanical duty is placed upon Ofwat. I think that removing discretion is actually very important. It will only be applied where it is relevant by definition. I feel that by building in wriggle room, we are creating vagueness in the process. Nevertheless, we will not seek to push this amendment to a vote today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Charges in respect of Environment Agency and NRBW functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
Thank you, Dr Huq, for giving me the opportunity to speak on clause 10, which is one of my favourites. The costs for Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales enforcement activities are paid by the taxpayer via grant in aid. The clause broadens existing charge-making powers, allowing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales to recover costs for enforcement from water companies instead of taxpayers. Failure to introduce the clause would result in the burden of funding water industry enforcement continuing to fall on the taxpayer. It could also result in the regulators being unable to scale up their water industry enforcement activities due to wider budgetary pressures.
The Secretary of State, or the Welsh Minister in Wales, and HM Treasury are required to approve charging schemes in consultation with affected parties. Those safeguards ensure that environmental regulatory powers are proportionate and support sustained improvements in environmental performance in the water industry. I hope the Committee agrees that this power is essential for environmental regulators to become more self-sufficient and less reliant on the taxpayer. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Hudson
Clause 10 amends the Environment Act 1995 to allow the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales the power to make charging schemes to recover costs from water companies. While the Opposition wish to raise no formal objections to the clause, we would be grateful for clarification on a couple of points from the Minister.
First, can the Minister explain whether the changes in this clause to the Environment Act 1995 that allow costs to be recovered from water companies could impact consumers in any way? Although it is already possible, we must be mindful that consumers may face extra costs, which I will discuss later regarding issues with the special administration orders that the Government have laid out in clauses 12 and 13, to be debated shortly. Consumers have already been informed by Ofwat that they should expect to see bills rise—the complete opposite of what the Government had said they intended to deliver. Therefore, do the Government feel confident that they can avoid contributing to the problem of a rising trajectory of bills, at a time when trust in the industry, as we have been debating in Committee, remains low due to financial mismanagement from some water companies and, too often, consumers receive poor quality from these services?
A further question, which I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, is what modelling have the Government done to ensure that all the costs recovered will always be to the benefit of the taxpayer and the consumer? While we all share the desire that water companies that do the wrong thing must pay to put it right, we must ensure that, when we punish those water companies, we do not hurt the end consumer, who very much deserves to be protected. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on this, but again, we have no formal, explicit objections to the clause.
Emma Hardy
Clause 10 requires payment by water companies. It is fair and reasonable that the regulator should recover costs associated with its regulatory functions. Ofwat will consider the regulator’s proposals to determine which costs are appropriate to be passed on. The impact assessment, which I have mentioned in previous debates, details exactly how much all of the Bill will cost the customer. All the details are in there, and I refer the hon. Member for Epping Forest to look at that if he wants the specifics on the exact numbers that each measure will take.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed their views on clause 10. I remain of the view that clause 10 will empower environmental regulators to become self-sufficient, reducing the burden on the taxpayer to fund water industry enforcement activities. Therefore, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Drinking Water Inspectorate: functions and fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
We are making excellent progress on the Bill this morning. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the importance of clause 11. I would like to mention the unsung hero of water regulation: the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
The clause enables the Drinking Water Inspectorate to fully recover the costs for the security and emergency regulatory work that it provides to companies. I think one of the reasons that it is an unsung hero is because it does its job so well; that is why not many people have heard of it. The responsibility for security and emergencies was delegated to the Drinking Water Inspectorate in 2022, but since then it has been unable to fully recharge for that work. This clause, subject to amendments to the Water Quality and Supply (Fees) Order 2016, will ensure that the inspectorate can fully recover all costs related to security and emergencies, enabling it to scale up its enforcement activities and enhance its capacity to conduct security and emergencies checks with water suppliers.
The clause will give the DWI greater flexibility in how it structures the fees it charges water companies. It will allow the DWI to introduce new charging models that more equitably share the financial burden of regulation in the water sector. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause rightly remunerates the DWI for its security and emergencies work and allows it to design a more equitable fee structure.
Dr Hudson
Clause 11 extends the purposes for which water quality inspectors may be appointed to include functions relating to national security directions under section 208 of the Water Industry Act 1991, and it provides flexibility for the charging of fees for regulatory work. This is a straightforward clause to which we raise no formal objection, but once again we would be grateful for a couple of clarification points from the Minister. How will the Government increase the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s ability to monitor and audit water supplies? Does the Minister feel that the clause will improve the inspectorate’s functions? Will the Minister please explain how the Government intend to support the powers of the Drinking Water Inspectorate, beyond this clause? She praised the inspectorate, and I echo that praise, but how do the Government intend to support its capabilities?
Once again, we wish to raise no formal objections to the clause. I would be grateful for clarity on the points I have highlighted.
Tim Farron
We also have no objections to the clause, but I want to probe it a bit. The Minister rightly praised the Drinking Water Inspectorate. I think most of us would say that its performance as a regulator is significantly better than Ofwat’s, but one of the biggest problems that we face within regulation is the fragmented regulatory framework. We have the DWI, Ofwat, the Environment Agency and others too. What consideration has the Minister given to the efficacy of continuing that fragmentation?
The Minister may argue, in relation to the DWI, that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I take that point, but regulation of the water industry is absolutely broke. It is very clear, particularly when it comes to the Environment Agency and Ofwat, that large water companies run rings around the regulators because of their heft, their weight, their capability and the volume of their staffing, which is larger than that of the regulators. The culture of the regulators is sometimes not aimed at pursuing those they are meant to regulate.
Although the DWI is broadly a successful regulator, do we not face the ongoing problem that having so many regulators gives water companies the ability to avoid their responsibilities? Will the Minister give that some further consideration?
Emma Hardy
I am pleased that hon. Members have echoed my support for the DWI. This clause is specifically about how it can recover some of its costs. It is estimated that the increased cost to householders will be only 2p a year, so it is very good value for money.
The wider issue of regulation and regulators will be covered by the water commission, which is looking at the entirety of regulation. That is out of the scope of this Bill, although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has made those points a number of times, and I have heard them each time.
This measure will cost customers about 2p a year. This is a much-needed clause. The Government maintain that it is important that the Drinking Water Inspectorate is remunerated for its security and emergencies work and is able to design a more equitable fee structure. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Modification by Secretary of State of water company’s appointment conditions etc to recover losses
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 12, page 16, line 11, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 13 and insert “recover from its creditors”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 18, line 31, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 33 and insert “recover from its creditors”.
Clause 13 stand part.
Charlie Maynard
I will speak about clauses 12 and 13 together, with clause 12 covering England and clause 13 covering Wales. Clause 12 relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to recover losses incurred by the state in a special administration regime—many Members might know that as bankruptcy. What is being proposed by the Government is set out in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ explanatory note 69:
“The modifications can require a water company to raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers”—
I repeat “the consumers”—
“and to pay those amounts to the Secretary of State to make good any shortfall and may include a requirement that amounts be held on trust pending payment to the Secretary of State.”
What we are talking about here are costs associated with a bankruptcy and the Government want to make good those costs. There is no issue with any of that. What I find completely extraordinary is that a Labour Government are proposing that the consumers pay for that rather than the creditors who put us there in the first place. The management and the creditors are the people who are responsible for the mess that we find ourselves in in the water sector.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says it is the creditors who put the undertakers in the position that they are in, but surely that cannot be right. Creditors are the people who provide services for a fee to the undertaker—they will not be the organisations that put the undertaker into that position. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that if he were to replace the consumer or any other body with recovery from creditors, that would be meaningless unless Government debt was placed above those of other creditors. How would that be fair to the providers of services to water undertakers?
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I think he jumped in before I had finished the sentence, which was on the creditors and the management. Who is responsible for this? Yes it is the management, yes it is the regulators and prior Governments, and yes it is the creditors who have provided the debt—they have gone into that with eyes and ears open and they have made that decision to provide that debt willingly. Therefore, they have put that money at risk and they have to take responsibility for that. That is what debt is.
I am not talking about Government debt, but about a loss and who is making good that loss. The Government are proposing that all the consumers pay for that—in other words, the bill payers. That is wrong. The bill payers should not be paying for this; the creditors should be, because they have put in, in Thames Water’s case, £17 billion—soon to be £20 billion very likely—which has saddled those companies with vast amounts of debt. More than a third of the bills of the bill payers of Thames Water is just being spent on paying interest on that debt.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman is conflating the term creditor with debt provision, but actually there is a plethora of suppliers to any large organisation such as a water undertaker. They are creditors—that is just how they are defined. His clause would cover small and medium enterprises that are providers of services, and in fact any provider of a service who would be a creditor of such an organisation. How does he propose that his clause only affects debt provision, which I understand is the direction he is trying to focus the clause on, and does not cover all creditors as it is currently drafted?
Charlie Maynard
The change in wording would mean that the clause states:
“The Secretary of State may make modifications of the conditions of the company’s appointment so that they include conditions requiring or enabling the company…to recover from its creditors such amounts as may be determined by or under the conditions”.
Let us talk through the special administration regime and what happens. I would like this to already have happened but it has not When a company is put into special administration—I would like this to already have happened, but it has not—a court appoints a special administrator. A special administrator looks at the creditors. It looks at the debt and the other creditors involved, and it will prioritise, according to the seniority of that debt and those creditors, who is senior to the other. Suppliers will be a lot more senior.
Charlie Maynard
Well, compared with the creditors, but I am advocating that the debt providers take the hit.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman will perhaps know that under current insolvency law, there are secured creditors. There is a hierarchy of debt, and the least protected—not the most protected—are suppliers. Does he envisage changing the rules to give additional protection in this process to unsecured creditors and essentially reverse the security of credit? That would be an odd thing to do, but I understand why he might need to do it to make this process effective.
Charlie Maynard
We are seeking for the debt providers to take the hit. They have gone into this process and been part of the problem that has led to the state of our rivers today. They should be taking the hit ahead of the customers. That is our direction of travel, and I think that is fair and reasonable. What the clause does is the opposite, and that is what we are going after.
We fully support the losses being recovered by the administration process—we have no issue with that—but if we support the clause as drafted, we will find a very large bill on the customer’s account. That is something we want to avoid. I am keen to hear the Minister’s view as to why it is reasonable for the customer to be paying rather than the lenders.
Dr Hudson
On clauses 12 and 13, the Opposition tabled amendments 7 and 8 to remove them. They provide the Government with the power to issue special administration orders to water companies that face financial difficulties.
I put on record my thanks to my Conservative colleagues in the other place for sounding the alarm on this issue when the Bill came forward. They made the case that the measures in clauses 12 and 13 could put the very people we want to protect in such legislation, namely the consumers, at risk. The moral hazard has been explicitly set out by my colleagues in the other place, but I will attempt to summarise it so that we are clear what the problem is. As it stands, the clauses will give the Government the power to recover any losses they make through placing a company in special administration by raising consumer bills.
The problem seems self-evident. If water companies, through their own failure, require the Government to place them under special administration, why should consumers be expected to foot the bill for those failures when they had no particular responsibility for them? It runs contrary to the nature of all the action that has been taken in recent years to try to improve our water quality, and companies that have failed to get their affairs in order must take responsibility.
I was on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, and we spent a lot of time looking at the financial resilience and behaviour of the water sector in close detail. I know that the current iteration is continuing that work. It was concerning to hear about the financial resilience of the sector at first hand in our hearings and meetings. As I said in a sitting of this Committee last week, the financial resilience of the water industry is not a hypothetical issue, but one of paramount concern right now.
We are all starkly aware of concerns surrounding the financial resilience of companies such as Thames Water. We heard about that in detail on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the last Parliament. In November, Ofwat’s “Monitoring Financial Resilience” report identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. Three were placed in the highest category of “action required”, which means that action must be taken or is being taken to strengthen a company’s financial resilience challenges and that there is a requirement to publish additional information and reporting on improvements at a more senior level with Ofwat.
As well as sending out the opposite message to the companies that Ofwat is working so hard to scrutinise and regulate to protect consumers, clauses 12 and 13 send out the wrong message to consumers themselves. Consumers were recently told that they can expect their average bills to rise by a minimum of about £86, at a time when no doubt some of them have concerns about how to afford their existing bills, along with wider cost concerns. I say gently to the Government that the recent Budget did not help the situation for people’s household budgets. How can it be fair that as a result of these clauses the Government may lead consumers to pay more at a time when many are finding it difficult to pay their bills and do not feel that they are getting the clean water that they deserve? It will potentially add insult to injury when many people are all too aware that they could face higher prices on their water bills because of the Government’s moves.
Shareholders and water company bosses used to be able to receive dividends and bonuses despite polluting our rivers and seas and failing to do the right thing to tackle it. Although reforms have been made to ensure that water company bosses who are not doing their duty with regard to our waterways are forbidden from claiming excessive bonuses, the sting will remain for many people when they keep in mind the prospect of paying higher bills to bail out companies for their poor financial performance.
To water companies, these clauses will send out a signal that they do not have to worry about incurring the consequences of financial irresponsibility, as the Government will have a mechanism to bail them out and consumers may indirectly have to fork out the costs. Nobody is being required to take accountability or face the consequences of the decisions that have caused the failure, but those who have no responsibility or influence are being forced to pay an unfair price increase.
Worse still, the clauses fail completely to specify how much they can require companies to raise from consumers or how much consumers could have to pay in increased costs as a result of the Government’s imposition of these conditions on water companies. That means that any announcements of price changes to water bills, such as those announced by Ofwat, could give no indication at all of how much consumers could end up paying on their water bills. To compound the higher prices even further, consumers may end up facing higher bills to solve special administration financial issues for companies by which they are not even served.
Under clause 12, proposed new section 12J(4) of the Water Industry Act states that “relevant financial assistance” in subsection (3) can include
“any other company which holds or held an appointment under this Chapter and whose area is or was wholly or mainly in England.”
Companies that do the right thing could be forced to pay up, or make their consumers pay up, for the mistakes of those who have failed to do the right thing. As my noble Friend Lord Remnant put it:
“It is the debt and equity investors”
in a company that has failed to do the right thing
“who should pay for these losses in the form of lower proceeds from any eventual sale. Why should a retired police officer in Yorkshire or a hard-working nurse in Cornwall lose out to a hedge fund owner in New York trying to make a quick return?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 293.]
Although in the other place the Government attempted to explain away concerns by suggesting that they do not think that they will have to use the power except as a last resort, and that the bar for special administration would be extremely high, the fact that on more than one occasion the Government could have accepted amendments to remove proposed new subsection (4) must mean that they expect that on at least some occasions they will require its use. The time taken to defend the measure and oppose reforms suggests that this is no mere formality in the wording of the Bill, but something that the Government may put in place.
The Minister in the other place said that the Government would seek to exercise the power in proposed new subsection (4) only if Government bail-outs to water companies could not be financed for the duration for which a company is in special administration—that is, during the shortfall. If that is the condition the Government are setting for the measure—if we have to have the measure at all—could they not have set it out explicitly within the Bill? At the very least, that would have provided clarity about how far the power should be permitted to go.
Clause 13 will provide the Welsh Government with the same powers as those in clause 12. Although the powers in clause 13 are independent of who occupies the offices of the Welsh Government, it should be noted that the Welsh Government who would currently be expected to exercise the powers do not have the most brilliant track record on the water industry, to say the least. Under the Welsh Labour Administration, the average number of spills from storm overflows in 2022 was two thirds higher than in England. That record suggests that the Government in Wales leave much to be desired when it comes to the competence of the water industry, and there is evidence for concern when it comes to exercising the clause’s powers.
Regardless of the specifics of the subsections and of who holds the powers contained in clauses 12 and 13, they are, as they stand, completely against the principles of improving the water industry. I urge the Minister to consider those points and to remove the clauses. Accordingly, we will seek a vote to remove clauses 12 and 13 from the Bill.
Tim Farron
I back my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, who has made an excellent case for our amendment to clauses 12 and 13. We are deeply concerned about the issue. There are two aspects to the public’s reaction to the scandal in our water industry. First, there is revulsion about sewage being dumped in our lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas, which is obviously appalling. Secondly, there is a deep sense of injustice that people are making vast amounts of money while not providing basic services.
For a day or two last week, the coldest place in the country was Shap, in my constituency. I had the pleasure of being there over the weekend. All water was frozen. However, that is not always the case. Last year alone, at Shap pumping station, 1,000 hours’ worth of sewage was pumped into Docker beck. Just along the way at Askham waste water treatment works, 414 hours’ worth of sewage were dumped into the beautiful River Lowther just last year. I make that point because the water bill payers who have to deal with that know that of every £9 they spend on their water bills, £1 is going to serve United Utilities’ debt. That is at the low end of the scale: until the change announced just before Christmas, 46% from Thames Water’s bills was used to service debt.
Over the lifetime of our privatised system in this country, the water companies have collectively racked up £70 billion of debt. That means that all bill payers are paying between 11% and 46% of their bills simply to service those companies’ debt. Our amendment would simply tackle the fact that if investors choose to take risks, hoping to make gains, but fail, they should accept the consequences of those risks, which they chose to take, rather than passing on the cost to my constituents and everybody else’s. It is not for the public to carry the can for corporate failure.
Emma Hardy
I will speak to amendments 11 and 12, both of which were tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I welcome the opportunity to bust some myths and add some facts to the debate. Speaking of facts, following the debate that we had at our last sitting, we have produced a fact sheet relating to storm and other overflows, which has been circulated to all members of the Committee. I recognise that we are not discussing that now, but I thought I might mention that my promise to provide the evidence has been fulfilled. For this debate, perhaps it would be helpful to produce a fact sheet that explains exactly what this is and what it is not, because there has been an awful lot of confusion already.
On the subject of facts, I am not quite sure where the shadow Minister’s number on average bill increases of over £80 a year comes from. The fact is that the average bill increase is £31 a year.
Emma Hardy
If the hon. Member does not mind, I would like to finish my remarks, and then I am sure we will hear from him again.
Although I have outlined some of the merits of clauses 12 and 13, I would like to stress again the importance of including them in the Bill. A SAR will ensure the continued provision of essential public services and is the ultimate tool in Ofwat’s regulatory toolkit. There is therefore a high bar for the use of a SAR. A water company can be placed into special administration either on insolvency grounds, where it is unable to pay its debts, or on performance grounds, where it is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties on enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. That includes consideration of a company’s environmental and financial performance. Although the Government have had the powers to place water companies into special administration for more than three decades, it is important that we regularly update legislation to reflect the modernisation of law and experience in other sectors.
Clauses 12 and 13 are essential because if a SAR occurs, Government funding could be provided to cover the cost of special administration. In the unlikely event that the proceeds of a sale or a repayment agreed as part of the rescue at the end of a SAR are insufficient to cover repaying Government funding, there is risk of a funding shortfall. I really am at a loss to understand how this has suddenly become about the Government using customer money to bail out creditors. I am confused about how that started.
The money will be used to cover the cost of repaying Government funding in the risk of a funding shortfall. The DEFRA Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers do not currently have the power to require this shortfall to be repaid. The shortfall, of course, is the money that the Government may have to provide in the event of a SAR. This is unlike other sectors such as energy, in which the relevant Secretary of State has flexible powers to recover a shortfall in funding. Without this power, there is a risk that taxpayers will foot the bill for costs usually contained within the water sector. Again, that has nothing to do with creditors; it has to do with the costs that the Government could have to pay for the SAR.
Clauses 12 and 13 will therefore introduce a new power for the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers to modify water company licence conditions to allocate costs appropriately should there be a shortfall in financial assistance provided in a water industry SAR. The power is designed to be flexible, allowing the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers to recover any shortfall in funding in a manner appropriate to the circumstances. The use of the power is also subject to public consultation.
The Secretary of State will be able to decide whether or not to use the power, and to decide the rates at which the shortfall should be recovered from customers. The shortfall that we are talking about is any cost that the Government could have during the time the company is in a SAR; it has nothing to do with shareholders and creditors. The decision will include the group of customers from which it should be recovered. For example, it could be recovered from all water companies’ customers—that is, those in England—or a subset of the sector, or only customers whose water company went into a SAR.
It is possible that a decision could be taken to spread the cost of a SAR across multiple companies, such as where spending benefits are coupled in another region due to shared infrastructure. There is a well-established practice of socialising costs in the energy sector. If a SAR occurs and this power is ever required, it will allow a decision to be made and consulted on as to what the fairest cost recovery option is, based on the evidence and the circumstances at the time.
Charlie Maynard
I think the Minister is confirming that consumers will pay for that shortfall. We are advocating that the creditors should pay. We are not looking to rewrite the Insolvency Act. Whatever the special administrator decides in terms of the hierarchy, fine—that is up to the special administrator. I think the Minister has just confirmed what paragraph 69 in DEFRA’s explanatory notes says, which is that a company is required to
“raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers”
—that is, the bill payers—for that shortfall, rather than the creditors. That is the bit that we are getting at. We think that the special administrator should take into account that hit that the Government have taken and take it out of the creditor’s pocket rather than the customer’s.
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman has failed to acknowledge that, as I have just remarked, there is a hierarchy under the Insolvency Act when it comes to debt being repaid. The people he suggests that we take the money from might be people who, in fact, do not receive any money back. As I have already mentioned, the exact quantity of debt recouped by creditors or equity recouped by shareholders is a matter for the SAR. It is unlikely that all debt will be repaid at the end of special administration, and Government funding provided during a SAR takes priority over most creditors. In the event that there was a cost unable to be recovered from the sale of the company or from reprioritising its debt, the Government would receive their money back first and, therefore, this cost recovery mechanism for customers might not be provided before we reach some of the other creditors, and of course that is determined under the Insolvency Act. I am therefore at a loss to understand the hon. Member’s point. It would make sense if there were people who received their debt repayment before the Government, but that is not the case. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is happening.
All that the Government are doing are providing that, in the unlikely event of the Government’s being unable to recoup costs that they could have paid during the time that a company is under a SAR, there are various mechanisms to have that repaid, all of which would be consulted upon. At the moment, as we know, that would come from the taxpayer. We are instead providing that, yes, we could still use the taxpayer to recoup that debt, or we could use the customers of that particular water company, of neighbouring water companies, or of all of England—and that would be consulted upon.
I think that the hon. Member’s confusion emanates from his being under the impression that, at the exiting of the SAR, creditors would skip off into the sunset with all the money and the Government would take money from customers. That is not the point I am making because, as I have already said, it is unlikely that all debt will be repaid at the end of a SAR and there is a specific order of priority for repayment. I will make the offer—as I did last time and made good on—to provide a fact sheet on exactly how a SAR would work so that there is no further confusion as we progress through the Bill.
I hope that the Committee agrees that the power is essential to protect taxpayers’ money in the event of a SAR.
Charlie Maynard
We are going backwards and forwards. I have made my point. The note here is clear—the Secretary of State is looking for moneys from the customers. I think the special administrator should follow the insolvency rules, but that the hit should come from the creditors, not the customers. I will park it there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emma Hardy
I hope this clause will be a little less fractious than the last one—it is pretty straightforward. If a water or waste water company is about to go insolvent, it can make a winding-up petition to court, as may its creditors. If the court is satisfied that the company is insolvent, it must make a special administration order, triggering a water industry special administration regime, or SAR.
Unlike in normal administration, in a SAR the administrator must prioritise the public interest ahead of creditors. In this case, that means ensuring that water and waste water services continue. However, there is no statutory requirement for creditors or the court to notify the Government or Ofwat that a winding-up petition has been made. In addition, neither the Government nor Ofwat have guaranteed rights to be heard at the subsequent court hearings. This creates the risk that a SAR could be triggered without Government involvement. Given the essential nature of water and waste water services, a SAR presents significant risk to public safety if it is not conducted appropriately. It would be vital, in the event of an imminent SAR, for the Government to be quickly made aware of important developments and to be involved in the arrangements for how the SAR is run. Creditors are unlikely to protect the public interest as comprehensively as a Government and may exercise undue influence over a SAR if a Government are unable to make their views heard.
This clause prohibits a court from making an SAO without the Government and Ofwat being notified, and it gives both parties guaranteed rights to be heard at the subsequent court hearings. That provides a vital safeguard against the risks of a SAR being triggered without Government involvement and the potential dilution of the public interests that that could entail. This also updates the water industry’s SAR to bring it into line with more recently introduced regimes, such as energy, where these rights are standard practice. I hope the Committee agrees that these rights are essential to safeguard the public interest and modernise the water industry’s special administration regime. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Hudson
The Opposition note that clause 14 attempts to make amendments to previous legislation so that a court may not exercise powers that it currently has with regard to an application for winding up an undertaker without providing advance notice of the petition to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers—as appropriate—and Ofwat, and without a period of 14 days having elapsed, as outlined in subsection (2). We also note that the clause likewise grants a further power for the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers and Ofwat to be entitled to be heard at a winding-up petition’s hearing and any other hearing that relates to part 4 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Again, we do not wish to raise any formal objections to this particular clause, but we ask for a couple of clarifications from the Minister, if she will indulge us. First, we would like to hear the Minister articulate what benefits this particular clause brings to the Bill. I was not fully clear from her introductory remarks about the actual benefits. Secondly, does she believe that this change to winding up a water company or any other relevant undertaker will provide a fairer winding-up process?
While we are focusing on water companies and the processes for them, we all want to ensure that the clause provides, again, protection for the consumers, who, as we agree across the Committee, have for too long faced unsatisfactory levels of service from the water industry and the practices of some water companies, so could the Minister please explain whether consumers were considered when this clause was drafted? I and others have outlined in Committee that the performance of water companies in financial resilience, as well as many other matters, has not been satisfactory and has been very upsetting for the British public. Therefore could the Minister please respond and assure the Committee that there can be no unforeseen repercussions for consumers from this clause? That is a recurrent theme as we go through line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill: are there any unintended consequences whereby the taxpayer and the end point consumer will be unfairly penalised by the legislative changes? With that in mind, we have no formal objections to this clause but again we seek clarification that the end point consumer will not inadvertently suffer detriment from this legislation.
Emma Hardy
To be clear, this is literally just a point of process. The provision, which is not currently available in law, says that in the event of an application to the court for a SAR, the Government will be notified at the same time. The reason, as I outlined in my opening remarks, is that we do not believe that creditors are likely to protect the public interest as comprehensively as the Government. It is a mere process clause that provides that in the event of an application to the court for special administration, the Government and Ofwat need to be informed at the same time. The Government maintain the importance of ensuring that the Government and Ofwat are notified in the event of a winding-up petition. For that reason, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title
Tim Farron
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 15, page 21, line 22, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—
“(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 5.
Clause stand part.
Tim Farron
We recognise and, indeed, strongly believe that patience is a virtue, but on these Benches we are also a bit impatient. Our concern regarding this clause is simply about implementation. There are two categories of things to be delivered. Some are to be done straightaway, and with others it looks like we are preparing to drag our heels. Therefore our amendment seeks to simplify implementation with one clear and immediate deadline for all provisions of the Bill.
Clause 15 provides that issues to do with remuneration and governance, pollution incident reduction plans, emergency overflows and nature-based solutions, for example, will come into force
“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”—
in other words, not right now. That troubles us, given that there is this great sense that there has been a lot of talk about reform of the water industry and we run the risk, at least when it comes to those provisions, of getting just more talk. Making things subject to consultation, further navel contemplation, does not feel like the way to radically reform our industry. Our single deadline would cut through all that and bring the urgent change that the water industry desperately needs, so we commend amendment 20 to the Committee.
Emma Hardy
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Amendment 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, seeks to make all provisions in the Bill come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. I share his urge to get on with things, which is why I am a little confused by the desire elsewhere for another water review, but we will get to that when we get to it. First and foremost, I would like to reassure the hon. Member that the Government have carefully considered the appropriate method and timing for the commencement of each clause and have made provision accordingly in clause 15. A one-size-fits-all approach cannot be justified.
For example, the emergency overflows provision will be implemented over the course of two price review periods to protect bill payers from sudden cost increases. Therefore, the commencement provision for clause 3 has been designed to allow for a staged implementation where it is needed. The Government have already committed in clause 15 to the immediate commencement of the civil penalties provisions on Royal Assent. I assure the Committee that the Government and the water industry regulators are dedicated to ensuring that all measures in the Bill are commenced and implemented as soon as possible and appropriate, to drive rapid improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale tempts me to read through a list of every provision and when they will be enacted, but I am going to save that treat for another time and instead list the clauses, rather than going through them in detail. The provisions in clauses 5 to 8, and in 10 to 15, will all come into force automatically either on Royal Assent or two months later. Clauses 1 to 4 and clause 9 will not commence immediately after Royal Assent and will require secondary legislation to come into force, which is due to the need for regulations required to commence the powers. I am sure that the hon. Member will have thoughts to share on those provisions involving statutory instruments after Royal Assent.
I trust that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is reassured by the Government’s careful consideration of the commencement of each clause, which has the best interests of bill payers in mind and recognises the need to debate and discuss some of the exact details under secondary legislation. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Government amendment 5 removes the privilege amendment made in the other place. I like this amendment, because one of the quirks of how British politics has evolved is that we have the amendment in the Bill—I found it quite amusing. The privilege amendment is a declaration from the other place that nothing in the Bill involves a charge on the people or on public funds. It is because the Bill started in the Lords that we have to have the amendment to remove that. It recognises the primacy of the Commons, and I think it is quite fun. It is standard process for that text to be removed from the Bill through an amendment at Committee Stage.
Clause 15 sets out the extent of the Bill, when and how its provisions are to be commenced and its short title. The Bill extends to England and Wales only. As set out in the clause, the provisions of the Bill will variously come into force on Royal Assent, two months following Royal Assent, or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers. The clause makes specific provisions, such as that the commencement of clause 3 may make reference to matters to be determined by the environmental regulators.
Tim Farron
I am happy to accept many of the assurances that the Minister gave, particularly on the role of Government amendment 5—I learn something new every day. The Liberal Democrats retain concerns about the delay in implementation of some of the good things in the Bill. All the same, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 5, in clause 15, page 22, line 40, leave out subsection (11).—(Emma Hardy.)
This amendment reverses the “privilege amendment” made in the Lords.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Special administration for breach of environmental and other obligations
“(1) Section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—
“(aa) that there have been failures resulting in enforcement action from the Authority or the Environment Agency on three or more occasions to—
(i) maintain efficient and economical water supply,
(ii) improve mains for the flow of clean water,
(iii) provide sewerage systems that are effectually drained,
(iv) comply with the terms of its licence, or
(v) abide by anti-pollution duties in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Water Resources Act 1991, or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1154);”
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In support of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in relation to subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State must compile and present to the High Court records of—
(a) water pipe leaks,
(b) sewage spilled into waterways, bathing waters, and private properties, and
(c) falling below international standards of effective water management.”—(Adrian Ramsay.)
This new clause aims to require the Secretary of State to place a water company into special administration arrangements if they breach certain environmental or other conditions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
New clause 31—Special administration orders: credit ratings—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows
(2) In section 24 (special administration orders made on special petitions)—
(a) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Where a company which is a qualifying water supply licensee or qualifying sewerage licensee—
(a) is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and
(b) fails to comply with that requirement,
the Secretary of State must make an application to the High Court by petition under this section.”, and
(b) in subsection (2), after (c) insert—
“(ca) that the company—
(i) is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and
(ii) has failed to comply with that requirement”.”
Adrian Ramsay
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I reiterate my apologies for not being able to be present at the Committee last week due to illness. I am pleased to be here today to speak to new clause 1, which would clarify that water companies may be subject to special administration measures should companies be guilty of significant and sustained environmental breaches.
I commend the commitments the Minister made during last Thursday’s sitting that the legislation will have a meaningful impact to ensure that water companies deliver for customers and for the environment. That echoes the Secretary of State’s pledge to the House in December to bring to the water sector
“reform that puts customers and the environment first.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 78.]
Charlie Maynard
New clause 31 would make the process of putting a company into special administration much easier and clearer. There are two steps in the provision: making it easier to apply for special administration and giving more guidance to judges on whether to grant special administration.
Proposed new section 24(1B) of the Water Industry Act 1991 states:
“Where a company which is a qualifying water supply licensee or qualifying sewerage licensee…is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and…fails to comply with that requirement, the Secretary of State must make an application to the High Court by petition under this section.”
That states that if a company does not have investment grade credit ratings, the Secretary of State will apply for special administration.
Proposed new section 24(2)(ca) of the 1991 Act states that special administration may be granted if a company
“is required, as a condition of its licence, to maintain two Issuer Credit Ratings which are Investment Grade Ratings from two different Credit Rating Agencies, and…has failed to comply with that requirement.”
That gives guidance to the judge. It says, “You’ve got to have those credit ratings. If you don’t, special administration is much more likely to be granted.”
At the moment, we have some bizarre situations. Thames Water, which I will use as my standard example, has £17 billion of debt and cash flows of £1.2 billion; its debt is 14 times higher than the cash flow it generates every year. By financial standards, that is somewhere between ludicrous and ridiculous. In an unregulated sector, the company would have gone bankrupt long ago. I believe—people may contest this—that our Government are keeping it alive because they are worried about being sued by the bondholders if they put it into special administration, because the criteria are not very clear.
If we are serious about fixing our rivers, we have to deal with the debt. We cannot spend the money our rivers require if we do not fix the debt, but we are still digging. Thames Water’s proposed £3 billion of special restructuring is going through the courts right now, so we are adding even more debt—an even bigger millstone around that company’s shoulders. Its debt will go from £17 billion to £20 billion. The Government have the opportunity to say, “That is the last Administration’s trick. We are going to do something different,” but at the moment they are not saying that. I really hope that we will change course. If we do not, all we will do is add more debt on to these companies; that will keep them alive for another 12 or 18 months, but we will be back in the same place again. Customers in Witney and in every constituency are paying through the nose just to cover the interest expenses.
Ofwat has just thrown Thames Water the great big juicy bone of a 35% price increase. That is great news for lenders, but not such great news for customers. It means that instead of 46% of my bill covering the lenders’ interest expenses, it will be only 38%, but I will be paying 35% more. I do not believe that is helping, so the purpose of the new clause is to make it easier to get water companies into special administration.
Emma Hardy
I emphasise to Committee members that special administration is the ultimate regulatory enforcement tool; as such, the bar is set high.
To respond to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, and new clause 31, tabled by the hon. Members for Witney and for Westmorland and Lonsdale, a water company can already be placed into special administration on performance grounds where it is, or is likely to be, in serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order—in other words, where it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence—as set out in section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
The Secretary of State and Ofwat will consider all aspects of a company’s performance and enforcement record, including environmental and financial performance, when considering whether to pursue an SAR on performance grounds. Licence breaches, such as the loss of an investment-grade credit rating, are considered as part of that holistic review of a company’s performance. Ofwat will consider the circumstances around any loss of an investment-grade credit rating to identify the actions that the company must take to address associated licence breaches.
Regulators have a range of enforcement mechanisms to ensure the delivery of performance, including environmental performance. Water companies can also be required to make clear plans to address failures. I gently point out that this Bill does an awful lot to give more powers to address environmental performance. As we have discussed, our pollution reduction implementation plans address some problems relating to pollution.
Special administration must be a last resort, as it has significant consequences for a company’s investors. If special administration could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify performance issues and licence breaches, investors would have low confidence and would not provide the necessary funding. That could create instability in the market, potentially affecting the entire sector.
Although we recognise the concern behind these new clauses and others tabled by the hon. Gentlemen that highlight concerns that the system is not working, they address the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. In October 2024, the Government announced an independent commission that would be the largest review of the water sector since privatisation. That commission has a broad scope and will consult experts in areas such as the environment, public health, engineering, customers, investors and economics.
The governance of companies and regulatory measures to support financial resilience will be covered, including the operation of existing tools, such as the special administration regime. The review will report by quarter two in 2025. The UK and the Welsh Governments will respond and consult on proposals they intend to take forward. We expect those to form the basis of future legislation to tackle the systematic issues to transform the water sector fundamentally. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member is content to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that special administration would only happen in extreme cases. We have, however, repeated failures and neglect, including on environmental performance, from a number of water companies. That is why I wanted to make the provision explicit in the Bill that environmental neglect could be a reason for special administration. I take her point that there are reviews and wider plans underway. Although I am happy not to push this to a vote at this stage, I will take a close interest in how the situation progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Establishment of Water Restoration Fund
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.
(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—
(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and
(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures—
(i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status;
(ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams;
(iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition;
(iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies.
(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include—
(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—
(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence);
(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);
(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);
(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);
(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);
(b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution;
(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).—(Dr Hudson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Hudson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The proposed new clause would introduce a legal requirement that money collected from water companies from financial penalties imposed by the Bill are legally required to be used by the water restoration fund. As with much of the Bill, the Government intend to build on the work begun by the previous Conservative Government. The water restoration fund is one pillar of that record that the Government would do well to advance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what they plan to do with that excellent fund, which needs to be reinstated and progressed.
I have personally championed the water restoration fund, not only in my present role as shadow DEFRA Minister, but before that as a member of the Conservative Environment Network. I pay tribute to that body for its successful campaigning, which in led no small part to the previous Conservative Government introducing the excellent water restoration fund. In 2022, I was proud to sign the Conservative Environment Network’s “Changing course: a manifesto for our rivers, seas and waterways”. That was its first public declaration, setting out the ambition to introduce this policy recommendation.
In addition to the Conservative Environment Network, I would like to namecheck and thank the good folk of Wildlife and Countryside Link for their support and campaigning for the fund and this proposed new clause. I also pay tribute to the Angling Trust for the discussion we had on this matter, and give a big shout-out to our former colleague Philip Dunne, who was respected across the House. The former MP for Ludlow and Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee made assiduous efforts to see this fund introduced, as well as wider measures to protect our precious waterways.
As we have discussed with the Minister, there is considerable consensus on what we can do collectively and on a cross-party basis to protect and nurture our watercourses and waterways. I hope the Government will take forward and continue the water restoration fund because it is pivotal to what we are trying to do.
Jerome Mayhew
I have a slightly cheeky intervention. Is the shadow Minister aware that there is a debate in Westminster Hall at 4 o’clock tomorrow led by yours truly on nature-based solutions for farmland flooding? The fund is central to improving the situation.
Dr Hudson
Yes, I was aware of that. I am acutely aware of it now and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it. It highlights the fact that there is a lot of agreement. I am sure that his debate will demonstrate cross-party consensus on the use of nature-based solutions. We debated flood mitigation in Committee last week, but the water restoration fund is pivotal to trying to improve the situation at the local level and at the local catchment level as well.
Since being introduced by the previous Government, the water restoration fund has provided £11 million for communities to repair their local waterways and restore them to the quality that they should be at—the quality to which local communities should be entitled. At the heart of the proposal is simply this: those who are at fault for the damage done to our waterways must make restoration for it. Given the facts, I find it disappointing that, despite the cross-party efforts in the other place to enact such measures, they were not listened to by the Government. I hope that in a spirit of consensus the Government will look at that in this Session.
The arguments made by the Government in the other place were not satisfactory. They objected to the principle of ringfencing the funding and to the need for the Treasury to have flexibility in how it spends the money, but in this specific case the argument does not quite stack up. Where money comes from taxation, ringfencing is not always the most reliable way to ensure the Treasury has the spending power it needs to deliver public spending, but we are talking about something completely different. Fines are much more uncertain and provide less guarantee regarding the amount of money that they will bring in. To rely on funds such as these for day-to-day broad Treasury spending simply does not make sense.
Ringfencing penalties for the water restoration fund is a much more sensible measure that allows Governments to guarantee that they can meet a specific need. In other words, those who are at fault for harming the quality of our rivers, seas, coasts and lakes make restoration for the damage caused by their action—or inaction. Given all that we have outlined, there cannot be a more justified way of directly making restoration for damage to our previous water system than the mechanism laid out by the water restoration fund. Water companies pay the fines for the damage that they have done, and local communities that are affected are empowered to restore the precious waterways that they live near.
A finer detail of the amendment that should not be ignored is the fact that we will improve chalk streams. It is unfortunately clear that, despite the Government’s pitch to the British public that they would do better than the previous Government in protecting our waterways, their actions on chalk streams do not bear that out. It was very disappointing that over the Christmas period it was revealed that plans from the Conservatives to recover our chalk streams have been laid to one side by the Government. Given that England is home to over 80% of the world’s chalk streams, the failure to act on this issue is neglect of a vital duty to protect a not only a key part of the UK’s environment, but a feature in the environment of the world. They are a precious resource that very few countries are lucky to have access to. Members across this House represent areas with chalk streams. It is a dereliction of duty to ignore that category in the UK environment.
The plans that the previous Government proposed would have given chalk streams a new status of protection. Special consideration would have been given to watercourses in road guidance, and supporting the physical restoration of the streams as key pillars of our plan would have put chalk streams back on the road to the recovery that is needed. As the deviser of the plans has said publicly, although the Government may want to focus on chalk streams in national parks and landscapes, they risk ignoring chalk streams in most need of recovery across the country. Can the Minister explain why this vital plan of action, which was ready to go, has not been fulfilled? I hope that this decision was not based on politics. We need to look at this in terms of evidence and what is best for our environment.
Emma Hardy
I wonder whether there has been some confusion, given that the debate on chalk streams comes later on.
Dr Hudson
Good. We are all for talking about and raising the issue of chalk streams, but it is clear that we wanted to include that in our amendment. Our amendment will therefore be a chance to give chalk streams the attention they need from this Government. The previous Government were ready to deliver that and hand the baton over to the new Government, so that they could follow through on the explicit requirement that chalk streams be considered.
The amendment is a chance for the Government to reconsider their stance on the water restoration fund. I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister about what they are planning to do. If they are serious about improving our waterways and if the money from penalised water companies is allowed to go back into the local area to improve those waterways, we could agree about that. If the Government do not face up to this, that might be a negation of the various promises they made to the electorate when in opposition and send a message that their words are merely soundbites. I hope that the Minister will consider the points I have made and support this amendment to restore the water restoration fund—for the sake of not only our waters, but the democratic and local accountability on which they rely. We will seek to push new clause 2 to a vote.
Tim Farron
I rise briefly to support the new clause. Among many other reasons, it bears great similarity to one proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Bakewell. We consider everything in it to be right. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest has said, we should be deeply concerned about the Treasury seeking to hang on to money that, if there is any justice, ought to be invested back into the waterways that have been polluted by those who have been fined for that very offence.
I talked earlier about the deep sense of injustice felt across the country about those who pollute, who are getting away with polluting and who even—far from being found guilty—are getting benefits from that pollution. The measure would simply codify a move towards the establishment of a water restoration fund, supported, at least in part, by the fines gathered from those guilty in the first place. There would be a great sense of justice being done for folks concerned about how Windermere is cleaned up, how we make sure that Coniston’s bathing water standards remain high and how we deal with some of the issues I mentioned earlier on the River Lowther, River Eden and River Kent.
The water restoration fund should in part be supported by funds gained from those who are guilty: that is basic justice. We strongly support the new clause and will be voting for it if it is put to a vote.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling new clause 2, which seeks to establish a water restoration fund in legislation. I accept his invitation to do better than the previous Government when it comes to pollution in the waterways, and welcome the low bar that they have set me.
A water restoration fund is already being established to direct water company fines into water environment improvement projects. This arrangement does not require legislation, because it exists. Defining a water restoration fund in legislation would create an inflexible and rigid funding mechanism, with the amendment requiring specific detail on the scope, operation and management of fines and money. We need to maintain flexibility in how water company fines are spent, to ensure that Government spending is delivering value for money.
The hon. Member can already see from the Bill and the discussions we have had that the cost recovery powers that we have introduced for the Environment Agency are an example of how we can ensure that water companies pay for enforcement. It is continuing to work with His Majesty’s Treasury regarding continued reinvestment of water company fines and penalties, and water environment improvement. A final decision on that will be made when the spending review concludes later this year. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Hudson
I am not reassured by those comments. The Minister says that the water restoration fund does not need new legislation, but we are concerned that the fact that the fund is not in the Bill shows that the Government are not doing anything with it. They are completely silent about it. I fear that they are going to drop the baton they are being handed and let it pass away. The fund needs to be in the Bill. I am not reassured by the Minister, so we will press a vote on the establishment of a water restoration fund in the Bill.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Hudson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 3, which His Majesty’s Opposition will again push to a vote, has at its heart the people we want to protect—the very individuals who this Committee has acknowledged are most affected: the consumers and bill payers. They are the pivotal reason why we have tabled the clause.
The clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision so that where a water company has faced financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, a financial amount equal to those penalties must be removed from the bills of that water company’s consumers. Of course, one might suppose that it is difficult to make an equivalence between the amount of a financial penalty and the amount to be reduced on the bills, but subsection (2) sets out that it must be calculated by dividing the total financial penalty by the water company’s number of customers. We have laid out a formula that the Secretary of State could follow in fulfilling the duties under the clause.
The Government might object that the clause would create additional duties for the Secretary of State on top of their existing ones, but the Opposition believe that the measure is relatively simple, can be calculated and is worth adopting for the very principle of accountability for which all of us across this House are striving.
I have already mentioned that, when the Conservatives were in government, we took action to set out that water bosses would be banned from receiving bonuses if a company had committed serious criminal breaches. The Bill copies that and takes it forwards, but the new clause takes the principle of accountability, which has been raised in the Committee’s last couple of sittings, even further.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The hon. Member referred to the record of his party while in government for the last 14 years, and said that it set the threshold for a water boss being denied a bonus at the level of criminal activity. Does he agree that many of our constituents would find it strange to set a bar for not having a bonus at the level of committing criminal activity, given that in many workplaces up and down the country a bonus is based on good performance and on serving customers? The last Government set the bar for banning bonuses far too high, and that is why, despite repeated failure, the boss of Southern Water still received a bonus, as the boss of Ofwat confirmed to the Select Committee.
Dr Hudson
The Conservative Government were the first Government to start addressing this issue by actually evaluating the data, monitoring overflows and monitoring outflows. I gently remind the hon. Member that when her party left power, only 7% of storm overflows were measured; when the Conservatives left power, 100% were measured. We were the first party to find that there was a problem.
To return to the dental analogy, in the last parliamentary Session we tried to give the regulators more powers—more teeth—to go after the water bosses. We need to firm up how the regulator has been using those powers, so that we can hold the water companies to account. I agree that there is outrage across the House about how water companies have breached their terms of reference and broken the law. We have tried to hold them accountable. The Bill will try to take things further, but I gently say to the Government that we were the party that started collecting the data, which allowed us to realise the scale of the situation and try to introduce measures to sort it.
The new clause ensures fairness for customers and ensures that fines on water companies will not impact customers, who are not at fault for the water companies’ mistakes or the bad practices that led to the fines. We believe that customers should not be impacted by fines imposed on water companies. The clause attempts to remedy that. In the name of accountability and trust between the public and Governments—of all colours—that seek to address this issue, subsection (3) states that the reductions to customer bills imposed under the clause will be indicated on the statement of account for each consumer who has received the reduction. We believe that that is important.
For too long, a toxic cocktail of water companies’ poor behaviour and rising bills has led too many people to feel that they are getting poor value for money, and that they are not getting the quality water services they deserve for the price they are paying—hard-working people, up and down the country, who work consistently to pay their bills and do the right thing, while the water industry’s negative practices continue. Given the amount of time we have spent talking about this issue, they may also feel that the new Government are not willing to act to protect the consumer in this area.
Subsection (3) seeks to break that cycle and send a signal to bill payers that actions to regulate water companies have a real, tangible effect. Showing the reduction in consumer bills directly on the statement of account will provide a real, tangible sign that the poor behaviour has been looked at, people are going after the water companies and consumers will benefit from that. It also serves as compensation for those who have been directly affected and as an example of justice in action—the principle being that those who harm pay a penalty, and those who are harmed receive restitution.
I return to my comments about the water restoration fund. Fines being re-circulated into the local area will be good for local accountability.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. The hon. Gentleman talks about the outrage across the House, and I also feel outraged as a member of the public. The vast majority of my constituents are incredibly outraged at the situation they find themselves in. One of the things I am told when I knock on doors in my constituency is, “The previous Government have shown no contrition about their role in the degradation of our waterways.” The Opposition have a revisionist attitude that is incredibly perplexing to me and angering to my constituents, so I would just like to see a bit of contrition from them.
Dr Hudson
Can I just say that the previous Government went and looked for the problem, and found the scale of it? We all agree that it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed; we are not downplaying the scale of it. We collected data and were brave enough to say, “There is a problem.”
Labour Members threw a lot of things at us during the passage of the landmark Environment Act 2021. They have made misleading comments about Conservative Members of Parliament, but we were the party that grasped the nettle and said, “There is a problem, and we need to look at it.” A lot of the amendments that were tabled to try to scupper the Environment Act were completely uncosted and would have cost taxpayers lots and lots of money. We tried to introduce practical, cost-effective, reasonable measures to address the scale of the problem that we unearthed.
Jerome Mayhew
The shadow Minister is right that a lot of the supposed solutions were uncosted and had an impractical timeframe. One that springs to mind was the Liberal Democrat amendment that was costed: there was a tax that was supposed to pay for the improvements to water quality. Does he agree that, on a basic calculation, it would have taken more than 300 years to pay it back?
Dr Hudson
I agree. Amendments are easy to table with a view to obstruction and making political points, and those were not affordable and would not have been deliverable in any realistic timescale. Governments have to make realistic, cost-effective decisions that honour the taxpayer, and they have to be clear with the public about how such measures will be implemented and paid for.
If the Government do not support our amendment, I hope they will clarify what steps they are taking to protect customers from the knock-on impact of fines. Unfortunately, in many industries when costs are imposed, customers sometimes pay higher prices. With the new clause, we want to ensure that when we rightly impose financial penalties on water companies there are no unintended consequences for the consumers we aim to defend by imposing the financial penalties in the first place. With that in mind, and given the aim of accountability, we sincerely hope the Government will support the new clause. Ultimately, we aim to press it to a vote.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeff Smith.)
Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling new clause 3, which would require a water company to reduce customer bills by an equivalent amount to the total monetary penalties paid in the previous year by that company. I will start by clarifying that we expect the cost of the penalties to be borne by the companies, not by the customers. However, I would also like to reassure the hon. Member that there are existing procedures in place to ensure that customers are reimbursed for a water company’s poor performance.
As the independent economic regulator of the water industry, Ofwat is best placed to ensure that customers are reimbursed appropriately if water companies perform poorly. Ofwat already sets specific performance targets for water companies in the five-yearly price review. Those performance commitments hold water companies to account for the outcomes that customers pay for. Where they are not met, companies must reimburse customers through lower water bills in the next financial year.
Those performance targets take a holistic view of water company performance and consider wider factors beyond companies receiving penalties. Performance targets include customer-facing commitments, such as water supply interruptions; environmental commitments, such as pollution incidents, storm overflows and bathing water quality; and commitments related to asset health, such as repairs to burst mains. As a result of underperformance in the last financial year, Ofwat is currently requiring 13 companies to return £157 million to customers.
The hon. Member’s new clause is therefore not appropriate for this Bill, given that it would overlap with existing procedures. However, there is simply not enough improvement in performance across the water industry. That is why we have launched the independent commission, which will look at issues, including performance, and make recommendations on how to transform the water sector.
I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest is reassured about how customers will be reimbursed for poor performance, and about the steps that we are taking to improve performance. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comments. I am afraid that I am not fully reassured, and we would like to see provision in the Bill for any fines imposed on water companies to have a concomitant effect—a direct effect—on customer bills. This well-intended measure has been tabled to create a link between the two, so although I hear the Minister’s comments, we would still like to press new clause 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Hudson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new rules regarding the limits to the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water company, which the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be able to enact by means of statutory instrument. Although we have discussed statutory instruments in Committee, the Opposition hope that the Government will recognise that this proposed statutory instrument power needs to be made.
New clause 4 ensures that water companies are not excessively borrowing money, as that is ultimately bad for bill payers. At the heart of our concern about financial resilience is the borrowing in the industry and the over-leveraging because of that borrowing. It is clear that there is a direct link between financial resilience, problems connected to borrowing and the very survivability of the water firms. That should be of huge concern to all of us.
Consumers are concerned that the provision of their water is at risk, and we as legislators must work out how to deal with the issues, including the financial implications, relating to the risk of nationalising the water companies that have no other way of providing services. That can reverberate back to the consumers again, who may face increased costs because of the financial support that the Government have to provide to keep water companies afloat. In other words, tackling the choices that water companies may have made, and will make in the future, including borrowing choices, is an issue that we are required to correct for the very future of our water industry.
I reiterate my profound respect for the way that both the Minister and Baroness Hayman have conducted themselves in this debate. I note that Baroness Hayman expressed concern in the other place that putting a fixed percentage limit on borrowing could be a risk to investment at a crucial time for financial resilience and investment in the water industry. That is why my Conservative colleague, Lord Roborough, revised his amendment on that in the other place to give the Secretary of State the power to set limits by means of a statutory instrument. I pay tribute to my colleague and friend Lord Roborough for working so hard to raise the issue of financial resilience in the other place through this amendment.
We are not saying that a hard limit has to be set on borrowing levels, but merely giving the Secretary of State the option to do so if they feel it necessary to protect consumers from the negative effects of the water industry. I come back to the point I made in previous sittings: giving the powers to the Secretary of State, a democratically elected Minister in His Majesty’s Government, through statutory instrument, improves democracy and accountability for the water companies. I do not think the Labour Government need to shy away from this constructive amendment, which gives the Secretary of State the ability to hold the water companies to account, as we all want to do.
If the Minister does not see the need for the amendment —I am not pre-empting her, but I imagine that is how her response will go—can she clarify how much borrowing the Government consider acceptable for a water company, and what they will do to reduce the impact on the consumer of excessive borrowing and spending? The new clause also limits the amount of dividends that can be paid out to shareholders if the water company has exceeded the borrowing limit. Should a limit be set, it would therefore make water companies fairer in their practices to bill payers, as when a company borrows it will have less of an impact on consumer bills.
While in government, the Conservatives gave Ofwat the powers to link performance to payouts to shareholders and water company management. New clause 4 further aims to protect consumers from companies that are failing to prioritise their customers. Considering those points, the Opposition believe that the Government could move a bit on this, and enact democratic accountability with the statutory instrument. We hope that they will look on new clause 4 favourably.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling the new clause, which would implement a limit on borrowing by water companies. I note that Baroness Hayman had multiple discussions with Lord Roborough on the similar amendment that he put forward in the House of Lords, and that Lord Roborough was satisfied with our reasoning for not introducing restrictions on borrowing in the Bill.
Debt has been rising in companies since privatisation, and it of course accelerated under the previous Administration. In some instances, levels of debt have reached a point at which the financial resilience of companies could be threatened. We have been clear that Ofwat must continue to have a strong focus on company financial resilience to secure efficient long-term investment and deliver long-term value for money for customers and the environment.
I assure the Committee that Ofwat is already taking steps to closely monitor debt levels as part of its annual monitoring financial resilience report, and it will take action where the financial resilience of a company is threatened. Ofwat published its final determinations for the 2024 price review in December, which included a confirmed £104 billion upgrade for the water sector. Investment in the water sector is financed up front by investors, and repaid by customers over time to smooth the impact on bills. Borrowing is therefore a key part of the process.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I agree with many of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest on debt. He raised the serious question of how much debt is too much. Does Ofwat have a firm number on how much companies should be borrowing, and at what point it should intervene?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for his helpful intervention to look at what the borrowing and debt limits should be. We think that placing new borrowing limits on companies at this late stage in the price review process would disrupt business planning. However, taking on board the points that have been made and the concerns about companies’ levels of debt, I refer Members to the fact that we have announced an independent water commission, which will be a more appropriate vehicle for considering longer-term reform options such as the proposals from the hon. Member for Epping Forest. Company financial structures are one of a number of areas that could be explored under the commission, and we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the commission through this new clause.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
With respect, I feel that we are living in parallel universes. I will take Thames Water as an example, whose debt is 14 times the level of its cash flows. The Minister is saying that financial resilience could be threatened, but I spent 25 years in finance, and that ratio is very threatening. Is Ofwat closely monitoring that? Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have put Thames Water into junk bond ratings—seven ratings under the investment grade—and we are pedalling on regardless. Could the Minister give a view on Thames Water’s levels of debt, and whether they are threatening to the company?
Emma Hardy
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood. There is certainly no desire from me to keep pedalling. Instead, what we want to do is look at the entire financial situation of companies—he knows that we have had that conversation outside this room. We need to look at some of the longer-term reform options for how companies are structured financially, which is why we have the deputy governor of the Bank of England leading our review, and using his knowledge and expertise to look at how companies are structured.
I do not think that the new clause is the appropriate place to pre-empt the outcome of the commission before it has had an opportunity to report, or even to listen to the hon. Member for Epping Forest through the call for evidence that is yet to be announced. I want to stress that I support sentiment of the hon. Member for Witney, but I express caution around the risks of putting through changes of this magnitude without giving full and proper consideration. We believe that the commission is the appropriate way to do that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Okay, perhaps the Minister is right—perhaps the detail of what percentage of debt or what multiple of revenue is appropriate should be established by the commission and the wider review—but surely the principle can be established now. From any investigation in this area, we can say that the principle will be that debt will need to be capped or managed, or have some oversight, because we have seen what happens—particularly with Thames Water—when there is no cap or oversight. Does the Minister not agree that the new clause just sets out the principle, and the amount would be set out by an SI?
Emma Hardy
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s contributions on matters of finance, and I recognise his knowledge in this area. However, I think he would probably acknowledge—even if not publicly—that using a new clause to determine the level of debt that we think is appropriate is not the best way to make legislation for our country, or for the financial resilience of the water sector. I am entirely confident that the best way to look at this seriously, taking contributions and recommendations from all the wider stakeholders, is through the water commission. The commission might draw similar conclusions but it is not for us to pre-empt them now, without having first taken on board the opinions of many other stakeholders. I trust that the hon. Member for Epping Forest is reassured by the steps being taken by the Government, and by Ofwat, and I ask him to withdraw the clause.
Dr Hudson
I thank the Minister for the constructive tone with which she has engaged in this whole debate, but I think we are going round in circles. We are trying to hold the water companies to account, and the Government are saying, “It is okay, Ofwat can do that,” but we have heard contributions saying that Ofwat is not using its powers and we need to give it more powers.
All we are doing, with this new clause, is putting in place the principle that the Secretary of State has the capability to oversee that. If the Secretary of State and the Government felt that Ofwat was doing what the legislation intended, they would not need to activate the new clause’s provisions. If, however, they did not feel that Ofwat was doing that, the new clause would give them that particular power. We are again talking about—I know the Government Back Benchers are going to wince—teeth. In this case, regarding Ofwat’s and the Environment Agency’s capabilities, we are saying to the democratically elected Government of the day that there is an extra tooth to hold over Ofwat, and that if Ofwat is not doing its job then the Government can, potentially, step in.
I take on board the comments about the commission but, to echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Witney about being impatient for change, if this issue is going to the commission, and the can is being kicked down the track, that is disappointing. With this new clause, we are trying, constructively, to give the Government and the Secretary of State of the day the capability to act if they feel that the processes set up under the previous Administration and the new Administration are not working well. I urge the Minister to think again on this matter, and we will press the clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Hudson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 6 is a fair and reasonable request to strengthen the Bill. Quite simply, it would do what it says on the tin by requiring the Government to report on the impact that they expect the Bill to have on water pollution and on the actual and verifiable effects that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will have on our water quality.
It is completely agreed that accountability for addressing the quality of our water system should be at the heart of how we tackle water pollution and related issues. That should be true of every actor involved: not just the water companies, but the Government whose regulation they are expected to abide by. We cannot rightly say on the one hand that water companies should be expected to meet criteria to restore public trust, while suggesting on the other hand that the Government should not likewise work to be accountable and to uphold public trust on the issue.
Furthermore, the new clause feeds into the basic fact that ensuring that our water systems are being improved is not a one-time event that can be magically resolved with a single piece of legislation every now and then. It must be a consistent focus for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for all the agencies under whose remit the issue falls.
The work of agencies such as the Environment Agency is vital. I pay tribute to its hard work, not least when flooding hits, as we have discussed. We should not underestimate those on the frontline who do so much to keep people safe, to make sure that the environment is protected and to ensure that the quality of people’s water is safe and suitable.
To improve our water systems, however, the buck must stop not with the EA, but higher up: with DEFRA and the Government. The new clause would help to provide that accountability. As in our earlier discussions regarding the online publication of implementation reports, if the measures set out in the Government’s approach do not meet their targets, for legitimate reasons, the Government would have a chance to lay out exactly why not and to give a justification for their findings on the Act’s impact. Our new clause would provide a natural mechanism to ensure that long-term planning and reviews of the Act are taking place and that the Government are looking at water pollution and the actions that the water industry has taken or needs to take to further improve the situation.
We should not shy away from the fact that the new clause would build on the previous Government’s efforts to look at that point. Our plan for water set out a 25-year plan to ensure that our water companies were investing in our water system for the long term, not just while the issue was in the headlines. Again, that is why our new clause matters: because it would ensure the continued focus of Governments of all parties on the protection of our waters. That matters all the time, not just when it becomes a political or media issue.
We must also consider the evolving factors that affect the water industry and its ability to reduce water pollution. The flooding that we have seen in the past weeks has highlighted once again that our country is facing more regular extreme flooding events. In simple terms, more flooding means more excess groundwater and surface water that can enter the network, which creates more of a risk that sewerage overflows will be required to maintain our water systems.
With such events becoming more unpredictable in their timing and yet more commonplace because of extreme weather events and the effects of climate change, looking at the evolution of issues such as this will be crucial to ensuring that any measures to improve overflows and water quality are successful in the long term. We need to make decisions now that have an impact in the future, because in the long term we all want water quality to improve and to be protected for future generations. To achieve that, we need long-term and consistent attention and reflection on the policies being enacted and their effects. The new clause would help to facilitate that.
Once again, transparency is not a hindrance; it helps everybody involved in managing the quality of our water system. Trust can be maintained only if everyone tries to do what is right and the Government, of whichever political party, are no exception. We need to be trying to do the right thing. Given that, His Majesty’s Opposition believe the new clause to be a highly reasonable and fair amendment to the Bill, and we hope that the Minister might support it.
Emma Hardy
I will quickly note the constructive and nice way in which the hon. Member for Epping Forest is taking part in these debates. I also want to come up with more dentistry analogies, so I will be thinking of those as we keep going.
The Bill will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry. In line with that, it will introduce many measures to disincentivise pollution. For example, it will provide Ofwat with legal powers to ban bonuses where companies fail to meet standards on environmental performance, financial resilience, customer outcomes or criminal liability. The Bill will also enable automatic and severe fines, allowing regulators to take swift action. It will enable the public to hold companies to account through a new requirement for water companies to produce annual reports on pollution incident reduction. Collectively, these measures will strengthen enforcement, improve transparency and disincentivise water company pollution.
The Committee and the wider public are able to see a more detailed assessment of the expected impact of the Bill via the published impact assessment. I reassure the Committee that my Department is committed to post-legislative scrutiny of primary legislation. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will work with the cross-party Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to assess the impacts of the Act three to five years after Royal Assent as part of the standard practice for all new legislation. I welcome that scrutiny.
The Government therefore cannot accept new clause 6. Although we agree on the importance of understanding the impact of the Bill on environmental pollution, adding further reporting requirements to the Bill would be duplicative and unnecessary.
The Chair
It is votes à gogo this afternoon.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Review of the water industry—
“(1) The Secretary of State must consider as part of any review into the water industry the following—
(a) the functions and performance of the Water Services Regulation Authority, and the case for its abolition;
(b) whether a public benefit company could better perform the role of current undertakers.
(2) The consideration under subsection (1)(a) must analyse the case for replacing the Water Services Regulation Authority with a new corporate body known as the Clean Water Authority, with the following general duties—
(a) to issue guidance to undertakers, and enforce the implementation of that guidance, requiring undertakers to meet excellent standards concerning—
(i) the provision of clean drinking water,
(ii) the maintenance of bathing waters of excellent quality,
(iii) the maintenance of lakes, rivers and beaches of high ecological status,
(iv) the conservation of water resources, and
(v) the charging of reasonable water bills;
(b) to issue rules prohibiting a relevant undertaker from giving to persons holding senior roles performance-related pay in respect of any financial year in which the undertaker has failed to meet any relevant targets set by the Authority;
(c) to swiftly revoke the licence of water companies that have performed poorly, as defined by the Authority, with particular regard to the standards set out in paragraph (a);
(d) to require relevant undertakers to have arrangements in place for environmental experts to be members of a board, committee or panel of the undertaker;
(e) to issue stringent and legally-binding targets concerning sewage discharges affecting bathing waters and highly sensitive nature sites;
(f) to mandate that undertakers publish publicly-accessible live time data on the recorded volume, duration and number of sewage spills on a single site maintained by the Authority;
(g) to perform unannounced inspections with regard to the duties under this subsection.”
Tim Farron
I will try to be brief and speak to both new clauses. For the Committee’s information, we will not seek to press new clause 7 to a vote, but we will seek to press new clause 20.
I know that the Minister will talk about the Cunliffe review as the time when these things will be considered. Nevertheless, we have all spent enough time in opposition to have come to some conclusions before this Parliament. Even if nothing else had happened beforehand, there was Ofwat’s signing off of the bill increases last December. This is a 21% increase in bills, and that is 14 times larger than the current inflation rate. In my part of the world, it is a 25% price rise. As I said earlier, 11% of the bills being paid by my constituents will go to finance company debt.
We have seen bonuses signed off regularly despite shocking performance. We see Ofwat as a failed regulator with a culture and presumption of non-intervention. Nearly four years on, Ofwat still has not collected £168 million-worth of fines. We see a culture of weakness and an organisation that the water companies consider to be weak and for which they do not have respect. It is partly the fault of Ofwat and its leadership, but it is also that the powers given to it are not sufficient.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I think we can safely say that Ofwat is already under review. In my mind, it has until 2030 to deliver everything that we want. We have an independent commission coming up, so I would say that the hon. Member’s new clause is not necessary. We should let the commission report and say what extra steps are necessary.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Member for her very reasonable intervention. In the extremely unlikely event that the Committee rejects my new clause today, we will of course submit our ideas to Sir Jon Cunliffe and take part in the review, which we welcome. Nevertheless, my point is that the division of responsibility and division of attention, particularly in the Environment Agency as a regulator dealing with flooding and so on, means that it does not have the resource; I know that we will talk about that later. Also, the fact that the regulatory set-up is so fragmented means that the water companies simply run rings around the various regulators.
One final point arising from new clause 20 is that we must outline a potential way forward. We are not convinced at this stage that renationalisation would be affordable or wise. I am not saying that I am opposed to it in principle; it just does not seem wise at this stage to do something that will cost the taxpayer a vast amount and put money in the hands of people who have fleeced us once already. Unless people can come up with a different model, that does not feel like the right way of doing it.
At the same time, the current model of ownership has clearly failed. We suggest a not-for-profit, a community benefit company model or looking at mutuals, but there may be a way of migrating the system towards that model of ownership via what happens at the end of the administration.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member says that privatisation has demonstrably failed. I challenge him on that. There are elements of privatisation that have failed: the refinancing, the imposition of debt and the removal of money through dividends in the noughties and, I am sorry to say, between 2010 and 2015. That is a failure, but I hope that the hon. Member accepts that privatisation as a whole has delivered more than £160 billion of capex investment into the industry, which simply would not have happened if it had been up against schools, hospitals and the other calls on the public purse.
I know that I am straying too far, but subsection (1)(b) of the new clause refers to
“whether a public benefit company could better perform the role of current undertakers.”
As I am sure the hon. Member will know, we have an example of that: Welsh Water. Is he able to point to a single metric by which Welsh Water has outperformed its private sector comparators?
Tim Farron
I am not wedded to one model or another. Having said all that, water is blindingly obviously a natural monopoly and should not have been privatised in the first place. Can I give one metric? Yes. Of the 16 water companies, Welsh Water is among the minority that are financially sound. Performance is not necessarily and always a function of ownership absolutely: it is a combination of ownership, culture and regulation.
We are simply saying that we should look at migrating the system to this model. Let us bear in mind that for all the additional money we can say we leverage in through private investment, a vast amount of money leaks out of the system to shareholders, often through holding companies overseas and in bonuses, which could otherwise have been spent internally.
New clause 7 is an attempt to come up with a constructive alternative. We would abolish Ofwat, take the water regulatory powers off the Environment Agency, create a single regulator in the form of the clean water authority and seek to migrate ownership within the water industry towards a mutual and community benefit model. As I say, we will not push new clause 7 to a vote, but we will seek a vote on new clause 20.
Dr Hudson
As we have gone through the Bill, there has been a lot of cross-party consensus on trying to get measures in place. I respect the efforts of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the third party in trying to improve the situation, not least in such matters as nature-based solutions. From the official Opposition’s perspective, however, the hon. Member’s new clause 7 is perhaps an overly eager response. Throwing out Ofwat completely at this juncture when we want it to do its regulatory job would create more problems than he wants, whatever the intention of the new clause.
I know that the Liberal Democrats have argued that steps should be taken to set up a new regulator in some way. New clause 7 does not really introduce a specific requirement or measures to enable a transition from Ofwat to the purported new regulator. If we were to proceed with the new clause, we would simply be left in limbo and in the lurch with regard to regulation of the industry. It is not that we believe that the situation is perfect: we have debated the powers of the Environment Agency and Ofwat, and we have agreed that things are not perfect with the water industry and regulators. We have all heard at first hand about issues that we are not happy with, such as executives moving into higher-paid roles within water regulators, of which we heard evidence in the EFRA Committee in the last Parliament.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale generously shouted out the people who work in Ofwat and the Environment Agency, but although he will not push new clause 7 to a vote, he still talks about abolishing Ofwat. In doing that, we would be left with a vacuum while a new regulator was set up—something we can ill afford when we all agree that there is so much work to be done. A new regulator could not be established overnight; it could take months or even years while structures were being established, the personnel needed to do its everyday work were appointed and the like. Let us be honest that making such a move would not come without financial cost.
Even if that money could be raised through Government resources—ultimately, that means taxpayers’ money—we would be using it to establish a completely new infrastructure for the water regulator, rather than trying to enhance and give more power to the regulator we already have. In addition, we have to remember that its role as a regulator affects consumer bills, too. While none of us wants to see water bills rise for any of our constituents, particularly in difficult economic times, bills would have only been higher if a regulator had not been there at all. If we are left with a vacuum until a replacement mechanism is put in place, and if that takes a lot of time, do we really want to run the risk of unregulated companies raising prices even further in the meantime?
We are in agreement that the status quo has not been good enough when it comes to water companies, but progress has been made and continues to be made in that seismic task. Water companies are starting to face the financial penalties for their failures to both people and our precious environment. For example, back in November, Wessex Water was ordered to pay £500,000 for the loss of thousands of fish because of a sewage pumping failure. That very same month, Thames Water was fined over £18 million for its failure to obey rules introduced on the spending of dividends. Those incidents are not good news stories, and we should never say that they are, but they are signs that the mechanism is working. Ofwat is holding the companies to account and trying to act—it is trying to use the teeth that are there.
There are early signs that giving the regulator those teeth—which we have heard a lot about in this Committee —means that there are clear consequences for the water companies that break the rules that have been implemented. That is not the end of the story, but it is the start of the journey, as we try to hold those water companies to account. As I have also mentioned, the pathway for inspections into water company activity is increasing. It is the whole approach—from incident, to investigation, to penalty—that needs to be examined and reviewed in order to drive change, and that is what has been done and what this legislation is trying to take forward.
Although things are not perfect, we need to allow the existing legislation, as well as this new legislation, to take effect so that the regulator can get on and do its job. We should not put things in jeopardy by completely abolishing things. I note that the Liberal Democrats have tabled this new clause, and they are not pushing it to a vote, but I want to put on record the Opposition’s reservations about what they are suggesting.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale once again for his thorough consideration of the Bill. I will turn first to new clause 7, which was tabled in his name and which proposes the abolition of Ofwat. As the hon. Member will be aware, and as he already mentioned in October ’24, the UK and Welsh Governments launched the independent commission to fundamentally transform how our water system works. The commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, will be broad-ranging and will make recommendations in line with eight objectives, which include specific objectives considering the role, structures, responsibilities and powers of the regulator.
It is right that the commission, rather than this Water (Special Measures) Bill, is the vehicle for considering the water regulator’s roles and responsibilities. This Bill focuses on strengthening the powers of the regulators to drive improvements in performance. The Bill will not, and cannot, fix all the sector’s problems. The commission is the right place to consider the long-term future of the regulatory system and the role of the regulator. Indeed, I would argue that the Labour Government want to move away from sticking-plaster politics to fundamentally reset and transform the problems facing our country for good. I hope therefore that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is content that this new clause is unnecessary.
New clause 20 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. It sets out requirements for a water review that is undertaken by the Secretary of State. I think we are all agreed that we have seen years of water company underperformance, and we all agree that there is a clear need to fundamentally reset the water sector. Although I understand that the hon. Member is seeking to ensure that any review of the water sector is sufficiently thorough, the Government are confident that the commission’s scope is broad and comprehensive. Sir Jon will be supported by a range of experts from the regulatory, environment, health, engineering, customer, investor and economic sectors to effectively examine this sector as a whole, including the regulatory framework.
By setting out considerations for a water review in primary legislation, we risk prejudicing or pre-empting the outcome of the current commission, as well as its independence. The sector is facing complex challenges that require the support of customers, environment groups, investors and companies alike to address. An independent review is best placed to find solutions to those challenges, and it is critical that its independence is preserved. The commission will report its findings in summer 2025, and the Government will consider them in full before outlining the next steps. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale understands that to avoid duplication and, importantly, maintain the independence of the commission, the Government will not accept the new clause.
Tim Farron
As I said earlier, we will not press the new clause to a vote at this stage, but we will press new clause 20 later. Notwithstanding all that has been said about Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review—we want to proactively engage with it, and believe it has great potential to do good—there is no harm in proposing solutions at this stage, and that is what we seek to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Duties of water regulators for clean water
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2 (General duties with respect to water industry)—
(a) omit paragraph (2A)(c);
(b) in subsection (2B), omit from ‘by’ to the end of the subsection and insert—
‘ensuring—
(a) clean drinking water,
(b) bathing waters of excellent quality,
(c) lakes, rivers and beaches of high ecological status,
(d) the conservation of water resources, and
(e) reasonable water bills.’
(3) In section 3 (General environmental and recreational duties), in subsection (2), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a requirement to achieve excellent quality of all bathing waters, lakes, rivers and beaches of high ecological status, and elimination of sewage, waste and other pollution so far as reasonably practicable from all waterways;’”.—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would amend Ofwat’s consumer duty to prioritise clean water and bill levels instead of commercial competition.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is similar in scope to the last one, and I do not want to detain the Committee long. The clause refers to the duties of the water regulator under the Water Industry Act 1991, and lists duties against which the regulator would be able to mark water companies to see whether they perform. The duties would be to ensure,
“clean drinking water…bathing waters of excellent quality…lakes, rivers and beaches of high ecological status…the conservation of water resources, and…reasonable water bills.”
Interestingly, those are significantly more detailed than the 1991 Act currently provides. We are seeking to beef up Ofwat’s powers so that water companies are marked against these higher and more comprehensive standards. We do not think the clause should be controversial, and will seek to push it to a vote.
The Chair
The Clerk keeps reminding me that—I think because we have a lot of new Members in the room; Tim Farron is not guilty of this—people keep saying “you”, which is a cardinal sin. You have to say “the hon. Member”, because “you” is me, and I am not doing anything except sitting here saying the “Unlock the doors” stuff.
Emma Hardy
May I say—often said, not always meant—that it is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq? I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the intention behind new clause 8. Ofwat has a range of primary duties, including protecting the interests of consumers, ensuring that companies properly carry out their functions and ensuring that companies can finance the delivery of their statutory duties. Removing Ofwat’s duty to ensure that companies are appropriately financed would put at risk companies’ ability to deliver for customers and the environment. The new clause also seems to contradict the others tabled by the hon. Member. For example, new clauses 19 and 23 seek to increase regulation around water company financial resilience, but new clause 8 seems to aim to reduce it.
Ofwat must continue to ensure that water companies can finance the proper carrying out of their statutory obligations, in line with the outcome the new clause seeks. Ofwat already has a primary duty to seek to ensure that companies deliver their statutory obligations, including environmental obligations. Ofwat’s existing duties, combined with the strengthened power for regulators provided by the Bill, will therefore drive the desired outcome sought by the new clause and ensure that the environment is at the heart of water companies’ activities. That is something on which we all agree.
In addition, the independent commission on the water sector will look at wider long-term reform of the water sector, including considering and clarifying the role of regulators, and we do not wish to prejudice the outcome of the commission by implementing the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that Ofwat’s existing core duties capture the intent behind it, and that the independent commission will consider the duties of Ofwat more broadly. For those reasons, we will not accept the new clause.
Tim Farron
I thank the Minister for her response. The new clause aims not to replace the business side of Ofwat’s regulatory framework and powers, but to supplement it. As I said earlier, it is odd that in the broadest sense—I know that this is not entirely true—Ofwat looks at the business side of the water industry and the EA looks at the environmental side. They are clearly one and the same, or they ought to be. We are simply trying to draw these things together. This is not about reducing Ofwat’s powers on one side in order to beef them up on the other; this is about additionality. We think it is entirely consistent.
I hear the Minister—if I were at that crease, my straight bat would be “Sir Jon Cunliffe” every single time. I get that, but surely, there has to be some point to this water Bill, and we are trying to push the Government to strengthen the regulators. We debated earlier the extent to which Ofwat should exist or not, but if we take it that the Government have a majority and therefore that Ofwat is likely to overcome my time on this Committee, what can we do to make it a more holistic regulator with more power and scope? We therefore think there is a very strong case for new clause 8.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Environment Agency will have more powers as a consequence of the Bill. There will be greater regulation and there will be an impact on the Environment Agency as an organisation. It is my privilege to represent large chunks of the English Lake district. We have an agency full of really good people—dedicated and qualified professionals, many of whom are from and love the area, and yet they already find themselves overwhelmed with their responsibilities. I made an allusion earlier, but it might help to give a sense of how the organisation copes with its challenges.
We are still in the process of having walls built around the River Kent to protect the town of Kendal and its businesses from a repeat of the devastation in December 2015, when something like 6,000 of my residents lost their homes and we saw just under 1,000 businesses devastated. The Environment Agency is looking after that, and just up the road are Windermere, Coniston, Ullswater and the other lakes, rivers and coastal areas of our beautiful part of the world. We are already stretching the capacity of those people, to say the least, and we are beginning to see that in real time, as we try to deal with sewage spills in the tributaries that lead into Windermere. We see many such failures, and although the Environment Agency is trying to find the time to regulate, observe and scrutinise them, it is understandably distracted by the huge civil engineering project that it is overseeing in Kendal to protect the town from flooding.
This is about paying tribute to people in the EA, but also recognising that they are already under enormous pressure. The Minister has said that there will be 500 new members of staff at the Environment Agency. That is one answer to the question. We are trying to recognise that that is still only one person per English constituency. We need to therefore test the extent to which the Environment Agency has the capacity to do its job, because part of the problem is insufficient regulatory powers, and the other is agencies without the resource to police the powers that they already have. This aims to be a helpful new clause. It recognises that the Government seek to and will do good through the Bill, but we need to ensure that the agencies there to deliver that good have the capability to do so.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for suggesting new clause 10 and agree it is important to understand the impacts of the Bill on the Environment Agency. I echo remarks made by all Members on the wonderful work that the Environment Agency does, particularly those who are working in the frontline and those who were working on new year’s day trying to support communities that had been flooded. I also pay tribute to the Wildlife and Countryside Link and to all the environmental groups, organisations and charities that have shown an interest in the Bill. Their tireless campaigning is probably what has led to many of us being here to discuss it today.
I reassure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that the current provisions in the Bill are sufficient to do what he wants. Through clause 10, the Environment Agency will be able to recover costs for the full extent of their water company enforcement activities, including for new provisions in the Bill. This will allow the Environment Agency to fully fund their water industry enforcement functions and meet the requirements of the Act, ensuring that polluters can be held to account for breaches of their obligations.
Environment Agency funding will continue to be closely monitored by DEFRA as a sponsoring Department, ensuring that the regulator is fully equipped to carry out its duties and functions effectively and to deliver for the public and the environment. The Environment Agency is already recruiting up to 500 additional staff for inspections, enforcement and stronger regulation of the water industry, increasing compliance checks and quadrupling the number of water company inspections by March. This increased capacity is funded by £55 million a year through increased grant in aid funding from DEFRA and additional funding from water quality permit charges levied on water companies.
I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that these measures will ensure that the Environment Agency consistently has the resources it needs to fund its regulatory activities. As such, the proposed new clause is unnecessary and therefore I ask him to withdraw it.
Tim Farron
I am not entirely reassured but I am partially at least and we have no desire to push this new clause a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks
After section 205 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—
“205ZA Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks
(1) Each relevant undertaker must publish a map of its sewage catchment network.
(2) A map published under this section must illustrate any relevant pumping stations, pipes, and other works constituting part of the undertaker’s sewerage network.
(3) Maps published under this section must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and must be updated whenever changes are made to the sewage catchment network or the components listed in subsection (2).
(4) Maps published under this section must be made publicly accessible on the undertaker’s website.”—(Charlie Maynard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a very nuts and bolts thing. I believe we are here to try to make a better water sector. I will rattle through the clause, which would mean that each relevant undertaker
“must publish a map of its sewage catchment networks”,
and that maps published under the provision
“must illustrate…pumping stations, pipes and other works constituting part of the undertaker’s sewerage network…must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act…must be made publicly accessible on the undertaker’s website.”
I am a district councillor as well as an MP and in my ward of Standlake Aston and Stanton Harcourt, parish councillors, members of the public and campaigners have grappled for information and failed to find it. Many people do not know how to do a freedom of information request. This means that people do not know where the sewage is going from and to, and that leads to confusion and means that the problems are further away from us.
Putting these maps in the public domain, making them easily accessible and making sure that not only the pumping stations and the treatment works but the pipes connecting them all—which are not automatically clear —are always in the public domain and always easily accessible means that we are getting to a solution quicker. That is all this new clause is about. I am probably going to get a response saying, “We have to wait for the water commission”, in which case I would express some disappointment, because these things do not cost any money and they mean we move quicker to solve problems. I would really like a culture of, “If that’s a good idea, let’s do it”.
Emma Hardy
I understand the intent of new clause 11. The location and health of a water company’s assets is key to ensuring their maintenance and improvement. Under section 199 of the Water Industry Act, companies are required to keep records of the locations of many of their sewers, natural drains or disposal mains. Members of the public are able to request this information from water and sewerage companies in map form. Furthermore, the Environment Agency hosts a public register of information relating to all sites and assets permitted under the environmental permitting regulations. As of 1 January—this month—all water companies are required to publish discharge data from their storm overflows. Water UK’s centralised map shows that near real-time data for water companies across England in a publicly accessible format.
Charlie Maynard
Frankly, it is pretty worrying that we do not have maps of sewer networks around the country. That is a pretty fundamental thing that we would want a water utility company to have. I acknowledge that they do not, though, and nowhere in the new clause am I proposing that the network is mapped. I am simply saying that we should take the existing maps and get them into the public domain by default. Currently, it is necessary to make a freedom of information request to access them.
I suggest that the Minister might be being a little disingenuous in saying, “We’re just being asked to monitor, but we want to act.” The Government can do both. It is not the case that if we are monitoring, we are not acting; there is plenty to be acting on and plenty to be monitoring. Also, when I hear, “If we put in flow monitors then we would need to cover the quality,” I think, “Yes—all of it. Let’s do it now.” It is not an either/or, and I do not like the occasional suggestion that there may be an either/or.
Having said all that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Environmental duties with respect to chalk streams
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 4, insert—
‘4A Environmental duties with respect to chalk streams
(1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect on chalk streams, that undertaker must—
(a) secure and maintain high ecological status of such chalk streams, and
(b) clearly mark chalk streams which are of high ecological status.
(2) In this section “high ecological status” relates to the classification of water bodies in The Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.””—(Tim Farron.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 27—Environmental duties with respect to national parks—
“After section 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—
‘4A Environmental duties with respect to national parks
(1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect, on land within national parks or the Broads, that undertaker must—
(a) Secure and maintain “high ecological status” in the water in these areas by 2028;
(b) further the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and natural beauty;
(c) improve every storm overflow that discharges within these areas by 2028;
(d) reduce the load of total phosphorus discharged into freshwaters within these areas from relevant discharges by 2028 to at least 90% lower than the baseline as defined in Regulation 13(1) of the Waste Water Targets set under the Environment Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2023.
(2) A relevant undertaker must be put into special administration, and not be eligible for a further licence, if it fails to—
(a) demonstrate adequate progress each year;
(b) meet the targets in subsection (1).
(3) Within one year of the day on which the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report on the undertakers’ implementation of the environmental duties in subsections (1) and (2) before Parliament.
(4) Following the first report being published under subsection (3), a progress report on implementation must be included in the annual environment improvement plan, issued under section 8 of the Environment Act 2021.
(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring an undertaker to achieve bespoke objectives for specific iconic and the most culturally and ecologically significant waterways, including, where appropriate, complete removal of sewage discharge from the undertaker’s infrastructure.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section—
“the Broads” has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988;
“land” includes rivers, lakes, streams, estuarine and other waterways;
“High Ecological Status” means the classification of water bodies defined in Regulation 6 of The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.””
This new clause would require water companies to adhere to and deliver stronger environmental objectives and duties within National Parks and the Broads, so as to protect waters across National Parks from sewage. The new clause would give the Secretary of State regulation-making power to extend protections to specific bodies of water, such as Lake Windermere.
Tim Farron
New clause 12 is a short, and I hope consensual, measure relating to chalk streams, which we have already discussed, and new clause 27 deals more widely with the powers of national parks.
Some 85% of all the chalk streams on planet Earth are in the south of England. The impact that that has on the biodiversity of this part of the world—and more broadly—is hugely significant, creating pure, clean water from underground chalk aquifers and springs, which is ideal for wildlife to breed and thrive. They make a vital contribution to global biodiversity, providing natural habitats for many plants and animals. They will exist in many Members’ constituencies—not in mine, but, as a resident of planet Earth, I still reckon they are very important. I therefore think that they are worthy of specific attention and regulation in this Bill, so I commend new clause 12 to the Committee.
New clause 27 makes specific reference to powers regarding—and the importance of—national parks. It is my great privilege to represent a constituency with two of them: the dales and the lakes. We recognise the importance of natural national landscapes, which, of course, include areas of outstanding natural beauty, as they were known until relatively recently. We recognise many of the worthy inclusions and mentions in the Glover review for reform within our national parks—I remember meeting Julian Glover as he began that review. I agreed with much that he recommended, and was disappointed that the previous Government did so little with his recommendations.
Jerome Mayhew
To save everyone’s time, I will not make a speech on this, but I am concerned about new clause 12 because it confers an absolute duty regarding chalk streams. I represent a constituency with several chalk streams, including the Stiffkey, which goes through Walsingham. The new clause says:
“Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect on chalk streams, that undertaker must—”
so it is a direction—
“secure and maintain high ecological status of such chalk streams”.
We all want that outcome, but the problem is that water undertakers are not the only ones with negative impacts on chalk streams, yet the new clause gives them the requirement, which is absolute in its terms. We know that farming, and increasingly road detritus, also affects chalk streams, so how does the hon. Member square that circle?
Tim Farron
The hon. Member makes a very good point, and we will later come to a new clause that we tabled about planning, because undoubtedly development and industrial activity also have an impact. However, this goes back to my original comment about the importance of singularity in regulation; while we recognise that the water companies may not be entirely responsible, we think that the regulator should have a responsibility across the piece.
However, the hon. Member makes a good point. We are not planning to push new clause 12 to a vote, but we are keen for the Minister to look at what we have said—and indeed what the hon. Member and his colleagues have said previously in Committee—about the importance of chalk streams, and for them to be included on the face of the Bill.
New clause 27 relates particularly to national parks. Every single lake, river and stream in England’s national parks—every single one—is polluted in one way or another. There has been no regard by water companies for national park status in this process. It is not that the lakes, rivers and waterways outside national parks do not matter—they absolutely do, and a vast part of my constituency is not in either of the national parks—but nevertheless, the lack of a higher bar for those in our national parks demands the question: what is the point in the national parks? We need to make sure that that stipulation is included. New clause 27 would therefore force water companies to specifically reduce pollution in those precious places.
To talk about my own community, United Utilities’ negligent treatment of Lake Windermere has been a standout example. Over the two years between 2021 and 2023, 165 hours of illegal sewage was pumped into Windermere, England’s largest lake and the centre of our hospitality and tourism economy, with 7 million visitors every year to that part of the Lake district alone, out of the 20 million who visit the lakes overall.
For the record, I should say that I still swim in Windermere and I do not think I am a complete lunatic, so it is not an open sewer by any means. Nevertheless, for many people, the reality is that so many of the 14—I think—assets that United Utilities owns on or around the tributaries of Windermere, or its connecting lakes, are not fit for purpose. I am thinking about the pumping station at Sawrey, for example, or the water treatment works at Ambleside. It is unconscionable that we have these assets, many of which are ageing and under-invested in, and the water company, United Utilities, failing to take action. Windermere is known globally and is part of Britain’s national brand. If its reputation becomes unfairly sullied, it will hit my constituents’ revenues.
Jerome Mayhew
I am afraid I have to make the same point about new clause 27. Proposed new section 4A(1)(a) contains an absolute duty on the undertaker, which “must”—so this is a direction—secure and maintain high ecological status, and that has to be achieved within three years. I question the practicality of that.
I am also keen to highlight the fact that proposed new section 4A(7) includes the broads, which I am lucky enough to represent. The broads are affected by all sorts of factors: we have a high degree of recreational use, with boating as well as angling, and it is a farming environment, with grazing in the marshes, particularly down in the Halvergate marshes. Yes, Anglian Water has affected water quality negatively—as well as in some positive ways, to give it credit—but it would be a travesty to place an absolute duty on Anglian Water when it has only partial control of the answer, and over a three- year timeframe. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unrealistic?
Tim Farron
I do not think it is unrealistic—we need to be ambitious—but I absolutely accept that there are multiple sources of pollution.
I promise to be brief in talking about my patch, which is not of interest to everybody. It is key to point out that pollution in Windermere generally comes from three sources. It is true that agricultural run-off is an issue but, sadly, the policies of this Government and the previous one, over a period of time, have effectively destocked the fells, meaning run-off has a massively reducing impact on Windermere and the broader catchment.
The bigger two problems are the 14 assets that United Utilities has either on or around the lake or its tributaries. There is also the best part of 2,000 septic tanks around the lake or its tributaries. Unlike septic tanks and, indeed, package treatment works in many rural communities, these are not scattered all over in the middle of nowhere; they are in a ring around the lake, most of them within yards of a mainline sewer. It is, then, entirely possible for the water companies, while gaining significant income benefit as a consequence, to mainline a massive proportion of the sources of sewage spillage into the lake, via the septic tanks and the package treatment works being brought into the system.
The new clause is of course slightly selfish, but it is really important that we seek to maintain national parks right across the country at the highest possible bar, and therefore make sure they set an example for others to follow. We will seek to press new clause 27 to a vote.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling the new clauses. It is always nice to have a conversation about the beautiful chalk streams and national parks in our country.
New clause 12 would have significant implications for existing legal frameworks and operational delivery, and would not necessarily result in environmental improvements for chalk streams, for which there are already established objectives to conserve and restore their ecological health. Under the water environment regulations, the default objective is to achieve good ecological status for all chalk streams in England. Good ecological status is a high standard that represents a thriving aquatic environment with only minor disturbances from natural conditions.
High ecological status equates to water that is almost entirely undisturbed from its natural conditions. If we set high ecological status as the objective for all chalk streams, overriding cost-benefit assessments, it would have wide-ranging impacts on future planning developments and human interaction with chalk streams, including by restricting farming and fishing. Any planning for housing developments that would have even a minor impact on the water quality of chalk streams would be restricted without impractical and disproportionately costly mitigation measures. The new clause would place achieving that demanding objective on water companies only, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham highlighted, regardless of the pressures that are actually impacting chalk streams. This would not allow for the consideration of technical feasibility or costs, which would ultimately be borne by water bill payers. The new clause would necessitate amendments to the water environment regulations and habitat regulations, creating complexity and difficult delivery implications.
Jerome Mayhew
I would like the Minister’s comments on the issue that we have, and I am focusing primarily on the Norfolk broads, of which I represent a good chunk. There is the requirement to make a mandatory obligation on the water undertaker to ensure “high ecological status”, which is above “good ecological status”—that is the point the Minister is making. Does she agree that, while they are a primary input into the quality of the water in the Norfolk broads, they are not the only influencer? While the intention to create and encourage high ecological status in the broads is a very good one, and it is one that I share, does the Minister agree that the drafting of this new clause is not appropriate?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that the pollution caused in the Norfolk broads and in many other areas does not come from water companies alone. As has been discussed, it comes from the environment, road run-off and various other places. “High ecological status”, as we have stated, could involve not being able to fish in those waters at all, which I know is a recreational activity in his area. It may also restrict planning for housing developments with any minor effects on the water quality of water bodies in national parks. The Government therefore cannot accept either new clause, although I recognise the intention behind them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able not to press both.
Tim Farron
In short, I am happy not to push new clause 12 to a vote now, nor will I seek to push new clause 27 to a vote when we get to that stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Guidance on poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances
“After section 86ZA of the Water Industry Act 1991, insert—
‘86ZB Guidance on poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the regulation of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances in drinking water based on guidance issued by the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
(2) Until the Secretary of State makes provision for the regulation of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances, water and sewerage companies must implement any relevant guidance issued by the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the presence of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances in drinking water based on guidance issued by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, and require water companies to follow the Inspectorate’s guidance in the interim.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clauses 13 and 14 are connected, so with the Chair’s permission, I might speak to both of them.
Tim Farron
Thank you—I do not want to detain the Committee any longer than I need to. The new clauses are about a vexing and serious issue: the presence of polyfluorinated and perfluorinated alkyl substances in our waterways and in our drinking water, in particular. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for championing this issue in this place and outside it.
The new clause attempts to raise the existing guidance from the Drinking Water Inspectorate on PFAS levels in drinking water to a statutory level; that is the key point. The Bill seeks to increase regulatory power over water companies, and the new clause will increase the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s power to enforce the guidance regarding PFAS. There is currently no legal limit on the amount of PFAS present in our drinking water. There is only guidance, even though the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive have both recommended that there should be a legal limit.
New clause 13 would require water companies to prioritise and take a proactive stance on limiting PFAS in drinking water. Currently, if a water company were to breach PFAS guidance, its regulatory compliance score would not be affected as it would if, for example, lead was found in its water. This would encourage them to invest in treating water to remove PFAS. This is an important first step in prompting the Government to create a fully-fledged chemical strategy to deal with chemical pollutions of all kinds, starting with the most direct threat to human health, which is the direct consumption of PFAS through drinking water. PFAS are toxic, they are forever and they are very pervasive. Links have been found between PFAS chemicals and a host of health issues, such as, but not limited to, cancer, thyroid disease, fertility issues, lowered birth weight, weakened bones in children and immune resistance to vaccinations.
New clause 14 would put the duty on the water companies to take responsibility for the reduction and prevention of PFAS chemicals in water systems, ensuring that each water company is responsible.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for proposing new clauses 13 and 14 on this incredibly important issue, and for highlighting the importance of PFAS monitoring. I want to reassure everybody that the quality of drinking water in England is exceptionally high and among the best in the world. It is important to me that it remains that way.
Across Government, we are working to assess PFAS levels occurring in the environment, as well as their sources and potential risks, to inform future policy and regulatory approaches, safeguard the current high drinking water quality and ensure our regulations remain fit for purpose. Water companies have a statutory obligation under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016 to carry out risk assessments to identify anything that could pose a risk to health or cause the water supplier to be unwholesome. That includes the risk of PFAS.
I will explain which PFAS are tested for in drinking water. The Drinking Water Inspectorate issued a series of information letters to water companies to set out a risk-assessment methodology and associated monitoring strategies for up to 48 individual PFAS compounds. The guideline values of PFOS, or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, are agreed with the UK Health Security Agency, and have been applied to 48 individual PFAS. The DWI guidance will be reviewed and updated where necessary.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate has provided guidance on PFAS to water companies since 2007 and, as I explained, that is regularly updated as new research emerges. In July 2024, DEFRA announced a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan to deliver on our legally binding targets to save nature. That includes how best to manage chemicals, including the risks posed by PFAS, and we are working closely with the DWI on all matters, including PFAS.
I reassure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that the Water Industry Act 1991 already provides the necessary powers to amend existing regulations to deal expressly with PFAS, should the Government wish to do so. I will have a meeting with his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), on this issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that this new clause is not suitable for the Bill, so I ask him to withdraw it.
New clause 14 focuses on chemical contaminants entering our waterways. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about the importance of the issue, which is why, as I announced, we will have the rapid review of the environmental improvement plan to deliver on our targets to restore nature. That includes looking carefully at the risks posed by PFAS. The review will consider and set out effective measures to mitigate harmful chemical substances entering our water through the environment. Through the chemical investigations programme, we are working with the water industry to understand how levels of contaminants in treated waste water affect our water environment. The programme will provide valuable information to understand the effectiveness of different measures to tackle chemical contamination of our rivers.
Significant costs are associated with end-of-pipe technologies at sewage treatment works to manage the more challenging chemicals, such as PFAS. We therefore need to prevent contaminants entering the water system in the first place, before they get to the waste water treatment works, where the cost for treatment will be unfairly borne by water customers, rather than the polluters. Work continues across Government to help us to assess the levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, their sources and the potential risks, so that those can inform future policy and regulatory approaches to safeguard our high drinking water quality and to ensure that regulations remain fit for purpose.
The DWI expects water companies to plan to reduce PFAS concentrations in treated water progressively by implementing a reactive and systematic risk-reduction strategy. That is why we need to need to prevent them entering the water in the first place. I hope that the hon. Member is reassured by the actions that we are taking and will not press new clause 14.
Tim Farron
I am substantially reassured that the Minister is taking this issue seriously, and I am grateful that she is to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, who has championed it so well. All the same, while I do not agree, I accept the Minister’s point about the way in which we are doing this—which, I guess, is contained in new clause 14, so I will not press that to a vote—but new clause 13 simply says what the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency are already saying, which is that those chemicals are deeply dangerous and that the restrictions on them should therefore be moved from guidance to a statutory level. That ought to be a no-brainer, so we will press that new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will try to be brief, I promise. The new clause is based on the fact that we seriously approve of the Government’s approach to monitoring. We want the regulatory bodies to be well equipped and resourced to be able to hold water companies and other potential polluters to account. But the Government have made a clear decision, of which I totally approve, to lionise and put front and centre citizen science and voluntary groups around the country—groups such as Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Save Windermere in my constituency, the Clean River Kent group and the Rivers Trusts in Eden and South Lakeland. These are wonderful people, pretty much all of them acting in a voluntary capacity. The groups contain lots of incredibly clever, bright people who are passionate about our environment.
The Government are doing something we approve of by seeking to deploy and mobilise people in their communities. The new clause is about trying to make sure that we equip them, underpin what they do and provide resource to support them, and that the Government use some resource to proactively look to fill in the gaps. We are simply saying that we approve of the mobilisation of citizen science across the country to hold water companies to account through use of the real-time database and a variety of other tools. But if we are going to rely on a group of people, let us support them. We will seek to push this to a vote, because we think it is a central part of what the Bill should aim to achieve.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling new clause 15. We fully support greater involvement of citizen science to hold water companies to account. I thank them for all the work that they have done in this area up and down our country. Local people know their rivers best, and their campaigns on pollution issues have been crucial in bringing the scale of the issues to light.
The Bill already includes several amendments to support transparency to make it easier to scrutinise water companies. Clause 2 will enable the public to scrutinise the measures that water companies are taking to reduce pollution incidents. Clause 3 will make information on discharges from emergency overflows available in near real time. This data, in addition to the near real-time information already available on storm overflow discharges, will be provided in a way that will enable citizens to identify trends and key issues. That will supplement the significant information that the Environment Agency already publishes.
The Environment Agency also operates a 24-hour environmental incident hotline to enable the public to report incidents that they observe in their local area. The Environment Agency shares the enthusiasm and values the expertise and local knowledge of citizen scientists. It has recently funded an internal project supporting citizen science, which will run until March 2025.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approval of the Government’s work on this issue. The question is whether we require primary legislation to continue doing something we are already doing successfully. This project, along with many others that are being supported by the Government or the Environment Agency, is considering how to facilitate better engagement with citizen scientists. The Government believe that the existing measures are more effective for supporting citizen science than creating a fixed legislative duty on the Secretary of State. We are already doing work in this area, so we will not support the new clause.
Tim Farron
I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks, but we think that seeking to mobilise thousands of people around the country is so central to the ethos of the Bill that we should also seek to resource them and proactively seek to fill in the gaps, where they exist, so that every community has this level of scrutiny. We will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Water bill poverty is a reality, and many people will require greater water use because of disability, age or health conditions. Although WaterSure benefits exist, they are patchy and are something of a postcode lottery. Which benefits a person may receive under WaterSure depends on supplier and catchment, and whether someone qualifies depends on which water company they get water from. That is not right. There should be a single social tariff that is applicable and understandable for everyone. A postcode lottery should not dictate whether a person gets the support they may need, and which water company someone lives under should not dictate whether they can afford their bills.
Some water companies require three or four pieces of evidence and some just a quick assessment of finances, and the savings range from 15% to 90% off a bill. We would bring that under one simple tariff. We have certainly heard Government Members regularly talk about the value and importance of such a measure, and we simply want to put it on the face of the Bill. A unified and universal social tariff is about basic social justice. It would help those people for whom paying water bills is most difficult, for a variety of reasons—health and disability reasons, as well as financial ones. This is something that the Government should accept, or else we will seek to press it to a vote.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 17. It is clear that consumers are concerned about their bills, and this Government want to do everything they can to help and support people who are struggling, particularly given that water bills are due to rise following Ofwat’s final determinations. Although this Government do not consider it suitable to adopt the new clause at this time, we will continue to consider all measures available to best support vulnerable customers, and we are exploring options to improve social tariff arrangements and improve fairness and consistency in who is eligible for support and in the levels of assistance provided.
There are already customer assistance schemes in place. WaterSure caps water and sewerage bills for vulnerable customers who have the higher essential water use requirement for family or health reasons. Under the scheme, £66 million of support was provided to 230,000 households in ’23-24, with an average bill discount of £286. That sits alongside debt measures, water efficiency measures and company social tariffs, which are all targeted at supporting customers who are struggling to pay. Company social tariffs, which water companies design themselves and offer to customers who are struggling to afford their water bills, are forecast to provide an average of £640 million a year in support between 2025 and 2030.
Prior to the introduction of any new support scheme, in-depth research and analysis must be completed to ensure a properly designed policy. Therefore, the Government are continuing to work with the water industry to explore options to improve affordability arrangements, including by holding the sector accountable for its public commitment to end water poverty by 2030. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to withdraw new clause 17.
Tim Farron
In-depth analysis is not going to tell us anything other than that there is massive inconsistency across the country. Of course, WaterSure provides benefits, but it is different depending on where someone lives. The benefits received by someone living in a Yorkshire Water area, United Utilities or Northumbrian Water area will differ, as will the qualifying criteria. That means that some people in poverty, and some people with serious disabilities or health needs, who therefore have higher water usage requirements, will be hit by higher bills simply because of the lack of a single social tariff. We think that the new clause is important to ensuring social justice and helping those most in need in our communities, and therefore that it is very important to put it to the vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Ofwat to publish guidance on debt levels after administration—
“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—
‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that relevant undertakers are able to finance the proper carrying out of their functions under subsection (2A)(c), the Authority must establish guidelines to be followed by relevant undertakers who have been in special administration.
(2DZB) Guidelines produced under subsection (2DZA) must—
(a) set out a maximum level of debt which can be accrued by the undertaker;
(b) set out a process for agreeing capital expenditure necessary for service improvements, bill increases, and changes to operating costs while the undertaker is subject to the Special Administration Regime;
(c) state the penalties which will be imposed for breaches of such guidelines, which may include –
(i) financial penalties;
(ii) prohibitions on the payment of dividends or other bonuses; or
(iii) such other special measures as the Authority deems appropriate.’”
Charlie Maynard
I will speak first to new clause 19, which has three parts. Proposed new section (2DZA), which I will cover very quickly, essentially ensures the financial stability of water or sewerage undertakers. I think we discussed that at length in the debate on new clause 4, which I will not rehash, as I think we all know each other’s views.
Proposed new section (2DZB) has two subsections, (a) and (b). Subsection (a) is
“a prohibition on water or sewerage undertakers having offshore holding companies”.
Why would a UK-regulated water company need an offshore holding company? Maybe to dodge some tax? Maybe to make it as untransparent as possible? I would like a straight answer as to why we are not going to kill this possibility off today. Do we really need to push this out another six, maybe 12 or maybe 24 months—until maybe never—with the water commission? I do not know. I think each of us could just find our way to saying that offshore holding companies are not good for our rivers, our citizens or our country. I really hope we get there.
It is getting a bit late, but there is something I would really like Members to engage their brains on. It is a difficult and complicated subject, but it is the key to understanding what is going wrong with our water companies. It is called regulated capital value. What is in proposed new section (2DZB)(b)? It would introduce
“a requirement that the Regulated Capital Value for each undertaker is annually reconciled against the market values of the undertaker’s equity and debt.”
What on earth is regulated capital value? The key thing to remember is that it decides how much money the water companies make, so a higher regulated capital value is good for water companies.
The bizarre thing is that regulated capital value has not really been a proxy for enterprise value, which basically means the equity value of the company—what the shareholders’ value of the company is worth—plus the net debt. That was set up—this is really one of the original sins—back in the mists of time, around 1989 and beyond, when the companies were originally privatised. It has been carried forward every year: “Take last year’s, and add a bit for inflation and a bit for capex. Never, never, never reconcile it with reality.” That is what has gone on for decades.
Now we have this thing called regulated capital value, which is the critical thing the water utility companies are focused on: “This is how we make money, so we want this number as big as possible.” What we are advocating here is taking that apart, because of the reality on the ground. I will take Thames Water as my usual guinea pig. Many, many of Thames Water’s equity shareholders have declared that their holding in Thames Water has no value. That includes OMERS—the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System—and the UK’s Universities Superannuation Scheme, and I think the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority may have done it as well. They have said, “Our equity is toast. It’s written off.”
The debt is not that hard to calculate either, because people can just look at what Thames Water is trading at; these are bonds, and people can see what discounts they are trading at. People can add that up, and they have a number that is much, much smaller than the regulated capital value of Thames Water today. But if it is a water company or Ofwat, they say, “Let’s just put a big pair of mufflers on and ignore that fact,” because it is safer to be in fantasyland.
Jerome Mayhew
This is a genuinely interesting point. I know it is late, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member could expand in further detail. While he is referencing regulated capital value and the difference between what is on the sheet and what is reality, could he explain in a bit more detail, for the benefit of the Committee, what that means in reality? If there were to be a rebase of regulated capital value, what would be the practical impact of that?
Charlie Maynard
I question what value regulated capital value, given how completely out of whack it is with reality, is bringing to the table. I do not have all the answers, but I question whether this has any utility to the conversation. What is happening here is that a business is generating £1.2 billion of cash flows, and it has this enormous balance sheet and this enormous regulated capital value. Because of those essentially false premises—I believe that we do not actually have assets of that value—regulated capital value is essentially a figment. We are grappling with things that have no basis, and we would do well to reconcile and to look at the facts—at what these assets are actually worth—and then to build out from there.
Jerome Mayhew
One possible reason why regulated capital value is important is that the assessment of whether bills are reasonable or not relates—in part, at least—to what is considered to be a reasonable return on capital. Does the hon. Member agree that if one’s regulated capital value has depreciated to zero, there might be an adverse knock-on impact on what is considered a reasonable bill, to take account of the debt and the capital investment? Does he think that that might be something to do with it?
Charlie Maynard
The whole thing is reverse engineered—I am completely in agreement on that—and that is not necessary or useful in terms of where we are getting to, and that is causing a lot of the trouble. I would like to find a way out of that, and I would really recommend that the water commission digs into this to find a way out. I am on the Business and Trade Committee and I will be asking the Financial Reporting Council, which oversees the accounting body, to ask these accounting firms whether they actually think those numbers—those incredibly slow depreciation periods of 150 years—are valid and, if so, why.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me another intervention, this time on proposed new subsection (2DZB)(a), which refers to
“a prohibition on water or sewerage undertakers having offshore holding companies”.
He referenced some of the international investors who have holdings in Thames Water, and perhaps in the majority of the other water companies. Access to international markets is very important for raising investment into our water utilities. Does he accept that using offshore holding companies might be a mechanism that allows for easier transfer of funds, easier investment and easier access to international finance, and may therefore have a benign rationale? We always assume that offshore holding companies are somehow suspicious, or that their motivation is tax avoidance, and I believe that the hon. Member referenced that earlier. That might be the case—in which case, they should not be encouraged—but with his 25 years’ experience in finance, which he referenced, does he think that there is an argument for saying that offshore holding companies make it easier to access international investment?
Charlie Maynard
I have the name of one here: Thames Water Utilities Cayman Finance Holdings Ltd. Why Cayman? If I say “Cayman”, people say “tax haven”. That is why it is there. We should be doing our best to stop that. Last I looked, London was still a financial capital, and equity and debt could still be raised in this country, and I sincerely hope that remains the case. So I do not see a good reason to have holding companies offshore. Hon. Members might be happy to hear that that was all I wanted to say on new clause 19.
New clause 23 is also being considered in this tranche, and I will highlight proposed new subsection (2DZB)(b), which refers to
“a process for agreeing capital expenditure necessary for service improvements, bill increases, and changes to operating costs while the undertaker is subject to the Special Administration Regime”.
We have to spend a huge amount of money on our water utility companies, because they have not been spending enough over the last decade or two. When a special administrator is appointed in such instances, the goal is to ensure that the special administrator takes that future spend into account in considering how much debt needs to be cut. We do not want to come out of special administration with debt that is still high, which will prevent the investments from being made that will be required over the next. That is the goal of the new clause.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the intent behind new clause 19. As highlighted, it seems in parts to contradict new clause 18, which was also tabled in his name.
It is important to highlight that Ofwat already has a core duty under section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to ensure that water companies are able to finance the proper carrying out of their statutory obligations. Ofwat already monitors information it receives about companies and their financial positions on an ongoing basis. That includes carrying out a detailed review of the financial information published by companies in annual performance reports, statutory accounts, interim accounts, investor reports and other sources. Ofwat also directly engages with companies where it sees an increased level of risk. Additionally, Ofwat has recently updated water company licences to require companies to take account of service delivery for customers and the environment, as well as financial resilience when deciding whether to pay a dividend.
More broadly, the independent commission into the water industry will look at long-term, wider reform of the water sector, as I have mentioned. Company financial structures are one of a number of areas that could be explored under the commission, and we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the commission through this new clause. The former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Jon Cunliffe, chairs the commission. As mentioned, he has decades of financial, investor and regulatory experience. His appointment demonstrates the Government’s ambition to fix the foundations of the industry. As I have mentioned previously, there will be a call for evidence, and the hon. Member will be able to make his points to Sir Jon Cunliffe and the commission. Given the existing monitoring of the financial resilience of the sector and the forthcoming recommendations of the independent commission, we do not believe that the new clause is appropriate, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Turning to new clause 23, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, a special administration regime enables a company that provides vital public services—water, energy or rail—to be put into administration in certain circumstances to ensure that the public service will continue to be provided pending rescue, via a means such as debt restructuring or transfer, via a sale, to new owners. There is no need for a company exiting a SAR to be placed under an enhanced regime regarding its debt levels. Water companies are allowed to raise debt to fund the delivery of their services, and it is for companies to decide their financial structures. I will resist the urge to repeat my previous comments about the water commission looking at the financial structures of all the water companies, and I hope the hon. Member will take what I outlined previously as read.
In relation to capital expenditure during a SAR, it is not necessary to establish a statutory process for agreeing that expenditure, as that would be agreed under a court-appointed special administrator in the lead-up to a SAR. The Government can provide funding support to a special administrator. Any company under a SAR will still be subjected to the same regulatory regime and expected to meet its statutory obligations.
I hope the hon. Member understands why we cannot accept his new clauses, but I repeat the offer made: he will be able to talk to Sir Jon Cunliffe and present to him the evidence he has just presented to the Committee, so that he can consider it as part of the wider evidence gathering. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to press his new clauses.
Charlie Maynard
It is very kind of the Minister to have so much faith in, and be so charitable towards, Ofwat, given its record over the last decade or two, particularly with regard to its management of water companies’ financials. We will not press new clause 23, but would like to call a vote on new clause 19.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Ofwat consideration of pollution targets for price reviews—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 17I insert—
‘17IA Duty to have regard to pollution targets in carrying out price reviews
When carrying out a periodic review for the purpose of setting a Price Control in respect of one or more relevant undertakers, the Authority must have regard to the performance of the relevant undertaker or undertakers against pollution targets across the previous five years.’”
Charlie Maynard
I will be brief. We just want to highlight the five-year price review and the shoehorning in of that time period. It might have worked for Lenin—maybe not—but we do not think it works well in the water sector, so we want to see whether we can release ourselves from it. We will come to new clause 35 later, but in certain situations we will all be better off if we look over a longer time period. We have some really big problems and we need to think about reducing them not just over the next five years, but over a 10 or 15-year period. We need to work towards some really big fixes over a longer period. If we are always locked into these five-year cycles, we are not serving ourselves well. That is the point of new clause 21.
New clause 29 states that
“the Authority must have regard to the performance of the relevant undertaker or undertakers against pollution targets across the previous five years.”
At the moment, how companies do is not very well linked to their reward. Most of the time, with water companies, everybody is thinking about sticks—I certainly am—but we ought to think a little about carrots as well. Let us say that ultimately we do good things such as setting pollution reduction targets. If companies beat those targets, we should work towards a solution whereby they do well out of that. They could have a carrot as a reward for doing well, as opposed to endlessly being given the stick. That is the point of new clause 29. We will not push either new clause to a vote.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Members for Witney and for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the intention behind their new clauses. The water sector is facing multiple challenges and growing pressures. Resolving them will require transformational change.
The Government agree that it is crucial to conduct a fundamental review of the water industry regulatory system. We want to ensure that we have a system that supports strategic planning and investment, with fairness to customers and environmental improvement at its core. I reassure the hon. Member for Witney that such a review is already under way—I might have mentioned this once or twice before—through the independent commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. That comprehensive review is addressing the three elements that the new clause raises: planning, financing and investment. It is taking a holistic approach to assessing the system, and it will make recommendations to ensure that the water sector is better equipped to ensure clean rivers, lakes and seas and a sustainable water supply for the future.
The commission will report to the Government by the second quarter of 2025, ahead of the timeframe recommended in the new clause. I trust that the hon. Member for Witney is reassured that the requirements of the new clause are already being addressed through the work of the independent commission.
On new clause 29, which was also tabled by the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Witney, I reassure them that the Government are fully aware of the scale of damage that pollution is causing to our waterways. We are committed to working with the water industry regulators to address that.
As a regulator, Ofwat has a range of primary duties, including ensuring that companies properly carry out their functions and can finance the delivery of their statutory obligations, including environmental obligations. Ofwat sets the total spending envelope for companies through its price review process and it reviews company business plans to ensure compliance with statutory obligations. I am pleased to inform the Committee that Ofwat published its final determinations for the 2024 price review on 19 December, which included confirmation of £104 billion-worth of expenditure over the next five years. That is the highest level of investment in the water sector since privatisation and will fund reducing the number of spills from storm overflows by 45% through upgrading 2,800 storm overflows.
In addition, companies will improve river water quality by improving more than 1,700 waste water treatment works. Furthermore, Ofwat has increased the number of outcome delivery incentives against which companies must deliver, including targets on reducing serious pollution incidents, such as a reduction in storm overflows and operational greenhouse gas emissions. That means that serious pollution incidents will lead to clear and robust financial penalties for companies. I trust that the hon. Member for Witney is reassured that his new clause is not required, as pollution targets are already closely factored into the current price review model, and I ask him not to press it.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Prohibition on bail-out of water company shareholders and creditors
“(1) The Secretary of State and His Majesty’s Treasury must not directly or indirectly discharge, assume, or guarantee any debts of legal entities in any water company group subject to proceedings under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions), except in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) The special administrator of a water company may reduce the debts owed by the regulated entity to its creditors by up to 100 per cent, taking into account the future forecast expenditure over the short, medium and long term and subject to the administrator’s confidence in the company’s ability to accommodate this spending.
(3) The prohibition set out in subsection (1) and the reduction of debts set out in subsection (2) must not include pension, wage and other obligations owed to employees, excluding any past or current member of a board of directors, within the water company group.”—(Charlie Maynard.)
This new clause aims to allow up to 100% of debts to be cancelled in the event of special administration proceedings, taking into account the scale of investment required to hit the future targets established by the Authority.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have covered this already, so I will be brief. I highlight subsection (2):
“The special administrator of a water company may reduce the debts owed by the regulated entity to its creditors by up to 100 per cent, taking into account the future forecast expenditure over the short, medium and long term and subject to the administrator’s confidence in the company’s ability to accommodate this spending.”
We have already discussed this. I am not going to go through it further, and I am not going to push it to a vote, so I will leave it at that.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for Witney for tabling new clause 22. As the hon. Member for Witney says, we have already had a debate on this issue. I hoped that we had made the situation quite clear about what the special administration regime is and what it is not, but here we go again.
I must reject the new clause, because it would jeopardise the main purpose of the water special administration regime: the continued provision of vital public services. The role of a special administrator does not include a power to cancel debt, and the purpose of the administration is not to bail out water company creditors or shareholders. The new clause is therefore unnecessary. It would divert from long-established insolvency principles of treating creditors equally according to their rights as commercial entities. When a water company enters special administration, creditors are unable to enforce their debt repayments unless they seek leave of the court or receive permission from the special administrator. When a water company exits from special administration either by rescue, such as debt restructuring, or by transfer, such as a sale, the special administrator determines the level of repayment to credits. That will be calculated according to the statutory order of priority.
It is very unlikely that all debt would be repaid at the end of a special administration, because of the order in which payments are required to be made. Debts can be cancelled only according to a restructuring plan or under court supervision. The Government do not directly or indirectly make any decisions relating to the exact quantity of debt recouped by creditors or equity recouped by shareholders.
I must reject the new clause, because the changes that we are making align the water industry special administration regime with regimes in other sectors. We do not intend to alter the regime’s relationship with the existing framework of insolvency legislation.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 26
Rules about performance-related pay
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 35D (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—
‘35E Rules about performance-related pay
(1) The Authority must issue rules prohibiting a relevant undertaker from giving to persons holding senior roles performance-related pay in respect of any financial year in which the undertaker has failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.
(2) The rules issued under subsection (1) must include—
(a) provision designed to secure that performance-related pay which, if given by a relevant undertaker, would contravene the pay prohibition on the part of the undertaker, is not given by another person;
(b) that any provision of an agreement (whether made before or after the issuing of the rules) is void to the extent that it contravenes the pay prohibition;
(c) provision for a relevant undertaker to recover any payment made, or other property transferred, in breach of the pay prohibition.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
(a) “performance-related pay” means any payment, consideration or other benefit (including pension benefit) the giving of which results from the meeting of any targets or performance standards on the part of the relevant undertaker or the person to whom such payment, consideration or benefit is given;
(b) a person holds a “senior role” with a relevant undertaker if the person—
(i) is a chief executive of the undertaker,
(ii) is a director of the undertaker, or
(iii) holds such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified.’”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not really want to press this new clause to a vote, but we tabled it because my noble Friend Lady Bakewell withdrew it in the Lords after being given assurances by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for whom I have enormous respect and of whom I think very highly. It seeks to ban bonuses for senior company executives who have been found guilty of a category 1 or 2 discharge. It would prevent any loopholes such as pay rises and share options that might enable bonuses to be paid under those circumstances.
From the Dispatch Box in the other place, Baroness Hayman said:
“However, we are very aware that water companies need to attract investment so, as outlined in Ofwat’s consultation, the circumstances under which performance-related pay bans are being proposed represent very serious failures by a company. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that this includes instances of criminal convictions, credit ratings falling below investment grade and Ofwat’s proposed metric for bonuses to be prohibited if a company has had a serious category 1 or 2 pollution incident in the preceding calendar year…I would like to be clear with all noble Lords that we are not asking companies to meet any higher or new standard than that which is already expected of them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 247.]
We were grateful for that assurance, but nothing of that sort has appeared in the Bill since. Will the Minister give me some reassurance as to why we should not press the new clause to a vote? I do not see anything in writing that gives us confidence, other than the words of the noble Baroness.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling new clause 26. The Government agree that we need to rebuild trust in the water sector and that executives should be firmly held to account for companies’ serious failures to meet environmental standards. That is why clause 1 will give Ofwat new powers to issue rules on remuneration and governance. The legislation requires Ofwat to set rules that make the payment of bonuses contingent on companies achieving high environmental standards. It is more appropriate for Ofwat, as the independent regulator, to determine the performance metrics to be applied when setting the rules for performance-related pay.
As outlined in the initial policy consultation, Ofwat is currently considering prohibiting bonuses where companies have had a serious category 1 or 2 pollution incident in the preceding calendar year. That is not on the face of the Bill, but it is very clearly in Ofwat’s consultation. It is looking to consult on prohibiting bonuses after a category 1 or 2 pollution incident, as my noble Friend outlined. That provides an early indication of the direction of travel on the environment metric.
Ofwat would be able to use its direction-giving power and wider enforcement framework to hold companies to account where it has reason to believe that they are in breach of the rules. However, banning bonuses, even in cases of unwanted but legal spills, would effectively ban bonuses for all companies. That could unnecessarily threaten the sector’s ability to attract and retain talent. I refer the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to the consultation that Ofwat has launched so that he can see for himself the pollution metric that I have mentioned. On that basis, I hope that he feels able to withdraw new clause 26.
Tim Farron
I am reassured to a large degree by what the Minister says, but I am concerned that it is not on the face of the Bill. Simply handing this over to Ofwat, given its track record, does not fill me with confidence. We will reserve our position on this one—we may potentially talk about it further on Report—but we will not press new clause 26 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jeff Smith.)
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
<Railway Services: South-West>
(1 day, 2 hours 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
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered railway services in the South West.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The south-west is hugely reliant on the mainline railway—it is an economic lifeline. As I am the MP for Newton Abbot, which includes Dawlish, Teignmouth and Kingsteignton—all towns with strong railway heritage—the railway is a fundamental part of my life and community.
Devon and Cornwall are notoriously underserved by transport: there is one motorway and just two national roads. The road network in Devon is largely minor roads full of potholes. The mainline railway is the key economic lifeline for the entire region. Getting from Exeter to Paddington in a couple of hours makes a huge difference and enables many people to work part in London and part in Devon—including myself, even before I was an MP.
The value of the railway to the economy was demonstrated during the 2014 Dawlish storm incident. From a Transport Committee record, we know that the storms on 4 February and 14 February 2014 caused a 100 metre breach in the sea wall at Dawlish and a 25,000 tonne landslip between Dawlish and Teignmouth, which was exacerbated by a further landslip on 5 March. The incident closed the line for eight weeks. An immediate repair cost of £35 million, including 300 engineers—the much-lauded “orange army”—got the line running again, but the interruption cost the local economy an estimated £1.2 billion. It is estimated that the Plymouth economy alone lost £600,000 each day the line was shut.
Since 2014 a lot has changed, but the dependence on the railway has, if anything, increased. Please do not think of tourism as the only industry in Devon: remote working has blossomed, and it is clear from Office of Road and Rail statistics that the overwhelming majority of rail journeys from Exeter and the other main stations are to and from London.
Why do we need a debate on the topic? The answer is that this vital railway link is again under threat from a number of different sources. After the 2014 storm, the then Prime Minister promised that money was no object and that the line would be made resilient. A five-phase plan was drawn up and work began. The new sea wall was built, and Dawlish railway station had a rebuilt sea defence as well. The first four phases of that plan have been done and are now in place. One massive benefit was the new bridge at Dawlish, which made both platforms accessible without steps—something that we still need in too many other stations, including Teignmouth.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Many railway stations across the south-west remain inaccessible. Disabled people, unable to get support, have had serious accidents at railway stations in constituencies such as Yeovil. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Government to improve the Access for All programme, as well as holding operations such as Great Western Railway to account when proper support is not in place for disabled railway passengers?
Martin Wrigley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Accessible, step-free stations are vitally important across Devon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to highlight the contact between the south-west and London in particular. It is disappointing that, even in London, almost two thirds of tube and other stations have no access for disabled people. If the Government are going to make improvements to railway movement for passengers, then accessibility for disabled people—and access to work for them—is key to that moving forward.
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
When I met Network Rail in the autumn, it said that the design team for the fifth and final phase of the work would be reassigned if the funding was not forthcoming soon. That would put the project back, and significant extra funds would be required to get it back up to speed.
A few months ago, I asked the then Transport Secretary about the funding for the critical final phase of the Dawlish rail resilience programme, which is the largest piece of work. It deals with the landslips that caused the line to be closed long beyond the short time it took to repair the sea wall breach. She looked shocked to learn that the funding was not already there. Although she did not promise the funds, she indicated that the project would be a high priority.
The line has been closed on a number of occasions over the past years. The previous large cliff collapse was in the winter of 2000-01, according to the “West of Exeter Route Resilience Study”. I ask the Minister to reassure Network Rail and my constituents that that vital project will not be quietly forgotten, but will be completed to protect the economic wellbeing of the south-west and my constituents’ access to rail services.
However, there are other threats too. The Great Western main line not only runs from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance and the far west of Cornwall, but covers Swindon, Bristol, Cheltenham and Gloucester, to name but a few, not forgetting Cardiff, Swansea and south Wales.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He is well aware that the south-west and Wales are connected by the Severn tunnel, which is often closed—it is likely that the closures are in his region. Does he agree that that is impacting economic growth in south Wales, and is all the more reason for Wales to receive the consequentials from HS2 funding to invest in our own railways in Wales, including the Heart of Wales line in my constituency?
Martin Wrigley
I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable point. He is absolutely right that Wales has been seen off, in terms of funding.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I sympathise with hon. Members speaking on behalf of Wales. I represent commuters using Bedwyn station, and I want to point out on behalf of Wiltshire that in 2022 we lost three of our inter-city express trains in order to support the Cardiff to Penzance line. Commuters using Bedwyn no longer have the same off-peak service into London that we had before. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Government look to commission a new fleet of inter-city trains for Great Western, it would be good to see the rightful return of a proper off-peak service that supports commuters in Wiltshire?
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need more services on all these lines to support our constituents.
However, everything I have outlined will be interrupted by the creation of the HS2 link to Old Oak Common. High-speed rail is a welcome improvement to our nation’s infrastructure, but the implementation of that project has been handled poorly in the past. It has ignored the largest benefit—connections within the northern powerhouse—and the focus on delivering faster rail between London and Birmingham has delivered unwanted side effects. The decision to terminate the HS2 services at Old Oak Common, three miles west of Paddington, was quickly overturned by the incoming Government. Their announcement of a resumption of the project to tunnel to Euston is to be welcomed, but the 14-platform station at Old Oak Common—eight platforms on the surface and six for HS2 underground—will impact south-west rail services for another six or seven years as it is constructed.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
My constituents in Frome and East Somerset are still shocked to learn about the implications of Old Oak Common. Does my hon. Friend agree that the consultation on that huge change, which will have a major impact on the south-west, was insufficient, and that we still need to have some kind of impact survey or study of the potential impact on tourism and business and the other effects of the works at Old Oak Common?
Martin Wrigley
I agree entirely that the impact of Old Oak Common is immense, and will not be just during the construction phase.
The six or seven years of delays and cancellations at weekends and Christmases have been covered in this Chamber before, so I will not repeat the list of weeks and weeks of diversions to Euston and significantly reduced services.
I have already started to receive complaints from my constituents about the inability of Euston station to cope with the volume of passengers when the trains cannot complete their journeys to Paddington. But the piece of the plan that adds insult to injury for the millions of passengers from the south-west, is the idea that every Great Western Railway train will stop at Old Oak Common, even after construction is completed. It has been somewhat unclear—some misleading averages have been quoted—but having met with GWR and Network Rail, I understand that stopping at Old Oak Common will add some five to 15 minutes to every single journey. Adding 15 minutes on to the fast train—of around two hours—from Exeter to London is significant, and even more so on the quicker trains from Cheltenham or Bristol.
Travel to Birmingham is already available via Bristol. Looking at journey times, it will usually be faster to go to Birmingham via Bristol, unless users are further east than Swindon or Westbury. Stopping at Old Oak Common will bring little or no benefit to the majority of the long-distance rail users of the west, south-west and Wales.
Can the Minister confirm that fast trains from the south-west should be able to go through Old Oak Common without stopping?
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Penzance, west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are all in my constituency, so I know that if there are problems on the link at Dawlish, that can multiply the impact of those disruptions for people in the far west of Cornwall. Does he share my concern that it seems that with this multi-billion pound HS2 project, people in Penzance, in west Cornwall, and no doubt in his constituency as well, will experience all the pain but none of the gain? If it is two hours to Exeter, it is another three hours down to Penzance. It needs to be considered that we want to avoid the unnecessary disruption to people’s lives for the next seven years.
Martin Wrigley
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is even harder for those down in Cornwall than it is for those in Devon.
Both of these significant impacts are examples of the historic lack of investment in the railways in the south-west. In the south-west, we can often feel like second-class travellers—watching our services get worse so that other services can be made better. Local rail services in Devon are few and far between. Rather than a few minutes between services—as we enjoy here in London—we are lucky if we have one or two trains an hour.
Trains are often made up of fewer carriages than planned due to faults or breakdowns. Schoolchildren travelling locally between towns have been unable to get on to services because they are too full, due to their having only half the expected number of carriages. A constituent told me that her young daughter was left in tears, having been denied access to a train with her group, which triggered an anxiety attack. On the London services, mobile phone coverage is barely useable for much of the journey. While for some that may be a blessed relief, it means that wi-fi connections are not reliable—a huge issue in a world where so many people rely on good connections to usefully work on the train.
I consider myself fortunate, going to Devon. If I were to continue the journey in Cornwall, the train speed would slow down considerably—as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) just mentioned. Journey times could be significantly reduced by even partial electrification, as hybrid trains on the line could speed up faster and climb some of the hills quicker. I am sure my Cornish colleagues could elaborate.
I ask the Minister to consider what might be done to show my constituents, and the population of the wider south-west, that they have not been ignored. I am asking for us to receive some benefits from new investment, not just delays to accommodate fast access for others to the midlands and the north. I am specifically asking for more train carriages for more local services; full metro services with no greater than half an hour between scheduled trains; monitoring and accelerating the roll-out of the Access for All programme; reliable wifi across the entire route; electrification to improve journey times to Cornwall; fast trains from Wales to the west to the south-west not stopping at Old Oak Common; and commitment to complete the Dawlish rail resilience programme.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this important debate. We all know the importance of strong and effective railway services in the south-west.
I will give a bit of background on my constituency. As I mentioned in my maiden speech in the House—and continue to mention at every opportunity—improving the transport links in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead is one of my top priorities. We are served by only one major train station: Tiverton Parkway, which sits on the Great Western Railway and CrossCountry lines, as well as the charming and historic West Somerset Railway—a heritage line that runs up through the shoulder of my constituency and along the coast, terminating at Minehead.
Those services provide the totality of rail connections in my constituency, but there is still no way to get from Tiverton to Minehead. Minehead desperately needs linking to the main line at Taunton, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) would agree, but there are much wider issues at play for rail travel in Tiverton and Minehead.
The latest available data from July to September ’24 lays bare the inadequacy of railway services across the south-west. The punctuality of CrossCountry trains is pitiful—more often tardy than not, just 46.4% of the time did the service run as scheduled. That is shocking, as the figure is over 20 percentage points below the national average for punctuality on the rail network over the same period. Meanwhile, the Great Western Railway service is understood to have operated in accordance with the timetable 60.2% of the time—still over 7 percentage points lower than the national figure. That is better, but hardly an advert for timeliness.
Not knowing whether a scheduled service will appear on time is far from the only issue for my constituents. Even when the service is scheduled, and appears to be all-functioning, there is always the risk of cancellation. Both of the major carriers for Tiverton and Minehead had cancellation rates above the national average from July to September ’24, and in both cases, the majority of those trains were cancelled as a result of not Network Rail, but the operator itself. That is not what the people of Tiverton and Minehead expect when they buy their tickets, and they deserve better.
As is also the case across the length and breadth of the country, passengers in the south-west are forced to grapple with exorbitant train fares. Even with the Government’s rail fare discounts, which are in place for the next few months, the price of standard regulated tickets in England will go up by 4.6% on 2 March, climbing higher than the retail prices index inflation and hitting passengers hard.
The Liberal Democrats have previously called on the Government to do the decent thing and freeze rail fares immediately to help families struggling under the cost of living crisis, instead of hiking ticket prices. We will continue to fight for a fair deal for commuters and families who will be left forking out more and more for the privilege of using Britain’s rail systems. I am not sure how many people in the south-west would call it a “privilege”.
Just 1% of my constituents use rail as their means of travelling to work, according to data from the House of Commons Library. That is well below the national average, but not at all surprising, given the sorry picture for rail travellers in my constituency that I have painted. Members might assume that the proportion of my constituents travelling to work by bus would be higher, but I am afraid to report that that percentage sits at just 2%. I am also an avid campaigner for improving the bus routes in Tiverton and Minehead, but we are talking about railways today.
The state of railway services in not just Tiverton and Minehead, but the whole south-west, adds strain on the road network, because the lack of transport connectivity and the unreliable, overcrowded and overcharged public transport links leave people with no other choice but to travel by car. The environmental implications of that reality cannot be ignored.
Before closing, I must briefly draw attention to the looming Old Oak Common HS2 project and the inevitable disruption to travel that it will cause. Pressing ahead with the project will condemn the south-west to inter-city services that are among the slowest anywhere in the country and greatly reduce the number of direct trains to London. To accommodate the new role of Old Oak Common, trains originating in the south-west will be diverted from the traditional London Paddington route to London Euston, which will add an hour, on average, to train journeys.
The current provision of rail services is already well below a level that could be deemed satisfactory, so the new interchange at Old Oak Common comes at great expense to the west country and our friends in south Wales. Immediately freezing fares and introducing discounts for passengers in the south-west seem reasonable and fair first steps towards correcting that glaring disservice to the people of Tiverton and Minehead, and beyond. Beyond the short term, we ought to simplify the fragmented ticketing system to provide passengers with more affordable fares if we are serious about making public transport public.
The Government have an opportunity to look seriously at the issues of the south-west and its rail network, and I sincerely hope that they do so. For far too long, transport links have been overlooked and under-resourced. I appreciate that the pressures on the public purse are heavy at the moment, but so are the pressures on ordinary people in Tiverton and Minehead, and across the south-west. I urge the Government to look closely at what they can do to better support the rail, bus and road network so that the people of the south-west do not have to settle for the sort of service that is, far too often, currently on offer.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I thank you for your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing the debate.
The need to improve rail services across the south-west—particularly in Cornwall, which is at the sharp end of our problems—cannot be overstated. Connectivity is the backbone of our economy and our communities, yet our transport infrastructure still lags far behind what is needed to unleash their full potential. This summer, the Mid Cornwall metro will launch in my constituency, offering improved rail links between Newquay and other parts of Cornwall. Although that is a very welcome development that goes some way to undoing the damage inflicted on the line in 1987 by the then Prime Minister, for people outside of Newquay, the Mid Cornwall metro, despite its lofty name, will fall somewhat short of being the transformational project that the duchy needs.
That brings me to the wider issue of transport in my constituency. The road between our two major towns, St Austell and Newquay, is winding and unsafe. Given the absence of a direct train linking the towns—despite a track that runs relatively directly from St Austell, through Burngullow and up to St Dennis, falling short of rejoining the main Newquay line at Goss Moor by just a mile or so—large-scale capital investment in a transformative project is desperately needed.
We have a stunning stretch of line running from my hometown down into another town served by treacherous roads: Fowey, a town that has long shipped our white gold, china clay, to the world. I urge the Minister to explore the feasibility of such transformative projects in Cornwall—particularly on those magnificent branch lines, which have been ravaged over the years—to provide clarity on our clean transport plans and to make public transport in Cornwall a no-brainer rather than a chore, ensuring that our communities have the infrastructure that they need to thrive. If we are to build more homes, people in Cornwall must see that commensurate services and infrastructure are put in place.
In the west, we need a fair deal for the Isles of Scilly—well represented by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George)—and we need improved rail links down to our fine harbour in Falmouth, a contender for a floating offshore wind hub. In the east, we also face significant challenges with the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry services, which are vital lifelines for local residents. We need a deal that prioritises their needs and alleviates the financial burden on commuters and families.
Finally, I stress the need for dramatically improved internet connectivity on trains. In today’s connected world, reliable onboard connectivity is a necessity, not a luxury. Although some rail services in the UK benefit from electrification and high-speed, dependable internet access, such advances are far from universal and passengers across the south-west are too often excluded from them. Equal access to modern amenities such as those is essential to ensuring that rail travel is both productive and comfortable for everyone. It would be a small grace to mitigate some of the chaos caused by the Old Oak Common HS2 project—a supposed England and Wales project, and even an England and Cornwall project, but I will believe it when I see it.
As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot pointed out, the south-west, including Cornwall, deserves a transport strategy that addresses our real needs and delivers transformative change. I look forward to hearing how the Minister intends to prioritise our region, close the gap in infrastructure investment, and provide Cornwall and the wider south-west with the tools we need to thrive in the years ahead.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for opening this debate. I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate to represent my many constituents who rely on these services every day, and as somebody who spends a lot of time—often more than intended—on trains.
Unfortunately, my Bristol Central constituents often contact me about their poor experiences with trains in and around Bristol. Complaints over services, particularly between Bristol and London, are frequent, as the journey entails extortionate, prohibitive costs with disappointing services, cancellations and delays featuring all too often. That unreliability is incredibly frustrating for many constituents, but particularly for disabled constituents and those with long-term health conditions, who raise with me that they often go to huge lengths to carefully plan their journeys, only to have them upturned at the last minute.
I reinforce the point made by several Members on the importance of disabled accessible train stations. Does the Minister have any updates about progress to make Lawrence Hill station in Bristol, which is just outside my constituency but used by many of constituents, disabled accessible? I know that my predecessor Thangam Debbonaire campaigned on that issue for many years.
Accessibility and unreliability issues affect so many of my constituents, who are left unable to make their trips or are forced to choose transport that is more expensive and often much more damaging to the environment, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) pointed out. Train journeys produce only around 32% of the emissions of a car journey per person; to avoid unnecessary emissions, we need to make the greenest option the easiest option, and that requires, above all, reliability.
I am very pleased to see the railways coming back into public ownership; the Green party has been a long-standing advocate of renationalisation, and I am looking forward to seeing the implementation of that essential transition. On that point, can the Minister give any further indications of when Great Western Railway will come back into public ownership? I understand that the core term expiry date is in June this year, but the full expiry date is not until June 2028, leaving some uncertainty over when exactly the Government will end the contract. I would be grateful if the Minister could give any clarification to constituents. Hopefully the answer is sooner rather than later, but if my constituents are facing a wait of three or more years, will the Minister tell us what steps he plans to take to make the train services in the south-west more reliable and affordable in the meantime?
I have also been contacted about the reopening of the Portishead branch line which, though not quite in my constituency, is also used by many of my constituents, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that too. I will end my remarks there, but I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to my questions and give some clarity to my constituents on the steps being taken to provide a modern, affordable and reliable rail service.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his work securing this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and hon. Members from across the House for agreeing to speak.
As we have heard from everyone here today, it is clear that the railway network in the south-west needs urgent improvement. The failure of successive Conservative Governments has left the network in a terrible state. Ticket prices are too high and services too unreliable. Infrastructure is too old and capacity too meagre. That is true across the country, but nowhere more so than in the south-west. As we have heard from Members from across the House, businesses and individuals are highly reliant on the railways and Labour needs to take urgent action. If the Government are hoping to meet their targets on economic growth and housing, ensuring that that key region has a fully functioning rail system is vital. That requires action. The Government must ensure that the challenges faced by the railways in the south-west are met.
We have heard today about a number of the challenges. As my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot and for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) eloquently explained, the rail services of those in the further reaches of our isles are uniquely vulnerable. As we saw when the sea wall fell at Dawlish, this can have catastrophic consequences for those further down the line, cutting them off from the rest of the country. We heard the figures earlier. We cannot afford for that to happen again, so it is vital that the new Government back the fifth stage of the project, to ensure that the line is protected from further disruption.
Members today have again raised a number of concerns about the building works at Old Oak Common. As has been said, there will be six years of disruption. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, residents and constituents in the south-west will get all the pain but none of the gain. Anyone living west of Swindon and Westbury will simply get no real benefit from these connections. We need to compensate them by doing other things for the rail system and other transport in the south-west. We have had doubts about the current capacity of Euston and the overcrowding there during the building works, and we have the other issue about the trains stopping at Old Oak Common—the five to 15-minute delay. It sounds like a small thing, but it is important when we are talking about a fast train. Previously, the Minister’s colleague said that no decision had been made on whether every train would stop at Old Oak Common. May we have an update on that, please?
Although my party and I are highly supportive of the HS2 project, there are understandable concerns. We appreciate that Old Oak Common is a vital part of HS2 and will bring benefits to many. We must also accept, though, that the benefits of Old Oak Common and HS2 will be less keenly felt by those in the south-west. We will keep reiterating that, and we need to do something for them. The constituents of the south-west, including those represented today, must receive reassurances that the Government are listening and they are not being ignored. Their voice must be heard, and I hope that their patience will be rewarded by their finally receiving the oft-promised investment in the region that it so desperately needs and deserves. We heard about some of that today from colleagues, from my party and others.
The Access for All programme appeared to die under the Tories. We need access for all, not just in the south-west, of course, but across all regions and particularly in London, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. The Severn Tunnel closure is causing real problems for transport into the west and into Wales. I asked this question of the Secretary of State last Thursday in Transport questions: will Wales get more investment to compensate for the money going to HS2? HS2 is being treated as an England and Wales project. It is giving no great benefit to Wales. Wales needs some money in the same way as Scotland did, and it needs investment in the Welsh rail system.
We need proper services for Wiltshire. We need to address the fact that there are short trains; more train carriages need to be introduced. There are problems with mobile phone access. We hear that time and time again. We have to bring the rail system into the 21st century. The need to electrify sections of the line to speed up the trains is also important, and punctuality is a real issue, not to mention the exorbitant cost of rail travel to the south-west.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he agree that the decision to renationalise South Western Railway a year before the Government have set up GB Rail will inevitably mean that investment in the kind of upgrades he is talking about will stagnate completely?
Mr Kohler
There is a real issue here, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. GB Rail exists as an idea, but we do not yet know what it will do, and we have real problems. The idea that nationalising rail will suddenly solve the problem is too simplistic. We are agnostic about ownership; we need to actually invest in our rail system. On that point, my party has been supportive of open access, which is why we supported the Go-Op co-operative and its ideas to bring rail systems to the south-west.
We are worried by what the Secretary of State said in a letter last week—she seems to be going cold on open access—so we would like more clarity on that. We are supportive of the Go-Op co-operative idea, and we want to see such ideas working. In fact, open access is the only bit of the rail system that is working quite well at the moment. Hull Trains, for example, has far better customer satisfaction than any other part of the rail system. The idea that we are now backing out of open access worries us, and Go-Op was a perfect idea to help a particular section of the south-west. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot for securing this debate; we would love some answers from the Minister.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this debate, and I thank all the Members who have contributed. We are very familiar with this issue; I have taken part in many such debates myself.
Let me respond to a couple of comments. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) alerted us to West Somerset Railway, which is an illustration of how, oftentimes, the south-west is seen as a holiday destination rather than somewhere where the railway line is needed as an economic driver. Having been on West Somerset Railway, I am particularly fond of it, but it is not good enough that it is all she has access to, in addition to Tiverton Parkway railway station.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) highlighted the upcoming opening of the Mid Cornwall Metro, which we should acknowledge came from the previous Government’s levelling up funding, and was delivered by Conservative-led Cornwall council. It is a clear illustration of how smaller metros can be delivered, and it would be great to see more of them across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) raised challenges around Bedwyn station in his constituency, and we have also had contributions from the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). It is really good to hear perspectives from across all their constituencies.
It is important that I begin by recognising the dedicated workforce we have across the railway industry. Obviously, in the last few months, there has been a huge amount of noise about railways, particularly around increases in salaries and so on. I do not know about other Members, but I have had at least one constituent highlight the fact that, if we are not careful, we could demonise the valuable workers who we need in our train system, so I want to acknowledge on the record the fact that the whole train system is vital to our country. We have to acknowledge that, but we still need to have this debate and represent other voices across our constituencies.
We have had three debates on the railways in recent months—or, at least, I have taken part in three debates. This includes my maiden speech, which took place in the passenger railway Bill debate—it would be remiss of me, having spoken to the Minister earlier, not to mention “The Loco-Motion”, which, if hon. Members are interested, I referred to in my maiden speech. In the last two months, we have also had debates on both the railway in Devon and Old Oak Common, so it should be really clear to the Minister and his team that this is something that the south-west is particularly passionate about.
I have to admit that I have two hats on—not only am I representing the official Opposition today, but I am a Member from Devon, so I feel a lot of what has been said this morning very deeply. We must also acknowledge the meetings that Ministers have had, and have been very open-handed in. There have been open conversations on this issue, but there is still some way to go, as has been clear today. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot summarised some of those key challenges particularly well in his speech, and he spoke strongly about the funding we need for the fifth phase of Dawlish. Otherwise, it would ultimately be a waste of money; we have done everything that can been achieved without completing that work.
Old Oak Common needs no further explanation—it has been covered widely, as has the challenge of wi-fi accessibility, and the wider context of roads and buses in the south-west.
Let us not forget, though, that between 2010 and 2024, the Conservatives increased investment by £100 billion, so it is not fair to say that nothing has happened. The railway system is something that we have all been working on over the last few decades. Included in that total was £165 million on the south-west rail resilience programme, which has already been mentioned. It was a bold decision to reallocate HS2 phase 2 funds towards restoring our railways. We would have seen some real benefits from that in the south-west. It has been cancelled because the new Government have said that there is no funding for it. However, I note that they have managed to reinstate phase 2 between Crewe and Manchester, which I assume uses the money that would ultimately have been used for projects such as the TavyRail between Tavistock and Plymouth. I am interested in hearing the Minister comment on that. How can the Government say that the Restoring your Railway was unfunded if they have been able to bring the Crewe to Manchester line back into play?
We have also seen the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 come through. It has been mentioned this morning, and I will not speak much about it, other than to say that we believe it is an ideological piece of legislation. We were disappointed that the Government rejected our reasoned amendment, which would have ensured that, when terminating existing franchise agreements, the Government would have at least considered operating performance. Instead, we have had inflation-busting pay rises without productivity agreements being secured. Most recently, on 12 December, the latest Office of Rail and Road figures, from July to September, showed that since the increase in those salaries, we have seen decreased performance, decreased punctuality, increased cancellations and decreased public performance measures. I do not want to cast aspersions, but they do seem to be slightly linked.
As I draw to a close, I want to lay out some questions for the Minister. Some of them have been touched on before, but it is a perfect opportunity to reiterate them. On 11 November, in the Chamber, I raised the issue of the lack of Sundays in the Great Western Railway contracts, which has a massive impact on rail services across the south-west. It was raised again in the Westminster Hall debate in December, and in November the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), said that she would return to the House with an update. I would be interested to know if there has been any progress in those negotiations.
Is the Minister convinced that the spending decisions for the £30 million Old Oak Common mitigations, which have also been mentioned today, are best for passengers in the south-west? Although many hon. Members have argued today that that £30 million may need to be paid to make Old Oak Common happen, I do not believe that residents across the south-west are necessarily seeing the benefits. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that not all south-west services will have to stop at Old Oak Common? I ask that to reiterate the points that have been made already. Will the Minister also confirm that the HS2 phase 2, Crewe to Manchester route is fully funded? That announcement was made earlier on in this Parliament.
Finally, if I may—and if the room will humour me—I have one question that remains unanswered about my constituency. CrossCountry trains do not stop at Ivybridge train station in my constituency, which is fully ready as a park and ride. Currently, only Great Western Railway is committed to doing that, and serves it with 16 trains a day. My constituency has the new and growing town of Sherford, plus the suburbs of Plympton and Plymstock, all of which would benefit from Ivybridge having up to 45 trains stopping a day. Will the Minister commit to looking further into that, and could we work together on pressuring CrossCountry to deliver that for my constituents?
I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate today. I do not think that the issue of railways in the south-west is going anywhere fast. [Laughter] That was totally unintended—turns out I am naturally funny after all. Ultimately, I think the Minister will be hearing more from us. I know I speak on behalf of Members from across the south-west when I say that I want to know that the Government are listening. I hope the Government appreciate that we are not going to go away, because the issue is incredibly important to the entire region, which has so much potential for the economy of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for the very first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I also welcome the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her first outing on the Front Bench as the Opposition spokesman.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate on railway services in the south-west. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
On 11 December, I attended a debate on the future of rail services in Devon, and on 17 December, the Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), attended a debate on the impact of Old Oak Common on rail services. The frequency of these debates demonstrates the importance that hon. Members and their constituents place on the rail network, and the crucial role it plays in supporting economic development, housing, employment growth and tourism. This Government recognise that too. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.
As I said in a previous debate, the south-west has seen a strong recovery in rail passenger numbers since the pandemic. Many services are now very busy indeed, particularly towards the end of the week and at weekends—including Thursdays. [Laughter.] To reduce crowding, funding has been authorised for 12 additional CrossCountry trains. Three are already in service; the rest are due to enter service in May.
Local services around Devon are also experiencing some capacity issues, particularly on the Barnstaple line and on school services from Paignton and Exmouth, all of which run into Exeter. Officials and GWR are working on options to increase capacity on some local and regional services, but that will of course be subject to affordability.
The Government continue to focus on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing passengers, and the Rail Minister has now met GWR and CrossCountry, as well as Network Rail, to ensure they are delivering on their plans to address poor performance.
A resilient railway is crucial to the economy, not just in the south-west but right across the country. That is why £165 million has been invested to date in the south-west resilience programme at Dawlish, delivering better journey reliability for rail travellers in the south-west and providing greater resilience for the coastal railway during several named storms, alluded to earlier, that have affected the south-west in recent years. We continue to work closely with Network Rail as it develops proposals for the fifth phase of the programme, between Parsons tunnel and Teignmouth.
Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), have shown strong support for a number of potential rail projects across the region and the country. Ministers have been clear, however, that it will not be possible in the context of the financial situation the Government have inherited to afford to deliver all the proposed projects. The Secretary of State is conducting a thorough review of the previous Government’s plans, to ensure that our transport infrastructure portfolio drives economic growth and delivers value for taxpayers.
Many Members have referenced Old Oak Common and the impact it will have on rail services to and from the south-west. The station will enable HS2 services to start operating, by providing a new interchange with the Elizabeth line. Without it, HS2 cannot open. As Members will appreciate, a project of the scale and significance of Old Oak Common cannot be delivered without some disruption to existing services. Our challenge to HS2 Ltd is to keep that disruption to a minimum and to support Network Rail and train operators to keep passengers moving.
The most recent phase of the work took place over Christmas, and was delivered successfully. It required a three-day closure of Paddington station, in addition to Christmas day and Boxing day. The rail industry worked hard to prepare for that. Some long-distance Great Western services were diverted into Euston station to maintain a direct link into a London terminus, while others terminated at Ealing Broadway and Reading. We expect that to provide a model for any future closures of the railway into Paddington. As has been said, the next significant block of work had been due to take place in December 2026, but that has now been replanned to a later date by HS2 Ltd. Further details about the timings of future works will be shared as soon as they become available in the spring.
The Rail Minister and I have heard from many colleagues about their constituents’ concerns about the future timetable and the potential impact on journey times. That was addressed in detail on 17 December by my hon. Friend the Minister for Future of Roads, and I refer hon. Members to Hansard for more information.
As has been noted previously, the future timetable will be under development for many years to come. Officials are working with the industry to assess the options for calling patterns at Old Oak Common. Ministers are committed to ensuring that passenger interests are considered and that disruption is minimised for passengers, both during and after construction. I will close this part of my speech by confirming that the Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do in delivering our railway, which we can be proud of once again in its 200th year.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South West Devon, talked about GWR Sunday services. The Government of course recognise that performance is not where it needs to be. That is due to a range of issues, including infrastructure and fleet reliability, as well as train crew availability, which has resulted in high levels of cancellations on Sundays in recent months. Officials and GWR are actively working to address this issue.
A number of Members raised wi-fi connectivity. Free wi-fi is available on GWR services, but it is particularly poor on parts of the network. Ministers have asked officials to explore the feasibility of a range of technology options to improve passenger connectivity on the rail network. The Department is also conducting research to measure the strength of mobile signals along the network, to fully understand where interventions are needed and any potential impacts.
Electrification was also mentioned. The most used part of the Great Western network—between London Paddington and Cardiff—has been electrified, and there are currently no plans to electrify further parts of it.
A number of Members mentioned accessibility. Following the election, we are carefully considering the best approach to the Access for All programme. Department for Transport Ministers are not yet able to comment on the next steps regarding the project at specific stations, but hon. Members should be assured that we are committed to improving the accessibility of the railway and that we recognise the valuable social and economic benefits that that brings to our communities.
The south west rail resilience programme was mentioned, and the Government recognise the importance of the rail route through Dawlish and the south-west region. To date, as I mentioned, £165 million has been invested through the programme to deliver improved resilience across the route. I would also echo again that no decision has been taken on which services will call at Old Oak Common and when; the future timetable is under development, and will be for many years to come.
Members raised the issue of rail fares. We are committed to the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation and to ensuring that people receive better services and have simpler ticketing. Our aim is to keep the price of rail travel at a point that is good for passengers and taxpayers. We are also committed to reviewing the overly complicated fares system.
Many Members mentioned general performance. SWR performance on the west of England line has been challenging, and falls way below our expectations for passengers. The mostly single-line section between Salisbury and Exter has suffered multiple failures and has little resilience in the event of disruption. SWR and Network Rail have therefore dedicated a specific working group to looking at minimising the impact of delay and cancellation going forward. As regards CrossCountry, Members will be aware that, as a result of poor performance, it is subject to a remedial agreement that runs until March 2025. The Department will monitor outputs closely to ensure that CrossCountry is making sufficient progress.
I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) about the renationalisation of our rail. The Government are committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on our railways by creating a unified and simplified system through public ownership and the establishment of Great British Railways. All currently franchised services are expected to be in public ownership within the next three years. With that, I thank Members once again for their contributions.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to have this debate, and I thank colleagues from across the House for participating. We have heard some fairly clear messages, and I thank the Minister for responding to some of them. There is certainly some hope in some of the responses that have been given.
It is clear that the south-west and Wales have been disadvantaged over a long period through lack of investment in the railways. Although large sums have been talked about, they have clearly not been used down in the south-west. I thank the Minister for recognising the importance of the rail network and for the news about increasing some of the capacity on local services, which is most welcome.
The Minister said that a resilient railway is crucial, and that is exactly right. Parsons tunnel to Teignmouth—I am afraid it is pronounced “Tinmuth”, and not like Tynemouth, which is somewhere else; it is very confusing because Teignbridge is pronounced “Teenbridge”, so the pronunciation is most unique—is absolutely vital. It was the collapse of that section that closed the railway for eight weeks; it was not the breach of the sea wall that closed it. It had happened 15 years before, and it will happen again; those cliffs are not protected. Without the fifth phase, the resilience work that has been done to date will be wasted.
What Network Rail needs is not funding today but the promise of funding in the future, to ensure that the design team is there and ready to go when funding is available. We all understand that we cannot fund everything at once—I do not think that anyone is asking for that—so I understand it when the Minister says he cannot fund everything now. What I want is a promise that this work will be funded in the future, when money is available, so that we can make sure that it is progressed and not forgotten. That is absolutely vital.
On HS2 disruption, it was interesting to hear that the purpose of Old Oak Common is to transfer passengers from HS2 to the Elizabeth line. That is a clear focus, and it shows that no real interaction is intended with GWR’s south-west and Wales services.
On the idea of stopping trains, again, I do not think we expect a complete timetable at this stage; we would just like the confirmed option that some trains will not stop. That option has been ruled out in some of the conversations I have had, and I like the fact that it is now open. Having that as a commitment, even without the full timetable, will reassure my constituents that fast trains will still be able to go through to London.
The £165 million Dawlish investment is also very much welcomed. I refer back to the £1.2 billion cost of the closure. So it is £165 million versus £1.2 billion. To me, it is obvious that that investment needs to be continued.
I end by thanking you, Dr Allin-Khan, and congratulating you on chairing your first Westminster Hall debate. I also thank everybody else who was present for the debate, and I look forward to having more conversations with Rail Ministers about the future of railways in the south-west, because we are only just beginning this journey.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered railway services in the South West.
Agricultural and Business Property Relief
(1 day, 2 hours 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
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Graham Stuart to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on small businesses.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to see so many colleagues from across the House here today. Perhaps it is not surprising that we have a redoubtable Minister, who picks up the poisoned chalice on so many occasions. He will do so today, no doubt both well informed and with good humour, as he has done previously.
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a recipient of campaign donations from businesses and farmers across Beverley and Holderness. Given the rural nature of my seat, I will start by focusing on the twin impacts of the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on family farms, followed by the impact of changes to BPR on family businesses. We have just a half-hour debate, and a colleague asked the good question of why it was so short for something so big. That means I will probably be the sole speaker, but I am happy to take as many interventions as I can, because I know that concern is widespread.
In her autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced a significant change to APR and BPR, set to take effect from April 2026. She is imposing a 20% tax on the value of land and machinery exceeding £1 million. That is known by many of us as a family farm tax. By the Government’s own estimate, it could result in one farm closing in every rural constituency every year.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. I also draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When a small farm has been in a family for generations, that family knows the local watercourses better than anybody else. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that as those small farms disappear and move towards development, flooding issues may result because the local knowledge that would prevent flooding will be lost?
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. On Friday, I visited Ian and Rebecca at Bygott farm just outside Beverley, which is about 220 acres. Their profits would be wiped out by the expected inheritance tax for 10 full years, with 10 years to pay it. The expected annual payment for 10 years would be greater than their profit last year. They also play that vital role, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, of looking after the watercourses. The villagers nearby do not know what a critical part they play in maintaining those watercourses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. All my neighbours in Northern Ireland are small farmers. Everyone will be impacted, because the threshold of £1 million is too low. The threshold should be between £4 million and £5 million, which would give a chance to retain the family farm. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to talk to the National Farmers Union or the Ulster Farmers Union to ascertain their legal opinion, which is against what the Government are introducing?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the measure was about hitting huge investors, they are the ones least likely to be affected. The richest and most sophisticated will find it easiest to avoid the impact. Small farmers, such as the ones I visited on Friday, will be most seriously affected. It is a bit like the winter fuel payment cut. If the Government took that away from people who had an income of more than £25,000, it would be infinitely less controversial. The point is, it hits people on very low incomes and hurts them the most.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the measure has an inequitable application across the United Kingdom? In some parts, land values are higher than others. In Northern Ireland they are the highest, therefore one will reach the £1 million threshold sooner with less acreage there than elsewhere. Where we have a concentration of family farms, that will have a crippling effect on future generations.
Graham Stuart
Once that farmland is lost, it is gone forever. It is certainly gone forever from the families who, generation after generation, have been prepared to invest their all—their time and their money—into an asset which they never seek to realise, but merely use for a very low return on capital employed, in order to feed the nation.
As somebody said to me, of all the groups that one might possibly target, of all the profit-maximising people it could be assumed might have the broad shoulders to pay more, why pick people who sit on a multimillion-pound asset, take a derisory income from it, and get up at four in the morning to feed us? Of all the groups to target, this is the most absurd. I hope the Minister, who has until 2026, can start to realise this.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I met a farmer a couple of weeks ago in my constituency who is 80 years old and has made arrangements for passing his farm on to the next generation. However, the seven-year rule is unlikely to affect someone of that age. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a modest compromise could be made by the Government to allow for those sorts of situations?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I spoke to another farmer in my constituency and his farm is owned by three people, one of whom is his father—who has a third of it—and who has been in ill health lately, is in his early 80s and is highly unlikely to live for the next seven years. All the planning that they responsibly put into ensuring that that farm continues to contribute to waterways, the environment, and the nation’s food security has been cast aside and turned over by this Government’s ill thought-out plans.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, many family farms exceed the threshold due to the high value of the land and machinery. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these changes threaten to push family-run farms into the hands of large corporations and therefore both erode rural communities and jeopardise our domestic food security?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that is exactly what they will do. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intent to bolster the big international corporations and hurt the small player who is an embedded part of the community.
So many people I speak to genuinely try and run their farms to be supportive of nature and of local business. Once major corporations are involved, these will not care where they get their supplies from. They will not be focused on that.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this brutal change to inheritance tax—let us call it what it is, a family farm tax—will destroy family farms and farming in the UK as we know it? Does it not make nonsense of Labour’s claim to believe in food security for the UK? We need a U-turn straightaway.
The question I am now being asked by my farmers is: did this policy come about because the Government did not know what they were doing and through a lack of knowledge by the Labour party of the farming community? Or will we look back at this and see it for what it is: theft by the state of land from private owners?
Graham Stuart
I will come to that point later in my speech.
When that farmland is gone, it will take with it the livelihoods of families who have devoted generations to feeding our nation and will have a permanent negative impact on the nation’s food security.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend goes on too much further, I wonder whether he agrees that another effect of this is that, at a time when we need to unlock growth and productivity, it will discourage and disincentivise the investment in our family farms that is so badly needed?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is right. That is why I appeal to the Minister: if the Government do not care at all—in fact, if the Government see farmers as some sort of class enemy—it still does not make sense to do this, because it will weaken our food security. Go and talk to farmers—as I do in my area all the time—and it is obvious that their personal commitment to things like flood protection, understanding of the land, and thinking in the long term, is not just words.
People think in the long term when there is no thought in their minds of selling. Why would anyone not put their money back in? Farmers put all their money back in because they are happy to do so, and they have a lifestyle as part of that. All that is put under threat if the investment in a piece of machinery or infrastructure that could help them to green their land will be subject to a 20% tax. Suddenly the economics do not add up and the bank will not want to lend.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman will know, as all of us in this room do, that in GB we enjoy some of the most competitively priced fresh produce available anywhere in Europe and that is precisely because of the investments in production technology that family farms have made over generations. Is he concerned that at a stroke this Government, myopic about the workings of agriculture, have made them immediately—overnight—stop that investment, and consumers will feel that in food prices?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that has not been made so far: we have among the lowest food costs in the world. In fact, all my local farmers are forever moaning at me about how outrageous it is that food is so low in price. As I say to them, the system has allowed them to continue farming, providing first-class food at a very low cost to consumers. It is that carefully balanced ecosystem that will be impacted by this juggernaut creation of the Government, which will raise, if it raises anything at all, very little. That is why it is great to have someone as thoughtful, insightful and empathetic as the Minister on the Government Bench, because we have time to change path away from this ridiculous policy.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very clear case. Of course, there is massive agreement in the room. Does he recognise that with the uncertainty about the land use framework and the Government’s interventions and intentions on development of the work that we did on ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—farmers face massive uncertainty? Does he agree that it would be far better if the Government paused, as the NFU is asking, to look at this matter in the round, alongside the other policy decisions that they need to make—there is plenty of time before next spring—and, in particular, to address the issue about the age distribution of farmers? For younger farmers there will be ways of mitigating this matter and for older ones there simply are not. Overall, they lack clarity on what the future looks like, and that is a real concern.
Graham Stuart
At the very least, as my right hon. Friend says and as a colleague touched on earlier, tweaks could be made to this policy to stop the most egregious negative impact of it on people who have planned in good faith all their lives for a position and are now in no position whatever to change things. It is not just the elderly—everyone looks for the elderly person in their 80s or 90s to pass on, but I met another constituent whose mother died aged 41. These things happen, sadly, and what does that do to a farm? Is it holding hundreds of thousands of pounds in the bank when there are 200 and something acres?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The right hon. Member will possibly be familiar with my constituency—one of the richest farming areas in the UK. The Treasury continues to insist that only about 520 estates a year will claim APR in the way that it is describing, and it has set the threshold at £1 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to provide clear evidence for this threshold, and is he aware that at the evidence session in December, the NFU claimed that the actual figure, rather than 520, is 2,000 estates involved?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right. The expert valuers who do this for a living have come out with different numbers, but they are all violently different from the Government’s assumptions. Even on the basis of the Government’s own figures, if I take Beverley and Holderness—as a rural constituency—it would be a farm a year. And of course, everyone is affected. They are all having to spend and bring advisers into the room. They are sitting there, as a small business that might be making less than £25,000 a year, and having to pay £1,000 an hour to get the expertise in the room to advise them on something that, sure, depending on the longevity of family members, may not have an impact for 15, 20 or—hopefully—30 years, but none the less they are spending that money now because of the uncertainty of this policy, which is very ill advised.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is so important. Just this morning, I was at the meeting on food security, speaking to poultry farmers there, and they said that they are already taking decisions not to invest in new buildings, directly because they are now thinking of how they need to save for an APR bill. Of course, that has a knock-on effect on other businesses that will be the suppliers, and therefore we come into the BPR argument as well. Does he share my concerns that, if farmers cannot invest in their holdings, they will not be as profitable in future? It is a huge cycle—a self-fulfilling prophecy that will mean that more farms will be impacted down the line.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right. I say to the Minister that rather than looking at the issue through a fairness lens or an “attack wealth” lens, it must be in terms of incentives. Incentives are what drives behaviour, and behaviour is what drives wealth creation and security. If we come at it with some sort of A-level politics student’s approach, rather than one grounded in human behaviour and incentive, and get it wrong, we will see reduced investment from farm to farm and business to business.
If someone is not buying that new piece of planting machinery, they will not be investing in the training of their staff or they will not take on that extra employee who would have been brought on, because to justify expenditure they needed to invest in them, pay them more, and bring on more staff. All of that goes into reverse. I hope that as they come face to face with the realities of being responsible for the economy, Ministers will take that onboard and start to have a different philosophical approach in the way they do policy.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Does the right hon. Member share the concerns that my farmers have about their mental health, who are already in an industry where mental health issues are very high? They are concerned about the deadline of April 2026 and what impact that could have on their wellbeing.
Graham Stuart
I do. Someone only has to meet farmers to know that farming is already quite a lonely profession, with a high level of suicide anyway and high rates of depression. Combining that with this figure, it sounds hyperbolic to suggest that people will kill themselves ahead of this deadline, but knowing the farmers as I do in my area, I do not find it that hyperbolic. I hope it proves not to be the case, but it is a serious issue to be considered.
The impact of changes to BPR extends beyond farming communities. When asked about the changes, 85% of family businesses surveyed by the Confederation of British Industry said they would reduce investment by an average of 17%, an issue which colleagues are rightly raising. That will stifle long-term growth and harm the broader network of businesses that depend on them. They say that trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. As I walked down Whitehall, shoulder to shoulder with farmers, their anger was palpable because they had believed the Prime Minister’s promises yet were betrayed. To Labour’s credit, it won the trust of rural Britain, through every door knocked, leaflet printed and promise made. It went from representing two rural seats in 2019 to 40 today.
The Prime Minister pledged to form a new relationship with farmers based on respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) questioned where those proud rural Labour MPs are today; they are certainly not here facing the music. As usual, they are leaving the Minister to do it on his own. He asked us to judge his Government on their actions and not their words, so that is what we will do. In November 2023, the current Environment Secretary, in a room full of farmers, looked them straight in the eye and told them
“We have no intention of changing APR.”
By November 2024, that promise meant nothing. Labour waited 14 years to deliver its Budget, and it made a choice not just to change APR, but halve it. One constituent shared their shock as they calculated the impact, realising it would cost their family £300,000. Another constituent, William Hodgson, who runs a 600-acre farm near Withernsea with his mother, faces an inheritance tax bill of £1.5 million, with a post-tax profit of £150,000 a year. That means he would have to dedicate an entire decade of profits just to cover the cost of that tax. It was at that moment that the most valuable currency in politics—trust—was lost.
In February 2024, the Prime Minister told the NFU that it deserves a Government that listens and heeds early warnings. The planned changes to APR are not due until 2026, leaving the Prime Minister with one year, two fiscal events and ample parliamentary sitting days, with many colleagues all too happy to constructively work with him, to come to this House and tell us that he has listened and will change course. The question is whether he has the courage to do so.
It will have been hard to hear all of us and our chants while he was in Rio and we were in Whitehall; farmers at his north London surgeries will be few and far between. However, I hope he will listen to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), on his own side, who spoke bravely against the policy during the debate in the Chamber last month.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stuart
I had better make some progress. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway may have been scolded behind closed doors for doing that, but he will have regained the trust of voters who put their trust in him. As devastating as the proposed changes to APR and BPR could be on our farmers, the impact of the changes on family-owned businesses more widely could be even greater, and perhaps that deserves more attention.
A recent report by Adriana Curca at the CBI laid bare the potential fallout. Far from raising £1.4 billion, as forecast by the Treasury, the Chancellor can expect a £1.2 billion decrease in tax revenue from family-owned businesses. Instead of helping the Government to fulfil their pledge to be pro-business and pro-worker, it could lead to the loss of more than 125,000 jobs over the next four years.
Rachel from accounts obviously never got a new abacus for Christmas. Maple Garage, Beverley Travel, Beverley Camera Centre, Oh My Dog—great place—Flowerstyle, Vivienne Rose Wallpaper and Interiors, the Beverley Card Company, Islay Bloom, the Monkey Tree Café, Trent Galleries, Hull Aero Club—those are all businesses that I have spoken to since the Budget. The overwhelming sentiment was exactly the same, regardless of the type of business: disappointment in a Government who do not understand business. None of the Cabinet has ever run one, and it shows.
When the Prime Minister promised that wealth creation would be his party’s No. 1 priority—do hon. Members remember that?—more than 120 business leaders believed him, from the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, to Andrew Higginson, the chair of JD Sports. The Prime Minister convinced them that he had a plan to kick-start our economy. Now, six months into the reality of a Labour Government, they are lacing up their trainers and running for the hills.
It does not have to be that way. Instead of tinkering with who is and who is not eligible for inheritance tax relief, we could consider following Sweden’s example, where, having tried heavy inheritance tax charges—
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stuart
I will have to press on. Sweden ended up with even, I think, the communists voting to abolish it entirely. Since Sweden scrapped inheritance tax in 2004, entrepreneurship has flourished. Some 8,000 wealthy individuals moved their assets back to the country. Its tax revenues increased by £19.5 billion in a decade.
The planned changes to APR and BPR hurt everyone and help no one. Scrapping inheritance tax may not be a silver bullet, but the evidence suggests it is a policy worth examining.
I return to the saying that trust takes forever to repair. The Prime Minister will not take my word for it, but he should listen to his voters, and recent polls show that 66% of voters believe that Labour does not respect rural communities, and 77% do not trust Labour to manage the economy effectively, or remain unconvinced.
Newer MPs may grandstand and say that it will all blow over—although their appetite to do so seems to be diminishing by the day—and that by 2029, it will be a bad memory for farmers and entrepreneurs. Perhaps they could ask some of their colleagues in the Liberal Democrats how that story ends. After all, in 2010, it took them less than six months to break their promise to students not to raise tuition fees, and it still came up in last summer’s TV debates. Farmers and businessmen, like students, have long memories.
I am a firm believer that we reap what we sow. In the past six months, the Government have sown a dangerous thing—seeds of doubt, and an idea that they cannot be trusted. I had better let the Minister have a short period to respond. However, on behalf of colleagues right across this side of the House—and I think, by their absence, quite a number of colleagues on that side of the House—we ask the Minister, who is a thoughtful and decent man, to go back to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and persuade them to change course.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. Likewise, he is always thoughtful in his contributions, so I am always glad to hear from him and indeed the interventions that he allowed during his speech.
I know hon. Members have raised questions about the reforms that we are making, and I will try to address as many of them as I can. However, let me start by briefly reminding hon. Members of the economic context in which the decisions were taken. At the autumn Budget, we took difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending
to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services, as a result of the situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We took those tough decisions in a way that will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable. The decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was not taken lightly. The reforms mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax, beyond what is available to others.
James Murray
I will give way maybe once or twice, but I do not have much time.
Richard Foord
I do not question the Minister’s difficult inheritance, but the Labour party adviser Dan Neidle suggests that the plan to slap inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million should be replaced with a much higher threshold with a clawback mechanism, perhaps for land over £20 million that is sold. That would tackle the Dysons of the world without affecting small family farms. What does the Minister think of that proposal?
James Murray
I am just about to come on to the details of the reforms that we have made to agricultural property relief and business property relief. If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will see some of the reasoning behind the decisions that we took.
The Government recognise the role that the reliefs play, particularly in supporting farms and small businesses, and under our reforms that will continue. The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full unlimited exemption, which was introduced in 1992, had become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets has become heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.
It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief.
James Murray
I have only a few moments, so I will make progress.
The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that she would prioritise that tax break within the public finances, but we do not believe it is fair or sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of the wealthiest claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for those reasons that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. We are doing so in a way that maintains a significant tax relief for estates, including for small farms and businesses, while repairing the public finances fairly.
Let me be clear that individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. On top of that, as we know, there will be a 50% relief, which means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Importantly, those reliefs sit on top of the existing spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands. Depending on individual circumstances, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax.
Harriet Cross
At the Oxford farming conference, the Secretary of State suggested that farms should diversify to be more profitable, but diversification has become a lot less incentivised because that all gets wrapped up into the BPR, as well as the APR. Does that not completely negate the Secretary of State’s argument for diversification if it will all be taken away in tax?
James Murray
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important point about diversification, but whatever category the assets fall into, a couple can pass on up to £3 million to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax; that applies across agricultural and business property relief. The point I was making is that the agricultural and business property relief sit on top of the existing transfers and nil-rate bands, so when considering individual circumstances, we must look at the details of the situation that an individual or couple face.
I have a minute left, so I will be brief. Some hon. Members questioned the statistics about how many estates will be affected. We are very clear—we have published the data, and the Chancellor has written to the Treasury Committee about it—that up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those claiming business property relief too, will be affected by these reforms to some degree. That means that about three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those also claiming business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of these changes in the year they are introduced. All estates making claims through these reliefs will continue to receive generous support at a total cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been clear that it does not expect this measure to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for securing this debate.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Coastguard Helicopter Services
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of coastguard search and rescue helicopter services.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place for a reprise of an issue I have raised a number of times over the years. The execution of the duties of the search and rescue helicopter base in Sumburgh, which is in Shetland in my constituency, has over the years been relatively unproblematic. The service, and those who provide it, are held in enormously high regard—and for good reason. There have been, over the years, a number of heroic incidents where the quality of the service, and the bravery of those who provide it, have been there for all to see. It has been quite exceptional, and that is the standard that local people have come to expect and will almost certainly continue to expect; but that does mean that, if there is ever any concern about the provision of these sorts of services, the response from the community will be much more trenchant.
I will start by raising an issue that has its roots back in 2023. It was a matter I raised in this House—in fact in this Chamber—on 22 November 2023. At that time, following the reletting of the contract for a second 10-year period to Bristow Helicopters, a memo was sent out to all Bristow staff indicating, amongst other things, that the response time for helicopters stationed at Sumburgh and at Stornoway—in the Northern and Western Isles—was to be increased from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. That is obviously concerning: for any coastal or island community, the search and rescue helicopter is another blue light service. It is a blue light service that any of us who rely on the sea for a living, or even just for transportation, may have to rely on at any time.
That memo only came into the public domain because a member of Bristow staff copied two pages of it and gave it to BBC Radio Shetland. It went into the public domain from there. As soon as it was in the public domain, there was a mass stampede for the hills by anybody who might be accountable for it. The Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency denied all knowledge of it, saying, “No, this was nothing to do with us.” It was all left firmly at the door of Bristow, which, it has to be said, was less than forthcoming at that point.
That led me, after some discussion and joint working with the then hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, to the Chamber on 22 November 2023. I say parenthetically that the current hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) has since contacted me to say that he cannot be here with us, but I know that he is engaged with this issue. I have spoken and corresponded with him about it on a number of occasions, and I know he shares my concerns about the handling of this.
I will not rehearse the arguments that were made in November 2023, but it will benefit the House and the Minister, when he responds, if I remind the House of what then Minister Guy Opperman said when responding to my half-hour debate. He said,
“I want to address the key point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in respect of the situation going from 15 to 60 minutes. That was supposed to be the situation going forward, but I can confirm that the Department for Transport has been informed by His Majesty’s Coastguard that it has begun an analysis of the SAR incident data compiled after the UKSAR2G procurement commenced. That work has begun and is ongoing, and obviously the results will be conveyed in the future to all Members who are particularly concerned by it—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who have raised this particular point in correspondence.
The analysis is in recognition of the fact that the UKSAR2G procurement was undertaken at a time of considerable societal and economic upheaval during the pandemic”.
So—surprise, surprise—the number of callouts had fallen during the pandemic and it was on that basis that the decision to raise the response time from 15 minutes to 60 minutes was made.
Let me say at this stage, before I go any further, that even if that data was reliable, I do not think that in itself is a legitimate basis on which to increase the call-out time. This issue is not all about the number of times the service is used; it is also about the circumstances and the conditions in which it is used. So, if this is some sort of calculation that says, “If we are only using it 10 times instead of 100, we don’t need to be out there quite as quickly,” I would say in response that for those 10 times that the service is needed to be out there, my goodness—the need is as great as it possibly can be.
In November 2023, the then Minister went on to say:
“There is no doubt, if one looks at the statistics—and I have the statistics—that on occasions, over the last few years, the numbers have clearly been potentially lower than they may be going forward.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 126WH.]
He continued:
“I want to assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the UKSAR2G contract terms allow for a review of any area of the service against changes in demand, technical developments or innovations, which will be done periodically. The point is that that would have been done in any event. Should the analysis in this instance indicate that amendments to the new service are required in light of changes to the demand profile, then the Department for Transport can pursue those via the appropriate contractual mechanisms and approval processes.
The review will be undertaken at the end of this year going into next year”—
that was in 2023, going into 2024—
“at which time we will be happy to share the outcome with hon. Members. It will take many months, so it will not happen in the short term. I make the simple point that there will be no change to this service, in any event, for many years to come;”—
in fact, until the end of November 2026—
“as the title of the right hon. Gentleman’s debate on the Order Paper suggests, we are talking about the future provision. I can advise that all four current helicopter bases in Scotland will remain open, with additional fixed-wing capabilities and a seasonal base in north-west Scotland to provide additional enhancements on an ongoing basis.” —[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 127WH.]
Essentially, therefore, we have come here today to hear from the current Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—the outcome of that review. There were a number of occasions when we had video calls and telephone calls, with Bristow assuring us by saying, “Really, we understand now that maybe we did look at incomplete or inappropriate data. This is not going to be a problem.” I was greatly assured by that, but I am slightly less assured by the fact that we are now in January 2025 and we still do not know what the outcome of that review is.
If the Minister can tell us today that the review has been completed and that a 15-minute response time will continue to be provided, I will have nothing more to say on this matter for the moment. However, if we have to undertake a campaign in our community to save a service that is as important to us as this one, I would like to hear that now, rather than having to wait until November 2026 to hear it.
However, the issues around the response time are not the totality of my concerns about the SAR service; indeed, I fear that they are a symptom, rather than the disease. By that, I refer to the fact that this only came into the public domain because of a leak. It is something which clearly, as a provider of service under contract for the Government, should have had an element of public consultation before any decision of that sort was made.
The Minister will be aware that earlier this year pilots working for Bristow, which provides the service under the SAR contract, went on strike. They did so in the most responsible way possible, in a way designed to minimise the risk to life. The cover, though, it must be said, was still patchy and we were fortunate that the situation came to a head in the summer months rather than in the winter. Those pilots’ feeling that it was necessary to go on strike should be a major concern for the Department and for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable; earlier this year it felt inevitable.
The Minister knows that in recent years, Bristow was bought by a large American operator headquartered in Texas. What I have heard from those working for the company since then suggests that the purchase was the catalyst for a significant change of culture for the company and, more specifically, of concern for us as taxpayers, of the operation of the SAR contract. I have spoken with pilots and other staff at bases around the country, who tell me of a culture within the company that is now very different from the one that I first encountered and engaged with as a newly elected MP around 20 years ago. I hear of a management culture driven constantly by cost and efficiency, and some working within the company are concerned that it is at the expense of the highest possible standards of safety.
In years gone by, when I visited the base at Sumburgh I was generally able, with some notice, to go on to the base and meet and speak to more or less anybody that was on shift there. My most recent visit to the base was handled rather differently; senior management travelled from the south to “manage” my visit and the contact that I had with the crew at the base was very carefully managed. I was not oblivious to that; quite apart from anything else, I was fairly confident that, with Shetland being Shetland, I would hear any concerns there were by some other means, and so it has turned out.
The concerns were not just from Shetland. As a consequence of comments that I made that were reported at the time, I have heard concerns from bases, pilots and crews right around the coastline at other stations too. In Shetland and the Western Isles, I am told that the relocation of staff to the Isles is no longer to be expected or even encouraged. Consequently, crews are drawn in from elsewhere and the continuity of service is diminished. That must inevitably affect the way the service works—the familiarity of a crew with one another, when working in some of the most taxing conditions imaginable, is an important factor in how the service is delivered when it is most needed.
Shetland and the Western Isles are now regarded as spokes, rather than as hubs or standalone operations. Staff are expected to leave and work elsewhere in the country, providing different services. I am pleased to see that a more substantial amount will be provided for rescue services, going forward. I am sure that will be appreciated by the communities affected, but it must not come at the expense of the core service, which is search and rescue at sea.
Regarding core services, I sound a note of caution about the extended use of the SAR helicopter to supplement the air ambulance service on the islands. That use is not new, and in the moments of necessity it makes absolute sense for the SAR helicopter to get people to hospital on the Scottish mainland. However, I am increasingly concerned that the use is increasing in a significant way. In 2020, the number of call-outs—for the search and rescue helicopter to be provided effectively to the air ambulance service—was 25. But by the end of November 2024, it was 53. The concern must surely be that one day there will come a point where an ambulance flight is needed but the helicopter is deployed on a SAR mission, and the expectation of the ambulance provision and its availability will simply not be met.
If this is to be something that is done—and I make no argument with it—surely it has to be done in a structured and strategic way. It cannot be allowed to develop in an ad hoc way.
I have spoken to one pilot who told me of his concern that crews are being put on station before, in his view—and he is a very experienced pilot—they are properly ready to be there. I have heard tell of winch operators undertaking live winch operations to decks after only five training operations. Previously, the number would have been at least twice that, with further training being done on the job under the supervision of more experienced crew.
The service also faces challenges that are not entirely within its control. For example, the availability of spare parts for the AgustaWestland AW189 is a potential source of difficulty. The move to the AW189 as it was explained to me made some sense, and I could see the inevitability of it, although reliance on a single aircraft model still raises concern about the resilience of the service should that single model be taken out of commission, as we all know happens from time to time.
These are all things that cause me concern but, candidly, I am not really qualified to judge their seriousness. What seriously concerns me and I do feel qualified to judge, however, is the fact that pilots and crew come to me to tell me what is happening. I know for a fact that, in years gone by, any concerns of that sort would have been addressed comfortably within the company—the culture of the company allowed that to happen. It should concern us all to hear concerns of that sort, on top of crews taking industrial action, as they did earlier this year, on top of the hardball tactics deployed by the company in response to the strikes, and on top of the way in which changes to the response time for the SAR service in Sumburgh and Stornoway were made known. The blue-chip blue light service that we have enjoyed hitherto is under threat.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is giving a comprehensive analysis of his concerns regarding this most vital of services to many parts of Scotland, including as far south-east as my constituency, and the people who make their living on the sea there.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, this debate is about the future service. Would he like to see the Department and the MCA specify in the contract that a successful bidder will make certain cultural undertakings, if he thinks that is preferable to be prescribed? Does he agree that if the cost of providing a 15-minute response time seems expensive, the cost of failing to rescue lives will seem very much more expensive?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman’s final point is absolutely on the money. He is spot on. We are back to the old contest between price and value. The value of the service is understood by my constituents, and I suspect probably by his and other Member’s constituents; the price is for others to determine.
On specifying culture in a contract, I am now 23 years away from legal practice, and I was never much of a contract lawyer when I was in legal practice, so I would hesitate to get too involved in that. I question whether that is something that can be specified in a contract, but it is absolutely something that the MCA, as the contracting party, should, by proper management of the contract, be able to instil. If the MCA, at the point where the contract is let, made it clear that its expectations as the party letting the contract include the proper cultural management of the service, we would be in a much stronger position than we are in today.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
On the point about the necessity to retain flexibility in the service, my North Antrim constituency has, of course, the glorious north Antrim coast, which is not only beautiful but dangerous at times. We have had the necessity and benefit, from time to time, of the assistance of the rescue helicopter from Prestwick, and no later than 15 December when, sadly, my constituent Nigel Gordon lost his life at Torr head. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is imperative that there is maximum flexibility going forward, for the benefit of not just those in the immediate vicinity of a base but those who can draw on the services in emergencies?
Mr Carmichael
That is absolutely correct. I am very familiar with the north Antrim coast: I was born and brought up on a farm 12 miles north of it, in the south-east corner of Islay, that looked across to Rathlin and then to the Antrim coast. I know exactly the stretch of water and the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of. To go back to the way in which we view contracts of this sort, my concern is always that things can become pretty process driven. The issue of whether it is a 15 or 60-minute response time could become a box to be ticked, rather than something that we have to understand has a very direct bearing on the outcome—the quality of the service provided for our constituents and others.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Carmichael
Yes. I have got about another three paragraphs; I will get to them eventually.
Jamie Stone
Further to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), if there is an accident at a cliff and somebody falls, we want to get help to them as quickly as possible, while the chopper is making its way there. I know of instances when the rope gear has been removed altogether; there might be a lifesaving opportunity to get somebody down to that person before the chopper gets there. It seems to me that this attitude of measuring it by money, instead of an overall approach about preventing a death, is really what we should be thinking about.
Mr Carmichael
Yes, indeed. As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, my father, who is now 93, worked for many years as what was then called a coastguard auxiliary—we would now call them a volunteer—and would go over the cliffs in breeches buoys to bring people off boats that had gone aground. Having come to the point where we have got this helicopter service, which is infinitely better than what we knew in years gone by, it is important to understand that the quality of the service—the quality of the output—really has to be the focus, not the process.
My hon. Friend prompts me to highlight the fact that many of those who work in tandem with the search and rescue helicopter are volunteers. These people are volunteer coastguards and volunteers on the lifeboat. On occasion, their commitment and bravery is absolutely outstanding. It really behoves Governments of any stripe to ensure that the quality of the commitment they make is matched by the quality of the service provided by the state.
Essentially, we need to get back to the provision of a service that is rooted in the communities that it is there to serve and that is driven by the highest standards of service. Where we, as parliamentarians, have concerns that that is changing, we have not only the right but the duty to speak up, because we do not want to leave this until we realise that it is too late and the damage has already been done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Is this your first time chairing?
Jim Shannon
Then I wish you well in your new role. I am sure that you and I and others will meet on a number of occasions—
Jim Allister
While we are on statistics, can the hon. Member tell us how many times he has spoken in this Chamber?
Jim Shannon
I am unable to answer that. I say only that I make sure that the constituency of Strangford is named every time I am here. That is the important point, because it is the people who put me here.
It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). In all honesty, there probably is not a debate where I do not find myself alongside the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is on fishing issues, coastguard issues, farming or whatever it may be. These are all things that he and I, along with others, have a deep interest in, and we come to Westminster Hall to put forward the case on behalf of our constituents.
Mr Carmichael
I do not know whether this is really necessary, but given that I mentioned the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), I should put on the record, in case there were any doubt about it, that when we last debated this issue in November 2023, the hon. Member for Strangford was in the Chamber too.
Jim Shannon
It is the subject matter that motivates us, of course—that is why we are here.
I am really pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. He and I have been friends for many years, and I am very pleased to see him in that position. I know he will give the job the necessary energy and commitment. It is also good to see the shadow Minister in his place. I wish him well in his new role.
The core responsibility of His Majesty’s Coastguard and the helicopter service is to search, rescue and save. Those services are of major importance to society and take steps every single day to protect us; it is great to be here to discuss how we can preserve and protect them for the future. I know the Minister will reassure us and give us confidence that what we have, we can hold, and that they will continue to save lives. All Members who have intervened have mentioned saving lives—that is the thrust of what we are trying to achieve.
In my Strangford constituency, lifeboats and the coastguard, including lifeboats from Portaferry and Donaghadee, are called out almost every other week, and they do a massive good job in saving lives.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the by-products of this magnificent and timely debate is that it allows us to pay tribute to the volunteers, as he is doing? They include the likes of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland and onshore charitable organisations such as Community Rescue Service in Coleraine and Foyle Search and Rescue in Londonderry. We pay tribute to those people, and hopefully we can get them an additional revenue stream to ensure they can do the job of saving lives.
Jim Shannon
I think my hon. Friend may have been at the debate that I attended. He is on the record praising the good work of those volunteers. Every one of us knows the contribution that they make in saving lives. First and foremost, they are volunteers who have a commitment to do well.
Thinking about the helicopter search and rescue made me remember a story. It happened a long time ago, but it has always stuck in my mind. One Boxing day, I was out duck hunting on the pond on my farm, but out across Strangford lough a real tragedy was taking place. Six young men from Kircubbin—I live between Greyabbey and Kircubbin—went across to Daft Eddy’s, the pub on the far side, and on the way back they got into difficulties and were all drownded. I remember visiting all the families to express my deep sympathy to them. The point I want to make is that the helicopters were out—we could see their lights all over Strangford lough, going side to side everywhere as they tried to find the bodies and to reassure the families. The work that they did that night was incredible.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman is laying bare the sentiment and bravery of the crews that operate these helicopters. They do whatever they can hopefully to bring safety and security, if not comfort, to people in coastal communities right around the British Isles.
I may be the only rotary wing aircraft engineer in Parliament—I certainly like to think I am, anyway. Helicopters are inherently expensive, and it is incumbent on the Government to acknowledge that. That expense brings with it tremendous value. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, this is about the future? We are where we are, and relatively content we are too, but in future negotiations with contractors for this service the Government have to understand that, in their pursuit of value for money in Government services, there are many, many places to look before they look here.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend—he is a friend—for that intervention. That is my feeling, ensconced in those few paragraphs. He is right that when it comes to saving money, there are some things that we cannot scrimp and save on.
Unfortunately, that night helicopters were not successful in saving lives, but they were successful in retrieving bodies and giving them to their families, so that they could suitably grieve with the loved ones they had a great fondness for.
HM Coastguard was formally brought into existence almost 203 years ago, and has been working to keep people safe by the coast and at sea ever since. It is a world-class leader in maritime safety, available to be called 24/7, to help anyone in difficulty around the coast. It is similar to our helicopter service, which goes above and beyond to provide care and help those who require it. I do not often get the chance to watch telly, but Sunday afternoon is the one time I do. I enjoy the westerns that are on then, which shows how old I am. In the breaks there are adverts for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, showing examples of its work and seeking donations of £2 a week. On occasions, it is not able to do the total job and helicopters will be part of the rescue.
Back home, HM Coastguard oversees maritime search and rescue operations, including helicopter services to ensure safety. Those operations are co-ordinated through a network of maritime rescue centres across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with a joint rescue co-ordination centre in Hampshire serving as a central hub. HM Coastguard’s helicopter fleet operates from 10 strategically located bases throughout the United Kingdom, providing rapid response capabilities at sea, along the coast and in certain inland areas.
In Northern Ireland, those services are supported by local teams, such as Bangor Coastguard Rescue Team in the neighbouring constituency of North Down, which specialises in water rescue, mud rescue and missing person searches. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) told us about the north coast. Many will be aware that I represent an even better and more beautiful constituency in Strangford, which is part coastal. The Newtownards peninsula consists of numerous villages and hamlets along the coastline. In addition, the Bangor Coastguard Rescue Team lies in the constituency of North Down, our neighbouring area, so knowing that extra support is there for residents is always reassuring. It is always a team effort, with councillors working together with MPs and other bodies to ensure that everything happens.
In July 2022, Robert Courts, then Minister for Maritime and Aviation, announced a new contract that would be awarded to secure helicopter fleets for the next 10 years to serve HM Coastguard and helicopter search. The new contract means that the UK search and rescue region will benefit from innovation and advances in technology. It is important that all those involved in the work have those advances in technology to reach people more quickly and save their lives. That provides an opportunity to build a future coastguard aviation capability that can keep pace with the growing demand on coastguard and aviation services across the United Kingdom.
I met the then Minister two or three years ago to discuss provision for Northern Ireland. The commitment I got at that time was that it would be covered by Prestwick, which I appreciated, but we need to continue. There have been extreme circumstances when we have had to call on the Republic of Ireland, which also makes its helicopters available for the search. That is all part of doing a good job.
Living on the edge of Strangford lough, we are aware of night-time searches, some of which have been successful in saving lives. On other occasions, they have unfortunately not been successful. Sometimes, despite their best efforts, all those involved, such as the helicopters, police, ambulance and fire services and hundreds of volunteers, have not been able to find those missing people—often troubled youngsters. Thankfully, they are successful sometimes.
In conclusion, I believe that it is of the utmost importance that we do all we can, as parliamentarians, to properly fund, protect and preserve our coastguard and aviation teams. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, Air Ambulance Northern Ireland is funded through charitable donations. There is not a week, back in my constituency—and probably in everybody else’s, to be honest—when some group is not doing some fundraising for the Air Ambulance NI, or the air ambulance wherever they may be. Whether it be road traffic accidents, saving people in emergencies or helping people who just take ill, the air ambulance can be there in a few minutes, and those people can be taken to hospital.
Busy roads on the Ards peninsula, where I live, are usually narrow with lots of corners, and that restricts the ambulance service’s ability to get to places in time. That is a fact of life. However, the air ambulance makes that situation better. I thank all those who have made ongoing fundraising efforts to maintain and enhance its operations. The community support and contributions are essential to sustain lifesaving services. There is a responsibility in Government to ensure that those services do not falter for mainland England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.
This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together—my friend, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), knows that.
Jim Shannon
I say that as personal opinion, of course. The point I am making is that we can be better together, and we can do it better together. Our people deserve that.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. He has long campaigned on this issue and that has won him a lot of gratitude from people in Northern Ireland and across Scotland and, indeed, the UK as a whole.
I have considerable personal gratitude to the search and rescue helicopter service. Ten years ago, my wife fell off a hill while wearing crampons and using an ice axe, and broke everything in her body. I was in London and got a call from somebody to say, “Your wife is lying on the rocks, a few hundred feet down.” I was so concerned that I ran a situations vacant ad in The Oban Times, but luckily it was not needed because of the rescue of my wife by the search and rescue helicopter. My father was involved in Glencoe Mountain Rescue. He always says that the advent of search and rescue helicopters was probably the biggest change in the history of saving people in the mountains.
I am pleased to speak in this debate as my constituency includes Inverness, home to one of the top 10 search and rescue helicopter operations in the UK. Those centres, and the incredible teams who staff them, are an essential part of our emergency service infrastructure. Their stability and effectiveness are not only important but essential, as I know to my benefit. Some people in the Chamber might not be aware of the scale of it. It is a £1.6 billion, 10-year programme, so it is a big contract. The UK search and rescue service provides 18 helicopters and six fixed-wing planes, based in 10 locations, from Newquay up to Sumburgh. There are two aircraft in each base.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, when the leaked plans to increase the emergency response time for rescue helicopters based at Sumburgh emerged, back in 2023, he acted swiftly and decisively. His efforts paid off as the then Minister, Guy Opperman, stated that the changes would not happen for many years to come, and that
“all four current helicopter bases in Scotland will remain open.” —[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 127.]
Hopefully, the new Government will ensure that we continue to hold on firm on that.
Quick responses to immediate problems are vital, but what is even more important is addressing the long-term decline in the services before they reach a crisis point. We need to ensure that the service level commitments do not slip. We have been made aware that there is potential for slippage in the contract. Most people will never need a search and rescue service. However, if they do need one, nothing else will do.
Jamie Stone
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will remember an incident in 1999 when a chemical-laden vessel called the Ascania broke free in the Pentland Firth. It was loaded with over 1,000 tonnes of potentially explosive chemicals. The search and rescue helicopters were absolutely instrumental in getting the crew of 14 off the Ascania. Luckily, the situation did not prove disastrous; it could have been. Without those helicopters, there could have been a considerable loss of life.
Mr MacDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
In the year ending March 2024, coastguard search and rescue helicopters rescued 1,425 people. That figure highlights the sheer scale of their contribution to public safety. From the Inverness base in my constituency alone, there were 321 operations—almost one a day—making it the third busiest in the UK.
As a party, the Liberal Democrats are keeping a firm eye on this issue. One of the things we are concerned about is progress on extending the helipad safe zones at hospitals, which I know has become quite a big issue; I hope the Minister will mention that when he addresses us. Before I conclude, I reiterate the point made my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. In May 2024, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport stated that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s analysis of search and rescue demand would be published by the end of 2024. Clearly, we are well past that now. I hope the Minister will address that in his closing remarks and keep an eagle eye on the search and rescue contract and its performance. It matters a great deal to people who live in the maritime and rural areas of Great Britain.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, particularly given that this is my first time at the Dispatch Box in Westminster Hall. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate on the future of coastguard helicopter rescue services. I thank all the Members who have contributed so far. It is clear that His Majesty’s Coastguard has strong and passionate advocates in Parliament, who care deeply about the services provided to their constituents.
I am part of the shadow Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office team, so normally a search and rescue helicopter would normally have to have travelled quite a way and caused a diplomatic incident before I would respond, but I am particularly pleased to be responding on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, as I represent a coastal community in Fylde in Lancashire. I also served as Lancashire police and crime commissioner, and have therefore seen first hand the multi-agency work that goes into preventing the loss of life on our coastlines.
His Majesty’s Coastguard is an integral part of coastal communities, with over 300 coastguard rescue teams around the UK. The coastguard search and rescue helicopter services play a vital role in protecting the public, and I pay tribute to the bravery and commitment of all those involved in delivering these lifesaving services, as has been mentioned by Members. Many people are alive today because a coastguard helicopter came to their rescue.
In July 2022, the previous Conservative Government announced that the contract for the UK’s second-generation search and rescue aviation programme would be awarded to Bristow Helicopters to provide both rotary and fixed-wing services for the next 10 years—representing a significant allocation of budgets and resources. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, that contract will see UK search and rescue benefit from the latest innovations and advances in technology, to save more lives. As part of the contract, Bristow Helicopters launched two new seasonal bases in Fort William and Carlisle to serve these areas, which are two of the busiest locations for summer demand on services. Under the agreement, Bristow Helicopters will operate 18 helicopters, including the introduction of Leonardo AW139 helicopters and a drone system that has the capability to transmit real-time data. I am sure the Minister has heard from Members in this debate some concerns for the operationalisation of that contract.
The previous Conservative Government also recognised the importance of all coastguard centres being equipped to receive, respond, and co-ordinate all distress, urgency and alert situations. For that reason, the then Government allocated £175 million to deliver a communications network connecting 163 remote radio sites across 11,000 miles. The project, part of the radio network infrastructure replacement programme, ensures that the coastguard can maintain effective emergency response operations for thousands of distress calls.
I am pleased that the network is now operational and am confident that the improved resilience provided by the new network will aid the coastguard’s helicopter service and its lifesaving search and rescue operations for years to come. As part of the contract agreed by the previous Government, Telent, His Majesty’s Coastguard’s technology partner, will continue to manage and maintain the system.
An effective radio network is integral in supporting the mission of preventing the loss of life on the coast and sea. Ministers must remain vigilant to ensure that the network and the services that support it remain operational at full capacity. The Minister will know that at the end of 2023 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency launched an analysis of recent data to determine whether the demand for the search and rescue helicopter services had changed since the launch of the UK’s second-generation search and rescue aviation programme—a point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. However, the report was due out by the end of 2024 and has not yet been published.
I seek assurance from the Minister that the new Government will continue the investment into His Majesty’s Coastguard and treat it with the same priority. As a demonstration of that, will they ensure that the report is published as soon as possible, so that the Government can continue the work of ensuring that the right resources are in the right place at the right time to keep the public safe?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, as we have become great friends over our time in Parliament. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), to the House and the Front Bench—even if it is only in a temporary capacity. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate to the House again—I think I was on the Opposition Benches on the last occasion.
As the right hon. Member eloquently said, His Majesty’s Coastguard and our dedicated search and rescue services have continued to provide a superb response to save lives at sea and around our coast. It is great to hear that reflected by all Members in the Chamber today. Recently, we have seen all our emergency services working together to respond to the recent storms that have affected millions of people. Whether rescuing people from flooding or helping them find shelter from the snow and ice, our search and rescue teams have continued to respond both day and night in often the most atrocious weather. I formally thank all the members of our search and rescue teams for their continuing commitment and dedication to helping any person in need of rescue or assistance.
I am delighted to announce that, following the review commissioned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency into the proposed changes to the readiness states of the search and rescue helicopters based in Sumburgh and Stornoway, agreement for their readiness states to be maintained at 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes by night has been reached. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will be delighted.
Mr Carmichael
I can only thank the Minister; that is exceptionally welcome news, and is exactly what we would have expected of him. I expected no less.
Mike Kane
The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will write to the relevant right hon. and hon. Members this month to advise them of the maintenance of the readiness states of those bases. I appreciate that it has taken some time for the final approvals to be granted; that is due to the complexities of the service provision.
In a previous debate, in November 2023, the intent and scope of the review was advised to the House. That included new data modelling to look at changes in operational requirements since the original contract was let. It also acknowledged that service demand may have been impacted by the recent pandemic, and reflected the demand on the coastguard services associated with the increased accessibility of the coastline and remote areas, which include the beautiful Shetland Islands and Outer Hebrides. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is not in his place, but he raised the case of his constituent, Nigel Gordon. As the Minister, I extend my sympathies to Nigel’s family.
Notification of the intent to maintain the current readiness states was sent to the aircraft operators, Bristow Helicopters Ltd, in December 2024 and will be enacted under the conditions agreed in the second-generation search and rescue aviation contract. The MCA and Bristow Helicopters continue to work closely together to implement the new service, which will make the most of technological advances, ensure that we retain a world-class search and rescue service, and align the readiness states of all UK search and rescue helicopter bases. The revised readiness states will be implemented as part of the transition timeline, which is expected to take place in October 2026 in Sumburgh and in January 2027 in Stornoway.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will appreciate the ongoing work of the MCA and my Department to implement these changes, which include significant additional investment achieved by my Department to support our vital maritime and coastal services during these challenging financial times. The changes demonstrate the continuing commitment of His Majesty’s Coastguard and my Department to continue to provide this vital lifesaving service, which builds on more than 40 years of experience in providing a search and rescue helicopter service in the Scottish islands.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has reminded the House of the work of this vital service to support our seafarers and the wider UK economy. We have seen some notable rescues over the years, which included the tragic loss of one of the aircrew during the successful rescue of the crew of the Green Lily in 1997. The ultimate sacrifice of Billy Deacon, the winchman of the Sumburgh-based coastguard search and rescue helicopter, will always be remembered across the service. The Billy Deacon search and rescue memorial trophy was established to commemorate his sacrifice. The award, which was presented this year on the 27th anniversary of his loss, recognises the unique bravery of our winch paramedics and winch operators.
I am immensely proud of the work of all our search and rescue teams and, as has been mentioned, both our full-time officers and volunteers continue to support the service. I ask the House to pay tribute to all the crews of search and rescue teams and their vital work, and to remember those who have been lost while trying to save others.
The second-generation search and rescue aviation contract is a £1.6 billion investment by my Department to ensure the continued provision of a world-leading fleet of advanced search and rescue aircraft. No bases have been closed, and all current helicopter bases will continue to provide a 24-hour search and rescue service. Additionally, two seasonal bases will be constructed—one in Scotland and one in northern England, which will operate for 12 hours a day from April to September.
The additional seasonal bases enhance the UK-wide service, providing additional cover in the busier summer months. Their introduction will not impact the tasking of current bases: the search and rescue aircraft will continue to be tasked with aeronautical rescue by the joint rescue co-ordination centre, as they are today, to meet the requirements to prioritise saving life. We have invested in enhanced, innovative technologies to improve our search and rescue response to help to reduce the time taken to search for missing persons. The technologies will be rolled out during the transition of the current bases to meet new service provisions under the contract.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of helicopter support for the movement of patients. Search and rescue helicopters may be asked to support our ambulance services to assist in moving critically ill patients to higher levels of care. These requests will be considered where capacity exists and no other means of transport are available and only if the request meets the legal requirement to be appropriate, compliant and achievable within the air operations certification. In accepting these requests, there must be no impact on the provision of primary search and rescue operations. However, the support is not guaranteed and should not be relied on by the health service; the movement of patients remains the responsibility of ambulance services.
Dave Doogan
The Minister rightly acknowledges the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the use of search and rescue helicopters for ambulance services, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in extremis; it is not their job but they can do it. That happens in Scotland despite NHS Scotland funding two air ambulances and two fixed-wing aircraft, which is not the case in England. Is the Minister aware of any Government plans to introduce NHS-owned and operated airborne ambulance services to protect coastguard services in England?
Mike Kane
Speaking of what Scotland provides for its NHS, I recently visited the CAELUS project in Aberdeen. Drone technology has been enhanced to carry blood supplies very quickly in order to help patients right across that great nation. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with a more detailed answer to his question in a moment.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned that he was managed on a recent visit to a helicopter base. In my time of knowing him, I have always personally found him unmanageable, as I am sure the crew did on his visit. I am glad to say that the dispute with Bristow was successfully settled in the summer. I have kept in close contact with the British Airline Pilots’ Association on the matter, both in opposition and in government. It is not for a Minister to intervene in disputes of that nature, but I am glad that the parties reached a settlement.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned logistics. Logistics is a growing worry within my brief, particularly across aviation and somewhat in maritime. Since the pandemic, we just do not have enough parts being produced. Airlines in Scotland are having to buy planes only to mothball them to get parts for their existing stock. I keep a watching brief on logistics and I talk to the MCA director about it. My advice is that the AW189 is a proven, tested and capable aircraft for search and rescue across the world, and there are more of them in service than the old S-92s, so there are fewer supply chain issues with the newer helicopters.
I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for his contribution. There are some statistics that I would have liked to read out, but I do not have the time in my speech. That was powerful personal testimony about his wife. I know it was some time ago, but I wish her all the best. He asked about NHS helicopter landing pads. We had something called the Derriford incident recently. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch sent some advice, and we are currently reviewing all those pads across the nation to ensure that they are safe for the future of all services.
I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. I am led to understand that there are no current plans for officials to work with the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS.
Finally, I will turn to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that he called me a close friend. I now know that he relaxes—I never knew that was the case. He watches westerns on a Sunday; I now know when to disturb him with a phone call. I see him as some latter-day John Wayne, climbing into his saddle and going out into the tundra of cacti deserts. The way he approaches his politics in this House always shows “True Grit”. [Hon. Members: “Ohh!”] Come on, it was a belter! I pay tribute to his service in Northern Ireland, and thank him for his personal testimony about the young men that were lost at sea. My heartfelt condolences go to their families. He will know, as I do, that burying our dead is a corporal act of mercy. Finding the dead and bringing their bodies back to their families is, in my opinion, an essential element of search and rescue. The hon. Member is right to raise that and it shows his character that he, as the constituency MP, personally went to visit those families.
In closing, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate. I again pay tribute to all our search and rescue services, across the UK, for their selfless dedication to saving lives 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Mr Carmichael
I thank everybody who has contributed, by speech or intervention, to the debate and I particularly thank the Minister—that is exceptionally good news, which will be very welcome. This was one of those cases that I, personally, never doubted that we would win eventually, but we could never give up, or rest easy, until hearing that it had been accepted.
To the Minister’s point about the search element of search and rescue, finding the bodies of those who have been lost at sea is enormously important for their families. I recall that, before I was elected to this place, I was instructed, in Lerwick sheriff court in Shetland, in a fatal accident inquiry in which the body had not been found. In such circumstances, it is almost impossible for the families to get proper closure. That is why there is a genuine community understanding of the importance of search and rescue. If that extra 45 minutes’ response time makes a difference, I do not care what the cost is; I think it is worth every penny.
In closing, let me say to the Minister, since I know that we are coming into the CSR round, that the other service matter for which I have been on my feet many times over the years is the continuation of the contract for the emergency towing vessel. It seems that every time there is a comprehensive spending review we have to see off an attempt from Treasury to take that contract away. The Minister might tell Treasury that if it tries again, it will find the same resistance in the future as it has found in the past, and if he wants to have a look at it when he is next in Orkney then I would be more than happy to facilitate that. Even if that meant taking a little time out of his holidays, I am sure I can find a way of making it worth it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of coastguard search and rescue helicopter services.
Parking: Town Centres
(1 day, 2 hours 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
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will call Sonia Kumar, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of parking in town centres.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I rise to voice concerns about increased parking fees. Local authorities across the country are trying to claw their way out of financial difficulties by increasing parking fees and in my constituency, Dudley council has implemented such changes, which have been subject to much debate.
Our high streets and leisure centres are the heart of our communities. They provide social and economic value for residents in Dudley and across the UK, but in recent years we have seen too many once-thriving high streets fail. Successive Governments have attempted to reverse the trend by introducing grant funding for high street improvements, business improvement districts, empty shop strategies and business rate relief—the list goes on—but many of those measures were required only because of mistakes in development policy over the past 14 years. Council budgets have been eroded, forcing councils to make impossible decisions, and the previous Government’s levelling-up funding seems contradictory in hindsight. Ultimately, it is local people who are suffering.
Luckily, many councils have learned from those mistakes and proactively avoided developments that undermine the viability of high streets, but the rise of internet shopping has continued to drive shoppers from our historic towns, and long-standing traders in Dudley have suffered.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this incredibly important issue for my constituency and those of all Members here. Footfall is the lifeblood of the local high street, and there is a need to balance car parking and accessibility. My council has implemented discounts for five-hour parking and is considering discounts for two to three-hour parking to allow people to spend more money in a reasonable timeframe. Does she agree that if what Ards and North Down borough council has done is implemented across the United Kingdom, it would increase footfall and help town centres and high streets?
Sonia Kumar
I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I will call him my hon. Friend. Extending parking discounts beyond an hour would mean that people who want to get a coffee are not charged £1.80 for one hour’s parking, which is what has been implemented in my constituency. They would spend more time in the town centre, and that would increase footfall.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on parking in town centres. The recent decision by the Conservative and Lib Dem-controlled Slough borough council to foist controlled parking zones on the whole town, rather than just in the town centre, has left many of my residents feeling completely sidelined and angry, because the views they submitted to consultations have been ignored. Does she agree that although we need parking measures, it is important to respect the views of residents about these excessive cash cow schemes?
Sonia Kumar
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend, whose opinions I really respect. Parking charges have become a cash cow. It is absolutely absurd that councils across the country, including Dudley council, have implemented them.
We need to think about how to drive footfall, not reduce it, in our town centres. I feel like we are robbing Peter so Paul can cut a ribbon. Clearly, there is a fair balance to be struck between generating revenue through parking charges and ensuring the vibrancy and accessibility of town centres, but too many authorities are not getting that balance right.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Northumberland Heath ward in my constituency, Councillors Baljit Gill and Wendy Perfect have been working tirelessly to support local traders who would like to introduce free parking for a very short period for the small range of independent shops in Northumberland Heath. Does she agree that councils should investigate measures to reduce parking fines and also consider free short-term parking arrangements to support, as she put it, the viability of such small independent traders?
Sonia Kumar
Yes, I do, and a long-standing trader in my constituency, Christine Bosworth, also agrees. She has been operating for the last 13 years in a craft shop and she shared with me some really poignant points that I would like to share. Christine said that there has been a really big drop in footfall in the constituency and in the town centre, and that it is an “eye-opener” that there now is a lack of accessibility to the town centre. The nearest car park is unusable and too expensive, while cheaper options are too far away for elderly and disabled people to use. Traders tied into long leases face mounting pressures to ensure that people can access the town centre.
Changes have been made without proper consultation and risk further eroding the vibrancy of our historic town centre. Bruno Coppola, manager of the Churchill shopping centre in Dudley, has shared concerns with me about the impact that the charges have on local businesses. Many traders have faced challenges for many years, including with covid-19.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
In the borough of Redbridge, where I was the leader of the council for the last 10 years, we brought in one-hour free parking, which increased footfall and the churn of cars, and brought local people back to local shops. Of course, it also created more business rates, because our local shopping centres are absolutely thriving. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is more than one way to make money, and that sometimes we have to be a little bit more imaginative and give local people what they want? Give them free parking and they will spend their money locally.
Sonia Kumar
An hour’s free parking is one of the proposals that I have put forward to the leader of my local council. If somebody wants to grab a coffee in the town centre, they do not want to pay a parking charge, then get their coffee and leave. That is only driving business out.
As I was saying, Bruno and a number of traders around the town centre told me that it is not just Dudley town centre that is being affected; the same thing is happening in many other town centres across the country. The additional problem with my town centre is disruption from the ongoing construction work around the main transport area, which is affecting the bus service and the tram line, so more people are being forced to use their cars.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Of course, parking is a problem that does not exist in isolation; as she just mentioned, it is linked to public transport. In many areas, including in my local area of Gravesham, there is a large rural network, but of course such networks are not served by buses, which is why people are forced into their cars. Does she agree that we need to work with our local authorities to improve rural infrastructure, thereby alleviating issues, including parking, in our town centres?
Sonia Kumar
I agree with my hon. Friend, because town centre accessibility is really quite difficult. We do not have a tram system or any local trains; we only have a bus service, which can be ad hoc at times. Consequently, I welcome the new consultation period that Richard Parker, our Labour mayor, has suggested.
This is not the time to increase parking charges, because, as has been said before, parking remains a critical lifeline for many high streets, especially for those customers on low incomes in Dudley and elsewhere. Rising parking charges are pushing customers away from Dudley town centre and into out-of-town retail parks such as Merry Hill, which have free parking, and encouraging them to shop online.
It is crucial that we consider the long-term impact of these charges for traders and local small and medium-sized enterprises; they are the backbone of the economy. On a recent walk around Dudley town centre, I counted up to 35 empty shops. A staggering amount of those shops struggled due to austerity measures, the pandemic and the cost of living crisis.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Just outside my constituency of Southend East and Rochford, we have an issue in one of the main market towns, which, let us say, does not have the friendliest parking. People visit the local library for its services but also to apply for blue badges. Parking enforcement is quite opportune and the fees people are paying are astronomical, and the local community is being caught out by that. People have mentioned how important parking is for the community and how we can get our town centres back. I have been talking to the British Parking Association. When we have contractors managing our local assets, they must be seen to be doing more to support the local community. People need to visit their local high streets and regenerate their local community. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those contractors do more to help our communities reimagine themselves?
Sonia Kumar
I agree with my hon. Friend. The contractors need to look at what they are doing in the town centres and where that money is going—back into the economy, local businesses and to residents.
The future of the high street relies on the ability to adapt and offer a range of experiences that draw people in—not just through retail but through leisure and community activities such as health, alongside the accessibility of services. I asked my council to reconsider its approach to parking charges. It is important that we strike the right balance that allows for continued access and vibrancy of our towns, which underpin our businesses.
In Dudley, the proposed increase in parking charges hurts not just traders but local residents who rely on car access due to the lack of alternative public transport options. For instance, students from low-income backgrounds who rely on their cars to get to the a learning or development centre will be forced to reconsider studies if the cost of parking becomes too burdensome. Those are students who want to upskill and contribute to the local economy, yet they face the prospect of being priced out of an education by those parking charges. In addition, the students and local residents who visit the leisure centre for their health and wellbeing will also feel the pinch. Many use the facilities regularly; I spoke to an 80-year-old member of the leisure centre who said it was a vital lifeline for socialising and community connection. The proposed charges would essentially double the cost of membership for every daily user, impacting the very fabric of our community.
If the parking charges are to continue, they should be reinvested into the community and businesses alike, providing a sustainable model for traders where businesses and residents reap the benefits. Each town will need its own unique solution depending on its size and needs. The implementation of those solutions must be relative to the scale of the problem of each town, and the voice of the community should be at the heart of all decisions. A thorough consultation should be conducted prior to the implementation of any charges made to a town centre. Let us treat car parking not as a peripheral issue, but as an integral component of a broader strategy for future town planning and revitalising our town centres.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for tabling such an important debate on a topic that affects us all in so many different ways in daily life. I declare an interest as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee and I want to touch on a slightly different aspect of this issue of accessibility and public spaces.
As a long-time advocate for working families, this debate is personal for me. Across Britain—from Dudley and Sheffield to my own hometown of Bolton—we face a troubling problem. We are building more flats and homes, and encouraging people to move, without building the parking that is so needed alongside that. We are building family homes in town centres such as mine in Bolton, but we are failing to provide family friendly infrastructure that parents desperately need.
Parking in town centres is a prime example. Shopping centres, workplaces, and even hospitals all fall short of providing sufficient parent and child parking spaces with wider bays and convenient short walks to entrances. The problem is threefold. Parent and child spaces are too few, enforcement is lax and unclear regulations harm those who need them most. At my local supermarket, the scene is all too familiar: the few parent and child spaces are taken by large vans or two-door convertibles, vehicles with no sign of families in tow. The result is parents like me facing an almost impossible task—trying to load a toddler into a car seat in a standard space without bumping the car next door. The solution is not complex. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned, we need to design town centres with “public” in mind. Starting with public parking, let us expand family friendly spaces and curb rule breaking by enforcing the strict regulations used to safeguard blue badge holders. Once public places set the standard, private car parks will follow.
Even worse, town centre parking completely overlooks pregnant women. Imagine being eight or nine months pregnant—swollen feet, aching back, every step a marathon—yet being expected to walk in and queue at customer support to request case-by-case permission for parent and child parking at supermarkets. The irony is glaring. Spaces intended to make life easier are instead placing an even greater strain on pregnant women.
So why is progress on family-friendly parking moving so slowly? Why are pregnant women still being overlooked? When former Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg was working at Google and became pregnant, the company’s car park lacked any spaces for pregnant women. Drawing on her lived experience, she raised the issue with Google’s male co-founders, and the policy was changed soon after. The problem: Google’s male leadership had never even considered the needs of pregnant women in the first place. That happens all too often. Similarly, in Westminster, it is often left to women Members of Parliament to draw attention to the problems that cause daily frustrations to women. I am confident that the Minister agrees that we must move to prioritise town centre parking for families and pregnant women, and accessibility for all.
Beyond that, I sincerely hope that the Minister agrees that we must also move towards a Parliament that proactively addresses these problems, rather than relying on us women to highlight them. Parking should be accessible to all—it provides a lifeline to our town centres, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley again for bringing this issue to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing this important debate and for the powerful case that she made.
It is one of the great joys of being the Minister responsible for high streets and town centres that I get to attend these debates where people talk about their communities. It is always interesting to hear the commonalities, differences, and challenges they are facing, though I might say with a degree of mischief that it is not often that such debates inspire such coverage of all the nations and regions of the UK as we have today. That is a sign that my hon. Friend is in exactly the right space.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister recognises that as our shopping habits have changed so has the need for parking in town centres. In my biggest town of Kirkcaldy, we are blessed to be right on the coast: we could have beautiful sea views, housing, workspaces, and facilities to attract tourists, but instead we have dilapidated, unused car parks which are a true blight on our town centre and on our seafront. Redevelopment funding is badly needed so that our town can fulfil its potential and meet the needs of its residents today.
Alex Norris
That is a really important challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley finished by saying that the issue is not peripheral, and that we need to address broader matters in terms of parking, town centre vibrancy and having a more planned approach to what the future could look like. Doubtless, there would need to be support from the Government of the day, and that message was heard very clearly.
My hon. Friend made an important point, similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) just made, about the reasons for the decline in our high streets and town centres—those obvious changing patterns of behaviour. Colleagues could easily order a book, probably several, in the time I am speaking—I am sure they would not—and that is different and is not going to go away.
Times have been hard for people. Austerity has been a really difficult period for our communities and people are still struggling with the money in their pockets. All that contributes to challenges, so it behoves us to try to drive footfall and to use any levers we have to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, parking is an important one. In her contribution, the voices of her constituents, be they businesses, long-term residents, students or leisure centre users, came into this Chamber. I hope they see that their views are being echoed, expressed and taken seriously in this place.
I want to cover some of the points that my hon. Friend made, and I do not want to miss out the final contribution, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). Like others, I have seen the coverage of Dudley council’s decision to scrap two hours of free parking, and I recognise the pain, the impact on motorists and the disappointment for residents and visitors that that has caused. I have seen the rally and I was sad to hear from my hon. Friend that there is a sense that the consultation was not done properly because that is an important part of conducting a process properly, even if the results are disappointing.
Parking, together with effective public transport and decent active travel, is essential to the resilience of our towns and cities. However, as has been said, the provision of accessible and affordable parking is particularly important outside the major metropolitan cities and in rural communities. Where public transport is limited, people need their cars—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) said.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
In one of my major towns, Harpenden, I have had a lot of businesses, such as Threads and Oui, which have said that parking charges are changing and they are worried. The Minister mentioned services such as parking and transport. Is it not sad that after 14 years of Conservative Government, and cuts and cuts to local councils, local authorities have been forced to make some of these difficult decisions? It is now time for us to empower local authorities to support businesses and high streets and to invest in our communities to ensure that they thrive.
Alex Norris
I absolutely agree. It is at the heart of this Government’s approach to give communities tools to change places, and I will go through some of those at the end. There is a financial aspect to that, but there also a power aspect about shaping the things that shape the community. The debate gets to the heart of that, because parking is one of the major levers that a community has. The important point is that it is the community’s lever. Yes, it is held by the local authority, but it is the community’s lever.
Fundamentally, responsibility for parking provision in town centres rests with the relevant local authority under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The accompanying statutory guidance clearly sets out that parking policies have to be proportionate and have to support town centre prosperity, and that it is for local authorities to decide how parking should support that—whether it should be free, whether it should be tariffed and for how long. Local authorities are best placed to do that, through their local transport plans and their local insight. They have to find a balance between residents, local businesses, those who live and work in an amenity and of course access for emergency services. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local authorities can set their own parking tariffs. I think almost everybody will at some point set tariffs, certainly in a busy area, but they must be proportionate and should not be set at unreasonable levels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley emphasised that the point of local parking policies is not to be revenue raisers or indeed cash cows. How a surplus is spent is prescribed under section 55 of the 1984 Act, which requires any surplus raised from parking schemes to go back into local authority-funded transport or environmental schemes—back into communities, as my hon. Friend said. Colleagues need to keep a discerning eye on that to ensure that that is really taking place, and that, crucially, communities have a voice. I and other colleagues in the Chamber have been council members. I remember wrestling with the problem of how to create that convection in Nottingham. We do not want people to come to a town centre and park there all day for work and then go home again and not contribute to the local economy. We want a turnover, but we want incentivisation as well.
Colleagues have talked about the effectiveness of providing a free hour in pulling people through. There are very good examples of where that has worked. The challenge for me and for local authority colleagues who are listening to this debate is that, yes, this is a local authority function, but local authorities are their community. All our local authorities should ensure that their policies reflect the wishes and interests of the local community and that they are getting the public into the conversation—I was challenged to do this when I was a member of my local authority and I challenge mine to do so now.
Local authorities must also get business into that conversation. I was surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that local businesses clearly do not feel that that has happened.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for visiting Rugby and having a walk around. One bit of the town that we did not reach was Elliott’s Field, which is an out-of-town shopping centre. Does he agree that those out-of-town shopping centres compete with town centres, not least because they can attract anchor clients, but also because they can offer free parking?
Rugby borough council—I must declare an interest as I am still a councillor—is thinking very carefully about innovative measures that it can take, whether that is free parking, which was offered in some car parks in December, or making rapid decisions on opening one particular council-owned car park when the theatre was showing a production. Is there anything else that central Government can do to help councils achieve this difficult balance?
Alex Norris
That is a really important intervention. I wonder whether, looking back on some of those decisions on out-of-town retail, communities would make the same decisions now as they did at the time. It is clear from my hon. Friend’s intervention that parking is a driving factor in success. To some degree the public are telling us what they want to see and we really ought to listen to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley talked about broader support, particularly around vacancy. I encourage colleagues to support their local authorities in promoting the new high street rental auctions to bring those vacant units back into use.
I also point to our work on safety in town centres. If we are driving footfall, people will only come, or come a second time, if they feel that they are safe. Footfall alone promotes community safety because energy and people being present deter crime and antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, our commitment to 13,000 more police and police community support officers will have town centres at its heart, so there is that visible presence and our town centres are places where people feel safe to park their cars and shop.
I want to address the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East about parent and child parking bays. There is no current legislative requirement in this space. I am conscious that my hon. Friend has a ten-minute rule Bill designed to change this. In the interests, as she says, of challenging colleagues—particularly male colleagues—to come up with solutions, there is a possible workaround solution using the current legislative framework. Authorities can make parking provisions for specific road users, whether residents or blue badge users—we have many examples in our own communities. Under current rules, it would be feasible for a local authority to make specific on-street bays permit holder only, and to include a permanent identifier on that sign—again, we see those in our resident schemes and in our communities—but then issue those permits only to pregnant women or parents with children. Authorities would have to justify reserving those spaces—I think my hon. Friend probably did that for them—and find a decent way to publicise where those bays are located. I expect it would probably be about those being in the right place. That is something that colleagues can raise with local authorities. It is a bit of a workaround, but in the spirit of meeting her challenge to be being solutions focused, it would be one option. I thank her for her contribution.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley again for securing this important debate. She set out clearly some of the challenges that face our town centres. At the heart of it comes footfall, and at the heart of footfall is that lever of available and affordable parking facilities. Local authorities have leadership, responsibility and stewardship of local transport plans, but fundamentally that is for the community, and should be something that reflects the needs of local residents and local businesses. Clearly, that is not happening here, and that is why my hon. Friend had to take the significant step of bringing this from the high street in Dudley all the way to Parliament. She was right to do so. It is hugely important that the communities in Dudley, Kirkcaldy, Ilford, Bolton, Southend, and all the other places we have heard from today, are heard. The subject is clearly important throughout the country and I am grateful to colleagues for raising it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adoptive Parents: Financial Support
(1 day, 2 hours 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
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I beg to move,
That the House has considered the matter of financial support for adoptive parents.
It is a pleasure to lead this debate and to have you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. Adoption is one of the most selfless acts that a person or family can undertake. It provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent loving home, often completing a family, as I have seen myself in my role as a proud auntie. Despite the immeasurable value that adoption offers to those children, their families and society, financial barriers prevent many prospective adopters from stepping forward. Today, I wish to highlight the case of Kirsty, a constituent of mine from Marple. Her case exposes a significant gap in the financial support system that discourages self-employed individuals from adopting.
Kirsty is a self-employed mother who dreamed of expanding her family. After a year of trying to conceive a second child, she and her husband decided to explore adoption. Their first son, Charlie, a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love for trains, often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver. For Kirsty and her family, opening their hearts and home to a child via adoption was the best option.
Just as Kirsty began to embrace that vision for her family’s future, a close friend, also self-employed and in the process of adopting, informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support as others through statutory adoption pay. Ever since, her plans have been thrown into doubt. Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters like Kirsty fall into a financial support void.
Although statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to those allowances, such support is not guaranteed and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. A freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing that financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters surveyed in 2022 by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence reported that their social worker never advised them about the possibility of receiving the discretionary payments.
Many of those in Kirsty’s situation cannot take the financial risk of adopting a child without assured support, and she is not alone. The gap creates a stark disparity between those who are employed and the self-employed—a barrier for many who might otherwise give a child a stable and loving home. The consequences of that lack of support are far-reaching. Having often faced abuse or neglect, adopted children need time and care to settle into their new families; as a result, adoptive parents are often advised to take up to a year off work to ensure proper bonding and support. Where does this leave those who are self-employed? Without financial support, they face impossible choices: continuing to work and sacrificing the vital time they need to build a relationship with their child; sacrificing their careers and their financial stability; or abandoning their adoption plans altogether. For many, the only realistic option is the latter.
Governments of different shades have often recognised the importance of building a relationship with an adopted child, but for too long they have insisted that self-employed adopters should have to rely on unreliable discretionary payments. In November, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to extend statutory adoption pay to the self-employed, or to introduce an equivalent benefit. Although the Minister’s response expressed support for adoptive parents, it pointed yet again to a flawed system of discretionary payments.
In December, I called on the Government to allocate time to debate how we can support people like Kirsty, and to do that in Government time—sadly, so far, to no avail. Just before Christmas, I tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill—new clause 46—which would allow the self-employed to claim statutory adoption pay. In a letter to me last week a Minister—not the Minister present—committed again to reviewing the parental leave system, agreeing that improvements need to be made. As the review begins, I urge Departments across Government to prioritise financial support for self-employed adopters.
The financial case for supporting adoptive parents is compelling. Research by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK shows that in 2021 adoption saved the UK economy £4.2 billion through improvements in children’s health, and in their education and employment prospects, compared with the outcomes for children who remained in care or other placements. Local councils saved £3.6 billion, while the NHS and wider economy benefited by £34 million and £541 million respectively.
The CVAA has also found that at least £1.3 million-worth of value is created when a child is adopted, underscoring the societal and economic benefits of increasing adoption numbers. Yet the number of adoptions has halved since a peak in 2015, even as the number of looked-after children has risen by 25%. Removing financial barriers and guaranteeing financial support, and empowering those who are self-employed to step forward for adoption, could reverse this troubling trend.
The case for further financial support for adoptive parents to address the distinct challenges they face is equally compelling. Rates of depression and anxiety are as high as 32% among those who adopt. Unlike biological parents, adoptive parents often have to contend with navigating their child’s complex trauma or attachment issues, and with a long and arduous adoption process. These challenges can be compounded by the grief and loss that many adoptive parents can feel if they have experienced infertility or failed attempts to conceive.
Adoption can also place strain on relationships. While divorce rates among adoptive parents are not disproportionate, the difficulties of parenting children with complex needs, alongside the emotional toll of the adoption process, can push couples to their limits. Financial instability worsens those challenges, threatening the family cohesion of those who are brave and selfless enough to adopt.
Finally, the adoption process in the UK is long and complex, sometimes taking years from the initial application to the final court approval. Prospective parents are subject to background checks, references, intense assessment, and adoption panel scrutiny before they can even find a match. Although this journey is, of course, necessary to ensure the best outcomes for children, it places immense stress on prospective adopters. I urge the Minister and the various Departments involved to explore ways to provide financial support that acknowledges and mitigates the unique pressures on adoptive parents, self-employed or otherwise. I hope that will play a significant part in the upcoming review of parental leave.
Adoptive parents deserve robust financial support. Addressing this issue is not only a matter of fairness but a means of unlocking the full potential of adoption. Ministers across Government, and the various Departments involved, have the opportunity to lead the way by extending statutory adoption pay to self-employed adopters, or by implementing an equivalent benefit. We should not allow financial barriers to stand in the way of creating loving families and providing children with the stability they so desperately need and undoubtedly deserve. The Government could and should act decisively to ensure that adoption remains a viable and supported choice for all prospective parents.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for bringing a very important topic to the House’s attention. It is important that we engage with adoptive parents, and prospective adoptive parents, to hear their experiences of adopting a child, because only through listening can we know the real-life challenges they face. The hon. Member gave a prime example in her opening comments regarding the financial pressures that deter couples and individuals from coming forward to adopt children.
As a Minister in Northern Ireland, I put through the Adoption and Children Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Until that point, Northern Ireland had been bound by wholly inadequate and outdated legislation that had not been updated for three decades—it actually predated devolution. The 2022 Act updated the broad adoption frameworks and also had some tangible benefits, such as the introduction of a legal duty so that adopters in Northern Ireland can now access more support through our social services.
The issue raised in this debate is one step—and only one step—that the UK Government could take to bring forward immediate action to improve support for some of our adoptive parents: broadening statutory adoption leave and pay to self-employed parents in the same way that the maternity allowance is available for self-employed parents. This is important because the latest statistics show that, as at 31 March 2024, we had 3,999 children and young people in care in Northern Ireland. That is the highest number recorded since the introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Of those children in care, 28% had been looked after for less than a year but 29% had been looked after for more than five years.
I believe in anything we can do to increase the number of people who want to adopt children, take them out of our care systems and give them the loving, caring home that is often experienced by those who come out of care into adoption. Last year, only 97 children were adopted from care in Northern Ireland, and 48% of them were adopted by couples in their 40s. Taking this step could encourage a wider spectrum of people to come forward. I am not saying this in a derogatory way, but those couples in their 40s may be more financially secure at that point in their life, and see that as the point at which they can adopt. Government support would allow younger couples, including those who are self-employed, and even those who work from home, to come forward and take up the gift that is the ability to adopt a child out of care. That is why I encourage the Government to do all they can to support the issue that has been brought to the House in this debate.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this really important debate.
I highlight to the Minister the adoption support fund; I would be grateful if he could talk about any long-term plans the Government may have to bake that into Government proposals, because currently it is a hand-to-mouth existence. A week after I got elected, a resident raised with me their concerns. I wrote to the Minister on this issue some months ago, but I wonder whether the Government’s thoughts on the matter have changed.
I speak as somebody who was myself adopted into a very loving family in the 1970s, with Eric and Penny. Eric was self-employed. He was not a toolmaker; he was a lorry driver—a haulage contractor if we were trying to be social climbers. The reality is that it was a really loving family. Of course, as a self-employed haulage contractor, Eric would have benefited from the proposals we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove.
The world of adoption and fostering has changed massively. The babe in arms is often not what one gets through adoption or fostering, but children who have had complex, challenging lives and will try to test parents. I have a good friend in Torquay whose child tests him regularly. The child believes that daddy is a monster because his previous daddy was, sadly, a monster to him. It is really challenging for that adoptive family to face that.
I also welcome the comments about Home for Good, which is a service that I brought in to Torbay when I was leader of the local authority. It looks at driving adoption through those with faith and using churches to support those with faith. There is a significant need out there.
Even for purely cynical reasons, I encourage the Minister to reflect on how important it is to support self-employed people so that we enhance the pool, as one only needs to look at the cost of social care to councils up and down the country when a foster placement or adoption—as quite often fostering does turn into adoption—cannot be found. The private sector is sadly making significant profits from that.
Although I am pleased that the Government are making progress in those areas, the best way to make progress is to look at places such as Leeds, which I visited once upon a time, and now also Torbay, becoming UNICEF child friendly communities. That will drive a positive culture of engagement and support for our young people throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
This is a very important topic, as hon. Members have acknowledged. I was particularly struck by the specific impact of the financial regime that adopting parents face, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) described in the case of her constituent Kirsty. I was also struck by her general points, which were echoed by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), about the challenges faced by adoptive parents, including the challenges that their children continue to endure having joined their family, as well as those of the adoptive family and their birth children.
As hon. Members spoke, I was reflecting on how much more we now know about the early development of children. I compare the experience of 50 years ago, when my parents adopted my sister, with the experience that my sister has had adopting her two young sons, and the difference is pretty stark. My sister simply arrived and that was that; the expectation was that all was now well and no further support was required. Indeed, I am glad to say that things did turn out very well for my sister. The support that has been offered to her as an adoptive parent, however, is far greater and more sympathetic, and shows much greater understanding of the challenges around child development than that of a generation or two ago.
I will briefly pay tribute to the former Government who, over the last 10 or 15 years, introduced some quite significant improvements to the system that adoptive parents face. David Cameron and Michael Gove both made it a priority to ensure that the regime around adoption was improved. I have just read a leader in The Spectator praising the last Government’s performance on adoption—I cannot think that that was anything to do with the editor of that magazine—but Michael Gove does deserve credit for the work that was done, such as the introduction of adoption leave; the pupil premium and the additional pupil premium that are available for adopted children; and the priority in school admissions.
I pay tribute to my former colleague, David Johnston, the Children’s Minister in the last Parliament, who introduced the adoption support fund that the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned. It is fair to ask why additional support is needed for adoptive families and adopted children. One could argue—and I think we should—that all families need support and help bringing up children.
As we have heard from hon. Members, however, a young child almost always reaches the destination of adoption after a long journey of disruption. It is wonderful that a settled life is now available to that child, but the challenge is not over when they arrive in their new family. We all know from experiences in our constituencies how much adoptive families have to work to ensure that their children are properly supported.
It is worth noting something that I am afraid still somewhat applies, despite the reforms I mentioned: while there is an expectation that fostering families will need ongoing support after the placement of the child, in the case of adoption, the expectation remains—as with a new child born into a family—that the child is almost exclusively the responsibility of the adoptive parents and support from the outside is not necessary. However, it is necessary.
I am grateful to be able to add my voice to what we have heard about the enormous benefits that adoptive parents bring to our society as a whole by, frankly, rescuing many children who faced years of potential neglect or abuse if they remained where they were, or simply faced inadequate care and upbringing if they remained in the care system. I think of former colleagues of mine who, 25 years ago, adopted quadruplet boys aged two who had been removed from a disgraceful, appallingly abusive family. Although it was very challenging for the family and the four boys over their childhood, they have all grown up well and are doing well. Their parents are rightly proud of them. I think of the likely trajectory that those children would have been on if that family had not stepped forward to look after them—four boys who experienced extreme abuse in their early years—and the cost that would have been imposed on our society, both financial and social.
A topic that is very much on our minds at the moment is the tragedy of grooming gangs. While it is complex and every case is different, what many of the cases had in common was the fact that the girls who were victims of those crimes had been in care. The clear obligation on us as a society—as the last Government and this one have both asserted—is to have more children leaving the care system and gaining the stability and support of a loving family. That means more fostering—we all need to do more to promote fostering opportunities and help people to become foster parents—and more adopting, as we have been discussing, as well as other ways we can support children to grow up in stable families. I support initiatives such as fostering for adoption, as well as Home for Good, which is a tremendous project.
I acknowledge the work of kinship carers, who are an important part of the economy of care. Thanks largely to David Johnston in the last Parliament, they can get significantly more support, but we need to go further to ensure that they too can access support around statutory pay and parental leave.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, there is clearly an anomaly for adoptive parents, and particularly for self-employed parents, who cannot get statutory adoption pay. Unlike self-employed birth parents, they do not get the equivalent of maternity pay. As she said, there are opportunities for local authorities to provide discretionary support, but most people are unaware of that, and it is, indeed, discretionary. I am not sure that it should not be discretionary—there is an important debate to be had about the degree to which we ringfence finance and impose obligations on local authorities—but there clearly needs to be far greater awareness among the public of the support available, and greater encouragement for local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities to adoptive parents.
We need a better funding arrangement for local government so that it can take on board and fulfil its social responsibilities. Most of all, we must recognise that families are the essential welfare system in our society. The more we can do to ensure that they can fulfil that responsibility and do that important work for children who desperately need the love of a supportive family, the better. I acknowledge that the Government want to do that, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will do in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this important debate. I thank all who have taken part in the discussion for their thoughtful and incisive comments.
As the hon. Lady said, I recently received a written question from her about this issue, and I commend her for her continued support and campaigning in this crucial area. Becoming an adoptive parent is, of course, rewarding, but it is without doubt challenging too. It is admirable when anybody steps up to that role, let alone those who do so while in work. The Government do not underestimate the life-changing difference that adoptive parents up and down the country make every single day.
Breaking down barriers to opportunity is one of this Government’s key missions for the country. That is why we are committed to doing everything we can to ensure employed parents can balance their work and home lives. Our plan to make work pay will ensure there is more flexibility and support for working families, and our reforms to get Britain working include transforming employment support so that people with specific barriers to work, such as parents, receive personalised help to overcome the particular hurdles they face. That not only supports our No. 1 mission—to drive growth in every corner of the country—but creates a cycle of opportunity. People cannot fulfil their potential if they are struggling to afford life’s essentials, but good work brings security and dignity. That is why good work will always be the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty and supporting families.
Children cannot fulfil their potential if they grow up in poverty in any familial setting, and we cannot fulfil our potential as a country if the next generation is held back. That is why we have already started the urgent work needed to get the child poverty taskforce up and running. It is working to publish a comprehensive and ambitious child poverty strategy that will consider all children across the United Kingdom, whether in care, adopted or living with birth parents.
It is worth reiterating that maternity payments such as statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance are intended to protect the health and wellbeing of women and their babies, rather than to assist with the costs associated with a new child. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is specifically raising the issue of adoptive parents. When a family welcomes a new child into their world, it is only right that they have the time to bond—a point that the hon. Lady made eloquently in introducing the debate, and that all hon. Members reiterated.
It was genuinely important to hear about Kirsty’s experience of thinking about adopting a second child—an “assistant train driver”. She is one of the many people who are having to make very difficult choices. I have constituents in a similar position, and it is incredibly important that we hear such testimony when considering these issues.
The hon. Lady also highlighted that there is no guarantee on the means-tested local authority payments, as was reiterated by the shadow Minister, and that many councils do not have policies for that, before going on to set out that adoption saves the economy £4.2 billion a year. She, like myself, is a former senior local authority leader in Manchester. Having been deputy leader of Stockport council, she knows not only of the benefits of adoption for education and health, but of the many pressures within the local authority care system and the fact that secure, permanent placements are the best thing for the child. That support is priceless, and I think we are all agreed on that today.
The hon. Lady went on to say that new adoptive parents need to take time off to enable a child to settle in their new home. I absolutely agree. There are many complex needs that adoptive parents may face in settling their new child in, and balancing that with their employment needs, whether they are self-employed or in mainstream employment, poses many issues. I agree that improvements need to be made to the parental system. If she will bear with me, I will make a specific promise to her on how we can best move this forward.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) also highlighted his local government experience. It is important to draw that out because we have all been corporate parents. We understand the importance of the role played both by the care system and by foster carers, kinship carers, and especially adoptive parents making a decision to permanently offer a home, love and support to a young person. He set out some of the specific challenges faced in Northern Ireland, for which I am grateful. He is right to highlight the spiralling statistics for children in care. As I just mentioned, it is critical to anybody with local government experience that sustainability and feasibility of adoption for all is imperative. I am very much aware of the points coming out in this debate, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, asked a specific question on the adoption support fund. He is, as ever, entirely right to raise this very reasonable question because current funding is, I think, only set until April 2025. If I may, I will write to the Department for Education directly and share the response I receive. I do not want to speak on behalf of another Department today, in case the information I provide turns out to be inaccurate, but I will follow up with the hon. Gentleman directly on that.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly set out the challenge of addressing the stereotypical perception of adoption as receiving a babe in arms. More often than not, people could be opening up their home and family to older children, those with very complex needs, or those who have experienced significant trauma. That requires time off too. Time off is required not just for a newborn child who needs a parent with them for obvious reasons throughout the day, but potentially for an older child’s significant, complex needs. The hon. Gentleman’s point reflects the real-world circumstances that many adoptive parents face.
The shadow Minister set out many of the advances that have been made over the past 14 years in this space, and I fully acknowledge those; but that prompts the question how, despite those advances, we have ended up in this position. I accept that we moved forward by introducing, as he said, automatic pupil premium allocation, the adoption support fund, adoption leave and so on. The challenge we face is how we can collectively encourage people to come forward as adopters, kinship carers and foster carers. As a Government, we have a responsibility to make that process as easy as possible. When we look at the outcomes of children who grow up in what one might consider traditional care settings—that is, a children’s home—versus the outcomes of children who grow up in a more traditional family unit, whether adoptive or foster care, or with birth parents, the statistics are stark. If we look at the number of care leavers in the prison system, for instance, or the level of qualifications, some of the figures are incredibly concerning. The shadow Minister’s point was very well made.
Turning back to my substantive comments, we want to ensure that parental leave is supporting all working families as well as possible, so the Government have committed to a review of the parental leave system and work is already under way on planning for that review.
Enabling parents to take time off work not only allows for bonding time but ensures that they are able to give a child the care that they need. In the case of adoption, that ability to connect and care, as we have just discussed, is essential in terms of securing the permanence of any adoption placement. For all those reasons, employed adoptive parents have broadly the same rights and protections as birth parents, in that statutory adoption leave is a day one right, but of course there is the anomaly that we are speaking about today.
I therefore want to give the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a clear assurance that I will write in to that parental leave review and make sure that what we have discussed today is fed into that process, because whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of this, I think that we can all accept that there is a gap, and that we all want as many people as possible to be able to come forward as carers. The anomaly is potentially a barrier to that for some people, not least because we have that means-tested, not especially well advertised, not-brilliant-levels-of-uptake current system, which I think we would all want looked at.
In the meantime, where adopters do not qualify for that statutory payment they have the local authority option, but I would like to highlight some of the wider support, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, did in his contribution. There is not only advice, information and counselling, but means-tested support. Potentially, on top of that, there is support for new parents—any new parents—in terms of potential eligibility for universal credit, child benefit, and the Sure Start maternity grant, all of which can help all families with the cost of raising children, especially those in need of extra support.
I think I will leave it there, Ms Furness, with just a final thank you to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for calling this debate. We recognise the contributions of self-employed people, who are a key part of our economy, and we appreciate the valuable difference that adopters make. Therefore, it is only right that we have taken the time today —I am pleased to have had the chance—to consider how we support the remarkable people who take on both roles at the same time.
I reiterate that I will write to the Department for Business and Trade about the issues that have been raised in this debate, and about how the debate can feed into the review that I mentioned earlier, because it is crucial that we accept that there is an anomaly in the system. I will, obviously, send the hon. the hon. Member for Hazel Grove a copy of my correspondence.
Lisa Smart
I am really grateful to all Members who have taken part in this debate. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) spoke about his experience as a Minister in Northern Ireland, and it is really good to have his support. He is absolutely right to point out the numbers of children that we are talking about in the different parts of the UK, and how we can enable more brilliant future parents to adopt, and drive up those adoption rates.
I want to thank Penny and Eric, the mum and dad of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who adopted him in the 1970s. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to talk about the adoption support fund, which I know is hugely valuable to many families—to ask about its future security, to ask for future clarity on what is coming down the track, and to talk about the different challenges faced by adopters and point out that adoption is not about a stereotypical “babe in arms” found under a bush somewhere.
A number of Members—including both the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay—spoke about the role that local councils, and the funding of local councils, play in some of the decision making that can happen in this area. The Minister rightly mentioned my previous life as a member of a local authority. One of the jobs that a councillor takes most seriously is that corporate parenting role—that key role of keeping the most vulnerable children safe. On local authority finances, lots of people in this place talk about the importance of clarity and proper funding—indeed, the Opposition spokesperson talked about funding local authorities and doing that properly—and I think that, when we are talking about some of the most important jobs of councils, we are indeed talking about children in care, who are the most vulnerable in our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the cost to councils, and the cost of children’s waiting a very long time for their adoption to come through. The longer they wait, the more it costs both them as individuals and councils in terms of ongoing care. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), talked about how our understanding of early childhood development has developed. He also talked about somebody who used to work in this place who knows quite a lot about adoption issues, and he was right to do so because we can work cross-party to fix such anomalies. I am grateful for his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a family of four boys, and that is exactly the sort of story we need to have in our minds. It was about the impact of a good, loving, warm and secure home for the boys, and how their lives might well have been different had they not had that. I am grateful to him for that, as well as for talking about kinship carers, which are being looked at in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. My party looks forward to scrutinising and improving some of the Bill in that regard. I welcome the Minister’s comments, that he accepts that we are today talking about an anomaly, and especially his comments on the action he has undertaken to take. It is good that the Government are committed to reviewing parental leave, and I hope that is the mechanism through which we can correct the anomaly.
We absolutely need to encourage more people into fostering, adoption and kinship care, and we need to remove any barriers that may stop people from being able to take up those opportunities. I am really grateful to everyone who has taken part today. It is really good to have Government support for looking at this subject, and I really look forward to where this goes, because we need to enable as many brilliant future parents as we possibly can to take up this opportunity and complete their family.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of financial support for adoptive parents.
House of Lords
Prisons: Health Services
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the provision of health services in prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, a full health needs assessment for every prisoner is undertaken at least every three years by NHS England, which then updates service specifications and commissions appropriate services to ensure that the health needs of offenders are being met. All 19 health service specifications for prisons and other detention environments are currently being updated to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and are expected to be published by March 2026.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. I have heard first hand, through the work of the charities the Prison Reform Trust and Revolving Doors, about the challenging and degrading experience that some prisoners have had trying to access healthcare. Does the Minister agree that there is a huge opportunity to make progress here with the development of better facilities in new prisons? Does she also agree that it be would a positive thing to include prison healthcare services in ICBs’ commissioning to ensure that people in secure settings have access to the advances and developments that are available in the community?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with my noble friend that there are huge opportunities to improve healthcare for prisoners. On new prison design, I reassure her that all prison design will be fit for purpose because medical architects will be commissioned. That new design includes, for example, medical cells so that as many healthcare needs as possible can be met in prison. On my noble friend’s point about ICBs, it is a retained service, so it is not currently delegated to ICBs. It is the responsibility of health and justice commissioners to collaborate closely with ICBs to ensure continuity of care. The electronic referral service means that patients in prison can have access to the developments to which others in the community have access.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, a quarter of a century ago, I worked with the then Minister for Prisons following the difficulty we had releasing a shackled remand prisoner. The recommendation was that every prison should have a link with a hospice service in their area to ensure appropriate care, particularly for prisoners who cannot be transferred out of prison and who may wish to die in their cell, with their cellmate providing some of the support for them as they are dying. Can the Minister tell us how many prisons actually have such links?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising such an important point and for having worked on this in the past. I will need to write her with the exact figures, but we do know that more needs to be done to address health issues. However, we are keen to ensure, and are working towards making sure, that healthcare for prisoners, whether at the end of their lives or earlier, is appropriate and meets their needs, whichever is the right way to do it. Great strides have been made in that regard.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the most common diseases in prisons are diabetes, high blood pressure, HIV and mental illnesses. What are the Government doing to ensure that psychosis resulting from the use of illicit drugs is being controlled effectively, so that there are not more cases of psychosis and mental illness in our prisons?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Substance misuse in prison, to which the noble Baroness refers, is of course a major issue, and prison security has a crucial role to play in reducing it. I should also say that the use of illegal drugs can impact on routine healthcare for all prisoners, as resources have to be directed to the more immediate cases. Noble Lords may remember that we recently had delegated legislation to ensure that nasal Naloxone could be administered, including by prison staff, to prevent opioid-induced emergencies. All these things will help, and substance misuse support is available in all prisons in line with the national service specifications, but we are working across government to see what more we can do. It is a big issue.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, many of the issues preventing prisoners getting equivalence of care with non-prisoners clearly relate to access to hospitals and health specialists. As we know, delays can exacerbate conditions. Will the Government ensure that the Nuffield Trust recommendations on improving transparency, prisoner escort numbers, reviewing the supply of prison escorts and increasing access to out-patient services via telemedical services are implemented as fully as possible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The use of technology is hugely important in all areas, particularly in respect of prison services, as the noble Baroness says. There is a policy specifying that escorts must consist of at least two prison officers, with at least one being of the same gender as the prisoner unless there are exceptional circumstances. I take this opportunity to say that every effort is made to ensure that female staff support women, particularly where appointments are specifically related to services such as gynaecology. It is very important that we are aware of the possibility of retraumatising women prisoners, and we have been particularly mindful of that in relation to escorts.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for sending me a briefing in advance of this Question. She rightly and importantly highlights that cancer outcomes for prisoners are poorer than for the rest of the population, while the cost of services is greater. However, given that we will be debating the Mental Health Bill later today, I want to ask a related question. Over 30% of prisoners have a learning disability, so what steps are the Government, the NHS and the Prison Service taking to protect and care for prisoners with learning disabilities? They may be there partly as a result of their learning disability, and while in prison are often at their most vulnerable. What care is there for prisoners with learning difficulties in order to protect the public and reduce the risk of reoffending when they are released?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Lord rightly says, the Mental Health Bill is in Committee this afternoon and I know we will refer to that. Certainly, the reforms in the Bill will speed up access to specialist in-patient care and treatment, in particular by introducing a statutory 28-day time limit for the transfer of patients from prison and other places of detention to hospital. On particular needs, which may be learning disability and autism, as I know noble Lords are aware, the Mental Health Bill is very focused on ensuring that people are being cared for in the right places in the right way, and that in places of detention people are being not just held but supported and their healthcare needs met.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, women in prison have very specific health needs. Will the new women’s justice board look at ensuring that health and social care services across the women’s estate are consistently gender-specific and sensitive to women’s protected characteristics?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can give that assurance to the right reverend Prelate, and I certainly agree about the particular needs of women in prisons. It is perhaps helpful to tell your Lordships’ House that new women’s health and well-being hubs will begin in all 12 female prisons from 1 April.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is very well known that IPP sentences have broken the mental health of hundreds of prisoners. Does the Minister agree that it is the responsibility of the state to help fix the damage caused by these torture sentences, and that greater resources are needed for medical treatment for and support of IPP prisoners?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know that the Ministry of Justice is also looking at this, and my noble friend is certainly right to make that point.
Sub-Saharan Africa: Diplomatic Relationships
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their main strategic objectives for developing closer diplomatic relationships with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in terms of aid, trade, investment or cultural exchange.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, in line with our manifesto commitment, the Foreign Secretary launched a five-month consultation to inform the UK’s new approach to the African continent during his visit to Nigeria and South Africa in November. Our goal is fundamentally a transformed partnership that engages with African countries as equals. This will promote our economic growth ambitions, including trade and investment, address our migration priorities and draw on our shared cultural and people-to-people links.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
While I welcome that Answer, the UK has disengaged drastically from Africa in the last few years—aid has been slashed, trade and investment have been halved, the investment summit was cancelled, and the World Service and the British Council are struggling to maintain their services. Russia and China have come exponentially into this vacuum, so what are the Government going to do specifically and practically across all sectors to engage with sub-Saharan Africa? Will they follow the example of Japan, China, India and the EU and set up a UK- Africa partnership?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I could not have put that better myself. It was a very helpful summary of where we are. On aid, we are committed to the 0.5%. We have an ambition to get back to where we ought to have been at 0.7%, but noble Lords will understand the inheritance we received—I do not need to mention the £22 billion black hole as my noble friend is here beside me.
The noble Lord is completely right to highlight the World Service and the British Council. He will notice the financial support we were able to provide the World Service in the recent Budget, and we are working closely with the British Council to make sure it is put on a stable footing because it is essential as one of the finest soft power assets this country possesses. He referred to Russia and China, and clearly it is for African nations to decide their own international partnerships, but many have expressed the view that they wish to work more closely with the United Kingdom and we are very open to that as part of our new approach.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is it not a slight pity that so far in this exchange there has been no mention of the Commonwealth network? There are 22 Commonwealth countries south of the Sahara. They are the main bulwark against Chinese and Russian incursion. Is it not time for us to have a rather more central role for the Commonwealth in our thinking about Africa and to commit more seriously to Commonwealth countries, several of which now wish to join in addition to the existing 22? It is a growing organisation and we should support it vigorously.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That was very well put. I could have mentioned the Commonwealth; it is a vital multinational grouping, as the noble Lord says. I work closely with many Caribbean nations where the Commonwealth is well represented, and that needs to form part of our thinking in the future. I thank him for raising it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we need ambassadorial representation in as many African countries as possible—more than we have now? We should not be seduced by the idea of multiple accreditation, which frankly is not worth a lot, as I discovered during the Somalia and Rwanda crises in the 1990s, when we had nobody on the spot.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would be very wise to take what the noble Lord says seriously, and I do note it. At the moment we are engaged in a five-month consultation with African nations and others to inform what will be a new approach to Africa. The points that the noble Lord just made will be considered as part of that approach; I thank him.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that in our engagement with sub-Saharan Africa we must try to understand the Africa gap and why the region is turning out so badly compared with east Asia, for example—a matter illustrated very well in the most recent edition of the Economist? We should try to encourage having more Africa specialists in our Diplomatic Service. We should also try to encourage the lowering of national barriers and co-operation with Africa and, as always, do our very best to encourage civil society in the region.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I read the piece in the Economist and it was very useful. The approach that we are consulting on at the moment will touch on many of the issues raised by my noble friend. We want to see an approach that is more about partnership than paternalism, working alongside African nations. My noble friend Lord Collins is in Botswana today, and I know that is precisely the approach that he wishes to take.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the growing influence of the BRICS grouping, in particular its economic influence? There are also the issues of security and cyber, which will impact sub-Saharan Africa as well as other parts of the world. BRICS is a growing grouping, and we saw its direct contest with the Commonwealth during the recent CHOGM held in the Pacific.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do not think of it as a contest. That was just a diary coincidence, if I can put it that way. It is not for us to tell African nations or anybody else which groupings they should align with, but we find that there is a desire—a genuine desire, I think—to work more closely with the United Kingdom. Sometimes we have perhaps not put the energy that we might into that; sometimes we have perhaps made it too difficult compared with attracting investment from other nations. We want to consider and do all these things as well as we can, as we get to the end of our consultation on the new approach.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Further to the Minister’s reply to my noble friend on partnership assistance levels, is it not correct that, as a result of this Government’s Budget, ODA is now at the lowest level for 17 years? Also, one of the unforgivable actions of the previous Administration was to score more ODA spending in the United Kingdom than in sub-Saharan Africa, or indeed anywhere abroad. This is a policy choice, not a fiscal choice, and the Government have so far chosen to adopt the previous Conservative Government’s approach. Will the Minister agree with me that the way to restore trust with those countries with the greatest need and poverty is to ensure that ODA is not only official development assistance but overseas development assistance and is not scored for spending here in the UK?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want to spend ODA here in the UK. That money is being spent on housing people who have come here in hotels, and it is costing a fortune to do so. That money ought to be spent on education and humanitarian assistance in countries where it is needed the most. That is how this should be, and that is the situation that the FCDO and the Home Office are working hard to get to. We have committed so far to the 0.5%. What 0.5% equals depends entirely on the size of the economy and, as the economy grows, that 0.5% will be worth an awful lot more. As I said earlier, we want to get to back to 0.7% spend, which we never should have left.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has said concerning His Majesty’s Government’s aims and ambitions in sub-Saharan Africa, how are they ensuring that their foreign aid there delivers measurable outcomes and aligns with the Government’s priorities, such as supporting good governance, supporting economic development and tackling corruption?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary’s priorities for this are around growth, security, government and climate. These are things that we are working hard on through our engagement not just with sub-Saharan Africa but in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere. The noble Earl is absolutely right that every penny we spend on official development assistance must be the very best value for money that we can secure—yes, because of fairness to the UK taxpayer, but also because a bad programme funded by ODA means that a good programme somewhere else does not get to take place. The Foreign Secretary is very keen that we make sure that happens. He is reviewing our spend and the effectiveness of programmes, and he is right to do that.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the African Wildlife Foundation. I ask the Minister to look carefully at how we spend our aid money. So much of it goes through international or regional bodies and, often, when the money gets to practical solutions on the ground, the UK is not visible as a donor. That weakens our soft power, so can the Minister look at the different ways in which we spend aid money to make sure that our soft power really is visible on the ground?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think it was Tony Blair who said that our international development spend is the strongest soft power asset that we have. He had a point. We work multilaterally because that is often the most effective way to get the best value for money. I take what the noble Lord says about that sometimes meaning that we do not get all the credit, but sometimes it is important to prioritise getting the aid to where it is needed most, which needs to be our first concern. I will consider what he says, but this is all about making sure that we get the biggest impact for every penny we spend.
Listed Historic Buildings
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following Historic England’s publication of the latest Heritage at Risk Register, what plans they have to ensure adequate support for listed historic buildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government are committed to protecting the historic environment for the benefit of present and future generations. DCMS and its arm’s-length bodies deliver funding to the heritage sector, including £8 million last year to rescue buildings on the Heritage at Risk Register. In 2024, 124 historic places from the register were saved, bringing treasured heritage assets back to life. Some 150 buildings were added, which highlights the need for continued support for our most vulnerable heritage.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme comes to an end in April. It represents a group of buildings that host hundreds of thousands of weddings, baptisms and funerals, right at the heart of their communities—and 80% of those buildings host some 31,000 social action projects, such as warm spaces and food banks. Will the Minister ask her ministerial colleagues whether they would be prepared to answer the correspondence from the Church of England on the future of this scheme? Would she personally be willing to meet my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol and her team to discuss this as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would be very happy to meet the right reverend Prelate’s colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. The Government are very clear that the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme has been incredibly valuable in assisting more than 13,000 listed places of worship to recover VAT or repairs through the grants, totalling over £317 million since it was established more than 20 years ago.
On the outcome of any discussions about the future of the project, departmental budgets have been set following the Budget announcement in the autumn, and the outcome of the departmental business planning process, including any implications for this scheme, will be announced soon. However, I shall follow up the letter referred to in the right reverend Prelate’s question.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, much of our built heritage up and down the country is literally crumbling, and the backlog of repairs is getting longer and longer. That is in no small part due to the different rates of VAT. When we were part of the EU, we were always told that we could not vary the rate of VAT on restoration, as opposed to new build—but we are not in the EU anymore, and we can set VAT at whatever level we like. Will the Government look, as a matter of urgency, at having parity between restoration and new build, or at least look again at trying to reduce the costs of restoration for our built heritage, which is among our greatest national assets?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Decisions on tax policy are for the Chancellor, which are made in the context of the overall public finances. The noble Lord will note that my noble friend Lord Livermore is here, so I am fairly confident that he heard the point that the noble Lord made very clearly.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
The right reverend Prelate raised the social good done by listed places of worship, of which half churches are listed—including, of course, the majority of all food banks that take place at those premises. Is the Treasury looking at understanding through the Red Book the value to the NHS of the work being done by those churches? Without that work, a lot of the issues will fall on the NHS, which would cost a great deal more than the grants being offered.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I understand that my noble friend Lord Livermore would be happy to look into that point.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I note my interest as steward of listed buildings in Devon, one of which was recently removed from the Heritage at Risk Register, courtesy of works funded by Natural England’s Countryside Stewardship scheme. Given the continued disaster that is the restoration and renewal programme, do the Government know how long it will be before the Palace of Westminster is added to the register?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend the Leader of the House has noted the issues with the heating. I will not comment on the heating, but it is quite warm in the Chamber today—so that at least is positive.
The restoration and renewal programme is a matter for Parliament. I understand that a debate is coming up very soon on this issue, which I encourage noble Lords with a particular interest to take part in. I cannot comment on whether the Palace will be added to the Heritage at Risk Register, but clearly there has been lots of discussion about the issues facing what is an invaluable building for parliamentarians but which is also of historic and cultural value to the country.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree—I am sure she does—that the historic environment is an enormous social and economic asset to this country? Sometimes we overlook it because we are so familiar with it, but it is particularly important in social regeneration, no matter the community, which is why it was part of the previous Government’s levelling- up programme. How will our Government optimise all the benefits that the historic environment can bring, particularly in the context of the growth agenda?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am very happy to agree with my noble friend about the value of heritage. Indeed, in preparing for this Question I read a fascinating list of properties, buildings and even high streets—including one I lived very close to until quite recently—that have benefited from investment and restoration. This benefits local communities and contributes to economic growth and preserving heritage for present and future generations.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I believe that every one of us has the incredible privilege to work in this listed historic building, but there are 4,891 listed buildings on the Heritage at Risk Register. Does the Minister agree that there really should be a successor scheme to the one she just referenced: Historic England’s high streets heritage action zones programme, which ran from 2020 to 2024? It unlocked the potential of 67 historic high streets, created social cohesion and drove economic growth, which is precisely what the Government want. Will she please commit to a successor scheme?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That programme is a fantastic example of the value of heritage as an investment in our communities. As someone who felt very strongly that the South Norwood area, which is where I previously lived, could really benefit from this sort of investment, I absolutely recognise its value. The noble Earl will be aware that the initial £95 million of public investment unlocked more than £140 million of further private and public investment. On future commitments, as previously referenced, we are going through the business planning process, so any future funding for individual programmes is currently being assessed and will be announced soon.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House, if she has the information, how many of the sites on the Heritage at Risk Register are world heritage sites, and how many of those are therefore in danger of losing their world heritage status? What steps will the Government take on that? I draw attention to my interest, being involved in world heritage partnerships across the UK.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a very interesting question. It is not one that I have the answer to, but I will write to the noble Lord to ensure that that information is available and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. I was also the chairman of the All-Party Group on Listed Properties for many years, a body that I wish to get back up and running again, I hope with support in this House. I also live in a listed property. I share the right reverend Prelate’s concerns in relation to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme and the concerns about VAT. For many years up to 2012, a lower rate or a zero rate of VAT applied for properly approved listed property works. That was removed by a Conservative Government, but that does not mean that it was the right thing to do. In the face of the high cost for listed property owners of specialist builders and specialist materials, getting planning consent can add dramatically to the cost. There is also the issue of insurance premium tax. Listed property owners face far in excess of the usual increases in insurance because the market is restricted. It is not fair that the Treasury is enriched through insurance premium tax on top of that. Could that be looked at please?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord’s concerns. From a government perspective, we would be very keen to understand how this would be funded, given the overall economic situation we find ourselves in. If he has any suggestions on that point, I would be very happy to hear them.
Sterling: Rise in Yields on 30-year Gilts
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the rise in the yields on 30-year gilts to 5.37 per cent, the highest level since 1998, and the effect of this on sterling.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. Gilt yields are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors and it is normal for the price and yields of gilts to vary when there are wider movements in global financial markets. The Government are committed to economic stability and sound public finances. Meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and growth is our number one mission.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the annual cost of servicing the national debt is now over £100 billion and is estimated to have grown by £12 billion since the Budget. Gilt yields have leaped up, with the critical 10-year rate now at 4.88%—the highest since 2008. The Government need to grasp the seriousness of the situation and the concern that the OBR report is more than two months away. Their own fiscal rules are in jeopardy. Which of their commitments do they propose to break—not cutting expenditure or not raising taxes? Can the Minister rule out an emergency Budget?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, financial markets are always evolving so it is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. She will also know that the Chancellor has commissioned the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out an updated economic and fiscal forecast for 26 March, which will incorporate the latest data. Only the OBR’s forecast can accurately predict the effect on the public finances of any changes in financial markets or the economy, and I will not pre-empt it. However, there should be absolutely no doubt of our commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the issue is one of confidence in the British economy. Today, Shevaun Haviland, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, called again for quick action to speed up the business rates review, green-light infrastructure projects and build trade, especially with the EU. Do the Government recognise that that kind of leadership and tangible near-term action, rather than long-grass proposals, will give confidence back to the UK economy? Will they take up that challenge for near-term action?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We absolutely will. I completely agree with the noble Baroness. I met Shevaun Haviland last Thursday and we had a very constructive conversation about the measures that the British Chambers of Commerce wants to see to grow the UK economy, which are exactly the same measures that we want to see. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government. We are determined to turn that around, which is why we are going further and faster. We are reforming planning, pensions and skills, all of which will significantly boost growth in the UK economy.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, the House will be aware that this country has an outstanding Chancellor of the Exchequer at the moment. However, will the Minister enlighten me as to what influence she really has on the US treasury bill market, which has shown the same spike as in the UK, or on the market for the euro, which has fallen against the dollar to the same extent as has the pound? Is it not the case that questions from the Opposition Front Bench might have more economic relevance if they reflected some understanding of how global markets actually work?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right and I echo his comments about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are limits to what she can do, but she is absolutely able to focus on the priorities of this Government. As noble Lords will know, this Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the previous Government. She has taken very difficult decisions to deal with it, every single one of which has been opposed by the party opposite. However, they were the right decisions because we had to repair the public finances and ensure fiscal responsibility. She has set extremely tough fiscal rules—tougher than those of previous Governments—again, opposed by the party opposite. Meeting those fiscal rules is non-negotiable because we will not compromise on economic stability.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the current rise in gilt prices, viewed alongside the market reaction to Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, shows that current market confidence in the UK can be fairly described as fragile? Does he also agree that any Government, of whatever political stripe, is likely to sow the wind and reap the whirlwind if they implement policies that ignore business confidence and stability?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that financial markets are always evolving. It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. He mentioned the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which crashed the economy. Current conditions are very different from then, when long-dated bonds were most significantly impacted due to market dysfunction. That market dysfunction was caused by unfunded tax cuts, unrealistic spending plans and undermining the institutions that are crucial to economic stability: the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England. It pushed up mortgage costs by £300 a month, for which working people are still paying the price. Yet there is still no apology from the party opposite, which, instead, tries to defend it.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, when will the Government’s planning reforms positively affect the UK economy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
They already are. We have seen many planning projects already unblocked by this Government as a result of changes to planning. As soon as this House passes the planning Bill, we will see even more growth in the UK economy.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, during the 14 years of the last Government, public debt increased from £1 trillion to £2.8 trillion. Public services were decimated, NHS waiting lists tripled, average real wages fell back to the 2008 level and 16 million people now live below the poverty line. Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Party owes the country an explanation?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree that the Conservative Party owes the country an explanation—it also owes the country an apology. There was no bigger failure of the previous Government than their failure on growth. First, they introduced austerity, which choked off investment. Then, their Brexit deal created new trade barriers equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for our manufacturing sector, permanently reducing GDP by 4%. Finally, their disastrous mini-Budget crashed the economy and set inflation and interest rates soaring. Of course, they left us with the £22 billion black hole in the public finances.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, after this Government inherited the second-lowest debt in the G7, we now see business confidence ever diminishing—and the public, too, are rightly concerned. We are also witnessing gilt levels at a 30-year high. Does the Minister agree that the gilt markets are in turmoil and therefore technically not functioning in an ordinary way? Does he stand by his Chancellor, who said that there will be no further tax rises?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
If I may, I will correct the noble Baroness: UK gilt markets continue to function in an orderly way. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with a generally well-diversified investor base. The Debt Management Office’s gilt sales operations continue to see strong demand, with the latest auction, held earlier today, receiving three times as many bids as the amount on offer. The noble Baroness mentioned what we inherited, so she will be very aware that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We have taken very difficult decisions to deal with that, every single one of which has been opposed by her party.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, what consideration have the Government given to the Bank of England’s current policy of fairly aggressive quantitative tightening? Do they feel that this is helpful in the current market? Should the Chancellor consider issuing a direction to the Bank on this issue?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government support the Bank of England in the actions that it takes.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, there has been worrying talk about cuts to the social security budget. Following my noble friend Lord Sikka, I ask: will the Government consider the fact that previous Governments, over the last decade, cut £50 billion a year from the social security budget, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, and that poverty is much deeper as a result? Please will this be taken into account before any consideration is given to further cuts to social security?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend that poverty is an absolute priority for this Government, as it should be, but so too is getting people back to work, and welfare reform is necessary to do that.
Great British Energy Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Bill be reported from the Committee of the Whole House in respect of proceedings up to and including 13 January; and that the order of commitment of 18 November 2024 be discharged and the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I think it would be helpful to the House if I explain this Motion and, for those noble Lords who were not in your Lordships’ House at 10 pm last night, the circumstances that give rise to it.
The Great British Energy Bill is an eight-clause Bill that provides a statutory basis for Great British Energy as a publicly owned company to become operationally independent and start delivering benefits for the UK. This includes driving clean energy deployment and boosting energy independence so we can enjoy the benefits of clean, secure, homegrown energy. It was in the Government’s manifesto, it was one of the first Bills to be introduced following the general election and it has been through all its Commons stages.
The Bill was initially scheduled for two days of Committee of the whole House. Progress in Committee has been, shall we say, somewhat slow. In total, 153 amendments have been tabled, which is around 19 amendments for every clause of the Bill. Last night, it was the Government’s intent to finish Committee, but at five minutes past 10 the Opposition Chief Whip moved the adjournment of the House, which was successful.
Report has been agreed for 11 February. Noble Lords will have noted that, over the next two weeks, the House will be heavily engaged in this Chamber with the Mental Health Bill and Martyn’s law. So, noting the request from the Official Opposition for more time to scrutinise the Bill, my noble friend the Chief Whip has kindly arranged for it to be considered in Grand Committee on Wednesday 15 January and 22 January if required, and noble Lords will be able to table further amendments today. If the Motion is agreed to, the groupings will be circulated to those who have tabled amendments as soon as possible, with a deadline for changes at 8 pm. I hope this will allow further debate on the Bill, which indeed is what the Official Opposition requested, and I very much hope that the whole House will support the Motion. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, last night this House voted to adjourn the House at a conventional time of 10 pm to stop the Government rushing through the Great British Energy Bill—on which the Government intend to spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money. Today, after two and a half days of scrutiny in this Chamber, the Government are seeking to finish the Bill away from the Floor of your Lordships’ House in Grand Committee. As far as I recall, where the Official Opposition object, this is quite an unprecedented move. Before we adjourned last night, we completed nine groups and started a 10th. In all the years that I was a Minister, I would have been delighted to have completed and made so much progress on a Bill in a day. Ten groups is not a filibuster; it is reasonable progress in anybody’s books.
I note the Government’s new habit of labelling groups “degrouped” despite us providing reasoned titles for them. So, for the benefit of the House, I will very briefly run through the groups that we debated yesterday, and then perhaps the Minister, if he wishes, can tell us which of these did not deserve to be debated: directions to GB Energy on consumer energy bills, new jobs, developing supply chains, the cost of fulfilling strategic priorities, national grid infrastructure, carbon emissions, imported energy, UK manufacturers and financial returns; the impact of GB Energy investments on electricity prices, returns, employment and the environment; consultation and oversight; the inappropriate use of prime agricultural land; a large miscellaneous group—actually intended to be helpful to the Government—which included mandatory reinvestment of profits, exclusion of investments to projects with government subsidies, independent evaluation of investments, limitation of investments to UK-registered companies, limitations on money spent on travel to conferences, and support for companies and universities; nuclear energy; curtailment of renewable energy; energy storage; renewable energy generation; and reporting, accounts and auditing.
Which of those topics did not deserve fair and proper scrutiny? Energy security, energy storage and the environment? Just this weekend, we have read reports of the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiating closer ties with China and of fuel reserves reaching critical lows in the very cold spell. It is very important and topical business. If there is a group of amendments that did not deserve to be debated, I should be very grateful to be enlightened.
Every noble Lord in this House has a right to be heard, and yesterday we heard from Members with widespread experience and expertise. I challenge any noble Lord to read back through Hansard and find me one speech that they consider inappropriate. All of them were informed and insightful, and within the advisory speaking times set out in the Companion.
The job of the Opposition is to scrutinise the work of the Government and hold the Government to account. This is nothing personal; it is simply the proper functioning of our Parliament. When the tables were turned and it was the Labour Party occupying these Benches, we had 13 Bills which took more than 10 days in Committee. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and the Welfare Reform Act 2012 took 17 days, and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 each took 15 days. We debated thousands upon thousands of amendments. I was often the Minister on those Bills. Since 2015, the most amendments tabled to a Bill has been 1,249, but there have been 51 Bills which had more than 200 amendments tabled to them, 23 Bills that had more than 400 and 16 that had more than 500.
We will not be voting against this Motion today. We made our point last night, and I had hoped that the Government might listen. I reiterate that we simply seek to subject legislation to the fullest and most appropriate scrutiny, as is our responsibly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for not opposing the Motion that I intend to press in a moment. Of course I recognise that it is the role of the Opposition to scrutinise legislation. I would say that Grand Committee offers an opportunity for effective scrutiny, and I have no doubt that, in the two days reserved, we will see many more contributions from noble Lords—no doubt repeating the points that they have made time and time again on this Bill.
I just say to the noble Baroness that, in relation to the groups of amendments that we debated last night on directions, it is interesting that when, at the beginning of Committee and at Second Reading, noble Lords opposite seemed to accuse the Government of wishing to use the Clause 6 directions to micromanage the company, we made it abundantly clear that it is a backstop reserve which we hope will never have to be used. Noble Lords opposite then simply used the direction clause to act to come forward with a series of amendments. Many of the issues had already been debated in the first five clauses, and there was a vigorous degrouping to ensure that we had many repetitive contributions. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for 27 years. I recognise a filibuster when I see it. Last night was a filibuster.
Gas Storage Levels
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, last week, Centrica commented on Britain’s storage levels as being “concerningly low”. We know that the UK’s gas supply is pretty tiny in comparison to the rest of Europe, but the Government’s position seems to be that there is no problem and no threat to our gas supply because we can simply import LNG to bridge the gap. The industry is saying that, looking forward to 2030, up to 80% of our gas will come from costly imports. Surely we should be supporting our own oil and gas industry in Britain, rather than shutting it down in favour of imports from abroad.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. First, I must remind the House that, on Friday, National Gas confirmed that:
“The overall picture across Great Britain’s eight main gas storage sites remains healthy”.
The diversity of Great Britain’s sources of gas supply means that we are less reliant on natural gas storage than our European counterparts. This includes, as the noble Lord suggests, supplies from the UK continental shelf; our long-term energy partner, Norway; international markets via liquefied natural gas; and interconnectors to the European continent.
I understand and fully accept what the noble Lord says about the North Sea and the contribution of the oil and gas sector, which we have debated, but it is essential that we move as quickly as possible to clean power. Clearly, by 2030, that will give us a great advantage in energy security. We will look for low-carbon, flexible technologies to ensure that we have the proper balance when we get to clean power. We want to see a successful transition in the North Sea, recognising the contribution that it makes and will continue to make.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree, first, that this is a fabricated scare story? There are no issues with our gas. It is not running out and it can be quickly resupplied via pipelines and LNG. Secondly, does he agree that the best resolution is the rapid end to the Conservative’s legacy of overdependence on very expensive imported foreign energy? To that end, the Conservatives would be well advised to stop filibustering on the Great British Energy Bill, which will greatly improve our energy security, decrease our overdependence on expensive imported foreign gas from tyrants such as Putin, bring down energy bills and costs for bill payers, and help us to meet our energy and climate targets.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that I was not alone in thinking that we enjoyed a filibuster last night. What is tragic is that the Conservative Party is clearly retreating from net zero and clean power and has become obsessed with gas. This is not the way that we need to go. The noble Earl is quite right. Centrica chose to put out what I can only describe as an alarmist statement. NESO and British Gas are quite clear that we did not face a crisis and that we have adequate supplies. I hope that those who were involved in making those claims last week will reflect on the concern that they caused.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement. For the clarity of the house, can he confirm that the statement put out last week by NESO was a completely normal, conventional, operational statement which is made regularly to ensure that we have one of the safest and most reliable systems in the world?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
That is right. NESO manages this with an operating margin, made up of the operating reserve—1,400 megawatts, which it always keeps in reserve. There is a contingency reserve of an additional 800 megawatts on top of that operating reserve. That contingency reserve was tight last week and so an electricity margin notice was issued, as my noble friend suggested. This is a perfectly normal market response to a tightening of the situation, which was resolved immediately.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. The Minister’s Statement and his reply to the noble Lord just now are reassuring, as was all the independent analysis of what happened last week. We were not in a crisis. Nevertheless, it is important that, as we move towards more dependence on renewables, we look at the issues of long-duration energy storage and energy efficiency. We do not have a long time until 2030. Can the Minister tell us when we will be able to put some real targets on the amount of long-duration energy storage, which the Science and Technology Committee of this House says that we need urgently?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was present during the debate on Thursday on the Select Committee’s excellent report on this very subject. I refer my friend the noble Baroness to the action plan that my department issued only a few weeks ago, estimating that between 40 gigawatts and 50 gigawatts of dispatchable and long-duration flexible capacity could be needed by 2030. We are going to take a number of interventions to ensure that this happens. We have already announced a ground-breaking deal with Net Zero Teesside, our first power CCUS project. We are developing a hydrogen-to-power business model to derisk investment in that area. Ofgem will be introducing the cap and floor scheme to support investment in long-term duration electricity storage. We aim to open the scheme to applications in quarter 2 of 2025. We fully take on board the point that the noble Baroness makes and the Select Committee report.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, what was the level of storage at the Rough facility when Labour last left office in 2010 and what happened to that storage facility after the Tories took power?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Rough was closed in 2017. At that time, when the party opposite was in government, I do not think that it raised any concerns at all. Indeed, the then Energy Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, said that the closure of Rough would not cause a problem with security. In 2022, Centrica decided to re-open the site. This was a commercial decision by the company. It now seeks government support. One needs to draw a line between the announcement that it made last week and its request for government support.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, many people in the public will still not understand the logic of why we spend some £14 billion buying gas from Norway from the same North Sea that we ourselves could be taking it from. Does the noble Lord think that Norway cares any less about the environment and net zero than we do?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
For a very long time, we have taken supplies from Norway. It is surely a great advantage of our system that we can look to a diversity of supply. The North Sea supply has been declining over many years now; if it were not in that situation we could, where we needed gas in the future, just look there, but that is not the position. That is why we are trying to manage a transition which recognises that the North Sea still has a contribution to make. The essential point here is that we move as quickly as possible to clean power. That is the best way to get to homegrown energy, which I think the noble Baroness is really pointing to.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I wonder if I can move on to the need for warm homes. Heat pumps are very efficient in heating homes—every kilowatt of electricity generates three to four kilowatts of heat—yet cheaper electricity from renewables ends up being a more expensive option to heat homes than gas because the price of electricity is tied to the high price of gas. Does the Minister agree that this situation is nonsensical and that electricity prices must be decoupled from the price of gas?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
That is a very wide question, and it is of course a matter that we should always keep under review. It is a situation that has existed for some time and which we inherited from the previous Government. On the substantive point, the noble Baroness is right about heat pumps and home insulation. We clearly need to make great progress on that.
Sudan: US Determination of Genocide
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the news that our close allies in the US have assessed the situation in Sudan as genocide is, of course, deeply worrying. It underscores the terrible humanitarian situation going on there, something that we have debated extensively in this Chamber. Does the Minister agree that what is going on in Sudan is genocide? Does she agree with the Americans or with her ministerial colleague in the other place who said that this was a matter
“for the courts to decide”?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/25; col. 36.]
What assessment have the Government made of the potential security and geopolitical implications of this ongoing—I will call it what it is—genocide in Sudan for the UK and its allies?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, what is happening in Sudan is abhorrent, and we should all condemn it in the strongest possible terms. When it comes to genocide, the noble Lord opposite will be aware that we take a different approach to making these determinations from that of our close allies and friends in the United States.
I am surprised at the way in which the noble Lord put his point to me. Much as we agree on the substance of what is happening in Sudan and wish to see it end, I am surprised at what he said because it contradicts what his noble friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, Priti Patel, said in the House of Commons just yesterday. She said that she understood very well that we take a different approach to the determination of genocide from that of our colleagues in the United States, and that is an approach that she supported in government and still supports in opposition.
I hope that, much as we can perhaps differ—and the noble Lord can take this up with his noble friend in the Commons should he wish—the important thing is that we use every tool we can, diplomatically and using our multilateral and bilateral connections and our humanitarian work on the ground, to make sure that we do everything possible to bring an end to this unbearable suffering being endured by the people of Sudan.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have ongoing work with Sudanese civilians in exile. At the weekend, I will be travelling to be with them and to facilitate dialogue. Does the Minister agree that, however it is termed, these are war crimes and atrocities, and there should be no impunity for those who have carried them out? It is now potentially 12 weeks from what would be the second anniversary of this terrible war, but there should not be a second anniversary, and that should focus everybody’s minds on there being an end and resolution to the war.
How are the UK Government supporting practical measures to ensure that there are safe zones, especially for education and health facilities; no-fly zones, especially for drones—including those that have been supplied by Iran and other countries; and no blockages of humanitarian and food aid? Countries in the Gulf and near neighbours should now cease the funding and provision of weapons to belligerents. All this now needs to take place to ensure an end to this war. I hope the Government are being very active, notwithstanding the previous Russian veto, to ensure that there is no second anniversary to this war.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Nothing proves more sharply that the Russians care nothing for the lives of Africans than their terrible decision to vote as they did at the UN. As the noble Lord said, there must be no impunity here. That is why we are supporting fact-finding missions and evidence-gathering activity on the ground in Sudan. Whether or not determinations of genocide are made at a court in the future, it will need that evidence to enable it to make a sound decision. That has been the Government’s focus.
The noble Lord talked about other countries and their activities. All I can say is that any countries with any influence of any kind, or any relationship with any side—this is a multi-sided conflict now—must use that for one purpose only. That is to de-escalate, to bring those parties to the negotiating table and to get that humanitarian support which, as the noble Lord said, is urgently needed by those communities now.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, that being the case, what pressure can the UK and the United States Governments put on the United Arab Emirates, which has been supplying and continue to supply funding and weapons to the RSF?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The best thing I can do is to repeat what I have already said: the most important thing is to get those parties around the negotiating table and get that humanitarian aid where it is needed. Anybody or any state, with any influence over any party, must use that influence for good and to bring this conflict to an end as soon as possible.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, there is no disagreement in the House about the importance of dealing with all atrocity crimes. In the previous Parliament, the noble Baroness’s party kindly supported amendments from the Front Bench to enable the High Court of England and Wales to determine whether a genocide is being committed. She touched on the problem of the International Criminal Court and the use of vetoes by countries such as China and Sudan never to allow these issues to get to the ICC.
Will the noble Baroness go back and look at the way that we determine genocides? Will she accept that, as long as 20 years ago, the ICC announced a genocide in Darfur? Some 2 million people were displaced and 300,000 people died; and 18 months ago, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan, in an inquiry that I chaired, warned that signs of genocide were emerging again. Under the 1948 convention, we have a duty to predict, prevent, protect and punish. The truth is that we are not doing any of them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I remember the events of 20 years ago very well. I remember Colin Powell saying that it was genocide and being astonished by the continuation of atrocities, given that declaration. It is why our focus should not be on whether we use a particular term—that will come and words are important—as that determination must be made by a competent court in possession of the relevant evidence. Quite how that is done and which courts are deemed competent is an interesting question, and one that I am happy to take away. I think that we should re-examine that.
I am very glad that this has come before the House, because one of the things that has concerned me is that the famine taking place in Sudan is causing the death of more people than in Mali, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Gaza put together, and it is receiving far too little attention from the world.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Whatever this is called, it is horrendous. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about what efforts have been made to achieve a political solution? Does she retain any hope in the Jeddah process?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Hope is an interesting concept when it comes to Sudan. All parties seem to have breached the commitments they made as part of the Jeddah process. We remain the penholder at the Security Council. To give up hope is to give up on every effort we need to make to move things forward, so giving up on hope is not an option. It does not help anybody to be optimistic when there is little reason for optimism, but we will continue to pursue our calls for a negotiated outcome, a cessation of all violence and atrocities, and the aid to get to where it is needed.
Sometimes we will work directly and sometimes through multilateral partners. This has to end—so many people, and so many children, are dying. The sexual violence being experienced by women and children in Sudan is completely intolerable. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to highlight what is happening and do something about it.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as with all these things, there is much high politics, but meanwhile over 90% of children are not receiving schooling, as the Minister for Development in the other place pointed out yesterday. Can the Minister tell us some practical ways in which we can help those children to get the education they so desperately need?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a really important point. Last summer my right honourable friend the Minister for Development, Anneliese Dodds, visited South Sudan on one of her first visits after her appointment. She got as close to the border as she could. She met many of the women and children who had been forced to flee and who had experienced the most awful violence. She has managed to secure a doubling of our aid to Sudan—it is now around £113 million—and that is for food, healthcare and, importantly, education, to make sure that those young people are educated as close to their homes as possible, because to miss out on that education just compounds the terrible circumstances in which they have found themselves.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Equity | addressing inequalities in treatment, particularly racial inequalities, outcomes, and related provisions regarding protected characteristics” |
The purpose of this amendment is to include a fifth guiding principle to ensure that there is equity in treatment and outcomes addressing inequalities related to protected characteristics, particularly racial inequalities, in the operation of the Code of Practice and the Mental Health Act 1983 more generally.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 standing in my name, I will also speak to Amendment 3 in my name. There are other important amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in this group.
Before I turn to my two amendments, I would like to make one general point. On these Benches we very much welcome this long-overdue Bill and will work with others to strengthen it further. The 1983 Act, which we are amending, is more than 40 years old and no longer reflects current understanding, attitudes or best practice in relation to severe mental illness or learning disability and autism. We need to ensure that the final law is truly fit to serve people’s needs for years to come, and our proposed amendments reflect a comprehensive effort to strengthen mental health services by promoting equity, tackling racial disparity, supporting the well-being of children and young people and ensuring that adequate resources are in place to deliver the Bill’s provisions.
A brief look back at the history shows that significant changes to mental health legislation happen on average every 15 to 20 years. That is understandable because it takes time for legislative reforms to take shape and be implemented. This Bill is likely to be the legislation that impacts on the health and well-being of people with mental health conditions for the next two decades. During our debate, we will be raising issues. It may not be possible to deal with them all in the legislation but they are important to mental health services overall, so I hope the Government will view them as part of a wider package of reform, be they issues around resources in the community or the interface between this Bill and the Mental Capacity Act. It is all part of our wider scrutiny, and I hope that the Government welcome that.
Amendment 1 would add a fifth principle to the existing four set out, which of course I fully support, and provide additional momentum towards the goal of addressing the racial disparities in the Mental Health Act. I believe that making equity one of the guiding principles, as in my amendment, would give it far greater clarity, weight and focus. If we look back at the underlying rationale for this legislation, addressing inequalities, particularly racial inequalities, is one of the key issues identified in Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Act and is one of the key drivers behind this Bill. However, concerns remain in the sector and beyond that the Bill as drafted does not go far enough to address this deeply entrenched inequity. Adding such a principle would also reflect existing duties under the Equality Act and the requirements of the patient and carer race equality framework, a point made by many noble Lords at Second Reading. This would go some way to recognising one of the key drivers behind reforming the Act: to address racial disparities.
I will give a quick reminder of the key facts. Black people are more than four times as likely to be detained under the Act than white people. Black people are over seven times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order, a CTO. On average, people from racialised communities have a worse experience of care and worse outcomes, and black and black British people are more likely to be detained for longer and to experience repeated admission. They are also more likely to be subject to police powers under the Act and to experience higher levels of restraint than white people. These are gaping disparities in the use of the current Act, and we must ensure that the Bill does something about them.
My Amendment 3 is intended to probe whether the principles in subsection (2B) will be statutorily binding. Given that the code can only reflect law and act as guidance, placing the guiding principles in the code leaves a loophole in which they can be deviated from. That is the purpose of this amendment. The Bill provides an updating of the principles to be contained in the statutory code of practice, and that is welcome, but it does not include the statutory principles appearing in the legislation in the way that principles appear in Section 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I am not clear about the reason for this distinction between the two pieces of legislation, hence this probing amendment. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister of the thinking behind this distinction.
I am aware of strong views held by those working in the sector that it is hard to understand how the principles will be binding unless they are included in the Bill itself. Many feel that this would have much greater force than simply being referenced as “things the Secretary of State must consider” when writing the code. There is also case law. Back in 2005, R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority made it explicitly clear that the Mental Health Act code is guidance rather than instruction.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I first apologise for not having been able to speak at Second Reading; I would have welcomed the Bill. In speaking to Amendments 2, 49, 52, 60, 112, 114, 118, 119 and 126 in my name, I declare my interests as honorary vice president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, as a former member of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust board, as a patron of the British Stammering Association, and as a stammerer myself. I thank the Royal College for its briefing and my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for their support. I also warmly support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I shall add amendments consistent with it in a later group.
My amendments, which are supported by 49 professional, charitable and training organisations, are all based on the premise that speech and communication difficulties are an insufficiently recognised component of a very great number of mental ill-health symptoms and that professional speech and language therapy could—and should—enable more successful treatment. One study found that 80% of people accessing mental health services had a difficulty with language and 60% with communication or discourse. Especially in the case of children and young people, those with a mental health disorder report having five times more speech or language problems than those without. One study found that 81% of children with social, emotional and mental health needs had significant unidentified language deficits.
One of the problems with the lack of specialised staff to help such children is the demoralisation or challenging behaviour that comes from frustration with unmet communication needs, quite apart from the impediments to treatment. I could quote many examples of this, as well as some success stories—for instance, where speech and language therapy effected a sizeable reduction in the use of restraint in a secure children’s home, or enabled psychological treatment to work and give the inestimable benefit of the ability to cope. I must emphasise that most of us take the ability to communicate for granted, perhaps without realising how essential it is to our lives. It is when it is lacking that you notice what it means. I am therefore sure that it must underpin the principles of this excellent Bill.
Amendment 2 does that. Without a rider of that kind to the principles, we will not have effective treatment in very many cases of acute distress and challenging behaviour. Amendment 49 puts the speech and language therapist squarely in the frame of responsible clinician, so that where communication difficulties are the key problem, that can be tackled. Amendment 52 does the same for treatment decisions and Amendment 60 for care and treatment plans.
Amendment 112 provides the same safeguard for detained patients who need to complain and Amendment 114 is to make sure that patients can understand their information on discharge, which is surely essential. Amendments 118, 119 and 126 have a similar function: to make sure that advance choice documents are properly understood and properly made.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 2, to which I have added my name, but first I declare my interests as listed in the register, especially as honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and as an honorary fellow of the same organisation. I am able to speak briefly as a result of the excellent explanation of these amendments by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, which I am pleased to support.
As we have heard, the lead amendment would place a requirement in the statement of principles to specify in the table the communication needs of the individual and recognise the disability, difficulty or difference to ensure they will be identified and supported. This requirement then flows throughout the Bill—as evidenced by the number of amendments to which I have also added my name—ensuring a thread of consistency for this vital area of support. These include, as we have heard, Amendments 49, 60, 112, 118 and 126, but I will not speak specifically to each of those and test the patience of the Committee.
The importance of Amendment 2 is clearly laid out in the excellent briefing, as we have heard, prepared by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and endorsed by at least 46 related organisations representing this crucial area of work and service.
As we know, communication is fundamental and foundational to human life. It is central to how we express ourselves, how we understand others and how we interact. It is also fundamental and foundational to the aims of this Bill. It underpins the principles to inform decisions and is key to the matters to be addressed. Crucially, it ensures the individual is properly involved in the decisions taken as a consequence of this legislation. As we know, many people accessing mental health services have some form of communication disability, difficulty or difference. This can affect whether they are able to make themselves understood, understand what is being said to them, and how they interact with people. Left unidentified and unsupported, it can subject people to a range of negative outcomes, including inaccessible referrals, assessments, treatment and care and, potentially, unnecessary detentions and detentions longer than necessary.
I first recognised this issue when I undertook my independent report for the then Government, published way back in 2009, about people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system. At that time, I identified appropriate adults as a key group to support people with communication issues and recommended that they should receive specific training to ensure the most effective support. They still play an invaluable part in such communication. I also recommended the establishment of liaison and diversion services, and I am pleased that in the subsequent years they have been rolled out across the country and we now have 100% coverage for that service.
These liaison diversion teams, placed in police stations and the courts, identify, assess and support people with complex needs, including mental health problems, to try to divert them away from the criminal justice system and support them along the criminal justice pathway. I recognised during this rollout that certain key additional services should be connected to the teams, including speech and language therapists, to enhance the support required for these people with communication difficulties in a variety of settings and circumstances. As the speech and language therapists who I have met over the years themselves identified, these many situations and settings include significant unmet communication needs among individuals on mental health wards, challenging behaviour relating to communication needs, lack of staff knowledge and skills in relation to communication needs in people with mental health conditions, and many more.
Although it is welcome that the Bill’s Explanatory Notes highlight that a care and treatment plan
“may also contain other information, for example, how the patient’s communication needs will be met”,
clearly this is not sufficient. The Bill must therefore be strengthened to make it explicit both that communication is central to the Bill’s aims and that
“communication disability, difficulty, or difference”
must be identified and supported. This would help to ensure that people receive the best possible treatment and care to support their recovery, including through the necessary reasonable adjustments that should be made. It would also help to reduce the risk to them, including of their being unnecessarily detained, and to assure the wider public. These issues must also be fully covered in the code of practice. I hope therefore that the Government will recognise the importance of such communication being in the Bill and look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of all these amendments, including Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I apologise for having to scratch my name from the speakers’ list at Second Reading, as I had been struck down by the dreaded virus.
In all areas of healthcare, communication between patient and healthcare professionals is extremely important for diagnosis and treatment, and to achieve the necessary outcomes. This is drummed into medical students and other health professionals daily.
I declare an interest: I am an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—an honour awarded to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is not in her place, when she was its president. The citation of unknown accomplishments in mental health on my part was read out by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who is also not in his place.
I remember, however, that although my professor at the time, Sir Ivor Batchelor—a well-known psychiatrist—was a quiet man, during our psychiatry clinical attachments he used to drum into us that not all mental health patients can communicate well. We had to be patient to learn and understand their ways of communicating to help them communicate their problem. I had forgotten that I was taught that; at the time, I think he hoped that he would make us all psychiatrists, but that did not happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has highlighted the extent to which patients with mental health problems have communication disability, difficulty or difference. NHS Digital research has shown that children and young adults with mental health problems are five times more likely to have communication problems, and that in 81% of children with social and emotional needs their needs remain unidentified. Even without communication disability, difficulty or difference, people with chronic acute mental health problems also show communication problems.
As the number of people with complex mental health needs increases, so does the need for more speech and language therapists. Very few multidisciplinary teams include such professionals and, where they do, most of the professionals work in in-patient settings. NHS Digital research suggests that there are about 256 such professionals, mostly working in in-patient secure settings. The provision of such services in community settings is patchy or non-existent, leading to long waits.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 49 on this issue. I do not disagree with anything that has been said about the vital need for communication and to ensure that the patient understands what is happening and has access to specialist help. But I particularly want to comment on the proposal that speech and language therapists should become responsible clinicians.
The role of responsible clinician under the Mental Health Act is really quite onerous. Of the 50,000 or so clinicians who take on the role and are appointed the responsible clinician when somebody is detained, the vast majority are consultant doctors. Fewer than 100—0.002%—have been psychologists or nurses. The appetite for taking on this role is low and, of all the members of the team who could take it on, it would be appropriate only in a very small minority of cases for it to be speech and language therapists. I do not want to rule them out because I know how valuable these people are, but we must see that, in practice, this will probably not fly very far. It is important that we concentrate on how we get proper communications, but this particular amendment would probably not find favour. I do not think that profession is yet trained to the full extent of what would be required for that role. Although I hope that it will be one day, this Bill is maybe too early for it.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I did not suggest—and I did not hear any other noble Lord suggest—for a minute that language and speech therapists would become clinicians in their own respect. I said that they would be part of a team that would help to establish appropriate communication. As doctors, we are not the best people for that—so I do not see how the amendment cannot fly, when there is a need for such people.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. However, the reality is that the responsible clinician, as mentioned in Amendment 49 to Clause 10, has a wide range of roles. It is very onerous and specific, so this is not likely to be a good idea for a speech and language therapist. I agree with the rest of what everybody has said.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but without any qualifications, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. For the reasons that have already been given, I entirely agree with the whole group of amendments, which have been proposed so much better than I could do—so I do not propose to say any more.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
In supporting Amendment 1, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, began Committee with this focus on the impact of the Mental Health Act on racialised communities, because that is where this whole journey began, with the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was Prime Minister, announcing it in that context—and then, of course, it became a wider reform of the whole Act.
I served on your Lordships’ Joint Committee with the other place, scrutinising the Bill. In the course of that, I became aware of the relative strengths of civil society among some of the groups. There were excellent civil society groups speaking on behalf of people with learning disabilities and autism; they were highly professional and articulate. We had one evidence session on the effect of the Mental Health Act on racialised communities, but I saw that the strength of civil society and of media coverage in that area was less—so I am sympathetic to Amendment 1, which would give a profile to one of the main issues under the legislation.
On whether the table should be in the Bill to be in the code or in the Bill sitting as primary legislation, I have sympathy for that proposition. We have learned that the code of practice merely reflects primary legislation. I am aware, of course, that the independent review came up with those four principles, and this fifth one was not part of that. I expect to hear the Minister say that it is already in the Equality Act, so we do not need to put it in the Bill—but I am persuaded of the merits of the amendment. During the whole process of an independent review, a White Paper, a response to a White Paper, a draft Bill, a Joint Committee and now the Bill before your Lordships’ Committee, it has become clear to me that many of the changes that ethnic minority communities need to see are in practice. They are in resources and training—people would not look to the Bill and see their needs as the first or an important priority in it. I would be grateful if the Minister would take seriously this consideration of putting this equity principle in the table and putting it in the Bill, full stop, and not within the code.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I begin by thanking all noble Lords who spoke to this first group of amendments in Committee. Before I comment, I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. I am not an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, noble Lords will be relieved to know, but I should mention my previous work with a couple of think tanks—the Institute of Economic Affairs and Politeia, which have both published on health and social care issues. There is also my work at St Mary’s University, where I am a professor of politics and international relations, and which has recently applied to open a new medical school. I also sit unpaid on the advisory board of a start-up coalition, and I know that there are a number of start-up companies helping people with mental health conditions. I just wanted to cover those interests, in case anyone made any accusations.
This group addresses the principles that will guide the application of the Mental Health Act, as set out in the Wessely review. Sir Simon pointed out, rightly, that there are already guiding principles in the code of practice, but that
“there is limited awareness of these, and it seems very likely that they do not inform practice in the way they should”.
Clearly, as noble Lords said at Second Reading, the important aim of including the four principles is to improve their application and ensure the highest level of care and therapeutic benefit for patients, while ensuring that all patients are treated as individuals.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her Amendment 1. Of course, equity is at the heart of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Berridge just said. The Wessely review was commissioned by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead with the intention of understanding why a disproportionate number of black people were being detained and receiving community treatment orders under the Mental Health Act. I think all noble Lords welcome the idea of including equity in principle, as long as it then feeds through into practice. That is the key here, and my question for the Minister is: would putting the principle in the Bill make a difference to practice? How do we make sure that it makes a difference to practice, rather than simply adding the words or adding the principle? One of the values in the NHS constitution is that “everyone counts”. Does this equality duty go further than that, and would it have a greater practical significance? That is one of the questions we need to dig out and probe the Government on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, makes an interesting observation with her Amendment 3. The principles were included in the Bill, as the Wessely review argued, to improve clinical practice. This is vital, because we know that the Mental Health Act is the legislation that is used to compel detention in hospital for treatment. This may very well raise awareness of the principles, but once again, how do we make sure that this is applied? We have to keep pushing this point, although I will not repeat it again, of making sure that this gets fed in to practice in the clinical setting.
I also note the amendments in this group of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I will not repeat the statistics that she read out about the impact of the lack of or inappropriate support for people with mental health issues or learning difficulties. Of course, it is not difficult to appreciate the complexities. Someone in my close family worked with speech and language therapists in his youth, and I could see the difference it made. It is almost too obvious to say, but how do you get your needs across if you cannot communicate them, or your needs are not understood by the person who is supposed to be offering treatment? As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, this is included in the Explanatory Notes, but how do we make sure that it gets into the Bill and into practice? Obviously, it is a problem that is acknowledged by the Government, or it would not be in the Explanatory Notes, but why have the Government chosen not to go any further on this issue?
I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said about Amendment 49 and her concerns. Will the Minister address that debate? Of course, we all want to make sure that patients feel that they are understood. We know that patients have to be supported as much as possible to make sure they get their point across and that they are understood, in order to give them adequate treatment, but I noted the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, even though the noble Lord, Lord Patel, intervened. Have the Government taken a view on this or does the Minister need to write to us? I look forward to her comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I feel it necessary to start, instead of talking about the Bill, by offering our condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the very recent loss of her dear husband, and to thank her, as I know all noble Lords will do, for her close engagement on these reforms over many years. I say to the noble Baroness, who said she would be watching if she could, that we absolutely understand why she cannot be with us today. We miss her and I know that the thoughts of all noble Lords will be with her at this very sad time.
If I may make a few general points, as we know, this legislation has been in development for many years. I put on record my thanks for the collaborative and constructive nature of that work and the discussions I have held in my post over the past few months with Peers on all sides of the House. I extend my appreciation to the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for her highly significant role in commissioning the independent review which informed this Bill and to Sir Simon Wessely and all those who worked on this landmark review, which provided a blueprint for this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am very pleased to have got to this point.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend’s eloquence, but it is not the case that speech, language and communication difficulties are a protected characteristic. Can she absolutely assure us that they do come under the Equality Act?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for my noble friend’s intervention. I will later make specific points about speech and language therapists.
The revised code of practice will give guidance for decision-makers and those involved in care and treatment on how to support individuals with communication needs to make sure that their voices are heard. Following Royal Assent, we will draft, and consult on, a code of practice, and it will be laid before Parliament. In addition to the code, we will lay secondary legislation to support the reforms set out in the delegated powers memorandum. I am committed to sharing papers setting out further details on this, including what we expect the content of care and treatment plans to cover, some of which is highly relevant to this debate.
Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, would mean that the individuals and organisations referenced in Section 118(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 must have regard to the code of practice when making decisions. It seeks to probe whether the principles set out in the table in Clause 1 of this Bill—under new Section 118(2B) of the 1983 Act —will be statutorily binding. Practitioners are already under a statutory obligation to take account of the code when making decisions under the Act. Anyone who must have regard to the code of practice under Section 118(2D) must therefore also have regard to the statement of principles that the Secretary of State must include in the code when carrying out specified functions under the Act. That includes all those referenced in Section 118(1).
The Government expect practitioners to follow the code. Anyone seeking to depart from it must have compelling reasons for doing so. Reasons for any departure must be recorded clearly, as courts have the power to scrutinise such reasons to ensure that there is sufficiently convincing justification for not following the code.
I believe that this is the right approach, because relevant individuals and organisations must have regard to the code and, in turn, the principles. But the system is not so inflexible that a principle must be followed irrespective of the circumstances, because there could be very rare cases whereby it could create a risk that an individual is not being treated according to their own particular needs, which is not the intention of the Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I think the Committee would understand that if it was to do with a therapeutic intervention. This is about the principles according to which clinicians and others have to work when dealing with the Act. First, can the Minister enlighten the Committee as to which principles, as a framework, would not be suitable for a particular patient? It is a principle. Secondly, my noble friend tabled this amendment because case law on codes of practice in the public sector goes back to 1998 and Regina v Islington Borough Council, in which the court made it very clear that public bodies have the right to deviate on admissible grounds where there is good reason. I can see no reason, unless the Minister can give one, why deviating from a principle is acceptable. That is why my noble friend wants the principles to be in the Bill. I could understand if it was a restrictive practice, but it is not; it is a principle.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
To add to what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has said, I am having a problem understanding why the code is not statutory.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their interventions, for which I am grateful. They give me the opportunity to say now what perhaps I should have said at the outset: I will of course reflect on all the points that are raised as we move forward. I will be honest and say that I am not sure that what I am about to say will do justice to the points that have been raised. Overall, the real concern is about making very complex legislation even more complex. We are wrestling with our attempt to update the Mental Health Act—we are not starting from scratch. That is the point I would like to like to move on to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, raised a comparative point about the Mental Capacity Act and asked why, if that could include principles, it is not possible for the Mental Health Bill to. To extend what I have just said, it is because the Mental Capacity Act was structured around principles from the outset when it was drafted and did not have to meet the challenge that we are trying to debate today. As I said, we are currently looking at amending the existing Mental Health Act, which has not been designed or structured around statutory principles. In my language, I would say that we are starting from an entirely different place.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I hate to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but we are going to come back to the code of practice again and again. Can she outline whether we will get to see a draft of that code? If the argument from the Government is that it needs to be in the code and not on the statute, it would be very helpful to see a draft code of practice before Report, at the very latest.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Those of us who were here in 2006 listened to the Minister’s predecessor at the Dispatch Box making pretty much the same speech that she has made now, and nothing has changed in the meantime. We are trying to do what we can to make sure that we do not have the same situation for the next 20 years.
I take the point that the Mental Health Act 1983 was not built on principles. Does the Minister accept that it is time that we moved forward to a situation where both the Mental Health Bill and the Mental Capacity Act are built on principles, including that the people who are subject to them have rights to dignity and so on, as we have seen set out in different places, and that if they are not treated in that way they have the right to take people to court?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their interventions. I will take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, first. Following Royal Assent, we will be drafting and consulting on a revised code of practice, which will be laid before Parliament. We will be working with key partners to ensure that everyone is trained in the new Act before the first major phase of reforms. I hope that that will be helpful.
I hear the disappointment in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. On her request for specific examples, I will need to write to noble Lords on that. I hope noble Lords realise that not having the principles in the Bill, as the amendment refers to, does not mean that there is less intention that they apply. For me, it is about the way of getting there, rather than the commitment to it. However, I hear the question about that point.
Amendment 49, on the matter of speech and language therapists, is in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Bradley. I turn first to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. It is true that not all speech and language difficulties or differences would count as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, so my noble friend makes a relevant point.
The definition of who can and cannot be approved as an approved clinician was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. That definition is set out not in primary legislation but in instructions issued by the Secretary of State, under the power in Section 12ZA of the current Mental Health Act. These instructions have the same status as secondary legislation, so it is our belief that it would not be appropriate to specify in primary legislation that speech and language therapists can be approved clinicians, because all other professional groups are covered only in the instructions.
For that reason alone—but noble Lords should bear with me—we will seek to reject this amendment. However, I can commit that we will be revising the statutory instructions under Section 12ZA following the passage of the Bill, and we are very happy to consider extending the criteria to include speech and language therapists. I offer an invitation to the royal college to discuss this matter with the department and to consider how it can work to support and encourage those of its members who may be interested in this role.
I am aware that time is not on my side. However, a number of amendments in this area have been tabled—
Lord Kamall (Con)
I wonder whether I can be of help to the Minister. The timing is advisory so, if there are important points that the Minister wishes to make, she should please go ahead.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have never had so much encouragement to carry on speaking. Noble Lords will be glad to know that the flashing clock always makes me very nervous. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
Can I just add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just said? I have never before sat through a Committee where the Minister has been restricted in going beyond any advisory time. She should say what she darn well likes. She may have to respond to an awful lot of complicated spots in this; there is no reason at all why she should not carry on, in my view—and that of everyone else in the Committee, I think.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for helping me out there.
I referred to my invitation to the royal college. Given this commitment to pursue these changes, that will be subject to agreement with the royal college. I hope that will be of assistance to noble Lords.
I turn now to Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Bradley. It seeks to ensure that clinicians consider a patient’s communication needs and make reasonable adjustments as part of the new clinical checklist; this requires clinicians to consider a number of matters when deciding on a patient’s treatment, with the aim of making treatment more patient-centred.
We share the goals of this amendment. However, the checklist already requires the clinician to take steps to assist and encourage the patient to participate as fully as possible in the decision-making process. We consider assistance to include making reasonable adjustments to account for a patient’s communication needs, which is something that noble Lords have rightly raised as being of concern. We very much intend to make this clear in the code of practice, which will already provide specific guidance on the need to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. For example, the clinician should provide information in an accessible form, perhaps by involving an interpreter, a signer or someone who can communicate via the person’s preferred communication method.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker has also tabled Amendment 60, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Bradley. It seeks to ensure that the new statutory care and treatment plan introduced by the Bill covers
“information about a patient’s communication disability, difficulty, or difference”,
and how these might be identified and supported. The Bill makes it clear that a statutory care and treatment plan is a plan made in accordance with regulations, so we intend to set out in regulations that a patient’s plan must include, among other things, information that is important for the treating clinical team to be made aware of during the patient’s detention. This is to encourage the treating clinician, as noble Lords have spoken about, to consider the individual needs of patients—including communication needs—so that the appropriate reasonable adjustments can be made. A record of how their needs will be supported should be evident throughout their plan, which should, as far as possible, be developed in consultation with the patient and others, such as their family members.
Regarding the identification of any communication needs, as already set out in the Mental Health Act code of practice under the Equality Act, mental health professionals should already be identifying and making any reasonable adjustments to account for a person’s communication needs. Where applicable, a patient’s care (education) and treatment review may also identify and make recommendations about a patient’s communication needs. We intend to set out in regulations that these recommendations must be attached to the patient’s statutory care and treatment plan, so that they can inform planning and delivery of care. I hope that this will reassure noble Lords that the patient’s statutory care and treatment plan should cover any communication needs and how they will be met, but in reflecting on this debate I will ensure that the actions we are proposing take account of this.
Amendments 112 and 114, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would require managers of hospitals or registered establishments to provide information in an accessible format when discharging duties under Clauses 39 and 41 to give information on complaints to detained and conditionally discharged patients. I agree that it is important that all patients can access information about their detention, including the complaints process, and in a format that is accessible to them. However, the clauses are already drafted with the overriding obligation that the patient is helped in whatever manner is practical to understand the information being given to them. Therefore, it is unnecessary to add the words in the amendment proposed by my noble friend. Additionally, hospital managers have an existing duty under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments based on disability, which is the legal basis for ensuring that information for patients is accessible.
I reiterate that I understand that communication needs will not always be related to the letter of the Equality Act. There is already guidance in the mental health code of practice on how a patient’s communication needs should be considered when providing information on complaints. When we come to revise the code, we will engage with stakeholders to explore whether further guidance on the complaints process, including how information on complaints should be provided, is required.
Amendment 118 in the name of my noble friend, supported by my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Bourne, seeks to ensure that the advance choice document template is available in a format that the service user can understand. We strongly agree with the principles of this amendment and are committed to mitigating any barriers that people may face to creating an advance choice document or making their wishes and feelings known in advance. Where a person wishes to make an advance choice document, our intention is that they are given a standard template to complete, alongside supporting guidance and, where the individual wishes to receive it, the support of mental health practitioners. The template should prompt the individual to think about the sort of things they may wish to consider and decide in advance of becoming unwell. We will work to develop these resources.
We also plan to set out in guidance to health commissioners that these resources and the support provided by mental health practitioners must be delivered in a way that is accessible to individuals and that responds to their needs. That will be in line with the Equality Act and the public sector equality duty. Of course, if a person wishes to create a record of their wishes and feelings in another format that is easier, they absolutely may do so. We have purposefully made it that individuals do not need to complete a prescribed form in order for their advance wishes and feelings to be considered at a later stage. I agree with the need and hope that this will provide maximum accessibility and increase patient voice and autonomy.
Finally, Amendments 119 and 126, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and supported by my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, seek to ensure that the support provided to people to create an advance choice document is responsive to the needs of people with a
“communication disability, difficulty or difference”.
I agree that is important. To achieve this, it is important that support and information around advance choice documents respond to people’s needs individually, so that no one is unfairly disadvantaged. That includes communication needs.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely comprehensive but very helpful response to all the amendments, and I am happy to withdraw.
“Application of the Mental Health Act 1983: autism and learning disability(1) Section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (application of Act: “mental disorder”) is amended as follows.(2) Omit subsection (2A).(3) Omit subsection (4).(4) At end, insert—“(4A) Mental disorder does not include autism or learning disability for the purposes of this Act.””
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I will speak to the Schedule 1 stand part notice, which is consequent on Amendment 4. Both appear in my name. I will not speak to the other amendments in this group, although my understanding is that Amendments 5 and 38 to 41 inclusive—tabled, variously, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—are effectively trying to achieve the same thing but by different means. I will leave them to speak to their amendments, because I want to explain why I have structured mine in this way.
I must begin by thanking Jen Smith at the Bill office for her great patience and expert assistance to this non-lawyer in producing this and a number of other amendments. I also want to stress that I am not, unlike many people taking part in this debate, an expert in this area, but I seek to represent voices of people who have reached out to me who may not otherwise be heard in your Lordships’ Committee.
I will set out the background to Amendment 4. I had a detailed briefing from the group Liberation, a user experience group led by people who have experience of mental distress and trauma, which has the slogan “for full human rights”. It is seeking a complete end to involuntary detention in psychiatric hospitals and forced treatment for the people it represents—people given mental health diagnoses. It asked me to exclude all people from what is known as detention or sectioning.
Liberation says that involuntary detention and forced treatment are forms of disability-based discrimination, and these people should not be subject to them. This may not be the case under the European Convention on Human Rights—I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, signed a statement to that effect in the Bill—but I understand that it can be argued to be the case under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I note, however, that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has, in line with Articles 12 to 14 of the UN CRPD, strongly endorsed a complete end to involuntary hospitalisation and compulsory treatment and recommended the removal of Article 5.1(e) from the ECHR—the paragraph that limits right to liberty if people are judged to be “of unsound mind”. It describes it as
“not compatible with our 21st-century understanding of human rights”.
I note that the recent report on the situation in the UK from the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly paragraphs 79 and 80, expresses concern about the lack of government measures to end disability-based detention and that the then Conservative draft mental health Bill continued to allow involuntary detention and forced treatment. The Bill brought before us by the Labour Government still has the same kind of provisions. The argument is that the Bill as it stands remains non-compliant with the UN CRPD deinstitutionalisation guidelines and the World Health Organization publication Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation: Guidance and Practice, in which countries are urged to replace institutions with high-quality services.
I can almost feel your Lordships’ Committee saying, “How can that be possible?” Starting from now, that looks like such a long way away. That was indeed the question that I put to Liberation, which presented me with a number of case studies from around the world. I imagine that the Minister is aware of the case of Trieste, in north-eastern Italy, which almost managed to abolish involuntary detentions. They have been replaced with wide-ranging and accessible community services, based on a whole-person approach. Its community mental health centres are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they play a key role in preventing people reaching a point of crisis. This has enabled people with mental health diagnoses to remain in and be part of their local community, in line with Article 19 of the UN convention. Compulsory psychiatric treatment orders are still possible, but the numbers are very low and orders typically last seven to 10 days.
In Spain, Act 8/2021 recognises the legal capacity of all adults and stipulates that disabled people should receive the same legal treatment as non-disabled people, including those with mental health diagnoses and learning disabilities. This is still not complete equality but it is heading that way and has made further progress than we have.
Costa Rica, Peru and Colombia have all taken steps in this direction. In Peru, for example, a recent study on the impacts of crisis interventions indicates that involuntary detention rates have been significantly reduced and that, when people are detained, they typically leave hospital after a couple of days.
In Mexico, the general health law of 2022, a national civil procedure code, says that everybody has legal capacity, including people with mental health diagnoses. It enables access to supported decision-making for everybody. Mexico City, in particular, has set a real lead in delivering on this, but I acknowledge that not all of Mexico has.
Why have I tabled an amendment that would, in effect, end detention for those with autism and learning difficulties? I feel like I must apologise to the people I have spoken to, as I did not feel able to put down another amendment—this a probing amendment, by nature—as I looked at the realistic situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in starting our debate, referred to the extreme lack of resources. I and many others have amendments later in the Bill referring to the need for it to specify the level of resources. I am sorry that I did not feel able, even in this probing stage of Committee, to table another amendment. I would like to, and I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on how we sit in that UN framework and whether the Government have a long-term goal to reach the kind of levels that an increasing number of other countries have attained, as I have just set out in my quick survey.
But I have to look at the reality of the statistics. I have looked at the figures in the briefing from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The number of recorded detentions in 2023-24 is 52,500. We really have to reflect on that number. Of those, we have seen a fall, to 1,880, in the level of detentions relating to learning disability and autism—that seems a step in the right direction. We are talking about disabilities. Can we really continue, a quarter of the way into the 21st century, to detain people for their disability rather than provide them with the support they need in the community? That is a question this amendment seeks to raise.
I want to reflect on the fact—we will come back to this again and again—that people are not getting the help they need, and that is leading to the state of crisis we have now. I note in Mind’s briefing that people are crying out for help and not getting it. In June 2024, very urgent referrals to crisis teams for adults were 45% higher than a year before. I should here declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and refer to the LGA briefing, which talks about the significant resource implications for councils of the Bill as it stands as presented by the Government.
There are voices here that should be heard. We should frame this in the context of the international situation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I hope we can have a constructive discussion and see some real progress here today. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society and a co-chair of the APPG on Autism, and I have responsibilities for close relatives who are on the autism spectrum.
I will speak to Amendment 5 first, and to the Mental Capacity Act, which is not the Act we are looking to change but it is my contention in this proposed clause that the Mental Capacity Act has a relationship with the Mental Health Act.
There has for some years been concern about the deprivation of liberty safeguards as defined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They were inserted into the Mental Health Act 2007 following the Bournewood judgment in the European court which involved an autistic man whose liberty was denied, whose carers were ignored, and who had had what I can best describe as an autistic meltdown that resulted in his incarceration for a very long time.
Although the Mental Capacity Act has much to commend it, there has been ongoing concern about the deprivation of liberty safeguards—often referred to as DoLS—and I managed to obtain a House of Lords inquiry into the Act in 2013, ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, who is in his place today. I will quote a section of the summary of that inquiry that deals specifically with deprivation of liberty safeguards. The House concluded:
“The provisions are poorly drafted, overly complex and bear no relationship to the language and ethos of the Mental Capacity Act. The safeguards are not well understood and are poorly implemented. Evidence suggested that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of individuals are being deprived of their liberty without the protection of the law, and therefore without the safeguards which Parliament intended. Worse still, far from being used to protect individuals and their rights, they are sometimes used to oppress individuals, and to force upon them decisions made by others without reference to the wishes and feelings of the person concerned”.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, has done in relation to this matter. This is a matter that we considered in great detail in the Joint Committee. I am grateful that that gives us the opportunity to discuss in the round the legal basis on which people are detained. The independent review did not recommend what is currently in the Bill, which is the removal of learning disabilities and autism from the Act. The Joint Committee’s report quotes it saying,
“the risk of completely removing learning disabilities and autism from the Act is too high”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, outlined one of the reasons for that, which is that if you remove the legal basis for detention under the Mental Health Act, then the bucket that these individuals and patients would fall into without Amendment 5 would be the Mental Capacity Act.
In the consideration by the Joint Committee, there is the other danger that—when there is no co-occurring mental health condition—you end up with people coming through the criminal justice system, instead of being detained under the Mental Health Act. That is the worst of all the evils we could be discussing here today and would be completely inappropriate.
I would be grateful if the Minister will ensure two things when we know that these are dangers: first, an increase in diagnoses of co-occurring mental health conditions to use the Mental Health Act; and, secondly, an increase in the use of the Part III criminal justice provisions. It is important that we know the exact statistics for the group with learning disabilities and autism before implementation of the Act. Then we would know whether the Act has caused an increase in diagnoses of co-occurring mental health disorders and an increase in the use of the criminal justice system.
I believe that currently 39% of people detained with learning disabilities and autism are detained under Part III of the Act. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, nodding. It is important that we remember that New Zealand tried this, removing learning disabilities and autism from its mental health legislation. I cannot remember whether it had the co-occurring mental health diagnosis provision, but, only a few years later, it had to amend the law, as it had caused an increased number of learning disabilities and autism patients to come in through the criminal justice system.
What would be the position if the Bill were amended in accordance with Amendment 5? The evidence that we received in Joint Committee was that there would be no patients—that community facilities would be at a level where they could not think of anybody who would need to be detained. I wish the world were thus, but the ideal world portrayed in that way does not exist. Even with the community facilities that we all wish to exist, it seems clear to me that there would be circumstances in which there would still be a need to detain.
I recognise that, in reality, we may see that increase in diagnoses of co-occurring disorders. Physicians may reach for that to protect someone—to detain them to get them treatment. However, it was made clear to us that 28 days is a relatively short time. You can be detained for assessment, but it can take many days to get the level of distress down—I do not want or like to use the word “meltdown”—to assess the mental health of the person and whether there is a co-occurring disorder.
The Joint Committee came up with a special exceptional tribunal that would still allow the Mental Health Act to be used in that small number of cases—once community facilities are as we would like them to be—to continue detention. Why? For the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning: the protections under the Mental Health Act are much greater. You have the nominated person, you can go to the Mental Health Act tribunal, and—ker-ching—you get Section 117 aftercare, which, of course, is not available under the Mental Capacity Act.
If Amendment 5 were accepted, we would have no Mental Health Act, no co-occurring diagnoses, no criminal justice system—I hope—and no Mental Capacity Act to refer to. If a clinician is in that circumstance where someone is so distressed and they do not have that diagnosis in the 28 days, where is the law? We are not talking about the practicalities here. Where is the law?
In any event, the Mental Capacity Act does not apply to under-16s. So the risk would be an increased use of what we now know as High Court DoLS. These are not DoLS under the Mental Capacity Act. They are DoLS under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. They are a most unsatisfactory way of restraining the liberty of under-16s.
Only two or three weeks ago, the Children’s Commissioner issued a report outlining the problem, and outlining that, already, some children with learning disabilities and autism are under a High Court DoLS. It is a matter that your Lordships’ House needs to consider. Nearly a thousand children are detained under a High Court DoLS.
Obviously, the Mental Capacity Act would have applied to 16 and 17 year-olds and adults so where does that leave those vulnerable adults? Where is there a power to detain them? The Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act will both have gone. If clinicians are in that circumstance where there is no co-occurring mental health disorder, there is a vacuum which may end up being filled by the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court using vulnerable adults. We will have created another little bucket of people. I accept the criticism made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about DoLS under the Mental Capacity Act. They are supposed to be replaced by protection of liberty safeguards, but those are not in force yet.
If we accept Amendment 5, are we going to create more work for the High Court with clinicians in that situation because the law will not have provided any means for them to detain? I recognise and repeat that the practicality will probably be a co-occurring mental health disorder but, as far as I understand it, that is where the law will be left if Amendment 5 is accepted.
Although the Mental Capacity Act is far from ideal, I hope the Minister can help us understand what the situation would be if we were to accept the amendment. As I say, for the under-16s it would be more cases under High Court DoLS, as far I understand it.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group but I want to speak particularly to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her good sense. I agree with every word she has said.
I had earlier tabled amendments to Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to give effect to opposing any change in the definition of mental disorder for the meaning of the Act in the same way as Sir Simon Wessely’s committee recommended and I withdrew them in favour of a compromise amendment because I was not sure, to be honest, that I would get here at all today. I have. I am not quite sure how many more I will be able to get to but for the moment I am here so I will speak to this one.
I want to make it clear right from the start that if we had changed our legislation to be a hybrid Bill that was a fusion of a mental capacity and a mental health Bill we would not be in this pickle because we would have capacity-based legislation and therefore we could have proceeded without any of these silly criteria for what is this diagnosis and what is another. As the legislation is at the moment, I believe the move to remove autism and learning disabilities from what is a mental disorder is frankly bizarre, akin to having Parliament establish that for the purposes of legislation, the earth is flat and the sun goes round the earth. Galileo had the same problem. I want to ensure that Hansard will record that not everyone is in agreement with the notion that autism and learning disabilities are somehow separate and different from other mental disorders.
Neurodiversity, which, of course, exists, is the term used to describe statistical outliers from the norm and, of course, as for many other mental states, there can be many positive and interesting aspects of alternative ways of thinking about and responding emotionally to the world that enrich society. I understand that many people with autism and learning disabilities do just that and that is where neurodiversity has been so supported by people who want to ensure that they are recognised as individuals and citizens just as the rest of us are. But that does not change the fundamentals.
I know noble Lords know that I was a professor of psychiatry for many years at the University of London but I ought to mention at this point that I also have a special interest in mental health legislation because I was for six years vice-chair of the Mental Health Act Commission. I co-authored this now much revered code of practice for the 1983 Act. It is actually my only bestseller—if only it did not say Secretary of State on it—and I know first-hand how the Acts and codes are used. That is why I do not get involved in the principles of where this should be. The code does have statutory effect, by the way—I am sorry that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has left, because I can reassure her it does have statutory force. I was also UK advisor to the WHO on mental health and older people and was exposed to the developments in mental health legislation in other jurisdictions, not only in the UK, with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Acts as they were being developed, but in the Republic of Ireland when it introduced its new Act, and abroad in English-speaking legislatures.
Baroness Browning (Con)
The noble Baroness asked me a question. Was it rhetorical? I wonder whether she could accept that autism is different. From the time that Kanner first identified autism, which is what a lot of psychiatric bases are based on—we then had Asperger and others, and the very good, more recent documentation from Lorna Wing, with whom I am sure she is familiar—autism has been different. If people doubt that, it is important to note that, apart from the Mental Health Act, the only other condition, however you label it, to have its own Act of Parliament is autism. In the Autism Act 2009, this Parliament unanimously agreed—in both Houses—that autism is different and deserved its own Act of Parliament.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I would say that all mental disorders are different but that they cannot all have their own Acts of Parliament. I do not accept that autism is different. Of course, it is different in the way that it manifests—
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I will make a slightly cheeky intervention, if I may, on the noble Baroness. I am not weighing into the debate that is taking place but simply make this point. Does she accept that the fact that a condition is listed in the DSM or the ICD is not itself definitive? Until 1973, homosexuality was listed as a psychiatric condition in the DSM and until 1990 it was, I believe, included as a psychiatric diagnosis in the ICD. Therefore, that is not the strongest evidential basis for her claims.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I agree with the noble Lord, but the reality is that we use DSM-3 and ICD-11 in the international classification of disorders. If we in Britain are to go outside that, for reasons of our own, then we had better have some pretty good ideas why that should be. I am not so sure that we have them.
The Wessely review rejected the notion because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, it carried serious risks that individuals would be extruded and neglected, the opposite of what is intended. Similar anxieties were expressed in the development and creation of other Acts—I am sorry that I am going to go on longer than the advisory—so as not to exclude anybody from this group, because we want mental disorder to be an inclusive thing and not to exclude whole groups of people. Their protections are gone if we exclude them.
I accept that almost all the developments for autism and learning disabilities in the Bill are very positive. They will really improve the way that people think about autism and will have an extremely beneficial effect on trying to develop services and improve training, but there is no evidence that changing the criteria under the Act will do anything to improve it. Getting money into services and service design is what we need and not a change in the legislation for criteria. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ group of specialists in learning disabilities have pointed out, the vast majority of them do not want this change in legislation. We should think very carefully before we submit people to something when we do not know what will be unleashed as a result.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak on this group; I have tabled two amendments, Amendments 38 and 40. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also wish to share an interest which is similar to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I used to have two nephews who had learning disabilities and autism. One of them, sadly, has died—there is a statistic that people with learning disabilities and autism die, on average, at 20 years below people without them. I still have a loving, warm, neurodiverse and very proudly different nephew, who I love. I see his behaviours and the way that many people do not understand him and deal with him differently.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and was going to make the exact point that, as a gay person, before 1973 I would have been defined as having a mental illness. The discussion among psychiatrists and the mental health professions at the moment is not as robust as the noble Baroness made out. Many people within the profession say that those with learning disabilities and autism are not on the mental health spectrum and should not be treated as having a psychiatric illness.
We are in a difficult position. My amendments are probing amendments to try to preclude Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act being used to detain people who do not meet the Mental Health Act detention criteria. It is fascinating that, in some cases where people are detained at the moment, it is not because there is a therapeutic benefit but because there are no community facilities—this is completely at odds with the code of practice. Professionals are using a lack of facility to detain people. Let us be clear: these people are detained for 4.8 years on average, in solitary confinement, and this has a lifelong detriment. They are scarred for life. Many probing amendments in this group are trying to tease out exactly what will happen and to ensure that the Mental Capacity Act is not used to detain people because provision in this country does not exist.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, there are places, such as Trieste, where this issue has been dealt with starting from a different view: starting from what is needed, rather than this power being required because things are needed. That is the fundamental change that we need to make because, if not—I am glad the Government are moving down this path—we will continue to see people detained when they have not a mental illness or a psychiatric disorder but a development issue, which is not a psychiatric disorder. There are many papers on learning disabilities and autism by professionals who would argue that that is the case. We are all probing to try to work out what will happen.
I fully support the change to the detention criteria for autistic people and people with learning disabilities, and I believe it is key to reducing the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities detained in mental health hospitals. But to achieve this policy intent, the Government need to make sure that a backdoor to detention is not opened through the inappropriate use of the Mental Capacity Act—detention in a mental health hospital under the deprivation of liberty safeguards instead. Without further guidance on the use of the Mental Capacity Act, the Government’s intent to reduce the number of autistic people and those with learning disabilities in mental health hospitals may be undermined.
I am concerned that the Mental Capacity Act may not be generally appropriate for use in deciding on treatment in a mental health hospital, as its primary intention is to help decide issues relating to people’s overall care and living arrangements. I am also concerned that somebody detained under the Mental Capacity Act would not benefit from procedural safeguards and access to the mental health tribunal if required.
Amendment 35 from the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, would mean that people with a learning disability or autism could be held for six months. There could be a six-month period of detention but only in exceptional circumstances, which are not defined but are to be defined and put in the code of practice. Again, as we know, people can divert from the code of practice, so it is not the safeguard that the noble Baroness would suggest. Exceptional circumstances in a code of practice could be diverted from. Furthermore, based on the noble Baroness’s amendment, there could be a further six months for a tribunal to decide. Nowhere in here is there anything about therapeutic benefit and how that detention would be to the benefit of the individual rather than of society. So I am not clear how therapeutic benefit would be determined under the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
What does the noble Lord think will happen to the people in the gap?
Lord Scriven (LD)
As I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out what happens internationally, in Trieste in Italy, for example, and I therefore suggest that good international comparisons and practice could be enacted in legislation to ensure that the needs of as many people as possible are met in the community, rather than them being held in detention because the provision is not there. That is exactly what will happen unless this gap is dealt with by looking at what is required rather than looking at the gap and continuing detention.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not speak at Second Reading, but I have been listening to this interesting debate and it seems to me that Clause 5 is introducing the concept of detention in extreme cases, where there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the patient or another person unless the patient is detained. That is the reason for the detention: to protect the patient from serious harm to himself or herself, or to protect others from serious harm.
As I read the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, it simply seeks to suggest, or to put on the statute book, that someone suffering from autism or a learning disability would not satisfy the test in Clause 5. But the amendment permits the admission to hospital of someone with a learning disability for the purpose of assessing whether he or she has a mental disorder. I am not sure that this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, would result in people slipping through the net.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
I wrote the amendment in a terrible hurry as a compromise amendment when I could not table the amendment that I really wished to table, which was seeking to get back to having clarity about the diagnostic criteria. I apologise if that was not the provision that the noble Lord wanted in the Bill—I am not sure that I want it very much either. I do not have any great devotion to the proposed new clause; it was just a way of trying to address this leaving of the gap. We used to do that, by the way. After the 1983 Act, noble Lords will remember that we dropped alcohol addictions and drug misuse from the Act, saying that we could not detain people for those reasons alone. What happened was that there was total neglect for the next 20 years until voluntary organisations and local authorities got moving and said, “This won’t do—we must do something”.
Noble Lords should remember that that is what happens. If you leave somebody out of protective legislation, they will not be included; they will be neglected and they will end up in prison. That is what Sir Simon Wessely thought and it is what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has been talking about. I can guarantee that nobody will be interested in autistic meltdowns if there is no way in which to intervene to save a family from having that person with them, seven days a week and 24 hours a day, during the period of this terrible disturbance.
Community services are great. I urge noble Lords to visit Trieste, as it has brilliant services in a tiny area; it is one of the very few in Italy, and it continues to work very well. It is cited all over the world, and that is very good. But this is Britain, with 80 million people and massively underfunded services, and it ain’t going to happen. I want to know what will happen to those people noble Lords would like to see neglected until such time as the Government produce some alternative provision.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I do not think that I or anybody else who has a different opinion from the noble Baroness wants to see those people being neglected. We have a different view. The issue I have with her stance is that the evidence is that putting people with learning disabilities and autism in a psychiatric hospital—and that is where they will go if there is no provision, because that is where they go at present—is damaging. It is not the correct provision. I believe that what she is arguing for—to continue the neglect of provision by putting them somewhere—is significantly not in their best interests and causes damage.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Perhaps I can clarify. I think that the noble Baroness’s amendment is to some extent based on the spirit of the Joint Committee’s report, which was about providing some kind of mechanism, after the 28 days—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, nodding. There would be a specialist tribunal, and we said that it should be composed of people with experience of learning disabilities and autism, so that there was not a get-out for clinicians that they had not done the assessments properly. There would have to be grounded reasons to go beyond the 28 days and, in exceptional circumstances, you could authorise the detention, to make sure that the law covered that gap or group of people. No one wanted to see people detained for the reason that there was no community provision—that is ridiculous.
I accept that the reality is probably going to be that clinicians will find a mental disorder diagnosis to use the powers under Part II to do what is in the best interests of that person and their family at the time. But the law should also cover that situation and not force clinicians into those diagnoses—hence the need for accurate data, so that we can track what is happening when the law is enacted.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Once again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to this group of amendments. The purpose of today’s Committee is to probe the Government, but it is interesting that we find noble Lords probing each other—though I have learned a huge amount from these discussions. They say that discourse leads not only to liberty but to an increase in knowledge.
I add my words to those of the Minister and offer my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is not in her place today. I recall a debate in 2021 led by the noble Baroness—one of my first as Health Minister—in which she highlighted that people with learning difficulties and autism were being detained in secure settings, even when an assessment had recommended that they should live in the community. This goes back to the words of my noble friend Lady Berridge, who talked about how we can deal with the world as it is and not with the ideal world that we want to live in.
I was shocked at the time by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, told the House about some of the findings from the oversight panel for the independent care (education) and treatment reviews. I bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, when she gave some examples of other countries with much shorter detentions, but I will never forget the story that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, told about a Mr W, who had been detained in hospital for more than 20 years, spending most of his time in what amounted to solitary confinement. At the time of the debate, Mr W had been living in his own home for nearly three years, near his family, with his home environment and care being built around his needs. That is something that all noble Lords are trying to push for in this group of amendments. It was not only a heart-warming story but the point was made that, financially, it cost no more to support Mr W living in his own home than it did to detain him in hospital. More importantly, the noble Baroness shared the happy ending that, despite the trauma of being in the wrong environment for so many years, Mr W was, we hope, going to live happily ever after. That highlights the reasons for the amendments in this group.
I should add that I recall the noble Baroness who is now the Minister pushing the Government from these Benches on ending detention. I am sorry—I am going to be a little naughty here, but she can do it if we ever get back into government. She told the House that the average length of stay for people with a learning disability and/or autism in in-patient units was 5.4 years, saying:
“That is 5.4 years that no person will ever get back”.—[Official Report, 28/10/2021; col. GC 231.]
She asked how that could be justifiable when the cost of living in the community was the same as the cost of detention. I know that she is naturally sympathetic to ending these detentions. The detention of those with autism and learning disabilities was one of the central issues addressed by the Wessely review.
I was interested in Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, arguing the definition of “mental disorder” under the Bill. While I am sympathetic to the amendment, can the Minister confirm whether my understanding is correct that the World Health Organization defines a mental disorder as
“a clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour”,
and whether the WHO includes neurodevelopmental disorders, which includes autism? If so, are the Government sympathetic to Amendment 4 and considering bringing forward their own amendment? How would they avoid running contrary to the definition accepted by the WHO and included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, particularly DSM-5? I understand the point that these things can change, as the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Scriven, have very importantly alluded to.
Amendment 5, in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning, seeks to ensure that, if a person has autism or a learning difficulty but not a mental health condition, we should not be using deprivation of liberty safeguards to replace detention under the Mental Health Act. We fully support my noble friend’s amendment and the intention behind it.
I am grateful to noble Lady, Baroness Murphy, who has tabled Amendment 35, for the time she has taken to share her experience and expertise with me and my noble friend Lord Howe. She addresses an issue that we should all be aware of with any legislation: that of unintended consequences. While most noble Lords here today would accept and support ending these detentions, for all the reasons that we have all given, and particularly after the harrowing stories that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, told all those years ago, how will the Government ensure that anyone with learning difficulties who could potentially pose a considerable risk in the community receive the required supervision? That is the challenge here, and it is the challenge to which my noble friend Lady Berridge referred when she reminded us that we have to talk about the world in which we live and not the ideal world that we all want.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for sharing some of the deliberations of the pre-legislative Joint Committee, particularly on the issue of the High Court DoLS. Given that, and the point of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, if we are to have alternatives, how do we prevent detention by the back door or opening a massive loophole for detention?
Amendment 39, from my noble friend Lady Browning, would ensure that detention was for needs associated with the degree of psychiatric disorder, along with Amendment 40. We are sympathetic to that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions. I will start by referring to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. A range of views has been expressed today on the matter of detention. The noble Lord asked what provision will be in place to ensure that we are not using some kind of backdoor, and that is a very good general question for us to hold in our heads. It is a very important matter, given the very poor outcomes we have seen for those with a learning disability and for autistic people under the current Act. I know this is something that has really exercised noble Lords—rightly so, in my view.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is quite right to remind me of comments I made from that Dispatch Box, which I still stand by. I have concerns, as I know he does too. The proposals here are intended to address the matter of improving outcomes. The debate today has been extremely helpful and will allow me to reflect on where we need to go in respect of these. I am also grateful for the range of wider topics raised in this group—for example, on the importance of the community sector—and I look forward to moving on to these when we come to subsequent groups later today.
Let me first address Amendment 4 and the notice to oppose Schedule 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Currently, a person with a learning disability can be detained for treatment under Part II, Section 3 of the Mental Health Act when their learning disability
“is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct”.
I heard what the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Berridge, said. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, used the word “meltdown”, and she has spoken to me about this before. I know that not all noble Lords like that word, which is why I put it in quotes, but the point is well made and the noble Baroness has explained to me about understanding a person’s conduct. It is also the case that an autistic person can be detained under Section 3 on the basis of mental disorder.
While the independent review found examples where use of the Act can deliver therapeutic benefit, it also found that hospital detention—a number of noble Lords spoke about this—can be detrimental for people with a learning disability and autistic people, due to exposure to environments or experiences that are completely insensitive to what I would call reasonable adjustments. This obviously causes stress and leads to behaviour considered to be challenging. We have heard that it is too often the case that people with a learning disability and autistic people are being inappropriately detained due to a crisis—which may be a better word in this instance—that has arisen due to a lack of community support, rather than for treatment of a mental health condition. That is unacceptable and the point has been extremely well made, both in the Chamber today and on earlier occasions.
The Government are committed to ensuring that hospital detention happens only when an individual has a mental disorder that warrants hospital treatment that has a reasonable prospect of providing a therapeutic benefit. It should not be some form of punishment. Schedule 1 and Clause 3 will change how the Act applies to people with a learning disability and autistic people by introducing new definitions for “psychiatric disorder”, “learning disability” and “autism” in the Act, and making amendments using those definitions throughout the Act. These amendments remove, for the purposes of Part II of the Act, learning disability and autism from the scope of conditions for which a person can be detained for compulsory treatment under Section 3. I hope that will be of reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and other noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, argued that the Bill is non-compliant with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The measures in the Bill give patients greater choice, enhanced rights and support, and seek to ensure—I know that noble Lords want to probe this—that everyone is treated with dignity and respect throughout their treatment, and that the treatment is appropriate to the situation. It is the view of the Government that the Bill is compatible with the convention. Detention under the Act is not based merely on the existence of disability: that is something I really want to emphasise. Detention is risk-based. Detention and other compulsory measures are permitted only where they are justified by the risk posed by a person’s mental disorder and, through the Bill, I hope that we are very much strengthening the criteria for detention. We will come back to this later in Committee.
Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, would leave out Clause 3 and put in a new definition of mental disorder to remove learning disability and autism from the scope of the Mental Health Act entirely. This would mean that a person could not be dealt with under any section of the Act on the grounds of learning disability or autism alone. We very much recognise the arguments for removing these conditions from the scope of the Act, but there could be unintended consequences in the removal of critical safeguards. I know that the noble Baroness does not wish to cause that effect.
For example, the Bill retains the ability to detain people under Part II, Section 2, for a maximum of 28 days, for the purpose of assessment. That can be necessary both for the safety of the individual and the public, and for a clinician to understand fully whether a treatable mental health condition is the cause of the behaviour. I suggest that this is particularly important when considering conditions associated with high rates of co-occurring mental health conditions. Without these powers, there is a risk that the mental health needs of these groups of people are not identified or met appropriately, leading to further health inequalities for this group of people. I know that is not something that noble Lords would wish.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I have not spoken in this debate so far, but I have listened intently to everything that everybody has said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. Members of the Select Committee will remember—they could not forget—the evidence given to us by particular witnesses who have autism and have been through the trauma of being detained. They made to us, unforgettably, the point that there are some people with autism and learning disabilities for whom detention is an aggravating factor.
I happen not to agree completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that there should be an end to all detention, although I have some sympathy with her arguments. I believe there are people for whom detention is necessary—both for them and for the safety of others—but they should be held in mental health facilities and not the criminal justice system.
I listened intently to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. I understand that it may be absolutely correct to define people with autism and learning disabilities as having a disorder, but we have moved on over 20 or 30 years to understanding that their manifestations and treatment are different from those of other mental health conditions. There is therefore a problem in having the diagnosis and treatment carried out by the same people. I hoped that she would explain, but she did not, why keeping people within the definition would improve their care.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
Does the noble Baroness accept that, in talking about treatment, we are talking about care, education and training in social circumstances? Treatment is not about medication, which may be totally inappropriate, but about looking at the individual’s developmental needs as a whole, which include a whole raft of things. I agree that it is not just about psychiatrists or psychologists; it can be about teachers, people with a special understanding of speech and language, and so on. I would never deny that you have to encompass the whole thing—I would promote it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I am sure that the noble Baroness would. Does she accept that for some people, particularly those with autism and learning disabilities, being held in conditions that are noisy, filled with light and full of people they do not know—in which they are made to feel completely powerless and do not know what will happen to them next—will be a contributory factor to their illness? I make that point to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. She talks about choice, but what increased protections are there in this Bill for people with autism or learning disabilities who find themselves in detention, which is an aggravating factor causing them to be wrongly diagnosed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be pleased to come back to that point. I think agreement broke out for a moment, which I would share, on the fact that detention takes many forms. It is about getting the right form and being sensitive to the needs of the individual, which is what the Bill is all about. I am grateful for those comments.
To pick up my point about the expert consultation that has taken place, a decision was taken to retain the ability to divert people who are autistic or have a learning disability, who have committed a crime, from prison to hospital under Part III of the Act. Without this safeguard, the only alternative to detention in hospital is detention in prison. Noble Lords have referred in this group to how, often, this would be inappropriate in meeting those people’s needs and would exacerbate and manifest distress. On balance, we believe it is right to retain the ability to divert such patients to hospital, where they are much more likely to access the right kind of support and care that they need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised concern about resourcing implications for local authorities. I refer her to the impact assessment, which sets out anticipated costs, including a breakdown of costs for councils. I assure her that we will do further work with MHCLG to assess any new burdens on local authorities created by the Bill. We are very alive to that situation.
Baroness Browning (Con)
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I like what she just said. Is there no way she can put that in the Bill under a government amendment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the invitation, as always. Government amendments will be considered as we progress through Committee, but I say that as a broad point, as I know the noble Baroness understands.
The intention of the provisions in the Bill on registers and commissioning is that people with a learning disability and autistic people are not detained but supported in the right way. The proposed changes to Part II, Section 3 will be commenced only where there are strong community services in place.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am aware of how much time the Minister has given and how generous she has been in allowing interventions. If she is minded on Amendment 5, can she outline whether she is proposing that there would be the special tribunal that the Joint Committee outlined? If so, how would she then deal with these issues for under-16s in respect of DoLS and for vulnerable adults? When there is no legal basis at all, it is then left for clinicians to detain anybody after the 28 days.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I became a little worried, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that perhaps I had been a bit too generous.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that I have not been generous enough. I cannot give a commitment to government amendments on any of these areas. As noble Lords will be aware, that is the purpose of the kind of debate that we are having in Committee. However, we will certainly return to these matters.
The Mental Capacity Act protects people subject to arrangements that may amount to a deprivation of liberty in hospitals, care homes and other settings, by allowing a deprivation of liberty only when it is necessary and proportionate. There are instances when it is important that the Mental Capacity Act can be used to protect and to safeguard people where appropriate, and we do not want to lose that aspect.
The concern about the amendment is that it might have the effect of undermining decision-making, or of denying a specified group of people the right to protections under the Mental Capacity Act—although I know that this is not intended. I will give an example. Where a person lacks capacity but does not have a psychiatric disorder that requires treatment, there may be elements of that person’s care plan and arrangements that require deprivation of liberty safeguards to ensure that they can access the community safely and maintain a safe home environment. Similarly, certain specialist community placements are also registered hospitals, so the proposed amendment could unintentionally—I stress “unintentionally”—remove such provision as a viable community-based option, where the individual lacks capacity but would benefit from this placement as an alternative to in-patient care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, rightly made some comments about the statistics for LDA detention rates. I assure your Lordships that the data and statistics being referred to are absolutely key. They are collected and published, and they will continue to be monitored. If there are any matters where the noble Baroness or other noble Lords feel that we should go further, I would be very pleased to receive their comments.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the use of High Court deprivation of liberty safeguards for children, I will refer to the action of the previous Government, which I hope will be seen as very helpful. In 2023, a task and finish group was established called “Improving cross-sector support for children in complex situations with multiple needs”. It was made up of a number of central government departments, operational local agencies and representative bodies, the NHSE and the Youth Custody Service to represent the voice of children and young people, as well as the Children’s Commissioner. This group has been developing a cross-sector response to help ensure that there is suitable provision in place for children and young people with complex needs who are at risk of being deprived of their liberty. To that point, I will take a particular interest in the task and finish group and its work, and we may come back to it.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, set out and explain her amendments, it seems to me that they require the people making the decisions about whether to detain somebody to be clearer about which law they are using to decide to detain at a particular point for a particular person. As I understand it, they are not excluding or preventing the use of either bit of legislation for an individual; they seek just to have greater clarity about which legislation is being used and why, and therefore what protections the person will have. The Minister said that, if these amendments go through, some people will, somehow, be excluded from the correct treatment. Is there a particular group of patients or conditions that are at risk if the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, are implemented? Can the Minister give us some examples? Otherwise, I fail to see the logic of what she is saying, given the explanation that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, gave the Committee.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I agree. The amendment seeks to strengthen and to clarify, rather than to make changes that would be completely different to what is intended in the Mental Capacity Act.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baronesses’ comments. I will come back with some examples before I sit down, because that is a very good suggestion. If I fail to do so, I will gladly provide them in writing.
Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, intends to provide a route to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people who do not have a diagnosed psychiatric disorder. Detention could be authorised only with the approval of the tribunal in “exceptional circumstances”, with power to provide guidance on what those circumstances will be in the code of practice. The amendment seeks to address the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people, with whom I know the noble Baroness is concerned, where a considerable risk is being posed in the community, but who do not also have a diagnosed psychiatric disorder warranting detention for treatment under Part II, Section 3.
Our clear intent throughout the Bill is that people should be detained beyond Section 2 only when they have a psychiatric disorder that requires hospital treatment. It is our feeling that this amendment runs contrary to that intent. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for his comments on Amendment 35.
We also have some concerns about the scope of the “exceptional circumstances”, which would potentially result in a position no different to the current effect of the Act. It is unclear, in advance of the code of practice being developed, how broadly this might be defined. There would be considerable scope for different, divergent approaches in comparable cases, which, again, I know is not the intent of noble Lords.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that the noble and learned Baroness’s yawn speaks for many.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There is no need to apologise.
I am pleased to provide the reassurance that the proposed changes to the Section 3 detention criteria mean that it would no longer be possible to detain someone with a learning disability or an autistic person under Section 3, unless they have a psychiatric disorder. Additionally, the Act already requires a statement of rationale for detention and statutory forms. The registered medical practitioner will have to confirm that the patient meets the criteria for detention, including that they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder requiring hospital treatment and not just that the patient has a learning disability or is autistic. I hope that will be of reassurance to the noble Baroness.
For the reasons I have set out in respect of all the amendments—I thank noble Lords for them—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw hers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for her rich and full response, and indeed all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. It has been long but that has been quite necessary. I thank the Minister particularly for responding directly to my question about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I do not agree with her response but I appreciate that she engaged fully with it, so I thank her for that.
I will not go through and summarise all the contributions, but I just want to make two points, which are perhaps specifically directed to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. A phrase which has been missing from our whole debate is the “social model of disability”. That is the idea that society is discriminatory, and that people are disabled by the barriers in society, not by their difference. That position was endorsed by the Government Equalities Office in 2014, and so far as I know, that still holds, and it is preferred by most disability charities.
I invite noble Lords to consider another phrase in this healthcare space, which is “parity of esteem”. I think that when we come to the social model of disability and physical disabilities, most people have now accepted that if there are only steps and not a ramp, that is a failure of society, not the failure of the person in the wheelchair. However, we have not heard in this debate an acknowledgement of the same parity of esteem—the same approach to mental disability as we have accepted towards physical disability—and we should consider and think about that.
In that context, just to pick up a couple of points from the Minister, she talked about how people with autism or learning difficulties can be detained for aggressive or irresponsible conduct. The Trieste model—if I can call it that—which is being adopted by many countries around the world, asks: “Can we intervene before that point and ask what has provoked that person? Can we intervene before we need to detain someone?” That needs to be very carefully considered.
The other point that the Minister addressed, which I confronted myself with, asking why I did not table the broader amendment that I might have done, is what happens when people get to the point of being a danger to themselves or—I stress that this is extraordinarily rare—a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder. Again, how did people get to that point, and should there not be services and support and community wraparound in the Trieste style? I do not think that any nation or area is saying that it has totally got to that point, but surely we should be aiming at that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness referred to the Trieste model, and I thought that led to quite a deal of interest from noble Lords across the House. Could she share some details on the Trieste model with other noble Lords but especially the Minister and the department, so we can all start learning those lessons?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I should absolutely stress at this point that I am not an expert, but I will certainly do my best to secure as much information as possible and share it with all noble Lords. The Minister may also have access to resources that may not be available to me. Reflecting on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, perhaps we could even arrange some kind of discussion—it might be useful—and perhaps even hear some testimony, because that would really inform our consideration of the Bill. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker
“(iv) housing”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that housing needs are considered as part of care, education and treatment review meetings.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, since this is the first time during our proceedings that I propose something, I declare an interest as a member of an advisory panel for Rethink Mental Illness in an unpaid capacity.
I apologise if I risk sounding like a broken record; it is just that I have been here discussing these issues so many times in the past, as indeed have many other Members of your Lordships’ House. I will not apologise for taking a long-term view of things or for saying that there have been areas of change and areas of progress. But I also do not apologise for explaining to your Lordships the amount of effort and discussion that it has taken to bring about change and movement, not least against some of the entrenched views of the professions, which over the years have put up quite a deal of resistance to change.
It is also our job to look at the proposals that have come forward from patients’ groups and say that some of them are valid and some of them are not. We are in a unique and very privileged position in this House where we get to take a long-term and wide perspective, and we should use it wisely.
I say that because we have debated care and treatment plans time and again. Mental health institutions up and down the country are littered with files of care and treatment plans, many of which have sat on shelves and never been implemented. With this legislation, we are moving to the position we need to get to where everybody who is subject to mental health treatment has a care and treatment plan, the decision-making behind that plan is open to scrutiny, and the people responsible for delivering it are held accountable.
I cannot imagine what it must be like to sit day after day in a place where I know I am supposed to be given treatment that will enable me to get better and get out, and to receive nothing. I imagine the temptation to sit there and think about that all day long is in itself is a gravely depressing factor. That is the sort of thing that we have listened to over the years from people—particularly young people—who have been subject to mental health treatment and care plans and never had them delivered, so how pleased we are to have moved forward to this point. I am also very pleased that Members are trying to take this opportunity to beef these plans up, in particular the accountability around the delivery or failure to deliver them.
I want to include housing in the Bill. You do not have to have a mental health condition to be severely worried about housing these days. Any young person in this country can have real concern about availability of housing, tenure and all the rest of it. If you have a mental health condition and are likely to be detained for an indefinite period, and therefore very likely to lose your tenancy or whatever, that must be a huge aggravating factor.
One reason why I was prompted to table this amendment was because I was on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee for the then Bill back in 2006. Somewhere there is an unwritten law that, when mental health legislation is coming up, Members of this place will be sent to the South London and Maudsley. There is no way out; you have to go. But it is always good to go to SLaM to talk to the staff, who are immensely generous with their time. You cannot go on one of those visits and walk out unchanged from the experience.
I remember, in particular, a bunch of your Lordships going to talk to one of the best teams that I have seen in practice. Back in those days they were called an assertive outreach team; I do not know what they are called these days. They were absolutely brilliant, dedicated individuals. Their job was to work with people out in the community, to know them all and to predict the problems that would arise. One thing I remember them telling us was that they would frequently go to the local authority or to landlords when they had somebody whose particular crisis was that they had got into arrears. They would head it off by negotiating and de-escalating the situation so that the person did not get turfed out and therefore end up in acute care.
Similarly, we know that discharge is a lottery for anybody who goes into any acute hospital for any reason at all. Discharge from the NHS is one of those things that when it goes brilliantly, it goes brilliantly. When it does not, it is an absolute and utter disaster, and the person at the centre of it has absolutely no control over it at all—even less, I would suggest, when they are being discharged from mental health treatment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak my Amendments 8, 11, 15, 18, 19 and 20 in this group. They are to do what my noble friend Lady Barker said: to try to beef up the care (education) and treatment reviews, because something is amiss. As my noble friend said, too many of them are sitting on stuffy and dusty shelves, and not enough people get access to them to be able to advocate for and follow through on them.
Amendments 8 and 15 are important regarding the people who are legally entitled to receive a copy of the care (education) and treatment review. I support the amendment from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to add the parent and guardian, which was an omission. Currently, the Bill provides for a copy to be sent only to the responsible commissioner, the patient’s responsible clinician, the ICB and the local authority. To ensure that the patient and their family, carer and advocates are fully aware and informed of the decisions being made around their care, can hold services to account and can follow up on the care and treatment plan recommendations, it is essential that they too receive a copy of the report.
These amendments would ensure that the patient, the patient’s nominated person and the patient’s independent mental health advocate receive a copy of the care and treatment report. I note that the Minister has tabled an amendment setting out that a copy of the report “may” be given to other persons, but this does not place a strong enough duty to involve the patient and significant others to ensure that adequate oversight of the care and treatment review reports is available to them.
Amendments 11 and 18 reduce the maximum time between the reviews from 12 months to six months for adults and children. This is in line with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. According to NHSE data, 24% of autistic people and people with learning disabilities detained in mental health hospitals have been waiting for more than one year for a CETR or have no CETR at all, and 31% have had the date of their next scheduled CETR pass or have no scheduled CETR at all.
We know that autistic people and people with learning disabilities face lengthy stays. There must be a drive to discharge these people. The idea that we would have a CETR only every 12 months to help prevent a lengthy stay shows how worryingly normalised long lengths of stays have become for these individuals. In many cases, a maximum interval of 12 months may be too long and mean that autistic people and people with learning disabilities face delays to their discharge planning. The current frequency of CETRs in the Bill is not in line with NHS England’s policy, which states that, for adults, CETRs should be held at a maximum frequency of six months.
Amendments 19 and 20 seek to ensure that the recommendations of CETRs are followed through. This is essential to ensuring that the needs of individuals are being met and that steps are being taken to prepare for their discharge. Often, the recommendations arising from CETRs are constructive, and those attending may leave with the impression that the right steps are being taken. However, the frequent failure to carry out the recommendations arising from these reports undermines faith in the process and can lead to unnecessary delays in an individual’s needs being met and in their discharge.
CETRs, which are essential to providing safeguards for autistic people and people with learning disabilities under the Bill, are important. Their being undermined cannot be allowed. The current language in the Bill for the responsible clinicians, commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities says that they must “have regard” to the recommendations. I believe that this is too weak. Legally, the definition of “regard” is that a public body must consider something and, once it has been considered, has discretion to carry out or ignore it. A duty in law is an obligation and must be followed, and the reason why it has been followed must be given. These amendments would substitute “regard”—the weaker definition—for “a duty” to carry out these actions unless a compelling reason is provided for why this is not possible. This follows a similar recommendation from the Joint Committee on the Mental Health Bill, which stated that ICBs and local authorities should be required to “follow” recommendations in reports—that is, have a duty.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 9, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on Amendment 8.
We are dealing with the responsible commissioner making arrangements for the care (education) and treatment review meetings and the report. I do not know whether I am a lone voice speaking in this House but I am a mother and a grandmother, and there is not a single word in any part of this Bill about parents or guardians—not a word. I could find references to parental responsibility only in new Schedule A1 and Schedule 2, although I may be wrong.
Can I just suggest something to noble Lords? Where you have a child—here, I am dealing specifically with a child—with autism or physical or mental disabilities, it is quite probable, if not most likely, that that person will be living with their family and their parents. I must say, my experience as a family judge led me to believe that only about 5% to 10% of parents who came through the courts were not suitable to look after their children full time. But according to Clause 4—which inserts new Section 125A—the one group of people who will not be told what the future care (education) and treatment review given to their child will be includes the people with whom that child has been living for all their life. I cannot understand why this Bill seems to think that parents, guardians and other people with parental responsibility do not matter. That is why I have raised this issue. I feel intensely strongly about it, as a mother and a grandmother.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, having attached my name to Amendments 19 and 20. I support all of the previous amendments, which are in essence about people knowing about care and treatment review plans. I particularly wanted to sign these two amendments because of the clause identified by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It states that integrated care boards and local authorities “must have regard to” the plan—as the noble Lord outlined, that is a very weak, weaselly form of words—rather than having a duty to deliver the plan that has been established for the well-being and health of a person. The phrase in the Bill now really is not adequate.
I want to share something with noble Lords. On Friday night, I was in Chorley, in Greater Manchester, at a meeting with the local Green Party and NHS campaigners. One of the things I heard there was a huge amount of distrust and concern about integrated care boards and the restructuring arrangements that have happened with the NHS. I am not going to get into those issues now but, with the words “must have regard to”, we are leaving an open door and a door to distrust. Surely the right thing is for this Bill to say that the ICB has a duty to deliver a care plan.
On Amendment 20, we will undoubtedly talk endlessly about resources, but that there must be a compelling reason is the right terminology to have in the Bill; it really has to be justified. I believe that both of these amendments should be in the Bill.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13 in my name in this group, but wish to add my support to the amendments that have already been talked about: those in the names of my noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Scriven, and the very important amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I have experience in my wider family of someone with autism, so I know full well the importance of having the parents and the wider family involved in review meetings. Frankly, it would be very difficult indeed if they were not there for those review meetings to express the wishes and preferences of the individual concerned.
I guess that that is quite a helpful link to my amendment, which is about communication needs. I know that we explored this issue pretty thoroughly in our debate on the first group—you could argue that my amendment could have been in either the first grouping or this grouping, but it is in this grouping. I will keep it short, because we have talked about this quite a lot. In essence, the amendment is designed to ensure that communication needs being met is included on the list of the subject matter that must be considered and on which recommendations must be made during the care (education) and treatment review meetings.
It is clearly vital, as we have all acknowledged, that every effort is made to ensure that autistic people and people with learning disabilities are involved in their own care and treatment decisions and are able—this is the critical point—to express their preferences and needs. To ensure that this is the case, their communication needs must be understood, considered and met; the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made that point powerfully in our debate on the first group. Often, this needs to include understanding a person’s communications preferences; having the right sort of environment; making sure that the environment is supportive; or, sometimes, using very specific communication tools, which do exist. This can also include—this refers to the amendments from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—the involvement of a person who knows and understands the patient well, quite often a family member or advocate. That can be key to meeting someone’s communications needs.
I am sure we all agree that care and treatment reviews need to be designed to ensure that the person affected is central to the decisions being made about their care and treatment. It is therefore absolutely self-evident that communications needs should be considered and discussed at the beginning of those meeting to ensure that the person concerned is able to express their thoughts, wishes, feelings and preferences, so that everyone involved in the care and treatment of individuals is equipped to meet those moving forward.
I am very supportive of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Scriven which would lengthen the time between reviews from 12 months to six months. I think 12 months is just too long. An awful lot can happen in that period and circumstances can change. I know that we have a subsequent group on care and treatment plans, but on the point made by my noble friend Lady Barker, it is important to think of the individual in a fully joined-up way, looking at housing needs as well. I know that we are going to return to it in a subsequent group, but it vitally needs to include things such as money matters, debt advice, ensuring that the individual does not fall into financial exclusion and all of that. I have put my name to an amendment on that in a later group.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, with relation to housing. I do not want to go back 20 years for any reason except to say that, when we were closing the vast majority of mental health in-patient beds, the main aim of many of us doing those change programmes was to ensure that people had somewhere to live when they had been living in hospital for 10, 20 or, in some cases, 30 years, and that the housing had to be appropriate to their level of ability. Spending 30 years in a hospital does not exactly teach you self-reliance. There are some real challenges about that, so housing must be considered in any discharge planning.
On Amendments 19 and 20, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has sent me a copy of her speeches in her absence. Like others, I think that it shows her commitment to this House that at this point in her life she is trying to make sure that her voice is heard. I add my condolences to those of others in the Committee. Her point is that you would not discharge people from acute hospital without some proper care and treatment plan. I want to use my own words rather than hers, but when you say that somebody needs dialysis or that they need regular checking of their heart monitor, we automatically do it. Elective care is still getting a huge amount of focus, but elective care in this country is defined as acute hospital care, not elective care for mental health patients and people with learning disabilities. I want to rest it there, but that is why I support Amendments 19 and 20 so strongly.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I too am supportive of the spirit and intention behind Amendments 19 and 20, but I want to raise two textual questions relating to whether they would give effect as was intended.
In respect of Amendment 19, I am not sure that the explanatory statement accurately characterises what the amendment proposes. It says that the amendment ensures that ICBs and local authorities would
“have a duty to carry out”,
whereas at the point at which those words would be inserted it appears that the duty would also then fall to the patient’s responsible clinician. Amendment 19 by itself would essentially see CETRs overriding the judgment of the responsible clinician, which I think is quite a significant step to take.
In any event, I wonder whether Amendment 20 undoes any of the good work that Amendment 19 proposes in the first place. It says that you can ignore the exhortations of Amendment 19 if there is a “compelling reason” to do so. My question to the drafters of Amendment 20 would be: what statutory interpretation should be placed on “compelling reason” and how might the courts be expected to adjudicate in the event of judicial review?
Lord Bradley (Lab)
I support and have added my name to Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, around communication issues. As she rightly pointed out, this could have been linked to Amendment 2, which has already been debated at some length. I will not repeat the same arguments, but they apply to this amendment, which is why I support it.
I also very strongly support the amendment on housing tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I am chair of NHS England’s health and justice advisory board and have worked on the development of RECONNECT, the service to support people coming out of prison back into the community, which is very much a health-based initiative. Unless their housing needs are met at that point, their treatment, their support and their care plan can fall apart very quickly. Consequently, they are very quickly back in the criminal justice system. The same comparison can be made with this amendment. I strongly support housing being at the core of all issues relating to health and social care.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on Amendment 9. I know that there are other amendments in relation to the inclusion of parents and guardians. I raise just two small points in relation to this.
When one looks at where this amendment is inserted in the list, the last of the persons currently listed who would receive the report is
“the local authority in whose area the patient is ordinarily resident”.
That potentially will not always be the local authority where there is a care order. Therefore, in those circumstances, the local authority is caught with an
“other person who has parental responsibility”.
However, that is not how this is drafted in other parts of the Bill, where an
“other person who has parental responsibilities”
means guardians et cetera. For consistency of drafting, we need to look at that.
I know that the Minister has been very generous in the time that we have had with her and her officials, but we need a consistent phraseology within the Bill because with this amendment, if there was a special guardian the report would also go to the person with what is informally known as residual parental responsibility. Normally they are informed only, for instance, of the change of name of the child or if the child is going to leave the jurisdiction. We need to look at everybody with parental responsibility and have some consistent phraseology within the Bill when we are meaning the local authority when there is a care order and parental responsibility, to include all the different circumstances in which a child may have their status changed from the ordinary situation of living at home with parents when a court order is in place.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments aim to strengthen provisions for care (education) and treatment reviews—CETRs, as we have heard—for individuals with autism or a learning disability. These amendments collectively aim to address gaps in the current drafting and ensure that the needs and rights of these individuals are fully considered and respected.
This reflects the dignity, respect and patient-centred care principles that strengthen the Bill. Amendments 6 and 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, highlight the importance of considering housing needs during care (education) and treatment review meetings. A stable, safe and appropriate home environment is a critical determinant of mental health and well-being. Failure to address housing can undermine the effectiveness of care plans, leading to avoidable crises, as the Minister put it earlier, and setbacks that can risk damaging the long-term success of these care plans. Can the Minister please clarify how housing needs will be integrated into the CETRs under the current provisions of the Bill?
Amendments 8 to 10 and 15 to 17 focus on ensuring that the CETR process is inclusive and transparent. These amendments expand the list of those who should receive CETR reports to include the patient, their nominated person, independent mental health advocates and, where relevant, their parent or guardian. These measures should help foster trust and collaboration in the care process and create a more holistic approach to care planning by ensuring that all key individuals are kept informed. Can the Minister please confirm whether the current drafting of Clause 4 sufficiently addresses these inclusivity concerns or whether these amendments are necessary to achieve that goal?
Amendments 19 and 20 address the issue of ensuring that recommendations from CETRs are acted upon. It is not enough for reviews to generate reports and recommendations: there must be a clear and enforceable duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to act on them. Amendment 19 would strengthen this by replacing the current requirement to “have regard to” recommendations with a “duty” to carry them out; while Amendment 20 ensures that “a compelling reason” must justify any deviation from these recommendations.
These amendments reflect the frustration often experienced by patients and families when well-intentioned recommendations are not implemented. A stronger duty to implement recommendations would not only improve outcomes but restore trust in the system. Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to ensure that recommendations from CETRs are indeed implemented effectively?
Amendment 13 highlights the importance of addressing communication needs during the CETR meetings. It is highly welcome that the issue of communication and language has been addressed by so many noble Lords. Effective communication is essential for patient-centred care, ensuring that patients can meaningfully participate in that very care. Ensuring that individuals’ additional or alternative communication needs are met is not merely a courtesy, it is a necessity and a must-have. This group of amendments highlights the importance of a holistic, inclusive and accountable approach to care and treatment reviews. They seek to ensure that the needs of patients, including those related to housing, communication or support networks, are fully recognised and addressed. They also emphasise the need for timely reviews and actionable recommendations backed by clear accountability mechanisms.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition are broadly supportive of the aims of these amendments, and we look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and contributions today. It seems a while ago that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, originally spoke, but I put on record that I hear her frustration about having been here before. I certainly acknowledge that; and I am grateful for the contribution and time that noble Lords have given to this really important matter, so that perhaps, finally, we will not have to keep going where we have been before.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I entirely understand what the Minister has just said, although I do not agree with her, but the point she made about other persons is not contained in the clause that I was complaining about.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for making that point, and I will gladly review this in the light of it.
To return to the specific amendments, they would ensure that the patient, the patient’s nominated person, the independent mental health advocate and the parent, guardian or other person with parental responsibility receive in all cases a copy of the report following a care and treatment review meeting—or a care (education) and treatment review meeting for children and young people. The current drafting of the Bill is intended to make clear that a copy of the review report must be provided to those who have a legal duty to have regard to the review recommendations, so that any recommendations are implemented as appropriate.
We recognise that there may be individual circumstances that mean it is appropriate for the report to be provided to other people, including the patient themselves. For children and young people, this report is most likely to be shared with a parent, guardian or other person with parental responsibility, but it is important that the legislation does not inadvertently create a legal requirement that must be complied with, which would not be appropriate for every person.
A longer list of people with whom the report must be shared, in every case, may increase the chance of an individual withdrawing the consent for a review to be held if they do not wish for some or all the people to see the report. There may also be circumstances in which the report should reasonably be shared with other people in addition to those set out in the amendments—for example, a family member who has been part of the review process with the patient’s consent but is not the patient’s nominated person or someone with parental responsibility.
We have tabled a government amendment to make it clear that the arrangements may include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons, so that the patient may also ask that a copy be provided to others or decide to provide it to others. Statutory guidance will help assist the responsible commissioner when exercising its functions, including when considering other persons who are to receive the report. We wish to allow flexibility for this, so that individual circumstances can be taken into account based on the needs of the patient and their wishes, rather than by providing a prescriptive list of people to whom the report is to be sent in every circumstance.
Lord Scriven (LD)
For clarification, is the Minister therefore saying that the Government’s amendment will lead to some statutory instrument, or will it be just at the discretion of the Minister to determine a list and change it without any scrutiny?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am approaching this without going down the amendments’ route of having a fully prescriptive list, which might have unintended consequences.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I really need to understand the intent of the Minister’s Amendment 17
“authorising … a copy of the report to be given to other persons”.
How do the Government intend to draw up that list, to change it and to make it public, so that people know that they are appropriate persons and might be able to get the report?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I hope it helps to advise that the responsible commissioner will be key to all that. I emphasise the need to design around the patient and their needs. If there are further points that I need to look at on this, I would be very pleased to. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it.
Amendments 10 and 17 are technical and minor government amendments that make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the responsible commissioner may make arrangements for a care and treatment review report—or a care (education) and treatment review report for children and young people—to be provided to persons other than those listed in the clause. They could, for example, be those who have an interest in the recommendations because they are involved in the review process, such as an independent mental health advocate, a nominated person or a professional involved in the patient’s care and treatment. This would be subject to the patient’s consent. We believe that this is important to clarify, since the review process is likely to involve more people than those who are listed in the legislation, although this will vary according to the individual and their needs and circumstances.
In addition, the Bill makes specific provision to clarify which persons and bodies are to receive the report in every case to ensure that they can comply with their duty to have regard to the review recommendations. I hope that these government amendments find favour with noble Lords.
Amendments 11 and 18 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who raised the point that around a third of people have no CETR or CTR. My response is perhaps to provide the assurance that that is exactly why we are putting them on a statutory basis. It seems that Amendments 11 and 18 are intended to reduce the maximum amount of time between CTRs for adults and CETRs for children and young people from 12 months to six months following a patient’s initial review meeting. These amendments would apply to children and adults.
I listened closely, as I have listened closely to all comments from noble Lords, but we believe that these amendments are somewhat unnecessary. Current drafting provides that review meetings take place at least once in a 12-month period, in line with the maximum timeframe within NHS England’s policy and guidance. This is in addition to the requirement that arrangements must be made for everyone to have a review promptly upon admission, within 14 days for children and 28 days for adults. Commissioners should use their judgment to determine the frequency of subsequent reviews, in line with the specific needs of the patient. Patients, their families and advocates can also request a review meeting at any point.
There will be statutory guidance to provide commissioners with further information on factors to consider when determining whether more frequent reviews should take place. I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I hope that helps. For example, it is current practice that children under 18 have a review meeting every three months, and this would be articulated in the guidance. We consider it preferable to set out this information in statutory guidance, which can provide detailed case studies. That would not be possible if we set it out in the same way as primary legislation, not least because guidance can be readily updated in line with emerging best practice, including on frequency and considering particular circumstances.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened very carefully to the Minister about flexibility. Why is 12 months in the Bill? All I am trying to do is to change a statutory timeframe that the Government have put in the Bill to six months. That flexibility is not there because 12 months is in the Bill. I am trying to move that fixed point from 12 months to six months, regardless of what guidance says.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, I understand the intention, but I refer back, perhaps usefully, to the point I made earlier that review meetings would take place at least once in a 12-month period; it is not a maximum—I think I have got it the right way round. It will be at least once in a 12-month period; it is not that it can be only once in a 12-month period. That is, as I said, in line with the maximum timeframe in NHS England’s policy and guidance.
Amendment 13 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, relates to care and treatment reviews. The amendment seeks to ensure that a patient’s review makes recommendations about ensuring communication needs are met where there are additional or alternative communication needs. That is something we discussed very constructively in the first group and it was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. We believe that current drafting already provides for that in the Bill.
As set out in the clause, those meetings are to review any needs of the patient for social care or medical treatment and can make recommendations about whether and how those needs can be met. This should include recommendations about the patient’s communication needs, which may be important in ensuring that their treatment is effective and to support their discharge from hospital. As set out in the clause, a number of named persons and bodies are to have regard to the recommendations of the review. That will give them the appropriate legal weight to ensure that they are considered and that there must be clear reasons if they are not taken forward.
The Bill also introduces statutory care and treatment plans for all patients detained under the Act, excluding those under short-term sections. We plan to set out the required contents of the statutory care and treatment plan in regulations. It is our intention that this includes information about communication needs to enable the treating clinician to consider the protected characteristics and individual needs of the patient, which speaks to the point I made in the first group to my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and to make reasonable adjustments. Regulations will also require that the report from a patient’s care (education) and treatment review is attached to the care and treatment plan so that recommendations are included as part of this.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 19 and 20, tabled and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Bennett. These amendments seek to ensure that there is a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to carry out recommendations from a patient’s CTR, or CETR if the patient is a child or young person, unless there is a compelling reason provided for why a recommendation cannot be carried out. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for their differing but nevertheless significant contributions.
These review recommendations should be given the appropriate legal weight to ensure that they are given serious consideration. We have decided to include these provisions in the Bill to put the existing NHS England policy on a statutory footing.
The duty to “have regard” is a well-established duty that clinicians, ICBs and other public bodies are used to applying and it already exists within the Act. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked how the Government will ensure that these recommendations are implemented effectively. I hope that my comments will assist the noble Earl. Where effective care and treatment is the central aim, we would expect careful consideration of all recommendations. Where those bodies decide not to accept a relevant recommendation, we would expect them to have very good reasons for making that decision. It is an appropriate duty in this context because we do not intend to place an absolute duty on a body to follow recommendations in every case—that would be incompatible with understanding the individual needs and requirements of the person concerned.
The legislation must not impose unreasonable duties on relevant bodies that they cannot fulfil or where it would be inappropriate for them to do so; for example, if a recommendation was made that was outside of their purview. The Bill already requires that certain named persons or bodies carefully consider the recommendations and give them appropriate weight.
In view of all those comments, I thank noble Lords and ask that they do not press their amendments.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. We were, in essence, trying to get answers to the following questions. Who is responsible for drawing up the care plans and for reviewing the care (education) and treatment reviews? Who is responsible for ensuring that what is in those plans is compliant with the law? Who is responsible for making sure that it actually happens? Who is responsible for finding out whether it has not happened? Who carries the can if it has not happened?
At various points in the Minister’s answer, I was quite hopeful, then, towards the end, we went down the slope quite badly, because it turns out that, apparently, duties will not be put on people, and that is highly regrettable. The Minister does not need to explain to the Committee the difference between a statutory code of practice and a statutory instrument; the issue my noble friend was trying to get to is the extent to which Members of this House will see that these plans reflect what was intended in the law and what scope they will have to call it out if they do not.
I am pleased that it will be a statutory code of practice. That is one step up from nothing—it is not great, but it is better. I am also glad that the Minister said that care and treatment plans will be put in regulations. Will those regulations be done under the affirmative or the negative procedure? That is quite important. In light of all our discussions, we in this House should have the chance to examine that at considerable length and, if it is not right, to have a second go at it.
It is always salutary to sit and listen to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the subject on which she is quite rightly famous, not just in the House but outside it. I listened to her strong statement. She will know from other discussions that we have had on the wider subject of health that I have said many times, and I believe it to be true, that we have a health and social care system that is openly predicated on people’s families doing much of the work, and that is never more so than when it comes to discharge. She will have heard me bang on about this before, but I have a considerable degree of concern about what happens to people who do not have families or children. We have never done research on hospital discharge, but I suspect that, if people do not have a relative standing by the bed saying, “No. You are not discharging this person because they are not fit to go home”, they end up being discharged far too early, and I suspect they then go back into hospital as acute admissions a result of that.
That said, I understand what the noble and learned Baroness says about the involvement of parents. However, in 10% of cases, the parent is not the right person. We have heard that in evidence before, which she may recall, where young people who have been subject to mental health treatment have talked about problems within their families. Similarly, people under the Mental Capacity Act have sometimes been the subject of overbearing, overprotective parenting that they have found to be detrimental to them. I am not being anti-parent or asking that parents be excluded. Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Baroness that families are complex, and, as the Minister said, we must make sure that there is the scope to do the right thing for a child.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is absolutely right. Any amendment I might put forward in future would have to allow for that, as there must be some parents who would not be suitable.
Baroness Barker (LD)
It is getting late, and people wish to have their dinner because they been here a long time. I think we have had a partial response from the Minister. I believe that care and treatment plans and reviewing them are sufficiently important that some of us will want to go away to see whether, on issues that we may not have got technically right, we can come back, perhaps in discussion with the Minister, to satisfy ourselves.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
When I review all of the debates, particularly where there are areas where we need further discussion or information, I will be glad to pursue that. I give that assurance to the Committee.
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister and welcome that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Statement given in the other place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
“Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Labour Government. To grow the economy, we need to help Great British businesses export around the world, including to China. As the second biggest economy in the world and our fourth-largest trading partner, not engaging is simply not an option. That is why I led a delegation, including the Governor of the Bank of England, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority and representatives of some of Britain’s largest financial services firms, including HSBC, Standard Chartered and Schroders, at the 2025 UK-China economic and financial dialogue—the first of its kind since 2019.
This dialogue has delivered a set of tangible benefits to ensure that British firms have greater access to the Chinese market, while safeguarding our national security—the first duty of any Government. In China, I met outstanding British companies, such as Brompton, Jaguar Land Rover and AstraZeneca, that will benefit from the steps that we have agreed. We have worked to lift market access barriers across a range of goods and services, particularly in the agri-food sector. On financial services, we have successfully secured new licences and quota allocations for UK firms to improve operating access in China. We agreed to co-operate further, including by renewing our shared commitment to the UK-China Stock Connect scheme, first launched in 2019, deepening our co-operation on wealth management through a UK-China wealth connect scheme and progressing initiatives on pensions and sustainable finance, delivering significant benefits for UK firms and the City of London. I am pleased that China agreed to issue its first ever overseas sovereign green bond in London during 2025, underlining the UK’s position as a global capital for high-quality sustainable finance.
The UK is a global leader in financial services. There are significant opportunities to expand our presence in new markets. The tangible outcomes that we have delivered this week will help to deliver that. These steps are part of a wider programme to make substantive progress in improving arrangements for UK exporters and investors. This is reflected in new agreements on vaccine approvals, fertiliser, whisky labelling, legal services, automotives and accountancy, which set us on course for this dialogue to unlock £1 billion of value for the UK economy.
These outcomes, agreed with my counterpart Vice-Premier He Lifeng, represent pragmatic co-operation in action and support secure and resilient growth, because security and growth go hand in hand. This means finding the right way to build a stable and balanced relationship with China in our national interest—one that recognises the importance of co-operation in addressing the global issues that we face, competing where our interests differ, and challenging robustly where that is required. In Beijing and Shanghai, I was clear that while we must co-operate on areas of mutual interest, we will confidently challenge on areas where we disagree. I expressed our country’s real economic and trade concerns to the Chinese, including trade imbalances and economic security, and I raised concerns about Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, human rights, and the restrictions on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, including the case of Jimmy Lai and the completely unjustified sanctions against British parliamentarians.
A key outcome of this dialogue is that we have secured China’s commitment to improve existing channels, so that we can openly discuss sensitive issues and the ways in which they impact our economy, because if we do not engage with China, we cannot raise our real concerns. This dialogue is just one part of our engagement with trading partners right across the world. Since becoming Chancellor, I have travelled to New York, Washington, Toronto and Brussels to build our global economic relationships, while my right honourable friend the Business Secretary has travelled to the Gulf to boost trade and investment, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is engaging with partners all over the world to deliver growth that benefits people across the United Kingdom.
We must continue to go further and faster in driving economic growth to make working people better off. That is why, yesterday, the Prime Minister launched our AI opportunities action plan to throw the full weight of government behind artificial intelligence in the UK, revolutionising our public services and making our economy more productive. It is why next week I will be meeting business leaders, investors and entrepreneurs at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to make the case that the UK is one of the best places in the world to invest. In the coming weeks, I will be setting out further details of our plans to kick-start growth in the economy after 14 years of failure from the party opposite”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Instead of focusing only on the economic difficulties, I thought I would start by welcoming the improvement in the terms of our exports to China, which helps, in a small way, to redress the huge imbalance in trade that we have with China. The Chancellor has announced £600 million-worth of opportunities secured in Beijing. She states that barriers that restrict our exports to China in the agricultural sector—that would be pork and poultry, vaccines and fertilisers—will be lifted in an attempt to boost trade. I recall exporting chickens’ feet to China when I worked in the food industry. Will the Minister explain what exactly the real change is here?
Similarly, on financial services, can the Minister explain the improvements apparently being made? The green bond is welcome—I remember helping to launch other green bonds at the Stock Exchange—but can we have more chapter and verse on the other financial services gains? I mean gains to UK plc as opposed just to China—concrete changes that are not just warm words from bankers and legal firms, who obviously find the market difficult. We need to know more about the tangible benefits that the Minister outlined.
More broadly, of course, we are very concerned about the deterioration in the economic position back here at home in terms of debt, interest, rates of inflation and economic growth. In the Chancellor’s absence, the value of the pound plummeted and government borrowing costs rose to a 27-year high.
Let us consider growth. The Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet growth is now non-existent, and that means less money for public services. The Government are rightly exploring some obvious opportunities for growth: planning reform, the use of AI and improvement in skills. However, the fact is that businesses are vital to growth, and they have been dealt a triple whammy of costs.
The recent Budget broke election promises, introduced significant tax hikes and has been detrimental to British businesses and business confidence more broadly. Frankly, confidence is tanking, as many surveys and announcements show. This, combined with an increase in borrowing by an extra £30 billion a year, has inevitably caused international markets to question the future of the UK economy.
Instead of looking forward, there is much talk on the Benches opposite about the mythical black hole, but much of this is of the Government’s own making: over £8 billion on a public energy company, over £7 billion on a National Wealth Fund and nearly £10 billion of taxpayers’ money on public sector pay settlements without—this is so important—any requirement for a productivity return, at the very moment when it is right to extract one.
While many on the Government Benches may point to an international trend of rising borrowing costs, it should be noted that the gap between our bond yields and those of similar economies is growing. We now find ourselves in a position in which the UK’s long-term borrowing costs have risen to the highest level in nearly 30 years, and the pound has been at a 14-month low.
Can the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to address and restore stability in international markets? The increase in our borrowing costs is believed to have added roughly £12 billion to the UK’s annual spending in debt interest; that is 100 times what the Chancellor claims she accrued from her trip to Beijing. This £12 billion could have covered the costs of the winter fuel payment cut for eight and a half years or funded 300,000 nurses. According to the OBR forecast, two-thirds of the money raised from the Government’s jobs tax will have to be used to finance additional debt interest. As a consequence of the Chancellor’s policies, borrowing by the final year of the forecast will be doubled.
I repeat the question I posed to the Minister earlier today and encourage him to be more forthcoming. Will the Government do a U-turn on the spending increases that the Chancellor promised in the Budget? Will they borrow more or will they increase taxes further? One of these will have to give if the OBR’s update in March determines that the Chancellor is in breach of her own fiscal rules.
I am afraid that it is working people who will pay the price of the unfortunate decisions made by this Government in their Budget.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we must not allow anxiety about America under Trump and Musk, particularly on tariffs and climate change, to drive us into an unhealthy economic relationship with China. China is, of course, an economic powerhouse and our fourth-biggest trading partner, and there is more trade to be had, especially in financial services, to benefit both parties—but China is a very mixed blessing. It remains a cyber threat. Without greater transparency and safeguards, it is a potential threat to the integrity of our national security. It does not challenge the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It does not share our commitment to human rights and to democracy in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The imprisonment of Jimmy Lai is both a tragedy and a warning that our values are not respected. We on these Benches wish that the Chancellor had held firm and refused to go to China unless Jimmy Lai is released. China is a country that exploits weakness.
In light of these concerns, will the Government strengthen foreign direct investment screening and cyber defences, including increased data transparency requirements? Will they cease research co-operation on technology with China, its companies and researchers if adequate reciprocity and transparency cannot be achieved? Will they enact Magnitsky legislation to hold Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible following gross breaches of human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang province? Given the recent discovery of Chinese spying across several senior levels of the British establishment, do the Government agree that China should be placed in the enhanced tier for the foreign influence registration scheme?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their questions and contributions. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her initial welcome for the improvements in the trading relationship and the consequences they will have. As both noble Baronesses will know, delivering economic growth is this Government’s number one mission. It is central to raising living standards, creating wealth and opportunity, and delivering well-funded public services.
While the OECD forecasts that our economy will grow faster than those of Germany, Italy, France and Japan over the next three years, the latest growth figures show the scale of the challenge we face. The Government are therefore determined to go further and faster in driving economic growth and making working people better off, including by supporting British businesses to export around the world.
I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was suggesting this but, in this context, it is clearly not an option simply to ignore China, the second-biggest economy in the world and our fourth-largest trading partner. The Government will work with China on trade, investment and climate change while safeguarding our values and security. While our G7 partners invested heavily in dialogue with China in recent years, the UK fell behind due to the inconsistency in approach of the previous Government.
In addition to hampering our ability to deliver growth for the UK, this approach of disengagement also risked leaving the UK out of critical conversations on issues vital to the UK’s national security. In contrast, the UK-China economic and financial dialogue represents a decisive first step to restarting substantive engagement on important economic issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked specifically about financial services outcomes. The Government have successfully secured new licences and quota allocations for UK firms to improve operating access in China. We have progressed initiatives on pensions and sustainable finance, delivering significant benefits for UK firms and the City of London. Additionally, China has agreed to issue its first overseas sovereign green bond in London during 2025, underlining the UK’s position as a global capital for high-quality, sustainable finance.
Importantly, the UK and China also signed new agreements on vaccine approvals, fertiliser, whisky labelling, legal services, automotives and accountancy, which sets us on course for this dialogue to unlock £1 billion of value for the UK economy. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, slightly questioned the value of the £600 million that has been secured, but £600 million is a lot of money and delivers significant benefits for the UK, with new agreements in several important areas.
Of course, we accept that there is still more progress to be made; we must keep the momentum going forward, particularly in green finance. The Government would also like to see the UK and China further enhancing co-operation on capital market connectivity, wealth management and pensions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke extensively about security and the role of human rights, and obviously security and growth go hand in hand. That means finding the right way to build a stable and balanced relationship with China that is in our national interest—one that recognises the importance of co-operation and addressing the global issues we face, competing where interests differ and challenging robustly whenever that is required. That is why, on her visit, the Chancellor expressed the UK’s real economic and trade concerns to the Chinese, including trade imbalances and economic security. She also raised Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, human rights and the restrictions on rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, as the noble Baroness quite rightly raised, including the case of Jimmy Lai, and the completely unjustified sanctions against British parliamentarians. Importantly, the UK also secured China’s commitment to improve existing channels so that we can openly discuss these sensitive issues and the ways in which they impact our economy. If we do not engage with China, we cannot raise these very real concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised a number of security concerns and asked about security risks. National security is at the heart of everything the Government do. Our engagement with China is pragmatic and necessary to support the UK on global interests. We must speak often and candidly across areas of contention as well as areas where co-operation is in the UK’s national interest. We firmly recognise that the UK and China will not and do not always agree. The Chancellor’s visit was a platform for respectful and consistent future relations with China, one where we can be frank and open on areas where we disagree, protect our values and security interests and find opportunities for safe trade and investment.
The noble Baroness also asked about putting China on the enhanced security tier. I am not going to get ahead of any announcements and speculate which countries might be specified on the enhanced tier at this stage, nor would I comment on matters of national security, but, as I have said, work is under way to identify which foreign powers will be placed on the enhanced tier. That will be based on a robust security and intelligence analysis.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the Chancellor challenged her Chinese counterparts on human rights. I can confirm that yes, of course, the Chancellor raised human rights. In all our engagements with the Chinese Government, we continue to challenge them robustly on human rights violations and continue to raise our concerns at the highest levels of the Chinese Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about growth. The Government intend to build a platform for a stable long-term economic relationship with China that works squarely in our national interest. That is essential to our growth strategy. But, of course, our engagement with China is just one part of the action we are taking to drive growth. Internationally, we are engaging with key partners around the world, and that is why the Chancellor has travelled to New York, Washington, Toronto and Brussels to build global economic relationships since taking office. Domestically, only yesterday the Prime Minister launched an AI Opportunities Action Plan. Next week, the Chancellor will be meeting business, investors and entrepreneurs at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and in the coming weeks she will be setting out further details of our plans to kick-start growth in the economy.
I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised my favourite issue of the £22 billion black hole. I am happy to say that she is mistaken in her analysis of the composition of that black hole. She knows full well exactly the number the previous Government left behind. She is also mistaken in saying that we have made no productivity requirements in the Budget. We set out a 2% productivity requirement for every department, unlike the previous Government who had done no such thing.
The noble Baroness also asked about the fiscal rules. It is absolutely clear that we will meet the fiscal rules. They are non-negotiable. It is interesting that the noble Baroness repeated the party opposite’s opposition to every one of the tough and difficult decisions we have taken to repair the public finances and repair that £22 billion black hole in the public finances. I notice she did not speak out against what we are spending that money on but did against raising that money, which is exactly why we ended up with a £22 billion black hole in the first place. She asked about the action we will take. She should have no doubt that we will take the tough action necessary to ensure that we meet our fiscal rules.
In conclusion, establishing a stable and balanced relationship with China—our fourth-largest trading partnership—is clearly in the UK’s national interest. The Government will, of course, continue to take a consistent approach, co-operating to address the global issues we face, competing where our interests differ and challenging robustly whenever that is required. The Chancellor’s visit last week shows how pragmatic collaboration can deliver tangible outcomes that support secure and resilient growth. That is why the Government will go further and faster to drive economic growth to make working people better off, including by supporting British businesses to export around the world.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming this Statement, can I ask the Minister to elaborate on what bilateral agreements are being discussed on the governance of AI, which is becoming such a critical development globally?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is a very good question; I am sorry that it is the first question that I do not have an answer to. I will write to the noble Lord on that point.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as stated on the register. Following on from the question from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, UK inflation was 1.7% in September, it was 2.3% in October and it was 2.6% in November, so inflation is going up. UK real GDP growth was revised down to show no growth from July to September. Sterling is falling more than other currencies. That is all UK specific. Please can the Minister give us a rough date by which he will deliver a positive UK growth number?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I commend the noble Earl for his efforts to try to portray the previous Government’s record on the economy as some kind of success, whereas everyone listening both in the Chamber and outside knows that it was 14 years of total catastrophe. He mentioned inflation as if 33 months in a row above the Government’s target was something to be proud of, when we know that it hurt family finances dramatically over that time. He tried to say that the previous Government did well on growth, when we know that growth was one of their biggest failures. They took investment out of the economy at a vital moment with their austerity programme. They reduced GDP by 4% as a result of their Brexit deal, and then the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy, sending mortgage rates soaring by £300 a month, for which ordinary working people are still paying the price. I really reject the fundamental basis of the noble Earl’s question. He asked about timing. He knows very well that it is very difficult to turn around 14 years of failure. We cannot do that in six months, but we are determined to do it and will do whatever it takes to turn around the British economy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure I am supposed to speak, but I would just say that there was also something called Covid and an energy crisis and Ukraine. It would be good if the Minister sometimes mentioned those as well as some of the other factors.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I know the noble Baroness is desperate to find any scapegoat or excuse for her party’s total failure on the economy. Of course, there are international factors at play, but perhaps she could tell us why the UK was worse affected than any other country in the G7 and any other European country as a result of those things. It is because their austerity and their Brexit left this country more exposed and we therefore suffered far worse than any other country.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, this was an important visit. I welcome the Statement and endorse the importance of productive trade deals around the world leading to growth opportunities. I am pleased that the agritrade restrictions have been lifted. The UK has enjoyed a beneficial relationship with Taiwan, especially with regard to its world-leading semiconductor industry. In the visit to China over the weekend, was the position of Taiwan part of the conversations? Can the Minister assure the House regarding continuing trade relationships with Taiwan, against the background of the newly signed CPTPP deal and the pressures across the strait from Chinese challenges?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising those important trade issues. I can assure him that, having just acceded to the CPTPP trading relationship, we are absolutely committed to continuing that relationship and to building trade relationships in that manner. On Taiwan specifically, we consider the Taiwan issue one that should be settled peacefully by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through dialogue, not through any unilateral attempts to change the status quo.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just now, the Minister said that their austerity—referring to the Tory Government’s austerity—has left us worse off. Can the Minister assure me that we will not see further damaging austerity of the kind that has already left us with a terrible level of public health, teetering Civil Service departments that cannot keep up with their responsibilities and local government in crisis? Can he say that we are not going to see more of that from this Government?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I cannot remember what the Green Party’s position is on the national insurance increases that we have put in place. I certainly hope that she is not opposing those increases but supporting the extra investment that we are putting into the National Health Service as a result, because that would not be terribly coherent. We are committed to investing in our public services. The Budget we just had, in October, announced £100 billion more of capital investment. I certainly would not describe that as austerity.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Since the Minister came directly at me, I very much invite him to look at the Green Party manifesto from the recent election. It remains our position to raise money from a range of sources to put vastly more investment into the NHS and many other government programmes, particularly through a wealth tax. I invite the Minister to look at it.
Since I am on my feet, the question that I was originally going to ask relates to the position of Jimmy Lai, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Does the Minister agree that the situation of British citizen Jimmy Lai reflects the fact that there is no rule of law in China? In encouraging British businesses to further invest and become involved in China, is there not a significant risk to both their capital and staff where there is no rule of law? I am concerned that the Statement speaks with praise of HSBC and Standard Chartered. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the situation where those companies have refused to hand over to Hong Kongers—BNO passport-holders who have come to the UK—their own money in pension funds.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her follow-up question. I am sure that the Green Party manifesto is a cracking read and I will endeavour to read it, if I have time. I note that she did not say that she was in favour of the national insurance increase, so I take it that she is supporting the investment without supporting the means to raise that investment.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about British national Jimmy Lai. His case is a priority for the UK Government. The Chancellor raised this Government’s concerns about the case during her visit to China. The UK has called for the national security law to be repealed and for an end to the prosecution of all individuals charged under it, including Jimmy Lai. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release Jimmy Lai.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to Clauses 4 and 43 are minor and technical amendments to clarify that the references to after-care services include services arranged (as well as directly provided) by a public authority under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend the Minister, I shall also speak to government Amendments 14, 87 to 94, 127, 161 and 162, also in the name of my noble friend the Minister.
The minor and technical government Amendments 7, 14 and 127 make changes to Clauses 4 and 43 to clarify that the references to aftercare services include services arranged, as well as directly provided, by a public authority under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
I turn to government Amendments 87 to 94, which concern Clause 31, and Amendment 162 on the commencement of certain provisions within Clauses 29, 31 and 34. Amendments 87 to 94 divide Clause 31 into two clauses to allow for automatic referral rights to the mental health tribunal to be commenced separately for patients who will be subject to conditional discharge subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. This is an important safeguard for this new form of conditional discharge, given the level of restriction that these individuals will be under. Under Clause 31, patients conditionally discharged under deprivation of liberty conditions will be referred to the tribunal 12 months post discharge and every two years thereafter.
Amendment 162 amends Clause 53 to adjust commencement for certain provisions currently commenced by regulations to be commenced two months after Royal Assent, and vice versa. Automatic referral to the tribunal under Clause 31 and increased application rights under Clause 29(2) shall now commence at two months post Royal Assent for conditionally discharged patients subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. That is to coincide with the introduction of this new subset of conditional discharge at Clause 33 and ensures that the new measure is introduced with the full suite of carefully considered safeguards in place.
Amendment 162 also adjusts commencement for the change of detention criteria for transfers from places of detention to hospital under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to commence via regulations. This change in the detention threshold ensures that the detention criteria can be met without the need for a hospital bed to be identified, and is closely linked to the introduction of the statutory time limit at Clause 35. The ability to commence this reform simultaneously with the time limit at Clause 35 will allow for streamlined implementation planning around the new statutory notice process and accompanying guidance.
Finally, government Amendment 161 creates an equivalent power for Welsh Ministers to make consequential provision in areas of their devolved legislative competence. This is a limited power and allows Ministers to make regulations containing such provision as they consider necessary to deal with legislative consequences that arise as a result of the Bill. The power cannot be used to make substantive policy changes. This new clause would mirror the powers of the Secretary of State, as set out in Clause 51. This provision was requested by the Welsh Government in their legislative consent memorandum, in which they recommended that the Senedd grants consent to the Mental Health Bill. We believe that this is appropriate, and I am grateful to the Welsh Government for their close collaboration and support for this important piece of legislation.
I hope that noble Lords are able to support these technical and necessary amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is thinking, “If only all groups went as swiftly as this one”. I thank him for bringing forward these government amendments. We understand that although they are largely technical in nature, they address some important points regarding the delivery of aftercare services, tribunal reviews and the broader application of this legislation.
We see the point of Amendments 7, 14, and 127 to clarify the references to aftercare services under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act, including services arranged by public authorities in addition to those directly provided. We understand that this reflects the practical realities of service delivery and may help to avoid ambiguity in how these obligations are interpreted. If we have heard any lesson throughout this debate, it is about how we avoid ambiguity when it comes to the treatment of patients.
We understand also that Amendments 87 to 94 focus on tribunal reviews for patients subject to conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty, which we have discussed in other groups. The proposal to commence these provisions two months after Royal Assent is pragmatic and necessary to provide patients with timely access to justice. The amendments also introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to refer certain cases to the tribunal within defined timelines. We agree that this will ensure that patients who are conditionally discharged but not recalled to the hospital are not left in a state of indefinite uncertainty. Once again, that was covered in the last group of amendments as somewhere where the patient could fall between the cracks, as it were. Timely tribunal reviews are essential for safeguarding patients’ rights and ensuring that any conditions imposed remain proportionate and necessary.
We understand also that Amendments 161 and 162 propose adjustments to the commencement of specific provisions, including granting Welsh Ministers powers to make consequential provisions within their devolved competence. Though these amendments are largely procedural, they underline the importance of clarity in implementing the reforms set out in the Bill. Of course, we understand that healthcare is a devolved matter. I remember having to deal with the devolved Administrations when I was a Health Minister, and we always did so collaboratively. Welsh Ministers should indeed have the same right to make consequential provisions, although if I have a question for the Minister, it is: what safeguards and oversight mechanisms will be in place to ensure equal application of the Bill to Wales, as in England? I am sure he will be aware that we have sometimes had questions in this place as to why the standard of health or social care in another part of the United Kingdom might be different, even understanding that it is due to devolution. Are there any safeguards to ensure that one part of the UK is not seen as having an inferior service to the rest of the UK? How would the Government address that?
With that, we very clearly understand that these are technical amendments and we will not oppose them.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and take his point about ensuring there are equal standards across the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. However, nothing is guaranteed. As he undoubtedly did when in government, we will endeavour to collaborate with Welsh colleagues—as well as others—to ensure that equal standards are applied across England and Wales. That includes regular contact with the Senedd and the Welsh Executive on a variety of matters, including health. That may be a slightly vague answer, but at the moment it is the best I can do.
I thank the noble Lord for his other comments. I have spoken about the need for these minor, technical and necessary amendments, and I hope noble Lords can support them.
Lord Kamall (Con)
This raises another issue, which I know has been raised in other areas of healthcare, of families who live across borders—if the parents live in one part of the United Kingdom and the children live in another, or if someone who has lived away from home moves back. I do not expect an answer now, as that would be unfair, but if the noble Lord could write to noble Lords on cross-border issues, where someone has commenced care in one area but then they or their parents have moved to another area, that would be satisfactory. We had a number of issues around this in healthcare, particularly mental health care, and it is important to resolve them.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am happy to do that. I remember having those sorts of issues when I was a Member of the other place. Probably a number of us have experienced them. I suppose that, at present, it is how it has always been: you have to try to communicate with the respective authorities and bring them together so that there is some sort of continuity.
Lord Cryer
“(The arrangements may also include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons.)”Member’s explanatory statement
New section 125A(3)(b) requires arrangements to include provision for reports to be given to the people listed in that provision. This amendment provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that arrangements may also include provision for reports to be given to others.
Lord Cryer
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 4, page 5, line 20.
Lord Cryer
“(The arrangements may also include provision authorising or requiring a copy of the report to be given to other persons.)”Member’s explanatory statement
New section 125B(3)(b) requires arrangements to include provision for reports to be given to the people listed in that provision. This amendment provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that arrangements may also include provision for reports to be given to others.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“(ba) the person is under 18 years old and satisfies the conditions in (b)(i) and (b)(ii),”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment inserts a new subsection that extends the duty on integrated care boards to establish and maintain a register for those at risk of detention to all children and young people under the age of 18.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 27 and 32 in my name. My amendments all relate to children and young people, but this group also includes important amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Scriven, which I support, on the duties on commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities regarding care provisions for people with a learning disability or autism. Also important are the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Hollins. I add my condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I am sure we are all thinking of her today.
By way of context, the Bill introduces a new duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to commission community services for those with a learning disability and autism. The Bill also places dynamic support registers on a statutory footing. These are welcome and much-needed duties, and the Bill presents a crucial opportunity to strengthen the support provided to those with learning disabilities and autism. However, I want to go further. I recognise that there is some piggybacking on my part, but I am passionate about the mental health support that is available to children and young people, so I believe that the duties to provide community services should be extended to include everyone aged under 18, to ensure that children and young people can have their needs met without them having to be admitted as in-patients. That is where is my Amendments 21, 27 and 32 come in—they are all interrelated.
Amendment 21 seeks to extend the duties placed on integrated care boards to maintain a register of those at risk of detention to all under-18s. Amendments 27 and 32 would extend the new commissioning duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to include under-18s. In essence, the duties are both to identify and to commission services in the community that meet the needs of all under-18s.
As I think we all know, the Bill has been introduced at a point when waiting times and thresholds for mental health support for children and young people across early intervention services, targeted support services, CAMHS, et cetera are worryingly high. Consequently, too many children and young people are left to reach crisis point. Evidence shows that the number of children referred to emergency mental health care in England has increased by more than 50% in three years. These amendments will not only help to achieve improved outcomes for children and young people but have wider benefits for the mental health systems through intervening at an earlier stage, providing improved care for children and young people in the most appropriate settings, and reducing costs. This is all in line with the Government’s key drive to move to a more community-based, preventive model of healthcare—and, frankly, that should apply to mental health as well as to physical health, and to children and young people as well as to adults.
We all know, as we have discussed so many times in this Chamber, that children’s mental health support has historically been woefully underfunded. There is a lack of clear accountability to ensure that effective community provision is in place. I therefore consider that adding all children and young people to the new commissioning duty placed on local authorities and ICBs in the Bill is crucial to ensuring that their needs can be met at an early stage, preventing crisis and later admission to mental health in-patient care. We should worry about the whole system and try to prevent people getting to in-patient care, as well as worrying about those who do. In short, my argument is that their needs should be met without the need to detain children and young people, wherever that is possible.
Research has demonstrated that children’s and young people’s experience of in-patient care is consistently poor, too often further harming their mental health. A survey conducted by Mind on children’s and young people’s experience of care in mental health hospitals found that 69% of the young people surveyed said that their experience as in-patients had not been positive. In my view, a shift to such community-based provision would not only reduce the number of children and young people requiring in-patient beds but would in turn reduce demand for in-patient care and the risks of children and young people being cared for in what can often be highly unsuitable environments. It would also ensure that those with the most complex needs who do need in-patient care receive high-quality care in a setting that is right for them.
In case people are sceptical as to whether this sort of care can be provided in the community, I am aware of case studies of types of support in the community, such as hubs and the like, that can be used to manage high levels of risk. Where that care is provided in the community, in a relaxed, warm and calm environment, it can often be an alternative to young people having to visit A&E, where they may not get specialist mental health support and waiting times can be so long. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, this group includes Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to which I have added my name—to which I will not speak because I think it will be fully discussed—and two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She is a dear colleague and friend of many years, and this is my first opportunity in the debate to express my personal sympathy for her loss this week.
I will speak to Amendment 28 in this group, which is in my name. In addition to local authorities’ market-shaping function—I have to say I find the choice of words there a little difficult; I had to read it a few times just to make quite clear that I know what that is—the Bill includes reference to the “commissioning functions” of local authorities when having regard to information from risk registers and ensuring that the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people are met.
Under the Bill, new Section 125G makes it clear that integrated care boards’ commissioning functions are related only to health services. New Section 125E(3) makes clear that
“‘market function’, in relation to a local authority, means its function”
to
“promoting diversity and quality in provision of services”
under the Care Act 2014. This amendment would add local authority commissioning explicitly, by which is meant the local authority’s commissioning duties in relation to providing care and support under the Care Act 2014. The proposed duty in relation to local authority market shaping does not adequately cover local authority commissioning. The issue of poor commissioning in relation to this group has been frequently cited in reports. This is an opportunity to redress that and to be clear about their function.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 in my name in this group. I support Amendment 28, which was just spoken to very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and Amendments 36 and 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I want to put on record my condolences to her at what must be a very sad and difficult time.
Quite a number of amendments that I have put down in this group, particularly Amendment 22, are about prevention. It is about getting upstream and trying to use the dynamic support registers—the risk registers—in a better way, and, by so doing, having the correct information that is available to a place, rather than just to an organisation, such as the NHS or the ICB, within that place.
Amendment 22 would ensure that local authorities have an active role in assisting ICBs in identifying people for inclusion in the risk registers. NHS England’s policy and guidance on dynamic support registers states:
“Early identification of people at risk of admission to a mental health hospital and their access to person-centred planning and support are essential for the prevention of avoidable admissions”.
Many people with risk factors will first come into contact with a local authority, particularly people with learning disabilities and autism. It is important that the local authority has a clear responsibility to assist ICBs in identifying people for inclusion on the register, to ensure that people get the right support at the right time. I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit that it is given. This is an important issue which is not strong enough in the Bill and which really needs to be taken account of.
There have been difficulties for some people getting enrolled on the DSR, and this is particularly true for autistic people without a learning disability. Additionally, NHS England data shows that 52% of autistic people and people with a learning disability detained in a mental health hospital are not on a risk register prior to admission. Therefore, there is a gap, and the Bill gives us a chance to help plug it. Hopefully, placing this duty on local authorities will facilitate greater uptake and enrolment on the register for all, therefore helping to reduce admissions, improving support in the community and being a good preventive measure.
Coupled with this, Amendments 36 and 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would help with that prevention role by making sure that proper provision was available. Taken together, Amendments 22, 36 and 37 would be a really good group of steps forward to help with preventive measures to make sure that all people who can be identified who come into contact with a local authority but are not known to the ICB go on the register, and that provision is made.
Amendments 24 and 29 would change the current language in the Bill. After listening to debate on previous amendments, I will not labour the point because I have a good idea what the Minister might say, but again I think the provision needs to be strengthened so that ICBs and local authorities have a duty to consider the risk register when exercising commissioning and marketing functions.
In Amendments 25 and 30 there is the same approach by strengthening the words in the Bill to ensure that ICBs and local authorities have a duty to ensure that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability are met in the community wherever possible. The current language in the Bill states only that ICBs and local authorities must “seek to ensure” that the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability are met. This wording is vague and does not compel a strong enough duty to meet the needs of people in the community. Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would strengthen my amendments even further.
These amendments are important. I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully, will make efforts to implement some of these steps and reports back on Report.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Hollins’s Amendments 36 and 37. I add myself to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about the remarkable commitment that my noble friend is showing at this awful time and express my personal condolences. What I am going to say is based on comments that she has passed to me. I should perhaps say at the beginning that I too am an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—“(unqualified)”, as others have made that disclaimer.
The purpose of these amendments is very clear. Amendment 36 states that ICBs
“must ensure the availability of integrated comprehensive, accessible, and responsive community services for autistic people and people with learning disabilities … to reduce hospital admissions … and … reliance on restrictive interventions”.
As the previous two noble Lords said, it is very much about prevention and creating appropriate services.
I note that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that Clause 4
“is designed to help ensure that ICBs can monitor individuals at risk of detention and put in place the necessary preventative measures to help keep people out of hospitals”.
Putting it simply, this amendment takes that rather weak wording in the explanation and toughens it up. The issue here is not about good intentions and ensuring that it is possible for something to happen. I am sure that all noble Lords share the intention and the hope that these things will be in place, but this is about making sure that something happens. It is about implementation and seeing that a change happens.
This is vital because it is clear that there are major problems in service coverage right now. For example, only a quarter of integrated care systems are meeting their target of having only 30 people per million admitted. Of course, that number would ideally be much lower than it is, but only a quarter of these systems are even meeting that. Amendment 36 spells out what these services should include. I will not read them out in detail but noble Lords can see that they cover all the relevant areas that one would expect: evidence-based treatments, crisis prevention and intervention services, non-restrictive walk-in services, and the provision of “suitable housing”.
I will comment on two of those items in a moment. All of them are important but what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had in mind was not just discussing these items but seeing her amendment as an opportunity to discuss which services are the right ones—the ones that should be there—and which areas ICBs and local authorities should address. The key point at this stage is not so much about the detail but the need for some clear legislative requirements on what services must be provided. Good intentions are simply not good enough; implementation is what is needed.
I will mention two of those items that relate to points made earlier by other noble Lords in our debates on this group and others. One is the reference to “non-drug-based interventions” and “social prescribing”; their importance in community services applies in all kinds of ways. The second is the point about housing, which, as has been discussed, is vital. Ten years ago, I did a review for the Royal College of Psychiatrists on discharges from acute adult hospitals. A third of the people in those hospitals were there because they did not have adequate accommodation anywhere else. That third included people who had nowhere to be discharged to, in terms of adequate housing. It is a really serious issue. I make those points because both of these issues go beyond this amendment: in some ways, they are not about healthcare as much as they are about enabling people to have a decent life and creating the conditions for people to be healthy and live in the best way possible.
Amendment 37 is about issuing guidance on standards and monitoring and reviewing progress. Again, without that, we cannot be sure that this legislation will make a difference to the people who matter.
I will make three final points. I recognise that there are perverse issues of finance here because, of course, the NHS pays when people are in hospital and the local authority pays for the services in the community. Of course, that reminds us all of the need to get the social care policy right and the importance, wherever the boundaries fall between public bodies, of using public money wisely across organisations.
In that context, I stress that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has set out in this amendment is not an unachievable wish list. Even in today’s circumstances, some people are making real progress. Mencap pointed me towards the Black Country’s emergency response team, which noble Lords may know about and which meets many of these criteria for services. In 2022-23, it supported 51 people who were presumably being paid for by the local authority and who might otherwise have been admitted for the equivalent cost of a single assessment and treatment bed, presumably paid for by the NHS. Preventive and good-quality services so often make good financial sense, as well as being better for the people concerned. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with that project but I would certainly encourage her to have a look at it if she has not already done so.
The second point I want to make is that, although I have not actually checked the reference, I believe that the Minister said something at Second Reading about delaying the implementation of some parts of this Bill until the services are in place. I would be grateful if she could say what was meant by that, but also why it is necessary when people can make progress quite quickly.
The Black Country example—and I suspect that there are others—shows that people are making progress and that, in many ways, it is better to have a stretching target that people are moving towards rather than saying, “If you don’t have the services, we won’t implement the legislation”. We need to keep moving forward and show faith both in what this Bill is designed to achieve and in the Government’s agenda on prevention and on moving towards the community. No doubt the digital transformation is also extremely relevant here.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, my noble friend Lady Browning, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—who sadly is not in her place today—for their amendments in this group.
Given that it is now widely accepted that we should be moving towards a system of health and care focused on prevention, these all appear to be sensible amendments. They seek to understand how integrated care boards and local authorities are identifying those with autism or learning disabilities, the risk of them being detained and, if appropriate, the risk to the community, as well as ensuring that those with autism and learning disabilities receive the appropriate level of care.
Amendment 28, in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning, specifies that local authorities must seek to ensure the needs of people with autism and learning disabilities can be met without detention when they are exercising not only their market function but their commissioning functions. This acknowledges the roles that local authorities play in commissioning health and social care. Local authorities commission publicly funded social and healthcare services, many of which interact with mental health service provision, such as authorised mental health professionals and addiction services. By explicitly mentioning the commissioning functions of local authorities and not just the market functions which arise out of the Care Act 2014, this amendment gives the Bill greater clarity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has tabled Amendments 36 and 37 in this group, which relate to the provision of community services for autistic people. These amendments are in a similar vein to Amendment 139 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kamall, which will be discussed in the next group and which seeks to ensure a greater availability of community services. Amendments 36 and 37 expand the duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to provide better and more responsive care to those on dynamic support registers.
Of particular interest is subsection (3)(a) of the new Section 125I proposed in Amendment 37. That new provision states that integrated care boards must
“establish digital systems to … assess, monitor, and address sources of inequality”
arising out of the current provision of mental health care. As my noble friend Lord Kamall has been keen to stress, digitalisation in health and social care is the way forward for improving productivity and ensuring the best possible care outcomes.
I know the Minister believes in the value of the expanded use of technology and digital systems, and it would be welcome if she could give some commitment here. When we hear from her, we would be interested in whether there are any legal reasons for not being able to accept what these amendments seek to do, such as around issues of privacy, or whether the barriers are financial. We very much look forward to the response of the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords present for their contributions this evening. Perhaps I can make a general point to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the main pillars of change which we look forward to in the 10 year-plan. The noble Earl has just referred to one of them, which is the move from analogue to digital. In that context—the noble Baroness raised a point about parity between mental health and physical health—the moves from sickness to prevention, from hospital to community and from analogue to digital apply at least as much to mental health as they do to physical health. That is our way forward. I am looking forward to the 10 year-plan to really give structure to that.
Let me turn to Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. This amendment seeks to ensure that the register under new Section 125D includes autistic children and children with a learning disability who have risk factors for detention, so that they can be supported in the community. We absolutely agree with the intention behind the amendment, although I have to say that it is regarded as unnecessary because the current drafting does not limit the duty to adults; it includes anyone who meets the other criteria, including children, which I know the noble Baroness is rightly looking for. The register is designed to provide health and care bodies with additional information about the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people who have risk factors for detention under Part II of the Act. That is to ensure there is a particular focus on their needs, so that they can be better supported in the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made the observation, which I understand, about too many children being left to reach crisis point and the increase in the number of children in need of mental health services, particularly over the last three years. I very much recognise this concern. We have seen an increase in referrals and access across children’s and young people’s mental health services, including crisis services. This is due to an expansion of the services to meet need but also to an increase in prevalence and intensity. It might be helpful if I indicate that NHS England is in the process of developing proposals for a new model of specialised children’s and young persons’ mental health services, supported by a new service specification and quality standards. This new approach would support delivery of specialised services in the community, as well as in appropriate in-patient settings close to the child’s or young person’s family and home. That is a matter that has been raised many times in this Chamber and one that I am very sympathetic to.
Amendment 22 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. If taken forward, this amendment would require each local authority to assist the integrated care board in its duties in respect of support registers for people with a learning disability and autistic people. We certainly agree with the intent of this, and I am pleased to be able to provide reassurance that the clause already provides the Secretary of State with the general power to make further provision about the register in regulations. We expect this to include detail on how relevant information is to be obtained and from whom. This is to include the role of local authorities, alongside other relevant health and care bodies, in providing further relevant information.
We believe that it is most appropriate to include this detail in regulations rather than in primary legislation, since the way in which information is obtained, what information is obtained and who might be involved may change with emerging best practice. As noble Lords will realise, that point has been made in respect of a number of these amendments. Returning this to Parliament at every instance would be disproportionate.
However, it is important that the process actively involves health and care system partners. We are clear that the integrated care board must retain overall responsibility for the register. Providing a list of named bodies that have a role in providing information in the legislation may create an unintended diffusion of responsibility, which could negate the benefits of putting these registers on a statutory footing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in mid-flow. She has just explained why it would be wrong to put the process for collecting the data in the Bill, with which I completely agree, but my amendment does not seek to do that. It seeks to make it a legislative requirement of local authorities to be part of the process.
The reason I have tabled the amendment—and I am sure it is the same for the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, in putting her name to it—is that NHS England’s figures say that a lot of people who are admitted to hospital, 52%, are not on the register, but many will have come into contact with the local authority. That is why it is important for the Bill to make local authorities part of the process of identifying who should be on the register. That would subsequently allow the Government to provide statutory guidance about the collection of the data, but it is important that there is a statutory duty in the Bill to do that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for adding to the points that he made in response to my comments and the assurances that I have just given, and I am happy to review them. I understand the intent.
Amendments 24 and 29, tabled also by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seek to impose a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to consider information in the register, or obtained by virtue of this clause, when exercising certain existing functions. I strongly agree with the principles behind these amendments, although it is considered that the current drafting in the clause, which requires both integrated care boards and local authorities to “have regard to” the relevant information, already achieves the intended effect. The common duty to have regard is one that both integrated care boards and local authorities are familiar with and used to applying. In this context, we expect this duty to result in careful consideration being given to the information.
Departing from the wording of a well-established duty could create ambiguity, leaving it to the interpretation of individual integrated care boards and local authorities. As I can see the noble Lord agrees, that would be a very undesirable outcome. It may inadvertently create a weaker duty than that set out in the Bill or lead to variation in interpretation and response to the duties.
If Amendments 25, 26, 30 and 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, were taken forward, they would put a duty on integrated care boards and local authorities to ensure that the needs of people with a learning disability and those who are autistic could be met without detaining them, unless there was a compelling reason why that was not possible. A point was raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about difficulties in enrolment on dynamic support registers and the need to address that in the Bill. DSRs are part of existing NHS England policy and we have heard that they can be effective in preventing hospital admissions. That is why we propose putting these important registers on a statutory footing and making them a requirement.
The Bill already places duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to seek to ensure that the needs of those with a learning disability and of autistic people can be met without detaining them under Part II. This is a legal requirement to ensure that particular attention is paid to the needs of people with a learning disability and of autistic people, and that services should be commissioned accordingly.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank other noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
For me, the nub of this grouping has been the whole issue of prevention—I think “getting upstream” was the phrase my noble friend Lord Scriven used—and having in place within the community better and more responsive services, with the aim of reducing admissions to in-patient care but, at the same time, improving the in-patient care that is available, because the only people there are those for whom nothing else will work. It is very welcome that the Bill puts the dynamic support register on a statutory footing. On the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, beefing that up still further, I think I heard a slightly encouraging response from the Minister. I will look carefully at Hansard tomorrow, as I am sure will the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to see what was said.
I can see that while some people may think that prevention is very important, they would ask what it has to do with this Bill. I do not see it like that. You have to take a system-wide approach. To get the whole mental health service working, even when you are looking at what I call the hard end—the crisis end—you have to look at what is happening at the preventive end and try to reduce the number of people who might need to be admitted. That would send an important message that there are clear legislative requirements for what services should be available within the community. This Bill, frankly, is the obvious place to do it—hence the amendments around children and young people that I raised.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the transformation and the 10-year plan will apply at least as much to mental health as to physical health. That is very encouraging and I am glad that we have got it on record. I was not altogether surprised that the Minister thought that my amendments were unnecessary. I do not agree. I was not just talking about children and young people with learning disabilities and autism. They are obviously a very important group, but my rationale for trying to broaden it out to all children and young people was, in essence, to make sure that only those with the most complex needs would receive that higher-quality care in an in-patient setting—everyone would benefit from that approach. The Minister talked about a new approach to children’s and young people’s services, and I look forward to hearing more details. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us when we might expect to see that.
Finally, my view is that the 1983 Act was never really designed with children and young people in mind; I think everyone agrees with that. This Bill is an opportunity for us to put children and young people centre stage—hence my amendment. This is such an important topic that I think we shall be returning to it on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.