Hate Crime Against the LGBT+ Community

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of hate crime against the LGBT+ community.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I sincerely thank all colleagues present for attending today’s debate. I draw attention to my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on global LGBT+ rights, my role as co-chair of the LGBT+ parliamentary Labour party and, sadly, my own experience as a victim of LGBT+ hate crime.

I begin by thanking Stonewall, Galop and many other national organisations that speak up on these issues. Locally, in my constituency, I think of groups such as Pride Cymru and Glitter Cymru. I also want to mention the LGBT+ Safe Spaces venues, from our clubs and pubs to inclusive religious venues, and places such as the Queer Emporium in Cardiff, not to mention their brave security staff and managers, for all they do to keep our communities safe and welcome.

The fact is that, despite all the legal progress we have made in this country and the rapidly changing and welcome debate, particularly among younger generations, this is a perilous and profoundly uncertain time for the LGBT+ community in the UK. I would never seek to downplay the even worse threats of death and violence, let alone the absence of basic legal rights in many other contexts globally, but I can genuinely say that we are not in a good place here and things are getting worse.

That view is not just anecdotal. It is borne out by clear evidence and trends that I will come on to, and is sadly borne out by the stark, horrific reality that we saw in the homophobic murder of kind, compassionate Dr Gary Jenkins in my city of Cardiff in 2021. We can all think back to the horrors of the Admiral Duncan bombing in 1999 and the Stephen Port murders in 2014 to 2015 in east London, and all the failures around how that case was handled.

We are all aware of ongoing and more recent incidents, but I am conscious of the House sub judice rule and I will, therefore, refrain from commenting on a number of them. I know that colleagues will want to take particular care on that matter.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the debate; I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that I have a prior appointment. As someone interested in human rights issues, I want to put on the record my condemnation of those who carry out hate crimes against anybody, wherever that happens. I fully support what the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, which I want to put on the record.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Member for his support, which is genuinely welcome. The cross-party group that we have here today reflects the wide concern across the House at recently released statistics.

I will refer to my own experiences, which are sadly all too common for others. I have been assaulted with a homophobic element in my own constituency in broad daylight. I have been told online by somebody that he would sort me and my issues out while I was at football, while posting pictures of me dressed up at Pride. I have been called a “faggot” while walking along Queen Street in Cardiff. Like many other members of the community, I have worried whether it is safe to kiss my boyfriend or hold his hand on the bus or the tube. Even as a parliamentarian on an overseas trip, I was told to my face that people like me are detested.

In National Hate Crime Awareness Week, rather than belittling the impact of hate crime or suggesting that it is a “woke” irrelevance, it is critical that we look into the impact that attacks are having on the community, across the country, against people who just want to love who they love, live as themselves and get on with their daily lives. In the UK in 2023, the place of LGBT+ people in society, and their safety and wellbeing—is it really such a difficult thing to ask?—simply should not be contested notions, be up for debate or, worse, lead to violence, intimidation or assault; and yet here we are.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly important debate. The figures from my local police force, North Wales police, are staggering: the number of hate crimes based on transgender identity has surged by 771%. When we bear in mind that it is likely that only one in 10 hate crimes are reported, that gives us a sense of the level of suffering and the sheer size of the problem that we have to deal with.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight not only the increase, but the context of significant under-reporting. We all ought to be shocked.

This is Hate Crime Awareness Week, and the reality is that hate crime remains stubbornly high across the piece. Not least in the current context, given the despicable incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobic hate crime, we must rightly focus on religious hate crime, and race-related hate crime remains stubbornly high. That is before we consider the less looked-at but equally important disability-related examples or, of course, the widespread epidemic of violence against women and girls.

Despite a slight year-on-year fall in sexual orientation-based hate crimes, the total number of anti-LGBT+ hate crimes remains well above 2018 levels, with 28,834 recorded this year, a net increase of 217% since 2017-18.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on sharing his own personal experience. Those of us who have faced homophobic or—as I have—lesbophobic abuse know that it takes it out of us, quite frankly. How many more people have to share their stories or experience violence before we see a regression? As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we are talking about hate crime in the round. Does he agree that if those at the very top of Government make statements that attack some in our community, that only makes it more dangerous for everyone and justifies hate crimes against everyone?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the hon. Member knows, I totally agree with her. The scale of this issue is staggering. Those statistics in practice mean 79 incidents a day—one roughly every 20 minutes—in 2023. Of course, there is better police awareness and reporting in some cases, but there is significant under-reporting. Fewer than 10% of LGBT people told the national LGBT survey in 2018 that they felt comfortable reporting hate crimes to the police, so it is likely that the statistics are a drop in the ocean.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. He has just talked about some of the statistics. Does he agree that things are even harder for LGBTQ+ black and minority ethnic people? One of the things that was flagged up with me when I attended Black Pride this year was that a number of people in that community still do not feel comfortable reporting to the police. The figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend Black Pride and many of the other organisations that do incredible work in this area. The intersectionality of hate crime statistics should be deeply shocking to us all.

We heard about North Wales police. My force, South Wales police, provided me with its latest statistics. Just in the period from October last year to September this year, the force recorded 645 hate crimes related to sexual orientation, resulting in 33 charges, and 170 reports of transgender-related hate crimes, resulting in five charges. I am reassured by how seriously my local force takes these issues—I have had many conversations with it—and I have heard other positive examples while preparing for the debate, from Avon and Somerset to Lancashire to Norfolk, but there are significant challenges in some places. In London, the Casey report showed that trust in the Metropolitan police has fallen faster among LGBT+ Londoners than among non-LGBT+ Londoners. Leadership and action are far too patchy across England; in the absence of a central hate crime strategy, they depend too often on individual police and crime commissioners and forces.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. It comes at a time of a significant rise in hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community. I stood with the trans community in Merthyr Tydfil with Merthyr Pride last week at a rally. My hon. Friend mentioned the figures supplied by his police force, which is the same as mine. Does he agree that the particularly venomous comments from the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other senior Tories do nothing to support those figures and will increase the problem further?

[Stephen Doughty]

I greatly endorse what my hon. Friend said, and I welcome the work of Merthyr Pride. I think that was the first such event to take place in Merthyr, and the organisation does amazing work. I will come on to some of the context driving this.

We have colleagues here from across the United Kingdom. The Police Service of Northern Ireland records transphobic incidents and crimes motivated by transphobia, but unfortunately there is no enhanced sentencing for that motivation or hostility. We see a more positive picture in Wales, despite the statistics. The Welsh Labour Government’s LGBTQ+ action plan specifically covers safety, online hate, improving reporting and investing in local hate crime prevention programmes. In Scotland, there is a hate crime strategy focused on data, tackling crime online and on public transport, and supporting organisations working on these issues.

The effects of hate crime are deep and pernicious. They can unravel the lives of those who are among the most vulnerable in our society, and in the worst cases lives are lost and serious injury occurs. I pay tribute to all those who have been affected in that way, to their families and to all victims. But for many other victims of less violent offences, the crime itself is only the beginning. Some 42% of victims of hate crime felt a loss of confidence or felt vulnerable following the crime, compared with 19% for all other crimes; 29% of hate crime victims had difficulty sleeping, in comparison with 13% for all crimes; and 34% of hate crime victims suffered from anxiety or panic attacks compared with 14% for others.

[Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. I worry that too often the focus does not come from the point of view of the individuals who may be subject to this type of violence and their voices are suppressed. Does he agree that we must remember the unique position of LGBTQ+ women in our discussions?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. I spoke earlier about intersectionality. When we look at wider violence against women and girls, or violence related to race or disability, there can be a double or triple whammy for people experiencing violence on the basis of who they are. It is simply unacceptable.

Given the shocking record and the shocking increases that we have seen in recent years, it is no wonder that many LGBT+ people—people we all represent—feel less safe and more afraid to walk down the road holding hands with their partner, to present themselves as they wish and to remain authentic, honest versions of themselves. But it does not have to be this way. We know that we are capable of providing vibrant, diverse, dynamic, beautiful and inclusive communities.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I apologise that I will not be able to stay until the end. We have heard from others how the current climate has been fostered by the very unprofessional and negative comments from some Cabinet members. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister what she will do to raise that with Cabinet members and ensure that they stop making things worse?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is worth looking at the fact that in 2013 the UK was rated as the best place in Europe for LGBT+ equality. We had taken pride over many years in being a beacon of the furtherance of LGBT+ rights. Indeed, there was a broad political consensus around advancing those rights; let us not forget that it was a cross-party coalition of Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and other parties represented here that passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. I was proud to serve on its Bill Committee.

However, today we see increasingly regressive forces in our politics, with sometimes explicit and sometimes more insidious attempts to divide and demonise our community; an increasingly hostile media and online environment; the influence of globally regressive forces, from Putin to the extreme religious right; and, across society more broadly, others vilifying our community and weaponising debates about our rights and, in many cases, even our existence. Shamefully for the Government, that means that since 2013, the UK has dropped to 14th place in the ILGA-Europe rainbow index, lagging behind the rest of western Europe.

Where once we had Prime Ministers who took pride in Britain being a leader on LGBT+ rights, we now see the plight of our community demeaned to cheap punchlines or political dog whistles. Where once we had consensus, compassion and kindness—and, indeed, legal action—now there is division, polarisation and a perpetuation of insidious culture wars. Quite frankly, we deserve better. Our constituents deserve much better.

I am proud that Labour has set out the need for a different approach—one that does not treat LGBT+ rights as a political football or an afterthought. It is a fact that hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and disability are not punished as severely as those based on other protected characteristics. I am proud that we have committed a Labour Government to fixing that injustice by equalising the law so that LGBT+ and, indeed, disability-related hate crimes are treated as aggravated offences. We will provide real accountability and assiduously pursue those who seek to harm an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

One of the most concerning trends in recent statistics is the 11% increase in hate crimes committed against transgender people. Tragically, I would think that that would come as no surprise to any of us in this room. We have all seen the way in which the discussions around these issues have been conducted in recent years, with escalatory rhetoric increasingly poisoning and polarising our discourse. Of course there are valid, important and complex issues to be discussed, but the lives and experiences of an already small and vulnerable community are increasingly abstracted into a reductionist zero-sum game and, in many cases, people are dehumanised and targeted.

We see it with the rise of anti-trans rhetoric online, as well as in cheap shots politically. We also see it quantitatively in surveys of British public opinion. The latest British social attitudes research reports that the proportion of British people who describe themselves as being prejudiced against transgender people has increased from 18% to 36% since 2019. Most alarmingly, we see it in the sharp increase in anti-transgender hate crime, which is up 11% in one year. In the past six months alone, Galop, which does excellent work, has seen a 76% increase in trans people seeking support to deal with serious incidents.

In closing, I ask the Minister for clarity in a number of areas. First, will the Government end what the Law Commission calls a “hierarchy of protection” and bring about real parity between groups of all protected characteristics, or will it fall to a Labour Government to find the courage to take that step forward? LGBT+ people rightly feel that the current political set-up is weighted against them because the Government have failed to make achievable and critically necessary reforms such as introducing an inclusive ban on conversion therapy. How can the Government say that they are concerned with the plight of LGBT+ people while they continue to quietly acquiesce in that abhorrent practice? Lastly, given the shocking statistics, what specific support will the Minister give to the trans and non-binary community? Will she commit to stamping out the divisive and horrific rhetoric that comes from some parts of her own Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present today. I particularly thank Opposition Members, but I also want to thank Conservative colleagues for having the courage to speak up on these issues publicly and within their own party.

I am sorry to say that the Minister has shown how completely out of touch she and the Government are with the lived experience of LGBT+ people. To use words such as “hysterical” when we are talking about such serious issues is deeply disappointing. The evidence is there and is very clear. It is unequivocal: hate crime is up, people’s experiences are horrific and we have slipped down the rankings. The question is: when will she and the Government do something about this, rather than just talking and offering warm words?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of hate crime against the LGBT+ community.

National Security Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Member will know that that is a matter for the Foreign Office in its dealings with other states. The Bill does not in any way erode any of the protections under the European convention on human rights, including the right not to be tortured.

We are pleased that the chief executive officer of the News Media Association Owen Meredith said in response to the Government’s changes that he welcomed

“the government’s reassurances that journalism will not be criminalised under this new national security regime.”

That is absolutely correct. It will not be, and it is not the Government’s intention that it should be. The media sector recognises the balance that the Government have struck between protecting press freedoms and safeguarding national security.

We have also taken on board the concerns of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which I thank for the incredibly constructive and supportive manner in which it has engaged on the Bill. In response, the Government have changed the Serious Crime Act 2007 amendment from non-application of the offences to a defence. We believe that the amendment strikes the right balance. It ensures that the dedicated individuals in the intelligence and security services can carry out activities to support our foreign partners, but that there can be proper legal consideration of any potential wrongdoing.

The Bill is now in a strong position. We have effective tools and powers to tackle hostile activity on British soil or that is against the UK’s interest, done for or on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit, foreign states. We have a thorough transparency scheme designed to ensure that we know who is influencing our politics. Under the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, we have the ability to specify states and entities and thereby require the registration of activities to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. We also have the means to prevent the exploitation of the UK’s civil legal aid and civil damage systems by convicted terrorists.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have raised on a number of occasions in debates and Committees the use of cryptocurrencies, and cryptocurrency mixers in particular, to facilitate the activities of hostile state-sponsored activities in a number of countries. The US Treasury acted against a number of the so-called mixers back in August last year. Despite raising that on a number of occasions, I am yet to receive clarification on what we are doing to ensure that cryptocurrency is not used to facilitate hostile state activities, as has been done in sums of billions.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman, who is a friend, is right to highlight this issue as it is true that cryptocurrency can be used in such ways. I urge him to look at the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which we are taking through the House. Naturally, the National Security Bill does not cover every element that we are using to ensure the protection of the United Kingdom; there are many other Bills, which work together as a woven fabric of defence. Cryptocurrency is one aspect of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is leading on. That Bill is making its way through the House and will address some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Turning to amendments 22 and 122, the Government have set out clear reasons why we will not accept either amendment. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will be making an intervention about this later in the debate. We have set out the reasons why we will not accept the amendments, which were made clear in the other place.

Amendment 22 would introduce a requirement for political parties to

“publish a policy statement to ensure the identification of donations from a foreign power”.

Upon receipt of a donation, political parties are already required by law to verify whether they are or are not from a political source. Donations that do not meet the permissibility tests or are unidentifiable must be returned and reported to the Electoral Commission. If political parties fail to do that, their treasurers face being sent to jail. They risk the reputations of their staff and their elected representatives being shredded. There is already a strong incentive for parties to ensure that donations come only from permissible donors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

As usual, my right hon. Friend makes his point cogently. In reality, the MOU requires amendment because the nature of the Government has changed. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise the Government on areas where intelligence and security information is required. I agree that that update needs to be made, but I disagree that this is the place to do it or that it should be done in legislation, for the reasons of flexibility that we have already discussed. I know that he will be making his case powerfully to the Prime Minister, and no doubt to other Ministers, to make sure that the updates required to make sure scrutiny is observed are followed through.

Finally, I turn to the amendment to the Serious Crime Act 2007 tabled today, which largely speaks for itself. It clarifies the application of the new defence, which will apply to

“the proper exercise of a function of the armed forces”

only when relating to intelligence. This addresses concerns raised in the other place about the scope of armed forces activities that may have been covered by the defence. It builds upon the amendment tabled by Lord Anderson on Report in the Lords and the commitment made in the other place to bring forward a similar amendment. I am glad that we can bring it forward today.

The ISC has heard and accepted the operational problems caused by the application of the SCA offences. I believe the new SCA defence, and today’s amendment to it, satisfy the concerns of the United Kingdom intelligence community, the armed forces, the other place and this House. I therefore ask the House to support the Government amendment. Let me again thank the Intelligence and Security Committee for its co-operation and help in improving the Bill.

As the House will know, the Government have also tabled a minor amendment to the foreign influence registration scheme, designed to ensure parity across the devolved Administrations in respect of the public officials covered within the meaning of political influence activity.

This Bill is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that will revolutionise the tools and powers available to the police and our intelligence agencies, so that they are equipped to keep us safe.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will, because the hon. Gentleman is an old friend.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister will be aware of Lords amendment 130, which relates to the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. He will also be aware of the concern that has been expressed about the possible unintended consequences of the Bill. Those bases are critical to UK national security, as is our relationship with the Republic of Cyprus, which a close friend of many in the House. Will he say a little about where the discussions have got to, and whether there will be a good conclusion?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman has tempted me to approach the issue a little early in my speech, but let me put this firmly on the record. I have met the high commissioner of Cyprus, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to its Foreign Secretary. I want to make it clear that any references in the Bill to the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia shall be in accordance with the 1960 treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, shall not affect the status of the sovereign base areas as defined in the treaty, and will not in any way undermine its provisions. References to the sovereign base areas in the Bill in no way indicate a change in UK policy towards their governance. I hope that is extremely clear.

If we had these powers now, I would already be encouraging the police to use them against those who side with our enemies. As always, I want to share my admiration and appreciation for the services, their work and all their efforts that so often go unseen, although the impact does not go unnoticed. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support the Government’s changes, and our opposition to the amendments relating to the ISC and political party donations.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Important strides are being taken forward in the Bill and we should all be getting behind the swift action the Government took in response to the invasion of Ukraine. I am very grateful that we were able to pass that legislation and take powers in the Act earlier this year, which included taking the groundbreaking action of sanctioning hundreds if not thousands of Russian individuals and entities, freezing assets and really excluding the influence of Russian finance in the UK. I am proud of that effort and I hope that he is too.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Suella Braverman]

If I can just make some progress, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Having acted immediately in response to Putin, we promised to go further. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will bear down even further on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists, strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive but economic crime cannot. Economic crime is a serious problem. It threatens our prosperity, national security and global influence. The UK has one of the world’s largest and most open economies, and it is an extremely attractive place to do business. That is a good thing, but it also exposes us to economic crime, such as money laundering, corruption, the financing of organised crime and terrorism, and a growing range of state threats.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. One issue I have raised with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers directly relates to the use of cryptocurrency and different mechanisms for those trying to evade sanctions or commit other crimes. There is a particular issue around mixers and tumblers—that is what they are called. The US Treasury took very, very severe action on this in August this year. My understanding is that we are yet to take that action. Will she look urgently at these issues with her colleagues in the Treasury and the FCDO to ensure that we bear down very strongly on those who are using crypto to avoid detection by our criminal investigation agencies?

[Suella Braverman]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important and valid point. The Bill will go some way to dealing with cryptocurrency, but he is right that cryptoassets are increasingly being used for malign and terrorist purposes. We intend to crack down on that and will be bringing forward a Government amendment that will mirror the changes in Part 4 of this Bill in counter-terrorism legislation, but we are very happy to review that further.

The Government have already undertaken unprecedented action to stop kleptocrats and criminals.

Global Migration Challenge

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his very sensible question. The House will be very well aware of the new age assessment work that will come forward under the Nationality and Borders Bill. This is an important piece of work that will help to ensure greater efficacy in the asylum system and support local authorities in determining the age of young people claiming asylum. For too long we have had some of the most egregious abuses, whereby young men have masqueraded as children and posed a safeguarding threat in our schools and social services. This is important and serious work that is taking place right now, and that will provide everyone with assurance about the age of those youngsters coming to our country and claiming asylum.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary has been repeatedly asked this afternoon about the costs of this totally wrong policy. She said that she knew the costs involved in chartering aircraft from examples of our existing removals scheme, so can she tell us today what the cost will be of chartering one return flight to Rwanda and what the cost will be per person deported? Will she admit that this policy will cost far in excess of the £120 million that she said was just for development costs?

[Priti Patel]

First of all, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. As for the costs of removing individuals, for the record, it is worth reflecting upon the number of Opposition Members who frequently write to me to stop the removal of individuals with no legal basis to be in the country when we are chartering planes to remove failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders. Those costs are marginal compared with the long-term cost of housing people with no legal basis to be in this country and the wider cost to society, through our public services, healthcare, and housing and wider accommodation.

Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern. The vast majority of councils in this country, including my own, took part in the Afghan resettlement scheme, and many are already offering to take details and offers of help in preparation for the launch of the humanitarian sponsorship route. I encourage my constituents to do it, and I know he will be encouraging his constituents to think of what offers they can make. The compassion of this country is shown by the fact this will be an unlimited scheme, on top of the family scheme, and could potentially be one of the biggest movements into communities in the UK since the evacuations of the 1930s.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his personal help, but my constituents share the absolute frustration at the speed at which the Government are moving on this issue. Can he get a grip on the situation in Warsaw? I heard today of people who are seeking to join their family in the UK but who are being told that there are no appointments available until at least 15 March, even though they have been in Poland for some time having escaped Kyiv. Will he publish how many staff have actually been posted to Warsaw, Bucharest, Budapest, Bratislava and Chisinau? Have we actually sent staff? Are all of them operating at seven-day capacity? How long do people have to wait for appointments in those locations?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. We are surging staff into our visa applications centres; I am conscious of the fact that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office also has a separate system of posts and diplomatic presence there. We are looking at how we can expand the capacities, and I have touched on some other things we are looking at in order to remove the need for a biometric appointment entirely.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have met many Commonwealth soldiers in my constituency, including Fijians who have worked closely alongside Welsh regiments, and others from Commonwealth backgrounds who have come to our armed forces—indeed, I think they make up something like 11% or 12% of current Army recruitment. I have heard horrifying stories about how they have been treated in relation to visas and settlement, as well as with healthcare costs. It is completely wrong for that to be happening, and for them to be treated in such a way when they have served our country so bravely.

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To ask servicemen and women to pay for the privilege of living in the country that they fought for and were prepared to defend is completely unreasonable. The current situation is embarrassing, and we ask the Government to do the right thing and waive fees for veterans seeking citizenship.

Fire Safety Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

That is the case. I know that my MHCLG ministerial colleagues have been in this place and debated this extensively and, having made the case to the Treasury, it was gratifying to see this money come forward. It will assist those who are living in fear in high-rise buildings in particular, but also those in mid-rise buildings, who, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, will benefit from a financing scheme.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Unfortunately, leaseholders in my constituency have been left in the dark after the announcement the other day because, despite the co-operation between the Welsh Government and the UK Government on the details of this Bill, they have been unable to get answers on the crucial issues of the building development levy and the new tax and on whether there will be any new money for Wales in the proposals laid out by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister urgently respond to the letter from the Welsh Housing Minister, Julie James, which asks reasonable questions and sets out constructive solutions, and will he and his MHCLG colleagues meet me to discuss these issues and find a solution for leaseholders across the United Kingdom?

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s impatience, and it is shared by us all across the House. The scheme is in development, as I understand from MHCLG, and I know that Ministers are working hard to get the basis, the foundations and the system in place so that the money can be distributed as quickly as possible. Happily, in terms of high-rise buildings, I think we are well over 90% that are either remediated or in the process of being remediated, but I completely agree with him that we need to work with all urgency to bring as much possible relief from the stress of living with this cladding in the future. I will certainly ask my colleagues at MHCLG to consider his offer of a useful meeting. I know they will be responding to correspondence from the Welsh Government as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

Nearly four years after Grenfell, and over a year after the recommendations were published, we have waited ages. It is shameful that these things are not enshrined in law.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. I want to emphasise the importance of paragraph (a) of Lords amendment 2, on sharing information about the materials that a building is constructed of, because my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth have real difficulties getting hold of, for example, architectural drawings and original “as built” drawings. There is simply no consistency in this across the UK, which means that fire and rescue services, let alone anybody trying to undertake works, have a much harder job.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had many similar cases in my constituency, with people just trying to get to the bottom of what the issues are, and meanwhile they cannot sell their flat and are facing fire remediation and waking watch charges, their insurance is rocketing and their lives are on hold. We heard from many such people this morning, and it really was very sad.

It is hard to understand why the Government have put forward a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 2. I heard what the Minister said, but my challenge is that he could have tried to amend our amendments if he had a problem with them, to make them work. The answer, “We will do these things, but later” is simply inadequate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I genuinely struggle to understand why the Government have not grasped the scale of this crisis and the quantity of people who cannot sell their flat, who cannot afford the costs that they are currently looking at, who cannot change jobs and who cannot get married or have children because their lives are on hold. Many are first-time buyers who have saved up, worked really hard and got their flat. If the Government would say today, “We will commit to legislate to say that lease- holders should not have to foot the bill”, we could accept that there was a commitment there, but there is not.

There is no commitment to say that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill. The words are said, but there is no action to put it into law. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that there is £5 billion, and that is true, but that does not cover the vast number of people who are still affected—the vast number of people whose lives are still on hold. One could say that some of them are perhaps traditional Conservative voters. We struggle on this side of the House to understand how the Treasury has not grasped the scale of this crisis and is not putting it right.

[Stephen Doughty]

I know for a fact that some of those affected are traditional Conservative voters. I have spoken to people from all walks of life, and they are in absolute anguish about this. They are being left in the dark. We had the announcement the other day—it was typical to announce a big sum of money and then not be clear about how much would come to Wales, how the system would work or when the money would come through. These people have been living in the dark and in anguish for months and for years, and it is completely unacceptable.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is completely right. There is the idea that someone would have a long-term loan where they pay £50 a month. If someone needs to pay off a £20,000 loan, and that loan stays with the building, they have no chance of selling their flat. Nobody is going to want to buy a flat with a bill that high.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

May I add my warm words to those of other Members in wishing the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), a full and swift recovery?

I think that many constituents, from constituencies across the country, will struggle to understand some of the arguments and excuses that the Government have put forward today. I support the amendments tabled by hon. Friends on the Opposition side, and also those tabled by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who made powerful speeches. To emphasise that, I have received an email during the course of the debate, from a leaseholder from a Conservative English constituency, in support of those amendments. He says, “I am a Conservative, and the Housing Department is a disaster in this regard.” That is the message that I am getting from people. Regardless of their political affiliation or where they live in the country, they want this resolved. They are living in anguish and uncertainty, and it is affecting their mental health. It is affecting key workers in our covid response. It is affecting people who are trying to support young families. It is just a completely untenable situation for them to find themselves in. I think they will find some of the excuses we have heard today very difficult to hear.

This is a national scandal that has been brewing for decades, and it needs urgent action to resolve it. It needs action across the United Kingdom, so it needs the UK Government to work constructively with the Welsh Government. They have worked constructively in preparing this Fire Safety Bill, so it was really disappointing the other day when the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government brushed off any questions about Wales, saying, “I don’t know what’s going on there”—or something to that effect—at the end of the debate. He simply has not answered any of the questions, or responded to a very reasonable letter from our Housing Minister in Wales, Julie James.

I have submitted a series of parliamentary questions over the past few weeks to try to get some clarity on the gateway 2 builder levy, the proposed new tax, and on related matters, and I have received completely opaque answers. That is simply not good enough for leaseholders who want those answers and want to know what support is coming from the UK Government to ensure that their concerns are dealt with, not least because many of these pre-date devolution. I hope that the Minister will be able to look constructively on my request for those meetings, and will be able to arrange urgent briefings on these matters between officials in the Welsh Government and the UK Government.

I must go back to one of the biggest problems, which is the developers. I have called them out before and will do it again. Companies such as Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Whimpey need to be held accountable for this. They have been raking in billions in profits while building shoddy buildings, in relation to fire safety and building safety, and it is simply unacceptable that leaseholders might then be expected to pick up part of the cost. I am very pleased that the Welsh Government have confirmed unequivocally that they should not have to do that, but that requires working together across the UK—across the Union that the Minister and I support—to ensure that we deliver for them.

Lastly, we urgently need clarity on the EWSI issue, because it is still affecting lots of people and it is not getting through to the ground, and on insurance, working with the Association of British Insurers and others.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The comms with Tom Randall are a bit unstable, and we want to be absolutely certain that they are perfect, so we will go to Meg Hillier next.

Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

It is not for me to tell the chief inspector how to conduct his inspections and his affairs, but I would say that Penally has been set up in a thoughtful and careful way. We have had to use such emergency accommodation because during coronavirus the number of people we are accommodating has gone up very dramatically, from 48,000 to about 60,000, as the cessations or move-ons we would ordinarily do have been substantially reduced. In the case of negative cessations, they are currently paused entirely across the whole United Kingdom. So that is the reason why it is organised as it is. As I said earlier, if Members, and in particular local authorities and devolved Administrations, want to see the use of hotels and places such as Penally reduced, supporting the Home Office in procuring more dispersed accommodation is the way to do that.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On accommodation, Clearsprings Ready Homes, which I believe manages the Penally camp and has also managed accommodation in my constituency for many years, made multimillion-pound profits over the past few years, paid one of its directors £147,000 last year—that is more than Dominic Cummings—and took a £2 million dividend in 2019. Yet we hear of squalid, degrading and unsafe conditions at its properties. I have raised those issues over many years with Ministers and officials, but it has been awarded a generous new contract with the Home Office. Why was it awarded that contract? How is it value for money? What will the Minister do to bear down on those appalling conditions?

[Chris Philp]

The contracts for the three service providers were awarded after a thorough process to evaluate the bids and they are, of course, subject to ongoing scrutiny on issues such as quality of accommodation, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. Generally speaking, the accommodation provided is of good quality and it compares very favourably with accommodation provided by some other countries. However, if he would like to write to me with any specific issues he wants to raise in relation to particular units of accommodation in his constituency, I will of course make sure they are investigated.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This legislation is being introduced to keep our country safe and to ensure that our operational agencies and public authorities have access to the tools and intelligence that they need to keep us safe—safe from terrorists, safe from serious organised crime groups, and safe from others who wish to cause harm to our country and our citizens. Specifically, the Bill deals with participation in criminal conduct by covert human intelligence sources—so-called CHIS. These are agents, or undercover officers, who help to secure prosecutions and disruptions by infiltrating criminal and terrorist groups.

Throughout history, those entrusted to uphold the law or safeguard national security have used covert human intelligence to support and progress their activity. From Sir Francis Walsingham’s use of informers to defend the reign of Elizabeth I from internal and external threats, to the deployments by the newly formed detective units of the Metropolitan police in the latter half of the 19th century, to the double-cross system in the second world war, covert human intelligence has always been a vital part of our national security and law enforcement framework.

More recently, though, CHIS have been critical in identifying and disrupting terrorist plots, drugs and firearms offences, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and other serious organised crime. Since March 2017, MI5 and counter-terrorism police have together thwarted some 27 terror attacks. As the director general of MI5 said when the Bill was introduced:

“Without the contribution of human agents, be in no doubt…these attacks would not have been prevented.”

I have been advised that between November 2018 and 2019 CHIS operations within the Metropolitan police area alone led to 3,500 arrests, the recovery of more than 100 firearms and 400 other weapons, the seizure of more than 400 kg of class A drugs, and the recovery of more than £2.5 million in cash. Similarly, CHIS operations in 2019 alone enabled the National Crime Agency to safeguard several hundred victims of crime, including from child sexual exploitation and abuse. This is an important and unique tactic; by working their way into the heart of criminal groups, CHIS are able to access intelligence that other investigatory powers may simply never detect.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows how seriously I take these matters and the equipping of our security services to do the job that they need to do, often in horrendous circumstances that affect the integrity of our country and its individuals, but he will also appreciate that safeguards have to be in place. What does he have to say to those who have raised serious concerns that the Bill, as it stands, does not have the safeguards in place to prevent assault, murder and torture, about which there is an absolute prohibition? He knows that we are a signatory to the convention on human rights, so what does he have to say on those matters?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope I will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman during my speech, underlining some of the safeguards—the importance of oversight, which we attach equally to this Bill, and the operation of a criminal conduct authorisation, as contemplated by the Bill. I hope he will also have noted the specific reference to the Human Rights Act in the Bill, in order to underline some of the important points he makes about convention rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I have drawn out the separate regime that operates in relation to the authorisation of, for example, undercover officers, as well as the tight remit, the ambit and some of the additional oversight that is provided in respect of that regime. Again, that is all subject to the supervisory nature of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and can, therefore, as with the provisions proposed through the Bill, be drawn out through that route. However, I will hopefully make some more progress and be able to get into how the Bill works and some of the further assurances. I may not be quite as generous with interventions, so that I can hopefully make progress and let other right hon. and hon. Members in.

The Bill amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by inserting a new section to provide a power for public authorities to grant a criminal conduct authorisation. Equivalent amendments are also proposed to the equivalent legislation in Scotland, subject to ongoing constructive engagement with the Scottish Government.

A CCA may be granted only where it is necessary for one of three statutory purposes: national security, the prevention or detection of crime, or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. It must also be proportionate to what it is seeking to achieve, and consideration must be given to whether the objective could be achieved by conduct that is not criminal. These authorisations will be tightly bound and granted by a highly trained and experienced authorising officer. They must also be compliant with our obligations under the Human Rights Act, including the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Again, I will expand a little further shortly.

A CCA can also apply only where the deployment or engagement of the CHIS has already been authorised under the existing section 29 of RIPA, and is subject to the limits that that section provides. As such, there is a two-stage process: first, the authorisation of the use of a CHIS and, secondly, the separate authorisation of that source to carry out criminal conduct in the tightly prescribed circumstances proposed by the Bill.

It is worth highlighting that, alongside the Bill, we have published draft provisions of the CHIS code of practice, which provides further detail as to how the authorisation process will work and the factors an authorising officer must consider before granting an authorisation. To be clear, all authorisations are precise and explicit. A CHIS will never be given unlimited authority to commit any or all crimes. The effect of an authorisation is to render the authorised conduct lawful. This model is consistent with the approach we have taken for other investigatory powers. Of course, where a CHIS commits any criminality outside the tight parameters of the authorisation, the prosecuting authorities can consider this in the normal way.

Members will understand that, because of the clandestine nature of their work, there are limits to what I can say publicly about the role that CHIS play in saving lives and property, without exposing sensitive information about their methods and techniques. I know that there are concerns about the Bill somehow providing a licence to kill or to commit torture. Let me be clear that there are upper limits to the activity that can be authorised under the Bill, and those are contained in the Human Rights Act. That includes the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is unlawful for any public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the legislation makes clear that nothing in the Bill detracts from a public authority’s obligations under the Human Rights Act. Therefore, an act that would be incompatible with the ECHR could not lawfully be granted under this Bill.

We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to draw up a list of specific crimes that may be authorised or prohibited. To do so would place in the hands of criminals, terrorists and hostile states a means of identifying our agents and sources, creating a potential checklist for suspected CHIS to be tested against. That would threaten the future of the CHIS capability and result in an increased threat to the public. Protecting CHIS from prosecution will have achieved little if we cannot also protect them from being identified by the terrorist and criminal groups they inform against, placing them at personal risk.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister is saying, but will he be clear? This is all predicated on our continued membership of the European convention on human rights and on the Human Rights Act staying as it is, and at the moment we have an Attorney General who has made very clear her intentions towards both those instruments. Can he make it clear that we will stay in the ECHR and that the Human Rights Act will stay as the bedrock of the guarantees on this, but also that other international conventions we are signatories to, including the convention against torture, would also apply in restricting actions that could be authorised under this Bill?

[James Brokenshire]

I have been pretty clear about the way this Bill operates and the manner in which agencies and the different bodies that can be authorised are able to act. Clearly, I cannot bind this House for the future, but I am very clear that we stand by our ECHR commitments, which is why this has been expressed in the way that it has in the Bill. I hope that is helpful to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, an issue to which I will return in a moment, but what he is actually referring to is one of the instances where the Government have tried to argue that the Human Rights Act did not apply. It is precisely for that reason, and because such arguments were raised in the past, that I am raising the point that I am.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I understand that one of the filings that the Government put to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said that

“the state, in tasking the CHIS…is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it…it would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”

Does he share my concern about the various get-out clauses for the Government in these powers, and does he agree that it is better to have a public limit and safeguards, as they do in Canada for example, on a number of such activities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, both on the Canada model and on the point, which I put to the Government, that we cannot have a situation in future where there is any doubt about what was meant on the face of this Bill. We cannot have the Government having put forward on their behalf the argument that the Human Rights Act somehow does not apply.

Fire Safety Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

Let me begin, as I have at every stage of this Bill, by saying that we on the Opposition Benches support the Bill. The Minister knows that. We are keen to be as supportive as possible, but let me reiterate the point that I have also made at every stage, which is that this Bill is a shamefully inadequate response to the multiple problems for fire safety, which were so tragically brought to the fore when 72 lives were lost in the Grenfell Tower fire. The Bill—all three clauses of it—goes nowhere near far enough to prevent a tragedy like Grenfell from happening again.

The Government said that the introduction of the Fire Safety Bill would take them a step further in delivering the inquiry’s recommendations and recently cited the Bill as one of their key priorities in response to a deeply frustrated letter from Grenfell survivors. Yet the Bill does not even include provisions for any of the measures called for by the first phase of the inquiry.

The Grenfell community were failed by a system that did not listen to them. We must never forget that failure. I pay tribute to Grenfell United, the families and the whole community for continuing to tirelessly fight for justice. They should not have had to fight so hard, and hundreds of thousands of people across the country are now being failed by a system that does not listen to them—those stuck in buildings with flammable cladding, those using their income to fund waking watch and other safety measures, and those who cannot buy or sell their flats because the mortgage market has been ground to a halt by confusion and lack of Government leadership.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend starts absolutely with the crux of the matter. She will be aware that, in my own constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, we have thousands of residents in apartment blocks who are affected by these issues. The failure of companies such as Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Wimpey to hold to their responsibilities for fire safety and other building defects is a huge problem. Does she agree that they need to take responsibility for mistakes that they may have made in construction?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The system as a whole is fundamentally broken, and it is the developers as well as the Government who need to look to their own actions and correct them.

The Government have made many promises to bring justice to the survivors and their families, to change building and fire safety regulations and to do this quickly, but the Government are yet to make their promises a reality. At every stage, we have had to drag them into action. During the passage of this Bill, we have sought constructively to improve it, so that it goes further as a piece of primary legislation towards improving fire safety.

New clause 1 would do what the Government say must come later. It would place robust requirements on building owners or managers and implement the recommendations—the key recommendations—from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The Government said that they would implement the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry in full and without delay. This new clause, which we are moving tonight, would fulfil that promise. In what is a very complex world of building and fire safety, the new clause is relatively simple. It seeks to do four things: the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises would share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; they would complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; they would complete regular inspections of lifts; and they would share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents. These measures are straightforward and are supported by key stakeholders. Frankly, it is pretty extraordinary that they are not already enshrined in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who have set out amendments to the Bill that are reasonable, proportionate and non-partisan, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should not support them. I do not intend to repeat the arguments they have made cogently; I will just add a few comments of my own.

As the hon. Member for Southend West said, he has chaired or been part of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue for more than 20 years. I cannot claim to have been a member for that length of time, but I have learnt a huge amount in the time that I have been. It is one of the most effective groups within Parliament. The all-party parliamentary group on online and home electrical safety, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) chairs, has equally made a huge contribution on this issue, with the support of professional bodies. I urge the Minister to listen to the advice coming from those sources.

I do not know anybody who does not support this Bill. It is a very short Bill, and it aims to do two things. First, it clarifies what is meant by “common parts”, particularly in relation to external cladding and the responsibilities therein. Secondly, it is permissive, in terms of the introduction of secondary legislation to modify and add different classes of building in the future.

Had we been debating this two or three years ago, I think everyone would have said, “This is very sensible. Well done to the Government for getting on with it,” but we are not. We are three years post Grenfell. It seems like a piece of emergency legislation, when we should be on to discussing the nitty-gritty and more comprehensive measures. These amendments achieve that in various ways. I will not go through each one, but I would like to mention new clause 1.

We now have the results of part one of the Grenfell inquiry, and new clause 1 effectively asks the Government to take some of those recommendations on board. They include: that information on materials and construction is available to fire and rescue services; that plans of high-rise residential buildings are available; that inspection and testing of lifts is done properly; that evacuation procedures and information to residents are carried out properly; and that there is proper inspection of fire doors. A lot of us would have probably thought, pre Grenfell, that those things already happened, but they do not, and they did not. It is about time that they did. It is about time that the Government legislated and implemented these measures, rather than put out general, catch-all clauses.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point about new clause 1 and the responsibilities. Would he accept that there is a significant responsibility on the original developers, architects and those involved in construction—I mentioned Laing O’Rourke, Taylor Wimpey, Redrow and others—to make sure that they are providing and have available the original construction diagrams of buildings? We have had a huge problem in Cardiff South and Penarth of not being able to get hold of those and then very expensive testing having to be done. Of course, the cost is then passed on to leaseholders, on top of the bills they may face for rectifying these problems in the first place.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is my experience from dealing with blocks in my constituency, and I am sure it is many other Members’ experience, that nobody wants ownership of this, nobody wants to pick up the tab and nobody wants to take responsibility—whether it is those who designed the building, those who built the buildings, those who manage the buildings or those who modified the buildings in ways that were not conceived. Somebody has to do that, and if they will not do that, it is Government’s responsibility to ensure that they do, and I do not think this Bill goes far enough in doing that.

New clauses 2 to 5—I am not going to go through those in detail—are, as I say, sensible and proportionate measures, which are designed to ensure that this legislation the Government are properly bringing forward works more effectively. I wait with bated breath to hear what arguments the Minister can put forward for not adopting those.

Let me come on to the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southend West, because I think that that is an important amendment. I am glad that it was found to be in scope and is being taken because he is absolutely right to say that, whereas a great deal of the focus has properly gone on construction and modification, particularly in relation to external cladding, insulation and so forth, it is also important that we look at the source of fires. It is rather a truism to say that, if we can control that source, we are going to get a lot fewer fires, whether or not they spread.

There are many issues that are being pursued here. Tomorrow, there is a ten-minute rule Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on the registration of electrical appliances, so that where there is a need for recall, those matters can be in hand. What we are doing today is not comprehensive, but the two measures that have been proposed in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and new schedule are entirely sensible. Yes, they are quite onerous because what we are looking for is both a register of white goods and that there are regular checks. Those have been found appropriate for the private rented sector, and I wonder why they are not appropriate for high-rise buildings where we know, as a consequence of fires such as Lakanal, Grenfell and Shepherd’s Court, that people are particularly at risk.

Let me say a brief word about that because it is in my constituency. It is just over four years since the very serious fire at Shepherd’s Court. A tumble dryer, which not just should have been recalled and had not been recalled, but was going to be repaired and was awaiting repair, was being used according to the manufacturer’s instructions—wrong instructions—and therefore did catch fire, destroyed somebody’s home, spread to several other flats and caused the evacuation of an 18-storey block. Had it not occurred in the middle of the afternoon on a summer’s day, the consequences of that would have been dire. As it happened, there were no serious injuries, but the trauma of being involved in a fire of that nature, I do not think can be imagined. If I were the Minister, this would give me sleepless nights every night until these matters are resolved.

What I fear is that the Government are continuing to take what I can politely describe as an incremental approach here. Yes, these are complicated matters and more issues come to light—every time an investigation takes place, we find more problems with more types of building—but that is the world we live in, and it does not excuse the Government from responsibility. We are looking at height, but we are also looking at the type of buildings, the type of users of buildings and the type of cladding that is used on buildings. They could be hospitals, hotels, care homes or schools; they could be low-rise as well as high-rise buildings. They all have risks attached to them.

It sometimes feels like getting blood out of a stone to get the Government to widen their ambit and look beyond the very narrow classifications they have already dealt with in terms of ACM cladding, possibly high-pressure laminate cladding and possibly buildings down to 11 metres. The Government are very good at giving advice to others, and we all know the problems that that has caused with the sale and remortgage of properties and the necessity for inspections when the professional staff are not there to deal with these matters. The Government should be better at directing those responsible and, where necessary, providing the means for those responsible to remedy the serious risks that are apparent.

That is the problem with the Bill, which the amendments go some way towards clarifying. Whether we are looking at the source, the construction or the modification, the consequences can be the most serious. They can be matters of life, of the destruction of people’s homes, or of people living daily in fear of the risks that apply to their homes. I cannot think of anything less reasonable than that, frankly, so more than three years on from Grenfell, will the Minister look seriously at what is proposed and either adopt the amendments or, at the very least, say that the Government will bring forward their own legislation soon?

It rather feels that we have been overtaken by events because we now have the draft Building Safety Bill. That is a much more detailed piece of work, but I already have some criticisms of it—I will not bore the House with those tonight—and I look forward to more discussions on that as we go forward. I know that the Minister takes these matters seriously, but I do not feel that the Government are addressing them with the rigour or the detail that they need to be. Let us make a start on that today by adopting the amendments that have been put forward.