Planning and House Building
John Hayes Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I shall certainly look very closely at the representations on the consultation that he makes.
The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we have to be bold in our vision for the future of planning in our country. That is why we have put forward two sets of proposals for consultation to address our needs both in the short term and the longer term. The first, on changes to our current planning system and local housing need calculations, closed last week. The second, on our White Paper “Planning for the Future”, which sets out our long-term ambitions, closes on 29 October.
Our long-term proposals will create a reformed system that not only delivers the homes that we need but puts communities at the heart of a process that encourages more local community involvement, fairer contributions from developers, more beautiful homes and communities, and stronger environmental outcomes.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has spoken of Conservative principles. He will agree, I am sure, that any Government who blighted the countryside with more ubiquitous, huge housing estates would not deserve to be called Conservative. I know that he is a notable aesthete. Will he give the House an assurance that he wants to build better and more beautiful, in line with the views of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, and indeed, in doing so, quash some of the fears and quell some of the doubts?
Christopher Pincher
I can give my right hon. Friend that absolute assurance.
On the question of the near-term local housing need calculation, it might be helpful if I explain the background to our proposals to revisit it. In 2018, we introduced a standard method for calculating local housing need that was designed to give communities the transparency they deserve by showing the minimum number of homes that areas need, but it is clear that the current formula for local housing need is inconsistent with our manifesto aim to deliver 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s. Existing adopted local plans provide for only 187,000 homes per year across England. This is not just significantly below our ambition but lower than the number of the homes we delivered last year. It is also lower than the estimate of groups as diverse as KPMG and Shelter who say that we need to deliver homes for sale or for rent north of 250,000 per year to meet our need.
To address that in the short term, we committed to reviewing the standard method at this year’s Budget. The consultation is now closed, but I can assure the House that over the past two months my Department has actively engaged with the sector and is listening to feedback. Many right hon. and hon. Members will know that I too have been listening and discussing carefully. I am especially mindful that Members are concerned about geographic imbalance—having too many homes in the south and not enough in the midlands and the north. Equally, I recognise anxieties about what these changes might mean for our countryside in contrast to our urban areas. I therefore want to reassure the House that through this consultation process we are committed to addressing any supposed imbalances. I recognise that our future is not just about what we build but where we build it. The standard method has focused on affordability. That is natural, because our concern is that there are areas that are least affordable, and it cannot be right that where historically supply has not kept up with demand, people are prevented from living where they most want or need to live. But we must also consider other factors. The House has considered, and we will consider, such factors as stock renewal, so we level up those areas of our country—not just the midlands and the north; there are areas of East Anglia, too—that suffer from poor-quality housing and infrastructure; and brownfield regeneration, so we improve home-building opportunities in our towns and cities on urban land for too long derelict or unloved.
Our changes to the standard method in the short term will be just a starting point. We know that the housing numbers generated by the standard method will not necessarily be the numbers that areas plan for, because of the physical and geographic constraints placed on them, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Leigh (James Grundy) and many others mentioned. Land availability or local constraints might mean that there is a need for neighbouring areas to meet demand more appropriately. We look forward to giving our detailed response to the consultation following a careful analysis of all responses. Until such time, all the figures that are bandied about in the media, some of which were quoted in the House today, are entirely speculative.
Our White Paper “Planning for the Future” represents our long-term aspirations to reform our planning system to make it fit for the future. Anyone who knows our planning system knows it to be opaque, slow and almost uniquely discouraging for all but its most expert navigators. Currently, it takes on average seven years to complete a plan and a further five years for associated permissions to be granted. Our planning White Paper proposes a modern, digitalised and map-based system, with up-front strategic controls, leaving local planning authorities and, crucially, local communities much more empowered to design the neighbourhoods that they want, that look the way they want, and that have the infrastructure they need.
The House will be concerned to hear that only around 3% of local people respond to planning applications. In local plan consultations, engagement can fall to less than 1% of the local community. That is simply not acceptable in a modern democracy, and we will change the system to increase local involvement. Our planning White Paper proposes a simpler, clearer process for planning design.
Community Housing
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), as he has just demonstrated, is an energetic and vociferous champion of those who want to take matters into their own hands—people and communities who want to take the initiative and provide for their own housing needs. He just said that he could bottle his thoughts. In fact, I think he has just uncorked quite a few of them, and we are all grateful to him for doing that. As the founder of the all-party parliamentary group on self-build, custom and community house building and place-making, he has successfully driven this cause forward in this place and elsewhere over many years, and I thank him for bringing this important topic back to the Floor of the House.
In the time that I have, I will say, on behalf of the Government, that the community-led housing movement comprises a broad coalition of community land trusts, housing co-operatives and other organisations set up by local people with the specific purpose of providing good-quality, affordable housing for themselves and their wider communities. With Government support, those organisations are working to deliver housing in every corner of our country.
We want to do more to foster that kind of self-determination, self-empowerment and can-do attitude. We recognise that the community-led housing sector offers significant potential to help meet housing need across England. Crucially, the support and close involvement of local communities enables land to be brought forward for development that is not likely to be made available, or of any interest, to mainstream, speculative developers. That means that, rather than competing with the mainstream house builders, the sector is increasing the overall supply of housing while diversifying the market and increasing resilience in the house building industry.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
But quantity needs to be matched by quality and design, and beautiful houses should be the entitlement of all communities and all types of Britons. I know the Minister is committed to that, because he is an aesthete like me, but what are the Government going to do to guarantee it?
Planning for the Future
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick
I welcome the work my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister has done on this issue, and I will take that away. We want to work progressively with all the stakeholders. We have built an effective operation on ACM above 18 metres in recent months. We have named contacts for all the buildings, and all, bar a very small number, now have plans to remediate.
By opening the fund’s scope much more widely to other dangerous materials above 18 metres, we will have to put in place the same procedures for those materials to understand exactly where the buildings are, to understand who are the right people to work with us and to make sure that work is tendered for and that workers get on site as quickly as possible. That will be a very complex piece of work. At the moment, it can take up to six months to get workers on site to do ACM remediation, and some projects can take up to two years to complete. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge, but I am keen to work with anybody who is interested to make sure it begins as quickly as possible.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
A sense of place informs our personal and communal sense of worth. As one of those who served on the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, I welcome this statement and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s commitment to a fast track for beauty. In considering these matters, will he also look at sprawl and out-of-town and edge-of-town developments, both in retail and housing? If we can revitalise and rejuvenate our town centres, it will refresh the spirit of our people.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is heavily involved in the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, and I commend its superb report to anyone interested in these issues. One point it raises, which we will now be taking forward, is the need to mitigate against the urban sprawl and the damage to the countryside we have seen over the past 50 or 60 years and more.
The answer to that is gentle density in urban areas, building upwards where appropriate—perhaps where there are existing clusters of high-rise buildings—and, building gently where building upwards is not appropriate. There are plenty of examples in the report of where that can be done in an attractive way that local communities could support. We need to ensure more homes are built in our town centres and around our high streets. The high streets and town centres fund that we have created through the £3.6 billion towns fund provides funding to many parts of the country to do exactly that.
Office Block Conversions: Essex
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered permitted development rights for office block conversions in Essex.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I wish to talk about a pressing and ongoing issue in my constituency of Harlow that can be described only as ghetto building, human warehousing and social cleansing, under the expanded permitted development rights legislation.
Let me be clear: I believe in more housing. We face a crisis in this country, with 1.2 million people on the waiting list for social housing, and more than 682,000 people living in overcrowded accommodation. Yet studies by the University of Sheffield show that 94% of land in the UK is not built on. Housing consultant Colin Wiles even suggested that English golf courses occupy more land than homes.
I am pleased that the Government are accelerating our house building programme, with 1.3 million homes delivered since 2010. My constituency of Harlow is set to benefit from 16,500 new homes by 2033 from the Harlow and Gilston garden town alone. I agree in principle with the motivation behind expanded permitted development rights legislation, to make it easier for new housing to be built, and when the legislation came to the House of Commons, no party opposed it. I have even seen how permitted development rights can be a success. Edinburgh House, formerly home to Pearson publishers, has been converted by Land Charter Homes into quality apartments that are close to the station, with good transport links.
However, as the BBC “Panorama” documentary detailed last week, permitted development rights have been an unmitigated disaster for our town. The reasons for that are threefold. First, Harlow has become a prime location for such developments, with 12 former office block conversions, including Terminus House, Templefields and Redstone House. Harlow’s proximity to London and comparatively lower property prices make it a preferred location for developers; but, of course, the legislation does not require the builds to comply with local planning regulations. As such, around 1,100 units have been created in Harlow—a town of around 40,000 homes—none of which has been tested against the requirements of the local plan.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the creation en masse of new, relatively inexpensive accommodation in Harlow has made such properties an attractive option for councils outside Harlow looking to house individuals who have presented as homeless in their area. That has allowed predominantly London councils to socially cleanse their boroughs and to place vulnerable individuals, often with additional needs, into those converted properties as temporary accommodation. A freedom of information request that I made in July 2019 found that 32 Labour councils have made out-of-area placements.
In Harlow, we have had an influx, receiving placements from Barking and Dagenham, Enfield and Harrow, to name just a few. The placing authority does not have to notify Harlow Council, or offer any additional funding to cope with the increased demand on local services. The situation has been exacerbated by the fact that Harlow Council did not take up the full capacity of Terminus House when it was initially offered by Caridon Property to house Harlow residents in need of accommodation. We might well ask whether Harlow Council, had it accepted that offer, could have worked with landlords to ensure that the housing was of good quality. However, Caridon offered the remaining units to other authorities for rental, causing that increase in placements of individuals from other areas.
Thirdly, the impact of the influx on Harlow has been catastrophic. The rabbit-hutch housing developments have been a hive of criminal activity and drug abuse, placing huge pressures on our local police, A&E and social services. The “Panorama” investigation found that Essex police have been called to one site—Templefields—nearly 600 times in three years, and of course Harlow taxpayers bear the brunt of all such problems.
Our local schools are under immense pressure. One primary school, Tany’s Dell, looks after pupils from 20 families currently living in nearby temporary accommodation at Templefields House. The teachers have described issues relating to safeguarding, poor attendance, anxiety and even exhaustion from the 30-minute walk to school, undertaken by children some of whom are as young as just three years old. There are no buses or any proper public transport links around that building.
I believe passionately that it is my duty in Parliament to address social injustice. I am not blaming the individuals and families, who are taken away from their usual support networks of friends and family.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has always been a champion of social justice and, not for the first time, does this House a great service in bringing to our attention matters that are of both local import and national consequence. Does he agree that the report recently published by the commission that the Government tasked with looking at building beautiful places is highly pertinent to the debate? If we build homes in which people want to live, in places that they can feel proud of, social solidarity will be the result. I hope that the Government will shortly respond to those recommendations.
Robert Halfon
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is right: beauty is everything in building. When I initially saw the legislation on converting office blocks, I thought that it would be a good idea. I never imagined that loopholes in the legislation would allow the building of literal ghettos—of tiny rooms, as I will describe later—without any thought to beauty, aesthetics or the local environment for the poor residents who have to live in such places.
Often such properties are developed in areas never intended for residential dwelling. They are placed in isolated employment areas of the town with poor public transport routes, as I have just highlighted, making it difficult for residents to integrate socially and economically into the community. That is why it is so important that councils play at least some role in determining where such conversions take place. Individuals arrive, unfamiliar with social and counselling services and schools, and can feel unsupported in the new area. I am not against those vulnerable families—we have a duty to help every vulnerable family—but I have a duty to my constituents, and when families who have nothing to do with Harlow are brought to the town, they are separated from their own networks and support.
If families are not deemed vulnerable at the time of placement, it is easy for their new difficult living situation to affect that. Regularly in my constituency surgeries, and when I am out and about across our town of Harlow, I meet families living in such ghettos and hear moving stories. One lady, a recovering drug addict, was placed on a corridor where other residents were taking drugs right in front of her. That lady was sent from another borough. She had no links to Harlow, and was trying to get her life back on track, doing everything possible to get off drugs. She was a single parent, living in a room hardly bigger than the table behind me, and was now surrounded by drug dealers and people taking crack and other kinds of drugs. I ask the Minister how we can expect that lady, and so many others like her, to get their lives back on track living in such an unhealthy, unpalatable and unacceptable environment.
Ongoing support following placement is necessary if families are to thrive in their new area. Does the Minister not agree that in order to provide support, councils must first be notified of their placement and be given the funding to provide the care that vulnerable families need through local services? Permitted development rights were never meant to be about building ghettos. Nor were they about living space, and letting councils ship people off like cattle to the east of England and to Harlow.
I made this clear at the beginning of my speech: I know we need more housing, and I recognise that permitted development rights have made an important contribution in some parts of the country, but there have to be rules, particularly about quality, and councils must have some say in how the office blocks are converted. As one resident told me, the buildings were built for paper, not people, which sums it up exactly. If we truly want to help people, homes must be quality, safe spaces, not tiny box rooms where a single parent and a little baby live in a space where one can barely put one’s arms out without touching the walls and where the so-called kitchen is a yard away from the bed. They should not be housed in the same corridor as drug users and violent individuals.
In January, the Secretary of State confirmed to me in the Chamber that the review into permitted development rights
“will be taking forward any reforms necessary”.
He recognised that,
“All properties built in this country need to be safe.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 34.]
BBC’s “Panorama” documented cases where councils house individuals, couples and families in single rooms. Kitchens and toilets are metres apart. That is not a proper living environment. Shelter estimates that poor housing costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year. I ask the Minister again: in the Department’s review into permitted development rights, will he look beyond the numbers and consider the quality of housing being built? Will he work with colleagues to reform the legislation and make it a requirement in law that all properties, for temporary accommodation or not, meet minimum national space standards?
According to the House of Commons Library, local authorities have had powers to restrict permitted development rights under an article 4 direction at least since the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Changes made in 2010 mean it is now for local planning authorities
“to confirm all Article 4 directions”,
making it easier for councils to invoke restrictions on permitted development rights. In Harlow, the council should have acted earlier. Only in March last year did it seek an article 4 direction in certain areas of the town.
The issue has been ongoing for years, but there is another factor. The Library confirmed to me that,
“residential premises created from office conversions under permitted development which add to an authority’s council tax base... count for the purpose of the New Homes Bonus payments”
received by local councils. So is there therefore very little financial incentive to take action to restrict the developments? That is particularly the case in Harlow, where the new homes bonus created a grant back to the council worth more than £1 million in 2018-19. With more than half of the new properties last year being office conversions, Harlow Council should do more to use the money to help individuals and provide security around the town.
Furthermore, sections 76 to 93 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 grant powers to the council to seek a closure order for a property on the grounds of either disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour; serious nuisance to the public; or disorder near the premises. To be fair, the order is not a permanent solution. It lasts only six months, and other local authority closure powers are substantially limited in their scope, for example, to deal with environmental concerns.
Councils need stronger powers to take meaningful action against permitted development right conversions where they create issues for our town. Having said that, councils should do more to use the powers that are available to them. I believe ghettos such as Terminus House and Templefields should be closed down once and for all. Will the Minister ensure that the review provides stronger solutions to allow councils to deal with the issues that permitted development rights have created and that exist now?
The current state of permitted development rights raises numerous issues. First, councils take advantage of cheap converted office blocks to ship people off to the east, where they believe there is living space. Individuals with additional needs, who require support from their local authority, are being dumped in shoddy, rabbit-hutch housing, with the receiving authority having to pick up the pieces. There is no sense of a duty of care for the individuals. There is no notification and no extra funding granted to the receiving authority to provide resources, and certain parts of the country are disproportionately affected. In areas such as Harlow, the pressure on the taxpayer, local services and schools is enormous.
Vulnerable individuals are housed together in isolated areas, away from their support networks, creating a breeding ground for criminal and antisocial behaviour. Those trying to get their lives back on track must do battle with an unhealthy living environment every day. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to spend 30 minutes watching the BBC’s “Panorama” programme, which makes an unanswerable case for the need for affordable and more quality housing.
The permitted development rights legislation has been disastrous in certain circumstances. The people of Harlow have been let down by councils and by flaws in the legislation that seems to support quantity over quality housing. They have been let down by the planning guidelines, which should give more powers to stop unsuitable accommodation in certain areas, and they have been let down by the fact that when the vulnerable families come through, there is no extra support or funding. I urge the Government and the Minister to take urgent action. In the 21st century—in 2020—we must put a stop to London boroughs’ social cleansing and the building of ghettos. We must put a stop to it all. We must give local authorities stronger powers to shut down human warehouses and ensure our councils have a real say on office block conversions.
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill
John Hayes ExcerptsWednesday 12th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 February 2020 (revised) - (12 Feb 2020)
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.
Sir John Hayes
We do not have time, and you would not permit us, Dame Eleanor, to have a broader debate about the character of rights and human rights law, but I welcome the opportunity to do so with the hon. Lady at a place and time of her choosing. I have profound doubts about that law and the root of it, which is, essentially, the acceptance of natural rights that I do not believe in. I believe in the lawful entitlements that we call rights, of course. How they should be dealt with legally is an entirely different matter and not one pertinent to these considerations, but I look forward happily to that broader debate. Given that there will be challenges to the Government, malign and otherwise, given what she said, it seems that there is a good case for a belt-and-braces approach, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described it.
Sir William Cash
In the context of what is developing into a very interesting speech, I refer to Edmund Burke’s famous attack on Thomas Paine in respect of what he really thought about human rights. It was a brilliantly expressed metaphor—that we would not be “trussed” like chickens, or something of that kind, by the human rights proposals of Thomas Paine.
Sir John Hayes
Now I might really test your patience, Dame Eleanor, because my hon. Friend invites me to articulate a Burkean case against natural rights, which I will be happy to do, but perhaps on another occasion. Given that I offered the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) the opportunity to have a debate about this, that might be the very occasion. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree to be my seconder in such a debate—what a humbling experience that would be for me and an elevating one for him. I hope we will do that on another occasion and we can indeed explore why so many people take for granted the existence of natural rights, as though they spring from the ether. As a Christian, of course I could not possibly take that view, but now is not the time to get into that discussion.
On the specifics of the amendment, my hon. Friend makes a belt-and-braces case, as I said, for a notwithstanding clause. The shadow Minister made the point that that was fundamentally disagreeable and made a constitutional argument against the notwithstanding clause per se. However, he also went on to say that he believed the Government were right, or were likely to be right, in asserting that they were clear that, in any case, this legislation did not contradict any existing rights legislation. We heard that today from the Secretary of State and again subsequently in the debate: the Government do not feel that the proposed legislation is likely to be successfully challenged, as my hon. Friend suggested it might. We have to assume that the Government have taken legal advice to make that claim.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I should make one thing clear: obviously, I have not seen the legal advice the Government are relying on, which I am sure they have sought, quite appropriately. I merely point out that that is the Government’s view and that is what the Secretary of State has put in the Bill. On that basis, article 7 was not engaged—I want to make that point clear to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
Sir John Hayes
I would not have wanted to suggest anything other than that. The hon. Gentleman was very clear that he had heard what the Government said about having taken that advice and their confidence that a legal challenge would not succeed on that basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone may be more sceptical than others about that, but it is important to point out that the Government have made it clear that further legislation on counter-terrorism will be forthcoming. That legislation might in itself, on a primary basis, revisit the issue of how counter-terrorism measures interface with and may be contradicted by existing legislation. That would be a very fundamental debate, because of course it will oblige the consideration of exactly the kinds of points that he made. On that basis, I am happy to go with the Minister. Notwithstanding my temptation to follow the example of my esteemed hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I am happy, like the shadow Minister, to err on the side of the Government and to say that if they have taken legal advice, with the further opportunity to revisit these matters in the primary legislation that we hear will be speeding its way to the House, I am prepared to concede the argument about rights.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. Friend will accept that this is primary legislation and furthermore that I have already said I am looking forward to a proper discussion about this in the future, with a view to getting it right, because the object of the Bill is to prevent people from being killed on the streets of this country.
Sir John Hayes
I am talking about the murderous intent of people I described earlier as wicked. I use that word advisedly: not all these people are mentally disturbed. Some may be, and we know from evidence that some are, but not all. Crime is not an illness to be treated; it is a malevolent choice, an act of wickedness, and wickedness is entirely different from mental illness. I know it is difficult for some to grasp that, but it is important to emphasise it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Of course, if an individual were mentally disordered, the pathway for their rehabilitation and punishment would be through a secure hospital, rather than prison, which would deal with that matter.
Sir John Hayes
There are well-established ways of differentiating people in those terms, different ways of dealing with them in law, different ways of dealing with them once convicted, and different ways of dealing with them in the community. The psychologists and psychiatrists associated with the probation service and the Prison Service are well-accustomed to that differentiation, but in the public debate we need to be bold and brave enough to say that there are some very wicked people who want to do wicked things, and it is our job not only to deal with those things by anticipating, deterring and punishing them, but to reinforce public faith in the rule of law by saying so. This is an opportunity to do so as the Bill gives that life.
The second amendment is the one proposed by the shadow Minister. Again, I have great sympathy with it. All legislation relating to such matters benefits from pre and post-legislative scrutiny, both because we need to get it right, for the obvious reasons we have debated—its salience, its significance, its importance—and because, in order to build the consensus necessary across the House to proceed in a way that maintains public faith, pre and post-legislative scrutiny is important. As recognised by all the contributors to this debate, the emergency we face is such that that has not been possible on this occasion. I would resist the shadow Minister’s amendment, not because I do not believe in the principle or the sentiments behind it but because there is a very good case for the Select Committees—notably the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—to look at this matter once the Bill has become an Act. I would be surprised if they did not. I know the Minister in his winding-up speech will—I will not say “invite that kind of scrutiny”, as I am not sure it is appropriate for a Minister to ask a Select Committee to investigate or scrutinise the Government—want to say that he would be surprised if they did not. That kind of reassurance would give great comfort to the House in measuring the effect of this important legislation.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We are having a very interesting and mature debate about getting this right, and of course it is paramount that we make sure the public are safe, but I do not understand what speaks against a review to make sure we get it right. Even if other legislation comes further down the line, why not have that double security?
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—
Sir John Hayes
I will just finish my sentence, and then I will give way happily to my right hon. and distinguished Friend.
The Government have said, and the Secretary of State was clear about it in the statement a few days ago, that tied to those three provisions will be the end of early release for certain kinds of prisoner. I now happily give way to my right hon. Friend before I move to my exciting peroration.
Sir Greg Knight
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he not think that whatever scheme is ultimately settled upon, there needs to remain some incentive for someone who is in prison to behave him or herself?
Sir John Hayes
I note that my right hon. Friend was preoccupied with urgent meetings when I spoke earlier, but if he reads the Hansard report of my earlier contribution, he will see that I am on exactly the same page as him, not for the first time. He is absolutely right that parole has historically always been considered on the basis of an assessment of both risk and worthiness. “Good behaviour” is the term that was once routinely used in respect of parole. When people have proved, through how they behave in prison, that they no longer pose a risk to the public and that they deserve to be released early, they should be. The problem with the current arrangement is the automatic nature of early release, and I resist that per se, not just in respect of terrorist prisoners but more widely. The public would be outraged if they knew just how many people have been released early, including terrorists. Enough is enough; now the time to put an end to that. This is the beginning of it, and I happily support this legislation.
Chris Philp
We will consider all terrorist offenders as part of the review. Of course, the sentencing provisions I just described would not be appropriate for all terror offenders—just the most serious—but I assure my hon. Friend that we will be considering the totality of terror offending. Of course, the Streatham offender had committed one of the offences that my hon. Friend just described—possession of terrorist material—so we must be mindful that even when someone commits an offence that, on the face of it, is at the less serious end of the offending spectrum, they can none the less go on to do quite serious things. The Government are extremely mindful of that.
Sir John Hayes
There are two points to be made in respect of what the Minister has just said. First, the vast majority of people convicted under terrorism legislation are sentenced to between one and 20 years. Now, he is talking about “the most serious”. What does he mean by “the most serious”? Secondly, a large number of people are convicted for terrorism-related offences under non-terrorism legislation—hundreds, actually, over the years. Will they be included in these considerations?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. In relation to the second part of it, terrorist-related offences do form part of this Bill. Part 2 of proposed new schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is found in schedule 1 to this Bill, covers terrorist-related offences under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and lists the various direct offences, including manslaughter, culpable homicide and kidnapping, that are terrorist-related offences. Such offences are, therefore, in the scope of this Bill, and we will carefully consider the implications for the counter-terrorism Bill that we will bring forward in due course.
Turning to the level of the severity of offending, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), we will review all types of offending, so the whole spectrum will be in scope. As for how we define that “most serious” cohort, the Government are currently thinking quite carefully about the definition. I do not want to give my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) a definition today, because that will be a matter for the counter-terrorism Bill, but we are thinking about question extremely carefully, and the House will be able to debate it fully in due course.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), asked about a review of the effectiveness of the deradicalisation agenda. I agree that the review is critical, and several Members raised it on Second Reading. We are setting up a new counter-terrorism programmes and interventions centre within the prisons and probation service that will look specifically at the de-radicalisation problem. We intend to publish further research and reports in the usual way, and I expect full scrutiny from Members. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in his speech, we will fully embrace scrutiny of that description, and I would be surprised—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is not in his place—if the Justice Committee did not look at this area in due course. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings that proper and deep scrutiny of this area is needed, because the de-radicalisation question is so important.
Holocaust Memorial Day
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that on record, and I completely agree with what he said. Survivors are the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts, and the testimonies that we hear are a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history.
I wish to take the time to share a little of the story of Auschwitz survivor Lily Eberts. In 1944, when she was just 14 years old, the Nazis deported her and her family from her Hungarian home town to Auschwitz. She was with her mother, brother and three sisters. On their arrival, they were split up, either directed left or right. Lily’s mother, brother and sister were told to go right and they were taken to the gas chambers and crematorium. Lily and her two sisters were directed the other way. They never saw the others again. The only possession that Lily was able to keep with her on her journey was her gold pendant, given to her by her mother, which, remarkably, survived the camp with her, hidden in the heel of her shoe.
Seventy five years have passed since liberation. Lily is now a proud great grandmother. She still wears the tiny gold pendant and shares its remarkable story with all those who will listen. Any gold arriving in Auschwitz was stolen by the Nazis, so Lily believes that her pendant is unique in that it was the only gold to enter and leave the camp with its rightful owner. Like Lily herself, it survived against the odds.
Many Members of this House and many millions of people from around the world have visited Auschwitz-Birkenau and have seen the thousands upon thousands of shoes, of all shapes and sizes, piled on top of one another. Many of those shoes, like Lily’s, hold the memories of those last murdered in Auschwitz. Hidden in the soles of those shoes are notes and photos—the last possessions of men, women and children murdered by the Nazis.
I pay tribute to the eye witnesses for their resilience and their bravery. They are still, even in their 80s and 90s, sharing their testimony in schools across the country with the Holocaust Educational Trust. We are also hugely grateful to the next generation of Holocaust Educational Trust ambassadors—thousands of young people who have heard testimony from survivors and who have visited Auschwitz and returned to share what they have learned. They are doing incredible work, taking on that responsibility and commitment to carry the legacy and stand up to hate today.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Further to that point and, indeed, to the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), will the Government play their part in working with schools to bring the life of the work of the trust to every part of our kingdom? It is vital that the next generation understand that the future is, in part, shaped by what we learn from the past.
Luke Hall
I absolutely give that commitment, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to put it on the record. That is why we should pay particular tribute to the next generation of volunteers who are really taking on that legacy and serious responsibility.
Although Auschwitz is synonymous with the holocaust, few people are aware of the Arolsen archive, the world’s most comprehensive archive on the victims and survivors of Nazi persecution. The collection has information on around 17.5 million people and belongs to UNESCO’s memory of the world. Apart from the paper records, the archive has 3,000 personal possessions belonging to former inmates of concentration camps. Thanks to the #StolenMemory campaign, the archive has returned precious recovered items to family members. Members can imagine the immeasurable value that these items have to their families—they are often the last remaining traces of parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters.
Decades after the Nazis had confiscated a watch from his father, Jean-Pierre Lopez held it in his hands and wound it up again. He reported that it was extraordinary. He said that it seems to still work perfectly even after 74 years. In 1944, the Gestapo had arrested his father, José Lopez, as an anti-fascist and deported him as a forced labourer. He managed only just to survive, ending up with typhus and a body weight of just 40 kg.
The theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “stand together”. It is a reminder for us to stand together, with each other and with our communities, to remember the holocaust. It is also a reminder that during the holocaust and subsequent genocides, communities themselves were deliberately divided, with individuals persecuted because of their identity, and that, despite the dangers of doing so, some people chose to stand together with those targeted, to challenge the divisive actions of genocidal regimes. We must remember their bravery and sacrifice and be inspired by it. We also must make sure that we stand together to challenge hatred and prejudice wherever we find them today, which is why this Government are so proud of the support that they give to holocaust education remembrance.
The incredible work of the Holocaust Educational Trust is of massive value. Every year, the trust takes thousands of young people to Auschwitz-Birkenau and trains hundreds of teachers across the country. The Government have provided £2.2 million to the trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” project and £1.7 million for visits to Bergen-Belsen, the camp liberated by British troops. We also provide £1 million a year to the Holocaust Memorial Day trust to deliver the annual memorial day and thousands of local events across the country. We have been funding the charity Remembering Srebrenica since 2013, including with a further £400,000 this year. The charity uses the funding to raise public awareness of the 1995 genocide, with the aim of creating a diverse movement of people coming together to challenge hatred and intolerance.
Despite that education and the support of successive Governments and people in the United Kingdom, it is a sad fact that antisemitism has spread like a virus far into UK politics in recent years—even into the very building in which we stand. When the Chief Rabbi unprecedendently feels the need to speak about his fears during the general election campaign, when Jewish councillors and Members of Parliament are subjected to such campaigns of hatred that they feel they have no alternative but to stand down, when dangerous conspiracy theories become so widespread on social media that the public start to believe them and write in to our offices with the most offensive lies, we must shake ourselves and remember that this is not normal; this is wrong. I urge all Members to play their part in turning the tide of antisemitism.
Assisted Dying Law
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for whom I have great regard, but whom I disagree with fundamentally. I shall explain why in a few moments.
One of the most difficult things to come to terms with in life is the fact that it is temporary—one might say, in the great span of human existence, almost momentary. It is also difficult to come to terms with the fact that each and every life is punctuated by despair, pain, loss and disappointment. All our lives will have a share of that, and some lives have more of it than others. That is a sad fact.
In our age, it seems very unpalatable to people that that should be so. We have been encouraged, perhaps by the world we live in, by media, popular culture or the exchange of ideas, to think that lives can be made ideal, perfect, cushioned and so forever comfortable, but it is just not like that. I say to everyone in this room that if they live long enough, unless they are taken in some dramatic or sudden way, they will become weak and wizened, frail and faltering, because that is what ageing does.
Although life, as I have described it, is momentary, each moment is precious. The life of profoundly disabled people is precious, and the life of those weak, wizened, sick and infirm people is precious. Every life has value and every life ultimately ends. If that is unpalatable, then so be it, because that is the contextual reality that this debate is considering.
Of course, it is true that people on both sides of this argument want to do right by people in difficult circumstances; they are motivated by compassion. Several people have said that they are conflicted because of that. But in the end, the truth is that it is compassionate most of all to care, to protect and to prevent where we possibly can. That is the ultimate compassion: coming to terms with the temporary nature of life and the pain that I have described, and then exercising that kind of care.
It is easier to end lives. I would not for a moment accuse anyone in this Chamber of this, but there are those who, perhaps because of their bourgeois sensibilities, find it difficult to accept what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) says: that there are people who would take advantage and who would see this as a route to do very cruel and unkind things—not to exercise compassion, but the opposite. She described it more graphically as bumping people off; I will put it slightly differently. Some of those people would say, “You are a burden, Mother.” Mother would reply, “Do you think I really am? Am I causing you difficulty? Am I causing you disturbance and distress? Wouldn’t it be better, now that I have reached this great age, to go?”
If there is any prospect of one vulnerable person dying as a result of this change who would not otherwise do so, it is not a chance that, as a legislator and a parliamentarian, I am prepared to take. Indeed, it is not a chance that any other Member of this House should be prepared to take. The current law may not be perfect—what law is?—but I say that we should stay where we are, for anything else could be considerably more dangerous, damaging and, in the end, frightening.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
We move on now to the Front-Bench winding-up speeches, and there should then be a little time for the hon. Lady to wind up at the end.
Chris Philp
I was about to come on to precisely the figures that the hon. Gentleman refers to. Before I do, it is worth reminding the House of the current prosecution policy. It was set out substantively in February 2010 and revised somewhat in 2014. Clause 43 of those Crown Prosecution Service guidelines sets out a number of conditions that will make it more likely that a prosecution serves the public interest.
However, clause 45 lays out six conditions that will make a prosecution less likely, including: first, that the person who has died reached a voluntary, clear and settled decision; secondly, that the accused was motivated by compassion; thirdly, that the nature of the assistance or encouragement was minor; fourthly, that the accused had tried to dissuade the person dying from pursuing that course of action; and fifthly, that the matter had been properly reported to the police. If those conditions are met, the Director of Public Prosecutions would be less likely to bring a prosecution—not completely unlikely, but less likely. The judgment as to whether a prosecution serves the public interest is an independent question for the Crown Prosecution Service, or the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister is actually setting out—I was going to deal with this in my speech had I had longer to contribute—that the existing circumstances, far from being rigid, are very flexible. The guidance exercised and the discretion used allow a good deal of latitude in the circumstances he describes. That is a good case for not changing the law.
Chris Philp
I will come on to the Government’s position of neutrality in a moment.