Grand Committee
Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before this House on 14 March 2024. This is a good news story: Atlantic bluefin tuna are present again in UK waters and are increasing in abundance after an absence of many years. In 2021, the International Union for Conservation of Nature changed its assessment of bluefin tuna from “endangered” to “least concern”, which reflects the improving state of the stock. There is significant demand for recreational fishing access to bluefin tuna, which will boost tourism in coastal communities and deliver social and economic benefits.
Following our exit from the EU, the UK joined the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, henceforth referred to as ICCAT, which is the international organisation that manages Atlantic bluefin tuna. This enabled the UK to secure bluefin tuna quota for the first time. In line with ICCAT rules, this instrument will enable UK fisheries administrations to open their own catch-and-release recreational bluefin tuna fisheries. It will permit authorised recreational fishing vessels to target bluefin tuna by rod and line only and on a catch-and-release basis, meaning that fish should be returned to the water unharmed. Without this legislation the UK would be able to run only commercial and scientific bluefin tuna fisheries, preventing us unlocking the social and economic benefits associated with the recreational fishing of this valuable species.
So far, UK fisheries administrations have taken a cautious and measured approach to managing bluefin tuna quota by running scientific catch-and-release tagging programmes, known as CHART, over the past three years. Under the English CHART programme, bluefin tuna were caught and released with an exceptionally low mortality rate of 0.7%. The programme provided valuable data on the social and economic benefits associated with recreational access to bluefin tuna. A trial commercial fishery for bluefin tuna ran in 2023 in UK waters.
This year, the UK has been allocated around 66 tonnes of bluefin tuna quota by ICCAT, which represents 0.16% of the total allowable catch shared between all ICCAT contracting parties. Comparatively, the European Union has been allocated 53%. In future years, the UK hopes to increase its quota allocation; decisions on how we intend to use it will ensure that bluefin tuna fisheries meet our international commitments, contribute to delivering the Fisheries Act 2020 objectives, and reflect stakeholder interests. This year, 16 tonnes will be used for recreational fisheries and 39 tonnes will be used for the trial commercial fishery, which is running for a second year. The remainder will be used for commercial by-catch and scientific tagging programmes. Although the tuna will be caught and released in the recreational fishery, quota is needed to cover any incidental mortalities.
The Marine Management Organisation is expecting to open a recreational fishery in English waters this summer. The Welsh Government are also considering opening a recreational fishery in Welsh waters this year. These fisheries will run alongside further CHART programmes elsewhere in the UK. ICCAT requires any recreational targeting of bluefin tuna to be authorised. The UK fisheries administrations currently do not have the appropriate powers to authorise recreational fishing for bluefin tuna. Therefore, the Government wish to proceed with the legislation being debated today to bring recreational bluefin tuna fishing in line with ICCAT requirements.
This statutory instrument has been created using powers under Section 36 of the Fisheries Act 2020 to add provisions as amendments to existing assimilated law, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/1627. This UK legislation enables each of the four UK fishery administrations to issue non-transferable, time-limited permits to UK recreational vessels to fish for bluefin tuna in their waters should they wish to do so, regardless of where in the UK the vessel is based. It gives fishery administrations the power to set permit eligibility requirements that support the delivery of Fisheries Act objectives; to set appropriate criteria for ranking applications in the event of oversubscription; and to refuse permits on the grounds of safety, conservation or appropriateness.
The SI also gives fishery administrations the power to amend or revoke permits. It explicitly prohibits both the unauthorised targeting of tuna on a recreational basis and the removal of bluefin tuna from the water anywhere in UK waters, whether on a vessel or from the shore. It amends the Sea Fishing (Enforcement) Regulations 2018 to confer enforcement powers on the Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities. Finally, the SI creates new offences for the unpermitted recreational targeting of bluefin tuna and for breaching permit conditions, ensuring that we protect this unique species and its encouraging return to UK waters.
These amendments are distinct from the licensing requirements and powers under Section 14 of the Fisheries Act 2020, which apply only to commercial vessels. This legislation will support delivery of the sustainability and scientific evidence objectives of the Fisheries Act 2020.
With an annual allocation this year of 16 tonnes of quota, bluefin tuna recreational fisheries are expected to generate £25 million in charter fees and significant additional spend over the next 10 years in deprived rural and coastal communities. These benefits will increase if quota allocations increase. We are keen to improve our knowledge of bluefin tuna in UK waters, which is why this instrument stipulates that recreational fishers must report their catch within 24 hours of each trip.
The devolved Administrations are supportive of the amendments made by this UK instrument. If the instrument is not passed, there will not be enough time to open the bluefin tuna fishery for the full 2024 season, with the consequence of lost revenue for charter businesses and an increased risk of illegal fishing.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords on the purpose and aims of this instrument, which will deliver socioeconomic opportunities to coastal communities across the UK. For the reasons I have set out, I commend these regulations to the Committee. I thank noble Lords for their support and remain at their disposal for any questions that they may wish to ask.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that introduction. I have one or two questions to ask him, because I have been involved in some fishing discussions in the south-west, where I live.
I start by asking the Minister about this SI. We are talking about recreational fishing boats. Can the Minister explain in a bit more detail the difference between a recreational fishing boat and a commercial one, if there is a difference? Is the difference that you are required to throw the fish back on a recreational boat but, on a commercial boat, you can eat the product? It is unclear to me. I know that they all have to be caught by rod and line, but does it matter who catches them?
At the end of his useful introduction, the Minister mentioned an income of £25 million for the fishing industry, but, only a couple of months ago, a similar decision was made to ban pollock fishing completely. That will probably put a large number of small fishing boats whose owners live in small villages in Cornwall, where I live, out of business, and they will probably have to sell their boats.
The reason I raise this issue is that, in the debate on pollock fishing in the other place, on 11 March, there was a lot of criticism from all parts of the House about the lack of data. There was a quota of several thousand tonnes a year of pollock that could be caught, but suddenly, just like that, the whole thing was banned —no fishing at all—with maybe a small amount of compensation if the fisherman’s main income was from collecting pollock. There has been a series of bad rows in the south-west and other places because it is not easy for these small fishing boats to diversify.
In a media statement, the then Minister for fishing and fishermen—I do not know who it was but he has been quoted among the fishing sector in the south-west—said, “If you’re suddenly not allowed to fish for pollock, you can always fish for tuna”. As the Minister here will know, tuna are rather heavier than pollock and you need different equipment. Today, we have a draft regulation telling people that if they if they want to fish for tuna then they have to chuck it back—which I think is a good idea—but a couple of months ago a Minister was telling people that if they were not allowed to fish for pollock then they could go fishing for tuna.
People who are about to lose their livelihood—quite a few of them are having to sell their little fishing boats in places such as Mevagissey—being told that they can go and fish for something else, and that by the way they will get a small grant for one-quarter of the difference, is bad enough, but when people dug into that a bit more they found that there was no data about why the ban was suddenly introduced, without any warning to the fishermen concerned—it just suddenly came. If the stocks were gradually reducing then I could understand that fishermen might be told they could not fish for so many and their quota had to go down for the next year, but to be suddenly told that you cannot fish for them at all, even though that is your livelihood—and we might give you a bit of money for a cup of tea but nothing else—is ridiculous. It shows complete ignorance of the industry. I was talking to a fisherman in the Isles of Scilly at the weekend. I asked what he thought of it and he said, “Well, there’s more pollock around my coast than there are human beings in Cornwall. These people don’t know what they’re doing”.
I would be interested to know the basis on which people can continue to fish for tuna and either chuck it back or eat it, depending on which of these different commercial arrangements are in place. Will the Minister comment before the Government introduce any more sudden changes in regulation? This has a dramatic effect on small boat fishing around the coast, not just in Cornwall and Scilly but in many other places. How are they going to improve things in future? I look forward to his comments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing a briefing on this statutory instrument.
When reading through the Explanatory Memorandum and the SI itself, I was confused about what exactly was expected of both commercial fisheries and recreational fishers. I am delighted that Atlantic tuna stocks have increased to such an extent that the UK is now in a position to be allocated quota for the fishing of tuna to begin once again.
Of the quota currently allocated to the UK as a whole by the international commission, as the Minister has said, 39 tonnes is for commercial fisheries, 16 tonnes is for recreational fishers and 10 tonnes is for research purposes. Commercial fisheries will apply for a licence and recreational fishers for a permit. Whatever is caught has be measured, weighed and recorded. The commercial fisheries will get to land their catch and send it to be sold and the recreational fishers will have to throw their catch back, live if at all possible, under the CHART programme and ICCAT requirements. I understand that, for a recreational fisher, the skill of the man or woman against the guile of the fish is a great part of the experience, but it seems to me that not to be able to land your catch at all, even though you have a permit, is likely to discourage rather than encourage applying for a permit in the first place.
My only concern with this SI is the enforcement of the quota against the fish caught and landed. The restrictions are strict on how this should happen. It will be easy for enforcement authorities to see who has a commercial licence, and thus be alerted to a commercial vessel fishing for bluefin tuna without a licence and so take action. On the recreational front, I think this will be more difficult: the fisher with a permit is likely to be indistinguishable at sea from the fisher with no permit. The fisher with no permit may also be fishing for other fish and hiding their tuna catch among that fish, and certainly not throwing the tuna back.
Extensive consultation took place on this SI and the previous one we debated in February. I have read this and understand that the consultation was positive, for the greater part, and welcomed the introduction of the quota and the way in which it was to be monitored. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could say how the bluefin tuna fish quotas are to be policed. Are there sufficient personnel to carry out effective monitoring of this new fishing quota, and will this be carried out by the MMO?
I understand that the main concentration of UK bluefin tuna is around Scarborough, Scotland and Ireland, and obviously around Wales as well if the Welsh are considering applying for a quota. This should help with the policing. However, it is likely that some fishers and charter boats will try their luck outside these areas. How are the other areas to be policed?
The Minister indicated that once the quota limit has been reached, fishing for bluefin tuna will cease for that year. Since the monitoring of what is caught and landed appears to be very tight, it should be easy to ascertain when the quota limit has been reached, but this will not take account of any illegal fishing that has taken place. Can the Minister give reassurances on this matter?
I am delighted that tuna stocks have recovered to such an extent that the UK is now eligible for quota allocation. However, it will be essential for the catch to be strictly monitored against the quota in order to prevent overfishing in the future. I have to say that I am very concerned by the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the banning of fishing for pollock. I look forward to the Minister’s response to his questions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thorough introduction to this SI. He talked about bluefin tuna or, as they are known in the SI, BFT, which means I can think of them only as the “Big Friendly Tuna”. They were pushed to the brink of extinction because of overfishing, so it is really welcome that the fish have returned to UK waters over the past decade and that populations are recovering in other areas such as the Mediterranean, as noble Lords have referred to.
I want to look at just a few bits. Paragraph 7.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum outlines that
“Defra intends to open a BFT CRRF”—
I have not decided what else CRRF could be, but there are a lot of acronyms in the Explanatory Memorandum. The maximum scale of the CRRF is to do with the availability of the quota. We heard in the Minister’s introduction and in noble Lords’ comments about the implications of that quota in the long term, not just as it is set now.
I was also interested to see in paragraph 10.3 that there was a fairly thorough consultation between July and September 2023. Paragraph 10.3 outlines a number of ways in which the scheme has been revised following the consultation. One of the things I wanted to pick up on, and I will come back to, is the reasons why the introduction of permit charges was delayed.
One of the responses to this announcement was from the leader of the Blue Marine Foundation, Charles Clover—I am sure the Minister knows this. Charles Clover said he is anxious that
“we are just starting off a cycle of commercial fishing far too early in its recovery which we cannot control. We are creating a new commercial interest in fishing bluefin which will need close scrutiny. Realistically, the survival of the bluefin now will be about setting quotas strictly within scientific advice”.
Clearly, we all want this to work. Can the Minister say something regarding Charles Clover’s concerns? On the face of it, the quota that has been brought in by Defra looks absolutely fine, and we support the SI, but, having looked at the Blue Marine Foundation’s comments, I ask the Minister: how will the quota be kept under review? Will Defra be prepared to make significant changes if the data suggests that any changes are needed? How would that come into play?
On that point, I want to look at what my noble friend Lord Berkeley said about pollock. Again, this is about the accuracy of quotas, when this is reviewed, how it is implemented and the impacts on the fishing industry. It is often very small boats that rely on this for their living.
To come back to the postponement of the introduction of permits, the Explanatory Memorandum says that
“the introduction of charges for permits has been postponed, to allow time for further work to confirm the scope and scale of such charges, as well as how any charging income would be used”.
Questions were asked about the delay in charging for permits when this SI was debated in the other place. The Minister responded that permits would ensure that
“the whole industry will be conducted responsibly, with the best welfare in mind”,—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 24/4/24; col. 8.]
which obviously we support, but it would be useful to have a bit more information as to the timescales for this, what is likely to happen and what it is likely to look like when it comes in. What does “further work” mean? What kind of work is being carried out? It would be useful to know. Having said that, we are supportive of this. It is good for the industry and for coastal communities, and it is great that we have tuna back.
I hope the Minister will forgive me, because I know this is not what the SI is about, but I want briefly to raise concerns about the salmon farming industry, following a story I read in the media this morning. Official figures from the Scottish Government suggest that farmed salmon mortality hit record levels last year, with over 17 million deaths. There has been increased incidence of mass mortality events in farms elsewhere in the world. We know that these mass die-offs are believed to include sea lice infestations and environmental stressors, such as poor oxygen levels in water, with overpopulation of pens exacerbating the problems.
I was concerned about Defra’s decision to allow Salmon Scotland’s application to change the protected name wording on the front packaging from “Scottish farmed salmon” to “Scottish salmon”, as I think that is pretty misleading. That change is also not supported by Animal Equality UK and WildFish, which say that, as well as being misleading, it breaches assimilated EU Regulation 1151/2012—the Minister may want to write that down—on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. I am aware that this is outside the scope and subject of this SI, and I apologise to the Minister for being a little cheeky, but I know that he has a particular interest in and knowledge of this area, so I would be grateful if he could look into this.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their interest in this matter and in other fishery-related issues.
I start by commenting on the issues in Scotland, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I am highly sympathetic to this issue because, in a previous life, I chaired the Atlantic Salmon Trust, which deals with wild salmon and interacts with the aquaculture industry on a daily, permanent basis. There are some serious challenges in this space. I have a personal view and then there is a Defra view. I should probably stick to the Defra view for the moment—unless your Lordships can coax the other one out of me later.
The level of mortality of farmed salmon, in my view and Defra’s, is completely unacceptable. As your Lordships know, salmon farming is an issue devolved to the Scottish Government. The only jurisdictional reach that Defra has into aquaculture is through its work on antimicrobial resistance and the use of antibiotics, which is UK-wide. It is no coincidence that salmon farming is one of the least successful industries at reducing its antibiotic use. It is an area of serious concern and those concerns are being raised. I accept the noble Baroness’s comments on the name change. I can see from noble Lords’ body language that those are collective comments and, as your Lordships’ can probably see, I am minded to share those views. I will take that back to the department to quiz officials further. It is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
I turn my attention to some of the questions that were raised on bluefin tuna. The issue that sits behind many of them is the sustainability of this particular fishery. We have been in a bad place in the past, but there were no rules, regulations and oversight then. My personal assessment of the situation is that ICCAT has a very firm handle on the conservation status of Atlantic bluefin tuna.
As I said in opening, the issue for me personally is that we get 0.16% of the overall quota. My maths is not brilliant but, if we get 60 tonnes in round terms, and the percentage is then only 0.16%, there are many hundreds of thousands of tonnes being allocated elsewhere. This is an Atlantic fish; it is only in the Atlantic. It seems inconceivable that the UK’s involvement, in its recreational or commercial fishery, would in any way impact on the population, when we are getting 0.16% of the quota that has been allocated by an international organisation that has the welfare of the bluefin tuna at stake. That satisfies my personal position on this, and I hope it goes some way to satisfy others as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the pollock fishery. In many respects that fishery, which is governed under ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, seems to be sitting almost 50 years behind the bluefin tuna. I do not know quite how we got ourselves into a position where a fish species has been designated as below a certain conservation status, and therefore we cannot take a quota from it, but we are governed by ICES and restricted by its quota. This has been much debated in the other House. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to that, other than that it is in no one’s interests that our fishery stocks are depleted to the state that we are in today, because that causes all the hardship, aggravation and financial stress and strain that we are seeing down on the south-west coast.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful for that answer. We are where we are, but can the Minister provide any assurance that, in future, the monitoring of not just pollock and tuna but other fish that need to be monitored is done consistently and comprehensively? At the moment, I am told that anybody who is allowed to fish for pollock can get extra money from somebody in the Government if they put a tag on it or if it gets monitored. It seems to me that the monitoring should have been going on continuously for many years and the results published, so that people can form their own view as to what is likely to happen in future—and challenge the MMO and anybody else if they do not like it. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give me some comfort that it is going to get better.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
That is exactly it and precisely the place that we all want to be. Specifically on the bluefin tuna fishery, we have gone into this carefully. We have done three years of scientific study without even starting up a commercial or recreational fishery, so the lessons are being learned. I take the noble Lord’s point about having a consistent approach and will certainly take a closer look at that when I get back to the department.
We had some comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on how the fishery is to be enforced. I know that she is a keen fisherman herself and an expert in catch and release. In England, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—IFCAs—and the Marine Management Organisation will be enforcing the new legislation. IFCAs enforce waters up to six nautical miles from the shore and the Marine Management Organisation enforces from six miles to the 200 nautical-mile limit. Fishing for bluefin tuna without a permit or in contravention of the legislative requirements and permit conditions will be a criminal offence. The MMO will have the power to vary, suspend and revoke permits, under the conditions set out in this new legislation.
Enforcement of the fishery will be a risk-based and intelligence-led process, with the primary objective of enforcing the prohibition of non-permitted activities. Clearly, we are dealing with small boats in a big sea with limited resources. It is not going to be 100%, but no system ever is. However, there is quite a lot of local intelligence in this space and I believe that the MMO and the IFCAs have the resources in place to manage the entire process.
I think that covers everything. If I have answered all the questions, I hope that the Committee shares my conviction that this instrument is required to enable the UK fisheries administrations to establish recreational bluefin tuna fisheries in their waters. These regulations will bring social and economic benefits to the fishing industry and coastal communities, and support the sustainable management—I stress “sustainable”—of bluefin tuna. I will be sure to check Hansard and endeavour to respond in writing if I have missed any of the specific details. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Swinburne
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before us were laid before the House on 21 March. They will, if approved by Parliament, complete the legislative framework for the funding of the new combined county authorities.
In recent months, similar secondary legislation has been made to provide rules for the election and by-election of combined county authority mayors, as well as for their overview and scrutiny and audit committees. Today’s statutory instrument is the last key building block in the architecture of legislation for combined county authorities as a category. These regulations will provide for mayors of the new combined county authorities to set budgets for the costs of their functions and raise a precept for those costs, subject to consideration and a vote by the combined county authority. They also provide for a mayoral fund.
As with preceding legislation, we are following the principle that provision for combined county authorities should be the same as that for combined authorities. The regulations do this by amending the Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017 to apply its measures to combined county authorities. The 2017 order provides for an effective process aligned with wider local government budgeting timetables, including robust arrangements for scrutiny and challenge of the mayor’s spending proposals by the combined authority. The effect of that application to combined county authorities is in essence identical and is as follows.
There is a requirement for combined county authority mayors to submit, by 1 February, a draft budget to their combined county authority for consideration; for the combined county authority to recommend any amendments to the draft budget before 8 February; and for the mayor to consider these amendments and respond with a further proposal if they choose to do so. Ultimately, the constituent members of the combined county authority may impose amendments to the mayor’s draft budget if supported by a significant majority—usually two-thirds. In the absence of this majority, the mayor’s proposals are deemed to be accepted by the combined county authority.
The combined county authority must set a mayoral budget on the mayor’s behalf if the mayor fails to submit a draft for consideration by 1 February. The mayor may fund mayoral functions through a precept. The standard local government finance regime applies so that precepts must be issued by 1 March; mayoral costs are itemised separately on council tax bills; and, where the mayor exercises police and crime functions, these are listed separately. To aid transparency further, the mayor is required to maintain a fund in relation to the receipts and expenses of the mayor’s functions—excluding police and crime commissioner functions, for which there is a separate police fund.
As for consultation, before introducing the original 2017 order for combined authorities, the Government undertook an informal consultation with officers of the constituent councils of then current and prospective combined authorities, including via a working group of senior finance officers. Our inquiries with finance officers of existing mayoral combined authorities during the development of these draft regulations found no operational difficulties in the existing arrangements. The regulations therefore simply extend the application of the existing provision, in line with the broader policy of parity between combined county authorities and combined authorities.
These draft regulations will apply the regime already in place for combined authorities to combined county authorities to support their mayors in funding their functions through a precept, where they choose to do so. They prescribe a tried and tested budget-setting process that allows for effective challenge and robust and transparent scrutiny by the combined county authority. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for presenting the statutory instrument before us. It gives us the opportunity to try to better understand what the financing of the new mayoral authority will be. I am grateful to her for setting these provisions out.
I understand that we have moved away from the district and borough model. We were told that that was to save money, but now we have the regulations to show that there is to be an extra precept on those living in, for example, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority as well as the new authority—I am not quite sure what it is called—that I understand encompasses Newcastle, Sunderland, Northumberland, Durham and everywhere other than Tees Valley.
It would help my understanding, and that of people living in these areas, to hear how that money will be raised. In connection with the powers that I understand the mayors will have in these combined authority areas, they will take on the responsibilities of the police, fire and crime commissioners. They will also have powers over transport, housing, adult education, policing and security, as well as land development. Will those powers be held concurrently with the existing powers of the combined county authority or will they replace those powers?
Will the precept be an additional precept on the residents through council tax in those areas? Will there be a reduced precept for the powers now to be carried out by the mayor under this new role in that regard? Is the precept in addition to something that my noble friend Lady Penn informed me of on the Floor of the House: that there will be the possibility for combined county authorities to apply for grants? I presume that that will be for funding areas such as transport. Who will have the last say as to how, for example, transport funds will be spent?
I have to congratulate the Labour Party, because it now has a Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire —which does not surprise me entirely, given that it is easier to get a vote out in an urban area such as York rather than a rural area that is very sparsely populated, such as North Yorkshire. Will the mayor or the combined authority have the last word on spending on transport, in particular, and on housing developments?
I ask that question because a long time ago I was a member of the Transport Select Committee in the other place and, as I understand it, North Yorkshire is unique in that, along with Lincolnshire, we have two of the largest networks of rural roads. They are used by people who do not live in North Yorkshire but are passengers and car drivers who transit through it. I am sure they have a lovely time using our roads, but obviously they do not necessarily contribute to the roads in that regard. With those few remarks, I welcome the regulations before us.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Grand Committee that I have relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
As we heard from the Minister, these regulations extend the provisions of the 2017 order so that it applies to the new combined county authorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, mayoral authorities require funding to operate as organisations. However, in extending the number of mayoral authorities, as has been said, the Government failed to publicise that the consequence would be an addition to the overall council tax bill for households in those areas. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the average mayoral precept currently is for combined authorities. She may not know, but it is all right; I have some examples, so it will be okay.
Greater Manchester’s mayoral precept, which includes its fire and civil defence authority, is £112.95 for band D. I dug further into that figure and, on its own, the mayoral precept is only £31.75. What I want to raise here is that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that precept ought to be separated on people’s council tax bills. Currently, the council tax is set by the local authority and there is the adult social care precept, which the Government insist on. Then there is the police precept and the mayoral precept, which includes fire and civil defence authority funding. The latter should be separated out, so that there is a clear indication of what is for the fire and civil defence authority and what is for the mayoral function. I hope the Minister can assure me that that will happen or, if she cannot, can tell me what we can do to ensure that it does.
My next point is that the 2017 order, which I have found, sets the governance requirements for acceding to the mayoral precept. The Minister said that a two-thirds majority would usually be required—I wrote it down—to confirm a mayoral proposal for the precept. If it is not “usually”, what is it? I think it needs to be clearer than “usually”. The 2017 order says two-thirds, but that a three-fifths majority is required for Tees Valley alone. I think this needs to be clearer than it usually being two-thirds.
Those are my two concerns: the first is about getting transparency and the second about the governance arrangements for decision-making. Obviously, if we have combined authorities and mayors then they have to be funded, which is an additional ask of council tax payers. For most authorities, the social care precept and this would add around £250 to people’s council tax bills, so we need to know whether they will get value for money.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first local government item on the agenda since the elections, I think it is right to congratulate all those who stood for election and took part in the democratic process at a local level. It just shows, again, that local government matters. My congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on her election.
Democracy was the winner on Thursday. There is no better illustration of that than the West Midlands election, which was won, in an electorate of some 3 million, by 1,500 votes. Apparently, there were 1,500 ballot boxes in that election, so, if there had been one extra vote in each of those ballot boxes, the result might have been different. That is a great illustration of why local democracy is important.
We have no intention of creating any unnecessary controversy over this straightforward SI, which extends the powers already granted to mayoral combined authorities to the more recently created combined county authorities. I am pleased to see that different geographic, social and economic issues that exist in the two-tier areas of the country are now being recognised and accommodated, and that this SI puts in place the financial mechanism to enable that.
As the Minister will be aware, during the passage of the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, we had the opportunity to express our reservations regarding the governance arrangements for combined county authorities. It will take some testing of those new arrangements in practice to see whether the topics we were concerned about create any ongoing issues. For example, the lack of representation of district councils, which have the planning, housing and economic development powers, on combined county authorities has the potential to frustrate mayoral plans, if they are not used properly. I hope that enough thought will be given to the mayoral structures as they move forward to smooth this path; the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to this issue.
That said, it is absolutely appropriate that all areas, including those with two-tier government, can benefit from the combined authority approach. How much flexibility will the Government allow to those authorities outside of urban areas to create county combined authorities that work for the geography, particularly the economic geography, of their areas? As an illustration, the inflexibility of Boundary Commission reviews can, on occasion, act as a blocker to structural arrangements that would facilitate the progress of developing economic areas. It would be a shame if people were stopped from doing that just because of an arbitrary boundary somewhere.
It would be wrong to consider any SI relating to local government finance without referring to the wider picture of the extreme financial pressures facing local government. I am sure that the Minister will have all those stats that get rolled out to us every time we mention this in the Chamber—they are the Government’s smoke and mirrors to make it look as though they are piling cash into our sector—but, of course, those on the front line know better. The increasing demand driven by costs in adult care, the increasing number of young people needing an urgent and comprehensive response to their special educational needs and the tsunami of homelessness as rents in the private sector soar ever upward, leading to mass evictions on affordability grounds—as well as the unfunded inflationary pressures across the board—are seeing councils struggle to make ends meet and, as we have seen on occasion, be unable to continue without intervention. Nothing in this SI will change any of that.
We all know that the bulk of the new funding for local government is coming from the pockets of hard-pressed council tax payers—another issue referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McIntosh. The Local Government Association talks about figures
“based on the assumption that councils will raise their council tax by the maximum permitted without a referendum”,
leaving councils with tough choices about whether to increase council tax bills in order to bring in desperately needed funding at a time when they are acutely aware of the significant burden that this places on households in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
Can the Minister tell us the overall cost of the new mayoral combined authorities? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about individual levels of precept but do we have a figure for the overall cost for those combined authorities and county combined authorities? None of these new structures comes free. It will be interesting to see, over time, whether the economic growth that the new structures are intended to generate justifies the cost of setting them up.
The Minister spoke about transparency in combined authority and combined county authority finance, but we all know of the dysfunction there has already been in the local authority audit sector. Some 300 councils missed the deadline for audit at the end of 2022-23. Only three of them—1% of councils—were on time. Some 150 have not been audited since 2020-21; 61 have not been audited since 2019-20; 22 have not been audited since 2018-19; and 10 have not been audited since 2017-18. This is a really important reassurance for the public about how public money is spent. There is no better illustration of the importance of this than the issues that have arisen in Tees Valley.
The Government’s stated objective for setting up these new structures is to enable the levelling-up agenda. However, this year has seen the fifth one-year settlement in a row for councils, which continues to hamper financial planning and financial sustainability. Only with adequate long-term resources, certainty and freedoms can councils or combined authorities deliver world-class local services for our communities, tackle the climate emergency and level up all parts of the country. Can the Minister tell us what work the Government are doing to ensure that short-term funding settlements will not continue to hold back councils and combined authorities from achieving the ambitious aspirations that they have for their communities? Until those long-term funding arrangements are in place and designed to provide the stable, sustainable platform to deliver what is necessary, all this tinkering about is just moving deckchairs on the “Titanic”.
That said, we agree that there is a financial and democratic need for transparency in the funding of combined authorities; in granting equal powers to mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities in this regard, this SI does the job it is intended to do. We will not oppose it but I am interested to hear the Minister’s answers to our questions.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I express my thanks to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for the number of points that have been made today. I will respond to as many of them as possible but I will have to respond to at least a couple of them in writing following this debate, given that they are very specific. In the time of this short intervention, there has not been time for everything to come from the Box—although a couple of answers have just come in, so I might be able to answer a couple more questions than I thought.
Let me begin by covering a few things. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about implementation. This SI is specific to the new combined county mayoral authorities rather than to combined authorities. In the immediate future, these new regulations will apply to the east Midlands, in particular; they will also then apply to all mayoral combined county authorities as they have been established in England. The Government’s devolution deal for the east Midlands has been in place since 30 August 2022, so this will be the first time it is used. Two further deals were announced alongside the 2023 Autumn Statement and, if implemented, will result in two further combined authorities: one for Lancashire and a mayoral one for Greater Lincolnshire.
This SI applies to them but, with regard to the noble Baroness’s broader comment about the way in which the spending works and how we generally feel the precepts are being set, we believe that the current method is working. Local authorities participating in it and the mayors who have been running it have told us that it is working. From that point of view, we have some confidence that this is the way to go and, therefore, should work. I will get back to the noble Baroness on grants, which is not in my folder; I suspect that it is covered by a different team to the one I have behind me. I will also come back to the noble Baroness on her specific transport inquiry.
With regards to the transparency of the mayoral component of the precept, it is already a requirement that that is broken out. It can be displayed as one number but it needs to be transparent somewhere as to what that number is. With the police and crime element of that, it is obvious how it is broken out. I will go back in my own time and check what is there, but we would certainly expect transparency to be something that every mayor would want, because it is in their interests to be honest with their electorate as to what they are paying for and how much it is.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Well, this is going to be interesting. The East Midlands will have eight constituent members with two from each authority, as I understand it, so neither two-thirds nor three-fifths works numerically. Do we take the bigger number or the smaller? Do we round up or down?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I am going to write to the noble Baroness with the exact number and calculation that will be used in the East Midlands situation. Ah—somebody knows the answer. It works out as two-thirds or more, so it would go up not down. There we go.
On the precept overall, the regulations provide for decision-making processes applying to those mayors who set a precept, a process which involves the constituent members who have the ability to challenge and, with a significant majority, amend the mayor’s plans for that precept. Where the mayor exercises police and crime functions, the referendum principle for the PCC component of the mayoral precept has been set at the same level as for PCCs. The Secretary of State has been clear that he will consider any increases set by mayors when determining referendum principles in future years, so there are measures that allow us to intervene if need be.
It is true that local audit is vital to support democratic accountability and in providing the assurances for local people that their elected representatives are doing what they should be doing with the budget that they have. The Government are working with the Financial Reporting Council and others in taking action to deal with the significant backlog of local audits in England and put the system on a sustainable footing. In February this year, system partners, including the Government, issued a joint statement setting out a package of measures to meet these challenges. During February and early March, DLUHC and the National Audit Office consulted on core elements of these proposals. We are reviewing that consultation response and will set out our intentions and respond in due course. It is an urgent matter and we are trying to get to grips with it. I am not taking it lightly; it really does need to be dealt with.
A number of other questions have been put but I think it will be of interest to Members to have proper, detailed answers, rather than what I am scrabbling together here. I will come back with written responses to those, but in the meantime I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Amendment) Order 2024
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, this order is supplementary to what became Statutory Instrument No. 150 of 2023, which I had the honour of moving in this Room on 23 January 2023. That SI provided legal aid for the new procedures under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, namely: domestic abuse protection notices, known as DAPNs, which provide immediate protection following a domestic abuse incident; and the new domestic abuse protection orders, known as DAPOs, which provide flexible, longer-term protection for victims.
Under that statutory instrument, legal aid was provided for a number of procedures in the family, county and criminal courts but, at the time, there was a small omission for advocacy in the magistrates’ court or on appeal from orders in the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. This order simply fills that lacuna, which came to light in the course of working through both how this new regime was to operate and the complex provisions of Schedule 1 to what is known as LASPO to make sure that the legal aid regime covering these new orders was complete and comprehensive. We are simply filling a small gap in the regime that had not been spotted before.
This new statutory instrument before the Committee will ensure that legal aid is available for those proceedings. Let me go into more detail. The statutory instrument before your Lordships will make advocacy for those persons who are protected by a DAPO—or those who are subject, or potentially subject, to a DAPO—available under civil legal aid in magistrates’ courts. This form of civil legal aid will apply to DAPO cases where the application for the DAPO is made by the police in the magistrates’ courts. It will extend to appeals to the Crown Court and to applications to vary or discharge the DAPO in these courts. The respondent to an application for a DAPN will also be entitled to legal aid.
Your Lordships may recall that these procedures will for the first time enable these kinds of orders to be made by a range of courts, including magistrates’ courts, family courts, county courts and the Crown Court. In practical terms, they will make sure that the procedures and approaches to these orders mesh together, in view of the different courts that now have jurisdiction. This matter has been, and is being, worked through; as I understand it, a pilot scheme will be launched later this year to test the way in which these procedures will work. If your Lordships approve today’s statutory instrument, there will at least be a comprehensive legal aid scheme covering the procedures envisaged by the 2021 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this welcome SI. We are happy that the lacuna has been addressed. I disclose to the Committee that I am a magistrate in family and criminal courts, and I occasionally have DAPO hearings, at which both the applicant and respondent are often unrepresented at the moment, so I welcome this situation being addressed.
The Minister mentioned a pilot starting, but I was not quite sure to which he was referring. Is it the one in Croydon, which I have been told about? As I said, I hear domestic abuse prevention orders when I sit at the moment, so is this a development in the existing orders I already hear? I am not quite sure to which pilot he refers.
I also make the point that family courts hear non-molestation orders now. These may be replaced by DAPOs, and we welcome the meshing together of the various civil orders across different jurisdictions.
I want to raise a separate issue, which I am afraid I did not have the foresight to give the Minister notice of. Last year, on 24 July, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about updating the information that must be disclosed on enhanced criminal record certificates. I gave the example of domestic violence prevention orders —not domestic abuse prevention orders—and what would happen if such an order were put in place. It is clearly not a criminal order but, if it is breached, it is a criminal offence and it would appear on a criminal record check. I will not go into the details of the case on which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but he gave me a very comprehensive answer on that issue, on 5 October. My point is that the answer was a complicated one—in fact, I will give the concrete example, because it is difficult to explain this without doing so.
I was hearing a domestic violence prevention order, and the applicant was a woman who wanted the order made against her former boyfriend. The applicant’s lawyer was a part-time judge and she was paying him privately. The applicant’s lawyer said to me that the best way to resolve this was with a no-facts finding, where an order is put in place, and that for a limited period the couple did not want to see each other any more. He said that it would be satisfactory to proceed in that way. The respondent heard the advice that I had received, and I explained that, if he were to breach the order, it would be a criminal offence. I asked what his attitude was to that course of action. The respondent said to me, “This is completely impossible for me because I am a primary school teacher. If I get this civil order, I will have to disclose it to my head teacher and I do not know what impact that would have on my career”. I gave him the advice to find a lawyer and fight the application. That is what actually happened, and that is the case that I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
Subsequent to that hearing, the legal adviser said to me that the primary school teacher would not have to disclose the matter to his head teacher because the legal adviser, as a solicitor, would not have to disclose an equivalent civil order to her professional body. It was therefore not necessary for the respondent to disclose this information. This was said after the hearing.
I was very cautious about accepting that advice, because different professional bodies will have different advice and, particularly when you are working with children, different and more stringent circumstances may pertain. I explained all this to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and, as I said, he gave me a very full explanation of the situation in which that primary school teacher would find himself. In a nutshell, it is complicated. What that man has to disclose, as an obligation and what the order requires to be disclosed, is not straightforward.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for those comments. I think that I can reply briefly. I recall that on 23 January 2023—because I reminded myself of the passage in Hansard—the noble Lord raised the example of the teacher, and I am interested that there has been a follow-up, that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has advised on this and that it is complicated. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is making is that, the more we make these orders, and the more we create these procedures, the more complex it becomes. That is a fair point, and it is one that I hope the Government take account of as we go along, because there are unintended consequences to some of these things.
The underlying thought is that the existing procedures, such as they are, in the magistrates’ court and with the non-molestation orders in the family courts, needed a more overall approach. The family courts needed additional powers to order tagging and various other powers that, for the moment, are reserved to the criminal courts—so we have a comprehensive scheme, but exactly how it works is still to be worked through. In that connection, my understanding is that there will be a more detailed pilot, which apparently includes Croydon, Greater Manchester and the London Boroughs of Sutton and Bromley, as well as—for some reason—the British Transport Police, to work through some of those issues and the best way to deliver the legal support that is so important in these areas.
I entirely welcome and support the noble Lord’s comment that legal advice for all parties here is very important. I am not completely sure that the teacher in the example given would have qualified for legal aid, but at least there is now a structure there that should enable people to have legal advice on a wider scale than has hitherto been the case, now that we have plugged that gap.
That is probably as far as I can take it at the moment—save again to say that, as we create all these different procedures, processes and possibilities, up to a point we risk bogging the system down in all kinds of other complexities. That is, I am afraid, the cost of proceeding down this road.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I had expected to be able to continue doing what I was doing while the debate on this order took place but I was fascinated by the example that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, gave. I would just make the rather obvious point about the importance of wide consultation when arrangements are being brought in, in order to avoid the unintended consequences to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Nobody can have enough imagination to anticipate all the intended consequences or consequences that might be less desirable than others but I have noticed recently that, for a number of SIs, the Explanatory Memorandum has said that there has not been any consultation because it has not been necessary.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sure that the noble Baroness’s point is well taken. I very much hope that the pilots I mentioned will sort out the unintended consequences, or at least minimise them.
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2024
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 11 March, will make amendments to the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000. It will remove an inconsistency between the 2000 order and the findings of a High Court judgment in proceedings brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements relating to the EU settlement scheme. That scheme enables EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens living in the UK by the end of the EU exit transition period on 31 December 2020, and their eligible family members, to obtain a UK immigration status. It gives effect to key aspects of the UK’s commitments under the citizens’ rights agreements—that is, the EU withdrawal agreement and the equivalent agreements with the other EEA states and Switzerland.
In line with the agreements, the 2000 order provides for an EU settlement scheme status holder to lose their immigration permission automatically after more than a specified period of absence from the UK. For a pre-settled status holder, the specified period is currently two years’ absence; for a settled status holder, it is five years’ absence. Swiss citizens and their family members have a specified period of four years, due to differences in the terms of the citizens’ rights agreement with Switzerland.
The High Court judgment found that, where a pre-settled status holder has rights under the EU withdrawal agreement or the agreement with the other EEA states—Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—they can automatically acquire a right of permanent residence, which is another form of settlement, once the conditions for it are met, and so benefit from the longer period of absence. The effect of the judgment is that the 2000 order is inconsistent with that legal position because the order does not cater for the group of pre-settled status holders who have automatically acquired a permanent residence right.
That ability does not extend to Swiss citizens and their family members due to the different terms of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The EU settlement scheme is also more generous than the citizens’ rights agreements as regards eligibility criteria and because, for pragmatic domestic policy reasons, it is open to wider groups of people than those covered by the citizens’ rights agreements. As a consequence, not all pre-settled status holders can automatically acquire a permanent residence right.
However, to achieve consistency, the draft order provides for all those granted leave under the EU settlement scheme to benefit from the longer absence period before their immigration permission lapses. This is irrespective of whether such individuals hold pre-settled or settled status, and whether they are from the group that has acquired a right of permanent residence.
We have done that for reasons of simplicity and operational practicality. Generally, a Border Force officer will not know on initial examination if a pre-settled status holder has obtained the right of permanent residence, as that would require a detailed examination of the circumstances and relevant evidence, which is often impractical at the border.
The change to the 2000 order does not prevent the Home Office from cancelling pre-settled status where a holder who has not acquired a right of permanent residence has been absent from the UK for longer than the period permitted by the relevant citizens’ rights agreement, which is generally six months in a rolling 12-month period. The scope of this action will remain available by decision under the Immigration Rules, rather than by lapsing of leave under the 2000 order.
For the avoidance of doubt, the draft order does not extend the permitted absence periods for holders of pre-settled status, which are set out in the relevant citizens’ rights agreements. It affects only the automatic loss of leave under the 2000 order.
The draft order gives clarity to citizens by bringing our legislation in line with the legal position as determined by the findings of the High Court judgment. It achieves that in the simplest and most sensible way while not preventing the Home Office from taking the appropriate action where a person is no longer eligible for leave under the EU settlement scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, although I have to say that my head was beginning to spin even though I spent a bit of time looking at this issue yesterday. I have a couple of questions and a request for an assurance on which I wrote to the Minister yesterday by email, which I hope got to him.
My first question is: with the judgment having been given in December 2022, why has this taken so long? I appreciate that it will have needed some consideration. I note too that the current guidance was published in November last year, so it seems to pre-empt the order. Does it?
The order takes effect the day after it is made, so I wonder about the sequence of events. Being more practical about it, I wonder whether any people will be caught in the gaps. I do not feel at all qualified to guess at that, but there may be applications pending. In the last debate, there was reference to unintended consequences—I hope that will not be the case here.
I am grateful to the organisation the3million for its briefing on this next issue. A pre-settled status holder who has not achieved permanent residence will be affected. Such a person will not ultimately be able to apply for settled status if they are absent from the UK for too long, and they are at risk of having their pre-settled status curtailed if they are away for too long. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to that at paragraph 5.8 but these issues are not immediately identifiable from the order itself. The substantive part of it basically says, in four different places, “after such and such, omit the word ‘unlimited’”, which seems quite hard for an adviser to follow through.
The change in legislation following the High Court judgment is welcomed by the3million, but it is concerned that both individuals and advisers—I should think that advisers dealing with this sort of thing must have a permanent headache—will incorrectly think that pre-settled status holders can be away for up to five years without loss of status. The organisation has said to me that it explains to them that that is indeed the case but they should beware because it is meaningless for an individual who does not have permanent residence rights in law, and that in itself is not straightforward to explain. It says that a pre-settled status holder who does not have permanent residence rights and is away for over six months is likely to be questioned at the border on return and is at risk of their status being curtailed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we support the order as well, and I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. Currently, pre-settled status lapses when somebody is outside the UK for a period of two years or more continuously; settled status lapses after five years of absence.
A court ruling, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, found in late 2022 that, first, applicants granted pre-settled status should not lose their rights of residence if they do not make an application for settled status. This was on the basis that the wording of Article 13(4) of the withdrawal agreement makes it clear that a right of residence can be lost only in very specific circumstances. The expiry of the status was not among them. Secondly, the consequence of the above is that settled status rights accrue automatically once the conditions of such status have been satisfied by the individual without the need for a second application.
As we have heard from the Minister, this SI aligns the law with this ruling in ensuring that pre-settled status can lapse only after five years’ absence. The Government also announced last year that some pre-settled status holders will be automatically changed to being settled status holders this year.
Can the Minister confirm how many people have applied to switch from pre-settled to settled status but are currently waiting for a decision on their applications? We know that there is still a backlog. Will he tell us what information the Home Office has on the number of people who currently meet the eligibility criteria to switch from pre-settled to settled status but have not yet submitted an application to do so?
In July 2023, the Home Office said that its intention was to take steps to automatically convert as many eligible pre-settled status holders as possible to settled status once they are eligible for it, without them needing to make an application. Can the Minister update us on the progress of those plans? As he has acknowledged, the draft order seeks to implement a change to current legislation that is required as a result of the court’s decision. We approve of the order but I would be interested in the answers to those questions. They are actually the same questions that were asked in the other place when this matter was considered.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to this relatively short debate. It is worth saying to start that the EU settlement scheme has been a great success—and I shall come on to the numbers in a second. We have gone above and beyond our obligations under the citizens’ rights agreements and are pleased that so many families, friends and neighbours have obtained the status that they need to remain in the UK.
To respond to the various points, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about facts and figures. This also answers a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made. There is no complacency here: as of 31 December 2023, 7.7 million applications were made to the scheme by an estimated 6.2 million people, of whom 5.7 million have obtained a grant of status. We have received 1.7 million applications since 30 June 2021, of which 38% were late applications; 39% were repeat applications, including those moving from pre-settled to settled status; 23% were joining family members; and 1% were from derivative rights applicants—please do not ask me what that means, because I do not know.
Nearly 1.6 million of the applications received since 30 June have been concluded; 746,000 people have moved from pre-settled to settled status, which represents more than half of repeat applications, and contributes to settled status outcomes being proportionately high when looking at the monthly outcome figures in the quarterly statistics. Application intake has remained high—the average monthly intake for the final quarter of 2023 was approximately 51,000. However, we continue to conclude more applications than we receive, concluding on average more than 57,000 applications a month.
Finally, there are 121,830 pending applications, compared to 142,430 in the previous data released to 30 September 202, which is a 14% reduction. I appreciate that that was a lot of numbers. It might be helpful if I commit those to paper and send them to both noble Lords.
The order is not retrospective, in answer to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If the leave of a pre-settled status holder lapses before the coming into force of this order and they have not obtained a withdrawal agreement right of permanent residence, they will have lost their immigration permission to enter or remain in the UK. That is consistent with the citizens’ rights agreements, because the point at which pre-settled status currently lapses, after more than two years of absence, is more generous than any of the periods of absence permitted under the agreements.
On why we have not given pre-settled status holders a more generous permitted absence period in line with the draft order, the current provisions already allow pre-settled status holders significant periods of absence while maintaining their status. We have gone further than required by the citizens’ rights agreements. There are no plans to take a more generous domestic approach to permitted absence periods for pre-settled status holders than those set out in the agreements. Pre-settled status is a route to settlement, and we expect an individual to show a level of commitment to the UK. Not only are these absence periods well established under previous immigration arrangements with the EU; it would be unfair on UK nationals in EU member states who would not benefit from such greater flexibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me why we were slow to implement the judgment. By virtue of UK domestic law, the withdrawal agreement as interpreted by the judgment is directly effective, which means that the rights are, and always have been, available to citizens. Our implementation is therefore focused on ensuring that it continues to be easy for citizens, government departments and third parties, such as employers and landlords, to evidence rights or check that they are in place. Some of that work is not straightforward and necessarily takes time. No guidance on the order has been published, but it will be shortly.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for submitting her specific question, which was about confirming that the GOV.UK web pages make it clear that the change made by the SI will not benefit a holder of pre-settled status who does not have permanent resident rights. The change will benefit pre-settled status holders who have not acquired a withdrawal agreement right of permanent residence by extending the five-year lapsing provision to all EUSS status holders. I can confirm that the GOV.UK pages will be amended to clarify the position for leave that has lapsed before and after the order comes into force. The position remains that the easiest way for a pre-settled status holder to prove their right to live permanently in the UK is to apply for settled status.
I hope that that addresses all the points raised today. I appreciate that this is a particularly complicated subject. In conclusion, the draft order upholds the judgment of the High Court; it ensures consistency in the legal framework and does so in a simple, practical and workable way. I thank noble Lords for their support and commend the order to the Committee.