Fire Safety Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

The Government’s plan and funding to address this fire safety issue are a welcome start. I am not going to rehearse the points already made this afternoon, but I believe that the role of affordable home ownership schemes in this disaster has been overlooked.

Many people engulfed in this scandal are first-time buyers who took their first step on the property ladder through Conservative-backed schemes intended to boost home ownership. People use these schemes because they are not cash rich, but they are now facing unexpected bills for life-changing sums, and some are being asked to take up further Government loans to pay them. The drafting of this Bill means that despite owning only part of the value of their flat, leaseholders are potentially liable for 100% of the share of the costs. In effect, they are subsidising their landlords, who own the remaining percentage of the value of the flat but pay nothing to remedy the defects. Leaseholders have always had to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of buildings they do not own, owing to the way leasehold agreements work, but the building defects and costs involved to fix them are beyond what anyone could have contemplated.

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to read out a case study of a future constituent —someone hoping to relocate to my constituency. This individual owns a one-bedroom flat in the Olympic village in London, in which she has a 35% interest, and is seeking to move to Penzance, in my constituency, to be with her fiancé. The flat was sold to her as a low-risk investment; she was encouraged by the shared ownership Government scheme, as part of their affordable housing directive. Her block was found to have missing fire cavity barriers, rendering it a B2 rating, warranting remediation, with the bills potentially being in excess of £50,000 for her flat alone. The housing association is trying to bring the developers to account, something that legally it is not required to do. Failing that, this will result in a lengthy legal battle, during which she may well be presented with the bill for remediation work in order to make the block fire safe and adhere to the Government’s new guidelines. Applying for a grant under the Jenrick announcement for remediation works is an extremely slow and complicated process. If the housing association does not succeed in getting the perpetrators to fix their mess, she will get the bill, and as a shared owner she will be liable for the full 100% of the bill, not 35%, which is the share she owns of the property. In any case, it is highly unlikely she will be able to sell property for years to come and buy into the Cornish economy by purchasing a house.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has put forward very pragmatic proposals to unlock the deadlock and improve the fire safety of homes across our nation, and I would welcome the Minister’s response to these sensible proposals,

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

Over the weekend, it was reported that the Bank of England is assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis—why? It was because 1.3 million flats are unmortgageable and as many as 3 million people face a wait of up to 10 years to sell or get a new mortgage because they cannot prove that their homes are safe.

This scandal has gone on for too long and it has already caused too much damage. This Government must accept the Lords amendment that would protect leaseholders from exorbitant costs, or they should drop this Bill altogether and bring back a better version in the Queen’s Speech. It is simply incredible that the Government have had 10 whole months to break the deadlock and propose a solution that they find acceptable, but they have refused to do so. Instead, they wage a campaign of scaremongering, telling us that if the Bill fails it will have the effect of increasing fire safety risks. Well, that is not the view of the leaseholders in my constituency; it is not the view of the leaseholder group; and it is not the view of the Cladding Action Group. They are speaking with one voice and they are clear that they would much rather see this defective Bill fall than pass in its current form.

Fire Safety Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). The Government have moved swiftly to try to remediate the cladding on tall buildings. There has been slow progress, but progress is being made. In medium-rise buildings—those below six storeys—leaseholders will have to bear a cost, but we do not know what that cost will be, and we do not yet know the results of the proposals for the loan scheme. It is quite clear that the Government are trying to find a way forward, but we have yet to see the details.

There is also the issue of fire safety in buildings. The Bill is vital to preserving fire safety across the country in all buildings, whatever their structure. The Grenfell inquiry lifted the lid on the scandal of the tall buildings erected in this country without following proper fire safety regulations. Once a survey is carried out on a building, we know the extent to which work is required, whether regulations were followed, when the building was put up and whether the materials used in the building were correct. The people who provided substandard materials should be made to replace them free of charge. If builders put buildings up without following the proper regulations, we should go back to them and required them to carry out the remediation.

The one set of people who are completely and utterly innocent is the leaseholders. They did not build their building; they bought their lease in the belief that it was safe and secure. We should send out the strongest signal tonight that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remedying things that were not their fault.

The Minister may say that the Bill is the wrong place to put that provision, but it will take at least 18 months—possibly two years—to bring the building safety Bill to fruition. Leaseholders do not have time to wait for us to deliberate, so let us join together and send the signal that leaseholders do not have to pay a penny. If the Government believe that Lords amendment 4B is somehow flawed, let them come forward with an amendment that is satisfactory and will result in the key outcome: not requiring leaseholders to pay.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

I am pleased to see the Bill back before us, and proud that it was an amendment that I tabled last June in Committee—new clause 3—that first introduced the principle that leaseholders must be protected from the extortionate costs of fire safety remediation. I am very grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock for taking up the idea in the other place, and to the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and the Lord Bishops of St Albans and London for improving it along the way.

The arguments for and against protecting leaseholders in the Bill are now well established. The Government continue to attempt to fob us off with the inadequate and flawed remediation fund, but fire safety experts have debunked the fund’s arbitrary 18-metre cut-off. Meanwhile, leaseholders keep trying in vain to tell the Government that it is not just about cladding; buildings of any height would still be left liable for non-cladding remediation of missing fire breaks, flammable balconies or dangerous insulation, as well as having to pay for waking watches and additional alarms.

I have listened with interest as Ministers continue to reject the amendment. We hear time and again that it is not sufficiently detailed, that it would require substantial drafting of primary legislation and that it could cause litigation, delay remediation work and have unintended consequences—that is a new one. The Government claim that it is Members who back the amendment who are apparently responsible for causing delays to the Bill, when it is the Government who have taken almost four years to bring forward a two-page Bill. Not once have the Government acknowledged the risks of the Bill passing without the amendment. Not once have the Government addressed the fact that financial costs will be incurred by leaseholders from day one if the Bill goes through without the amendment.

The Government have spent nine months finding fault with the amendment, but at no point have they brought forward their own. Leaseholders cannot rely on the flawed building safety fund, nor can they wait any longer for promises of hope in a building safety Bill that may or may not help in the future. Ministers can see the strength of feeling in this House, even among those on their own Benches, and they can hear the pleas from millions of desperate homeowners. This amendment may not be perfect, but it is the only proposal on the table to protect leaseholders from the financial repercussions of fire safety defects that are not of their making. I call on all Members to do the right thing and support it.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I understand why the Government will not accept the amendment, and I do not want to go there again, but what we need is urgency. Time is not just money; it is also worry, anxiety and uncertainty, and I echo the points made in one of the many excellent letters from my constituents in Portishead on this. It says: “It is not right that leaseholders have to worry about the costs of fixing safety defects that we did not cause.” We all agree with that; the question is who should pay. If the costs are a direct result of legislative change made by the Government, it is reasonable for taxpayers to contribute to that. If they are not, builders and insurers should pay, including for non-cladding related defects.

The second point that my constituent makes is this: “We recognise that the additional £3.5 billion announced by the Secretary of State is a step forward and we do welcome this funding. We are still awaiting the full detail of this funding announcement, as well as that of the proposed loans for medium-rise buildings.” In the last debate, we were told that more details would be forthcoming after the Budget. It is after the Budget, and we have still not had the details we are looking for, and these are real-time problems for which our constituents require real-time solutions.

My constituent goes on to say that “providing funding for buildings over 18 metres while forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay via a loan scheme is entirely unfair, because building height alone does not determine fire risk.” We understand that, and again it is about appreciating that there needs to be a cut-off to stop taxpayers having to sign a blank cheque, but the cost for remediation should be met by those who are actually responsible for the problems in the first place.

The final problem that my constituent raises—it has been raised so often in this debate and previous debates—is negative equity and the difficulty of resale, which is causing immense distress. It can be a major generational problem for people who are looking to sell or downsize. It can cause them a great deal of anxiety. We have heard that the market should sort it out, as we would normally expect, but we are still waiting for elements of that that the market would normally regard as being necessary.

Building Safety

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I certainly can, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done on behalf of his constituents. We have corresponded many times on this subject. Today’s announcement will provide comfort and reassurance to hundreds of thousands of leaseholders. I also draw his attention and that of the House to the work we are doing with RICS, which will ensure that about 50% of those individuals who might have required and EWS1 form will now no longer need to go through that laborious and often expensive process.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

When there was a failure of regulation in the City, the Government bailed out the banks in a matter of days, to the tune of £500 billion. In the face of a failure of fire safety regulation, when people are terrified of burning to death in their homes, the Government have taken three and a half years and offered only £6 billion. My constituents are still facing the costs of non-cladding fire safety problems, waking watches and more, so when will the Government accept the basic principle that cladding victims should not have to pay a penny to fix fire safety problems that are not of their making?

[Robert Jenrick]

Actually, the Government acted decisively in the immediate aftermath of Grenfell Tower. Expert opinion has evolved over time. The first expert advice that the Government received was, as I said earlier, to focus on ACM cladding—the type of cladding on Grenfell Tower—and on those buildings over 18 metres. We put in place the funding to do that where the building owners and the industry were not able to, or would not, pay themselves. The expert advice then said that there were other materials that were somewhat less unsafe but which, none the less, still could be unsafe. That work is under way, and the Chancellor gave an extra £1 billion to do that at the Budget a year ago. Now, we have brought forward this very substantial intervention today. We are working intensively and extensively to tackle the issue, and I hope that today’s intervention will be a permanent and lasting settlement.

Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]]

It is three and a half years on from the Grenfell tragedy and, as time ticks on, the promise of “Never again” is starting to sound incredibly hollow. The daily stress of living in a building that could go up in flames is bad enough, but the Government’s failure to act and to protect people from both the fire risks and the inordinate cost of fixing them is a disgrace. Suicide, bankruptcy, the threat of professional qualifications being revoked, life savings lost, futures destroyed—that is what tens of thousands, if not millions, of people are facing right now.

In November last year, many of my constituents thought that they may face rising service charges, upwards of £50,000 each, but now they have been given an initial estimate to ameliorate the cladding on just one block of flats, and it is £7 million. That is between £150,000 and £200,000 per flat in one block. Imagine how they feel when Ministers try to spin this issue, repeatedly claiming that 99% of Grenfell-style cladding has already been removed while failing to mention that that does not account for other types of cladding that are potentially just as dangerous. Imagine how it feels when Housing Ministers tweet outrage that leaseholders are being treated badly by building companies and insurers but then fail to legislate to protect them. Imagine how it feels when the Government’s cladding adviser sits on a Zoom call and tells desperate leaseholders, whose flats are now worth nothing, that his only idea is to give them, on top of their mortgages, long-term loans that they will never be able to pay off.

I have now asked the Government three times to ensure that the House is given sufficient time to debate and vote on amendments to the Fire Safety Bill that could prevent costs from being passed on to leaseholders—amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative MPs. If the Government think those amendments have technical problems, they should bring forward their own versions. I urge every Conservative Member to vote with Opposition parties today to show that they are serious about standing up for cladding victims and to put the Government on notice that if they fail to bring forward their own solution, Members of this House will work cross-party to force the Government’s hands.

The human cost is too high. Cladding victims cannot wait any longer. This cladding scandal has to stop.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is an expert in this field and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has undertaken. Mr Wade, our adviser, is working hard with us and with the sector to develop solutions that will provide help and support to leaseholders. In the meantime, as I say, the Government have stepped up and provided a significant amount of public money to remediate the buildings that are most in need of it where there is no other means of paying, but it must be right that we ask developers and those responsible for these buildings to pay. To signal that the state will simply step in and sub them will not encourage them to do the right thing, and it is for developers, owners and warranty suppliers in the first instance to ensure that the buildings for which they are responsible are remediated.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Leaseholders in St Albans are already facing estimated bills of between £50,000 and £120,000 each for fixing safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause. These are not bills that are in the far-off distant future; these are costs that are being passed on to leaseholders right now, including through increased service charges. In the last three years, leaseholders in St Albans have seen their service charges rise from under £1,000 a year to £6,000 a year. Some of my residents cannot afford to pay these bills any more, and that will affect their ability to continue working in some professions, so will the Government get a grip and take urgent action to ensure that leaseholders no longer have to pay, as they are already doing, and that they do not have to foot the bill for these costs?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady. She is right. We recognise, as she will, that there are many cases in which leasehold agreements allow the building owners—the freeholders or their managing agents—to pass on remediation costs to the leaseholders of individual flats. That is why we have instituted the work of Michael Wade to ensure that leaseholders are protected from any charges for historical remediation that are unfair. The fundamental responsibility—the first responsibility—for the remediation of those buildings must lie with the developers, the building owners and the warranty holders, and not with the leaseholders.

Radlett Airfield Site

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Speaker’s Office for helping me to secure this debate on the first day back. This debate is of vital importance to my constituents in St Albans and indeed in the neighbouring and nearby constituencies.

In 2014, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government decided that a hugely damaging strategic rail freight interchange should be built on the site of the former Radlett Aerodrome, next to the small close-knit community of Park Street in my constituency. What it means if it goes ahead is that 3.5 million square metres of green belt—the size of 490 football pitches—will be converted into a massive rail and lorry park with warehouses, lorries, container storage, HGV parking and so on. It will bring thousands of heavy goods vehicles per day, and huge disruption to the surrounding roads and commuter rail links.

Although that decision was made in 2014, it has suddenly been thrown back into the limelight because our local council is now being held hostage by this Government’s planning system. In effect, the council has been told by planning inspectors to drop its opposition to the monstrosity of a freight terminal or Whitehall will take away its powers to decide where to build homes. That is no choice at all.

A freight terminal in this location has always been a bad idea, but there are also new and compelling reasons why it should be reviewed and why the plans for the freight terminal should scrapped. Let us start with what the Government have told the people of St Albans so far. First, the Government say that they want to protect the green belt. That is great, but almost all of St Albans district is designated green belt. Secondly, the Government also say that St Albans District Council needs to build more than 14,000 additional homes in the next 16 years —that is more than 900 homes per year. Thirdly, as well as accommodating almost 15,000 homes on the green belt, the Government also want to build this massive interchange, the size of 490 football pitches, on the green belt. So here is the rub: it is simply not possible to meet the Government’s housing targets, accept a freight interchange and protect the green belt. It is just not possible.

Let us start with the green belt. As I have said, most of the St Albans district is green belt land. Every new strategic site identified for new development has to be evaluated to ensure that it does the least damage to the green belt. Initially, a decade ago, the Conservative Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that the terminals did not fit with the development plan in the area. He said that it was inappropriate to build a freight interchange on the green belt, and on behalf of the Conservative Government he said that the green belt would be “safe in our hands”. He even highlighted the likely harm it would cause to the landscape and ecology. But after controversial lobbying of the Department by the developer, which was the subject of a complaint to the Cabinet Secretary by my predecessor, and despite his own objections, he went ahead, and in 2014 approved the freight terminal anyway—even while admitting the violation of the green belt in his official decision. In that decision, he said that this

“proposal would have a substantial impact on the openness of the Green Belt, that it would result in significant encroachment into the countryside, that it would contribute to urban sprawl and that it would cause some harm to the setting of St Albans.”

Just a month ago, the Government published their White Paper, “Planning for the future”, and reiterated their commitment to protecting the green belt. So my first question to the Government tonight is: in the light of their White Paper, “Planning for the future”, which commits to protecting the green belt, is it still Government policy to sacrifice 490 football pitches-worth of green belt for a monster lorry and rail park on this site? The Government changed course in 2014 and they can, and must, change course again.

Let us turn to the local plan. The local plan was approved by the council, on a cross-party basis, in 2018 under the former Conservative administration. That administration submitted a local plan that had suggested building 2,300 homes on this site instead of a rail freight terminal. The argument was that the rail freight terminal could perhaps be stopped if we tried to build some homes there instead. But the plan was suspended in January this year by government inspectors. The inspectors have told the new Liberal Democrat administration that the site must be withdrawn for housing or the council will lose its ability to decide where to build any homes at all. If the council is prevented from keeping the site as green belt and from exploring the potential to build there, then the Government must revise the housing targets down or accept that it is on their watch that even more green belt will have to be sacrificed to meet their housing targets.

My second question to the Government is: do they accept that it is an unacceptable state of affairs that under the current planning regime the planning inspector can, and indeed may have no other choice but to, threaten to take away a local council’s powers to determine where housing should be built unless it stops fighting a Government-imposed freight terminal in one spot?

Then there is the disruption to rail commuters. Thousands of St Albans residents are Thameslink commuters. We have faced years of disruption, most acutely in 2018 when the botched introduction of a new rail timetable caused misery for thousands of daily commuters for months. Residents are rightly concerned about the capacity and the ability of the midland main line to accommodate the proposed long and heavy freightliner trains. How will they do that without adversely affecting the now mostly reliable operation of the passenger timetables of both Thameslink and East Midlands Trains services?

Then there is the rail infrastructure itself. The infrastructure work needed for this freight terminal is huge. Network Rail will need to dig deep into the ground to enlarge the height of tunnels—for example, at Elstree and near Kentish Town—and it will need to build a whole new underpass that comes off a spur from the down slow line into London, used by commuters, so as to access the depot. Many people just do not believe that, in engineering terms, this is even possible. There is also the risk that the rail element fails altogether, as it did in Alconbury, where the loop could not be made to work for engineering reasons. If the rail element fails, residents are worried that this site will simply become a giant lorry depot, with the implications for the infrastructure being environmentally damaging and creating congestion on the main road transport artery of the M1.

My third question for the Government is: when will they secure and publish firm and detailed plans from Network Rail about how it will manage the build and the operation of new freight carriages without disruption to passengers? Will the Government demand those plans from Network Rail and ensure that they are published before any works on the site can progress? My fourth question is: will the Government confirm that if the rail element does fail and cannot be built, as happened in Alconbury, the site will not be able to operate as a giant lorry depot?

Let me turn to the impact on roads and local village communities. Even under the existing plans, there will be additional lorry traffic on already busy roads. These terminals work on tight collection and delivery slots. Meeting those slots, and drivers’ hours requirements, will see many lorries parked up locally so that they can meet their slot. We already have issues with the smaller London Colney Riverside distribution hub, where drivers park overnight in lay-bys, using the roadside hedges and woodland as a toilet. Local residents can only see things getting worse. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the village communities in my constituency of drivers, for example, parking overnight in lay-bys and using the roadside hedges as a toilet? Some have argued that the local impact could be countered by having a new M25 exit for rail freight, to avoid some of the traffic impact on local roads, but that has already been vetoed by Highways England.

There is then the impact of Brexit and the Government’s new freeports policy. The Government say that they will announce the location of up to 10 post-Brexit freeports by the end of this year so that they can begin operating in 2021. My next question is: in the light of the Government’s plan for freeports, do the previous freight distribution routes still apply, or will the proposed freeports make the rail-freight interchange redundant?

We also need to explore the effect of the London Gateway container terminal that has opened on the Thames since the strategic rail freight interchange was first proposed. It will have altered freight-distribution networks in the south-east. Has it changed the need for a terminal in St Albans? Indeed, the plans for Howbury Park have been dropped because of it. The Secretary of State said that the London Gateway site, developed since the rail freight interchange in Howbury Park was first identified,

“has the potential to provide an alternative development option for the provision of a SRFI to serve the same part of London and the South East as the appeals proposal.”

In the light of the finding in relation to a rail-freight interchange at Howbury Park, can the Minister confirm what assessment has been or will be made of whether the London Gateway might now also provide alternative freight capacity for the proposed SRFI at the former Radlett aerodrome site in my constituency?

For 12 years, local residents, local campaign group STRiFE—Stop the Rail Freight Exchange—the St Albans Civic Society, Hertfordshire MPs of different political persuasions and campaigners of all political parties and none have fought to stop this monstrosity. That is even without thousands of Thameslink and East Midlands commuters getting up in arms.

A Government-imposed strategic rail freight interchange in Park Street would occupy 490 football pitches of green belt. As a result, this land cannot be protected as green belt, cannot be used for housing and is unlikely to even work as a railway interchange, leaving it to just become a massive lorry park. A rail freight interchange would bring untold disruption to our village life and road and rail networks. It would require massive engineering in Thameslink tunnels to the south, permanently disrupt commuter lines and clog village roads with parked up lorries. Current Government policy holds this piece of land hostage. I am calling on the Government to stop the rail freight and let local people decide how they want to use their land.

Housing, Communities and Local Government: Departmental Spending

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the amazing work of councillors and council officials in St Albans City and District Council and Three Rivers District Council. They have worked evenings and weekends and moved heaven and earth to get payments out to businesses; to sort out urgent housing repairs and hardship funds; to sort out the homelessness situation—and much, much more. I also pay tribute to officials at Hertfordshire County Council, especially those in the public health team, as well as those working in schools and adult social care. They have really stepped up to the mark, but the future is by no means certain.

St Albans City and District Council has had a devastating loss of income, largely because it does not receive any revenue support grant, so relies on fees and charges from other services. We have been in receipt of emergency grants from the Government, but they fall a long way short. The Government know the situation with each individual council, because councils are sending in their returns to the Government.

I wish to ask the Government to consider four things urgently. First, they should give councils more flexibility to borrow to fund their revenue budgets, and the Government should help with the repayment of the money in future years.

Secondly, there should be opportunities for cheaper borrowing, including from the Public Works Loan Board. If councils can borrow with lower interest rates, it will help to drive inward investment.

Thirdly, the Government should turbo-charge the business rates review. The Government were due to start to take evidence in March; that has been understandably delayed, but it is now crucial that they get on with the job. The broken business rates system has been breaking our high streets for years and we need to fix it as soon as possible.

Fourthly, on cladding, I echo the comments from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). Having served on the Fire Safety Bill Committee, I know as the constituency MP for St Albans that there are homes in my constituency that are not safe. It is all very well for the Government to announce funds to insulate homes and make them warm, but homes need to be warm and safe. We need billions of pounds of investment to make sure that remediation works can happen—and happen soon—and to train up the fire-safety assessors who can certify that homes are indeed safe.

Liberal Democrats believe that people should have control over their own lives and that decisions that affect their lives should be taken as close to them as possible—not by 10 Ministers sitting in a room in Westminster, but by local councillors who live around the corner and who can see with their own eyes the impact that a decision will have on their doorstep. That is why the Government must give councils the certainty, the resources and, crucially, the powers that they need so that decisions about the recovery of our communities are made by our communities.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I am not seeking to press new clause 3, but I am seeking reassurances from the Minister relating to the purpose behind it and a commitment to post-legislative scrutiny.

In my earlier remarks, I made the point that fast law can be bad law. In the absence of an opportunity for thorough pre-legislative scrutiny, we absolutely must have post-legislative scrutiny. There are relevant examples of where this has happened: the Immigration Act 2014 was controversial, so it contained the same requirement as exists in new clause 3; and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which was rushed in in response to a court ruling, included a sunset clause of 18 months. I am not asking for a sunset clause, but new clause 3 sets out clearly that we would like the opportunity for a statutory review after one year. The person conducting that review should be appointed after consultation with the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and they should have professional experience relating to imprisonment for offences of terrorism.

New clause 3 does not seek to outline the scope of such a statutory review, but I would like to give the Committee some examples of the kind of matters that could be covered by it. Such a statutory review could ask whether the extra time the terrorists spend in prison is being used to de-radicalise them. Are they actually receiving an effective de-radicalisation programme or, on the contrary, are they potentially becoming more dangerous? It could look at whether the Parole Board has the resources to cope with the extra demands put on it. It could look at whether terrorist prisoners are being failed by the Parole Board and whether they are being released at the end of their sentence without any supervision on licence. It could look at whether the probation service has the staff and resources it needs to ensure effective supervision during the shorter period that offenders spend on licence. It could also perhaps look at whether the change in the release point affects the sentencing decisions made by judges.

As I said earlier, there is a risk that because of the lack of opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny there is the possibility that this becomes a law of unintended consequences. I know there are proposals for legislation down the line, but we also know that legislation can get delayed. It would be absolutely right for the House to insist on post-legislative scrutiny by virtue of a one-year statutory review. Who knows, the review might even identify things that could be included in future legislation.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I speak in sympathy with all the amendments for the reasons I shall give. In respect of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), it is important that we anticipate the likely counters to this proposed legislation that will perhaps come from malign forces in the other place and outside it. There are people who will seek to frustrate the Government in their attempt to the right thing.

[Daisy Cooper]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman says there are malign forces. I ask him to recognise that there are those of us who hold public and national security front and centre in our roles in the House, and that some people may be looking not to frustrate but improve the Bill by ensuring it complies with human rights law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

We have well-established mechanisms, of the kind I have just described, for doing exactly that. Sometimes the Government build a review mechanism into legislation, but much more often the Committees of this House designed for that purpose consider the effectiveness of what the Government do and how legislation is working. Our Select Committee structure is now long established in the House—even longer established than my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and fulfils that function well. Particularly in respect of legislation relating to terrorism, the Intelligence and Security Committee has, time and again, played an important role in considering these matters, reflecting, reporting, and influencing Government policy, as I know from my time in the Home Office. So I think that there is well-established practice. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

[Daisy Cooper]

The issue is not just that there should be a review, but who should conduct that review. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about various Select Committees, which, as we know, have a very broad workload. Does he agree that it is important to ensure that there is an independent review, conducted on our behalf by someone who is independent of the House and has experience in relation to the sentencing of terrorists?

[Sir John Hayes]

We do, in fact, have an independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. In that context, I was privileged to work with Lord Carlile—a former Liberal Democrat Member of this House, by the way. So that role exists, but I do not want to underestimate the significance or value of the Committees of this House in doing their job. The ISC in particular is a well-respected Committee of the House, which has a very strong track record of looking at these matters empirically and advising accordingly. My argument is not that we should not have that kind of scrutiny; ideally, it would have been a precursor to this legislation, but we should indeed consider allowing it through the mechanisms that I have described. I invite the Minister to embrace the spirit in which I have advanced my argument.

The third and final amendment that we have heard ably articulated during our considerations this afternoon is the one in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Again, I am extremely sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. Indeed, I might even go further, and say that “nine-tenths” is too modest. However, while my right hon. Friend’s amendment is welcome and adds pressure, if I might put it that way—he said “prodding” rather than “probing”, and I have added a third “p”, “pressure”, because I know that alliteration is dear to his heart—given that the Government have made crystal clear that in forthcoming legislation they will look at three matters, minimum sentences, maximum sentences and mandatory sentences, much of what he desires should form part of that further Government policy and practice. I hope that we can increase minimum sentences, that we can increase maximum sentences, and that we can tie to that—as the Government have said they will, as I note from comments made in the statement by the Secretary of State following the recent terrorist outrage—

Criminal Law

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I would expect nothing less from my hon. Friend than a forensic and detailed question. In fact, I do have those figures. Perhaps it would be worth going through the details of how this scheme will operate and the consequential impact on the prison population and other matters. In answering his question, let me start by defining exactly what offences are in the scope of today’s regulations. We are talking about the offences appearing in parts 1 and 2 of schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which could attract a life sentence. They include offences such as rape and grievous bodily harm with intent. Currently, there are three types of sentence that might be handed down for those offences. The first, which is for the most serious offences, is a life sentence with a tariff—the tariff is the minimum amount the offender will serve, after which they are eligible for release by the Parole Board at its discretion. The second type of sentence—the next most serious—is for offenders deemed by the judge to be dangerous. That is called an extended determinate sentence. For those offences, the prisoner is eligible for release after two thirds of their sentence, subject to Parole Board discretion. After release and after their prison sentence, they are subject to an extended period on licence.

The third type of sentence—the type that we are going to talk about today—is a standard determinate sentence, for which somebody is eligible for automatic release at the halfway point, with no involvement from the Parole Board. Those are the sentences that most concern the Government, and on which we are acting today.

Let me turn to the numbers. In 2018, just under 6,000—5,862 to be precise—sentences were handed down that met the criteria I have just laid out. Some people online have suggested that, mostly, these are extended determinate sentences and that today’s regulations will therefore make very little difference. That is categorically untrue. Of those 5,862 sentences, only 90 were life sentences and 243 were extended determinate sentences, but 4,735—81% of those sentences—were standard determinate sentences with automatic release at the halfway point. The vast majority of those sentences for very serious crimes had automatic release after only half the sentence. Some 84% of rape convictions had a standard determinate sentence. That means that 84% of incarcerated rapists were eligible for automatic release at the halfway point. We take the view that that is simply not right.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The Minister has outlined that this applies to rapists, and to those accused and found guilty of grievous bodily harm.

[Chris Philp]

GBH with intent.

[Daisy Cooper]

Yes, GBH with intent—so we are talking about incredibly violent criminals. But the Government’s own assessment of these proposed laws says that they could increase prison overcrowding, introduce significant costs and lead to increased prisoner violence. The gravest risk, however, is that prisoners spend more of their sentence in prison and less time on release with a licence, which could actually lead to an increased risk of reoffending. Although we are all sympathetic to the victims of crime, who may feel like justice has not been done, we absolutely must not introduce an increased risk of violence and reoffending after offenders finish their term. Instead of talking tough on crime, will the Government follow the evidence and do what is necessary to prevent crime and reduce reoffending?

[Chris Philp]

Ensuring that this cohort of prisoners stays in prison for a bit longer does serve the public interest and public safety, because they cannot commit further offences while they are in prison. Under these measures, they will still spend a third of their sentence on licence. Of course, there is an opportunity for people to take part in rehabilitative activity while they are in prison. There will be an impact on the prison population, which I will outline in a moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) asked the same question. We are making provisions to ensure that places are available so that meaningful rehabilitative work can take place, but this is about preventing crime by ensuring that serious offenders are in prison for a bit longer, and ensuring that victims’ rights are respected by making sure that the time served in prison better reflects the sentence handed down by the judge.

Assisted Dying Law

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this important and sensitive debate. Like, I am sure, other MPs, I have received a good number of emails on this subject. Many asked me to speak in favour of assisted dying, and many asked me to speak against it.

It is of huge regret to me that previous debates on such a sensitive and, for many people, deeply personal issue have become such polarised “for and against” discussions. Those who are for it refer almost exclusively to the need for people to be empowered while they still have the capacity to take the decision, so that they do not have to suffer an undignified and painful death. Those against raise concerns about the safeguards.

During the election campaign, I met a couple who pleaded with me not to vote for assisted dying. They told me about their disabled child, a child born disabled and with a life-limiting disease. She was predicted to live only a few years, but despite medical predictions, she has lived for many years and become a happy and joyous little girl. They told me about their fears that a permissive law on assisted dying could have been used to end her life even before she had had a real chance to start it. As a disability rights campaigner myself, I know that those living with a disability, or with experience of disability in their family, must be heard.

Both sides quote polls and “evidence”. One side says that it has the medical community on its side; the other says that it has police enforcement representatives on its side. For my part, I agree that the current state of the law is letting some people down, but everything that I have read over the years and recent representations from particular constituents mean that I say this with caution. As a new MP, I honestly do not know which way I would vote if there were a vote tomorrow, and I believe that scores of other MPs are in the same position as I am. And it is precisely because I do not know which way I would vote that I am in total agreement with this motion. For all of us as MPs and for the House as a whole to take an informed view, there must be an independent inquiry, so that we can take an evidence-based approach to the impact of the current law and enable those who would be most affected to be properly heard.