House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer) [V]
The Veterans Welfare Service has continued to provide full support to veterans throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
Darren Henry
Last week I spoke to Forces in the Community, a charity in Broxtowe that supports veterans re-entering civilian life. We agreed that one of the hardest adjustments is finding a rewarding job, and all too often veterans fall at the first application stage because they do not have the “traditional” experience that employers are looking for. The Government have delivered on their manifesto pledge to harness the talent of veterans, guaranteeing an interview if they are applying for a role in the civil service, but we should aim bigger and better. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss a pilot veteran confident employer scheme to be rolled out nationwide, so that more veterans’ skills are recognised and harnessed, and they are given the boost they need to thrive as civilians?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his question, and I commend him on his maiden speech, in which he talked about these issues. I am very clear, and the Department is very clear, that the single biggest factor that can improve the life chances of veterans in this country is having a job. We have more veterans going into employment than ever before, but I would be delighted to meet him and hear about his specific efforts in Broxtowe.
Simon Baynes
Will the Minister look at ways to protect the funding in Clwyd South and the wider Wrexham area for the provision of armed forces liaison officers and housing and mental health support for our veterans in these difficult times?
Johnny Mercer
I would be delighted to look at that. We have secured specific funding during this challenging time—£6 million out of the Treasury, which has gone to over 100 armed forces charities dealing with the unique challenges of this crisis. I am determined that we will realise this Government’s vision to make this the best country in the world to be a veteran. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and find out what more we can do.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
I want to start by wishing the Minister and his wife a huge congratulations on the birth of their daughter, Audrey.
The Government’s ambition is to make the UK the best country in the world to be a veteran, and the Opposition obviously share that ambition, but for 10 and a half weeks, the telephone service of the Veterans UK helpline was closed. The Minister will no doubt say that there was an email service, but his own figures show that that email service saw an overall reduction of over 10,000 contacts on average per month between April and June this year compared with last year, proving that veterans were not emailing instead. What assessment has he made of the impact of the closure of the telephone service on those people who would normally have called the helpline?
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Member for her kind comments about my daughter. She is right—the telephone service was briefly suspended while Veterans UK, like every other organisation in the country, tried to reconfigure its services, to ensure that we met the demand out there. We have helped over 13,000 veterans since 23 March. Per month, we make 470,000 pension and compensation scheme payments. I am still unaware—as I was six weeks ago, when I spoke from the Dispatch Box—of a single veteran whose urgent need has not been responded to, but if she is aware of any, I would be more than happy to meet her and find out what we can do better.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer) [V]
We rightly expect the highest standards of our service personnel. We also owe them justice and fairness. On 18 March 2020, I introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill to tackle vexatious claims and end the cycle of reinvestigations against our armed forces personnel and veterans.
Mark Jenkinson
I associate myself with the good wishes to the Minister and his wife. In my constituency, Workington, there is an active veterans hub, members of which I met earlier this year. What support can the Department provide for our veterans as they leave the forces to find alternative employment in Workington and other areas across Britain?
Johnny Mercer
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the options available in his area. More money and more opportunities than ever before are going into veterans employment. As I said earlier, it is the single biggest factor that improves the life chances of any veteran and their family. I am always looking to do more, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to go through what is available in his area.
Tom Randall
A veteran with an exemplary record from his two tours in Afghanistan recently confided in me his concerns—and, more worryingly, those of soldiers he served with who come from towns in my constituency such as Arnold and Carlton—about being prosecuted as a result of vexatious claims in the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is our duty to ensure that we end the unfair trials of people who have served their country?
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This has been one of my driving missions since I entered Parliament. I am delighted to be part of the first Government to have really taken on a very difficult issue, carefully walking down the path of making sure that we can always prosecute those who break the law—uniform is no hiding place for those who do—but that the days of lawyers rewriting history in order to line their own pockets and run amok in lawfare come to an end.
John Howell
Any action the Minister takes is likely to require a derogation from the European convention on human rights. Given that the ECHR is part of the apparatus of the Council of Europe, will he meet members of the parliamentary delegation to the Assembly, such as myself, so that we can help?
Johnny Mercer
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I have said time and again that this is a difficult issue and one that requires all of us to work together, both within parties and across parties. The House is united in the view that people who serve and who have done nothing wrong should not spend the rest of their lives fearing prosecution. I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend to discover what more we can do to make sure that measure is brought forward.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Government are the custodians of the armed forces covenant, which Labour has always been proud to support. The covenant rightly declares:
“Those who serve in the Armed Forces…those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services”,
so why are the Government now legislating to disadvantage our own armed forces personnel who serve overseas by blocking any injury or negligence claim against the Ministry of Defence if troops miss a hard six-year deadline?
Johnny Mercer
With the greatest respect, I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Bill. Veterans and service personnel will still be able to bring claims against the MOD, even if more than six years have elapsed. The time starts when the condition is diagnosed or when it is first reported. I reiterate that the Bill is a difficult piece of legislation that will need help from all parts of the House to pass. It is worth reading and understanding it, so that we can find a way to make sure the injustice ends.
John Healey
Of course, I have read the legislation, and the word “diagnosis” does not appear in it. The Minister is right about baseless and repeated claims; we want to stop those as well, but in part the Bill does more to protect the MOD than it does to protect British soldiers. The Bill may well breach our armed forces covenant; it certainly will deny those who serve our country overseas the same employer liability rights as everyone else enjoys at home. Why should those who put their lives on the line for Britain overseas have less access to compensation than the UK civilians they defend?
Johnny Mercer
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect briefly on whether I would advocate a piece of legislation that would do that. The Bill does not do that. It is clear that we are bringing in various conditions to stop our service personnel and veterans repeatedly having to give evidence in relation to historical incidents or to respond to allegations. It has been a long time in the making; the injustice has gone on for many years. What he is saying is simply not in the Bill. I would be more than happy to meet him and Members from all parts of the House to discuss what is in the Bill. We need to work together to get the Bill over the line.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Since 2015 we have introduced many measures to respond to a difficult armed forces recruitment and retention climate. These include financial incentives, flexible service, the recruitment partnership project, the future accommodation model, and improved childcare. We saw improved recruitment figures of 31% from 2018-19. The size of the armed forces should always be dictated by the threat, UK global ambition, and modern technology.
Nick Smith
The Army’s strength, though, is still woefully short of the Government’s target. Those wanting to join our Army were faced with Capita’s bureaucratic processes, which could take up to 52 months. So will the Secretary of State tell us what is the average length of time taken to get through the Army recruitment processes now?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. However, due to the extra effort we have put into the Army recruiting process, the Army has now in fact hit its recruitment target, and was on target to do so even before covid broke, to have depots full and to deliver an armed forces at the right strength, growing the armed forces, not shrinking them.
Judith Cummins
Can the Secretary of State categorically deny reports that No. 10 wishes to slash the size of the Army from 74,000 to 55,000 personnel? If he cannot do that, will he at least confirm to this House that he personally opposes any plan to reduce the size of the armed forces?
Mr Wallace
I can confirm that there is no plan to slash the size of the armed forces. The reports in The Sunday Times were completely erroneous, as was made clear to the journalist at the time. Our armed forces should always be defined by the threat we face as a nation, the capabilities we have, and Britain’s global ambition. That is why, in the integrated review, we will deal with those processes rather than start the debate about numbers.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State bring forward the integrated review? He is aware of the importance of this in confirming our capabilities, but also in terms of existing emerging threats, not least, Britain’s ambitions and place in the world. We are witnessing a seismic shift in power from the east to the west. Is it not time for us to recalibrate our foreign policy in order to recognise this changing threat, and the fact that China is rewriting the international global rules?
Mr Wallace
I feel my right hon. Friend’s sense of urgency about getting this review done. He will also know that SDSR after SDSR, under Governments of both colours, often failed because they were never in step with the spending plans of the Government, and we ended up with SDSRs that were over-ambitious and underfunded. It is really important that the integrated review reports at the same time as the comprehensive spending review, which is due in the autumn. We must also learn the lessons from the recent covid outbreak, which shows how important resilience is, and feed that into the review to make sure that it is as up to date as possible.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by commending our excellent armed forces for their exemplary service to the public during the covid-19 period.
Over the past decade, this Government have severely cut the size of our armed forces. We have had three very good questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), yet the Secretary of State has refused to answer the real question, which is this: will he increase the recruitment and retention of armed forces personnel—yes or no?
Mr Wallace
Recruitment is up, as is retention. That is the direction of travel. That is what we are delivering for our armed forces. It is very clear that our armed forces are growing, as is our defence spending, which is our commitment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Twenty-five service personnel have tested positive for covid while serving overseas.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response. Will he further outline whether any personnel have had to return home due to covid-19 issues? If there is a facility to get our troops home as needed, are they hospitalised according to their regimental location, or are they hospitalised all together?
James Heappey
I am not aware of any individual circumstances in which someone has been recovered back to the UK as a consequence of having tested positive. The symptoms would determine whether they required hospitalisation. Medical facilities in all theatres of operation and on all ships are appropriate to deal with covid as it would normally stand. If an instance had been more serious, we would of course have looked at the need to recover the individual.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Our troops have rightly continued their duties overseas for the duration of the pandemic, keeping our citizens safe and helping to maintain international peace. However, there are concerns that in countries such as Iraq, where some British troops are stationed and there has been a surge in covid-19 cases over the past 24 hours, the worst may be yet to come. With that in mind, what contingency plans have the Government put in place to safeguard our troops operating in areas prone to further covid-19 outbreaks and their families?
James Heappey
The theatre commander can make a judgment about the degree to which the risk of exposure to a population with a large amount of covid within it is worth the operational needs. That is a decision for the operational commander. In theatre, all sorts of force-protection measures are available, ranging from personal protective equipment to the choice not to continue with operational duties if they are deemed to be too risky.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Ministry of Defence deployed a military medical team to the Falkland Islands; delivered supplies and logistical support to Gibraltar; provided planning advice to the Cayman Islands; and provided a security-assistance team to the Turks and Caicos Islands. As ever, the MOD will of course continue to support our overseas territories whenever required.
Scott Benton
What steps are the Minister’s Department and his colleagues elsewhere in Government taking to enable our overseas territories to become more self-sufficient?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. Her Majesty’s Government aim to build resilient overseas territories with good governance, diversified economies and prosperous communities that are all able to deal with and recover better from crises. For example, the Ministry of Defence is delivering maritime-security capacity building in the Caribbean and supporting the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands to establish new reserve defence regiments.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
At the peak of our covid covert response, some 20,000 troops were at readiness, and more than 4,000 of them were deployed at any one time at peak. Cumulatively, over the course of the pandemic more than 14,000 military and civilian personnel in the Ministry of Defence have been involved in the Government’s response to the pandemic.
Mary Glindon [V]
Our armed forces have been invaluable in delivering for the whole nation during the pandemic, but for the second year running they have not received their pay award on time. Will the Minister put things right and say precisely when our forces can expect to receive their pay rise?
James Heappey
I join the hon. Lady in praising the response of our armed forces to the covid pandemic; they have been absolutely extraordinary. Armed forces pay is a matter for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. I will find out exactly what its recommendations are and when they are due to be implemented and write to the hon. Lady.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer) [V]
The full range of veterans’ support services, including the Veterans UK helpline and welfare service, have continued to be provided throughout covid-19 pandemic.
Jason McCartney
I declare an interest as a Royal Air Force veteran and as honorary president of the Royal Air Forces Association in Huddersfield. Will the Minister please update the House on the phase 2 roll-out of the ID card for military veterans? Having spoken to fellow veterans, they tell me that having this ID card will give them real confidence in trying to access support services, including NHS services.
Johnny Mercer [V]
I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for pursuing this issue. A new veterans ID card was launched in February 2019. Service leavers are currently getting that veterans railcard. There are challenges around future proofing and safeguarding against fraudulent use, which means that the process of rolling out phase 2 to existing veterans is taking longer than I had hoped, but I hope to have some progress for him by the end of the year.
Kerry McCarthy
We know that many veterans will have been affected during this coronavirus crisis. The older veterans, perhaps those from world war two, might have to shield, while the younger ones may have a range of mental health problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and this current crisis will no doubt put additional pressure on them. What support is being given to those younger veterans, or indeed to older veterans with mental health problems, to make sure that they do not come out of this situation worse than they went in?
Johnny Mercer
I am acutely aware that the covid pandemic has placed extra and unique challenges on our veteran community, particularly those who have had to isolate and who find isolation difficult at the best of times. We have put more money in—£6 million from the Treasury has gone to 100 different armed forces charities, both large and small across the country. We are working hard with our NHS colleagues to ensure that we are providing services through the transition and liaison service and the complex treatment service. The numbers there are looking good, and I am confident that we have had a good professional service throughout this time.
Chris Elmore [V]
I know the Minister will agree that the armed forces have gone above and beyond throughout the course of the pandemic, particularly those charities that have been providing specific support to veterans. However, concerningly, one in every 10 charities believes that it will have to close in the next 10 months. Will the Minister explain what work he has been doing with the Ministry of Defence and with the Treasury to ensure that, if these charities do have to close, the support will still be there for veterans?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on the output from these charities and what that care looks like from the veterans’ point of view. My determining concern is that, where these services are, regrettably, unable to continue, that service is still provided and that veterans can access them across the country. I have worked hard with officials in the Treasury to get money into the sector. There is no doubt that the veterans’ charity and care sectors are going through an accelerated process of reform as a result of covid-19, but I am determined to take the opportunities from that, making sure that we fulfil the Government’s ambition to make this the best country in the world in which to be an armed forces veteran.
Navendu Mishra
The Minister said that the veterans’ gateway app would put veterans’ care in the palm of every veteran in the country. Can he tell us how many people have downloaded and used this app in its first two months?
Johnny Mercer
I have not formally launched the veterans’ gateway app at the moment. We are going through a process of working with users and so on to make it more user-friendly. That is an ambition of mine: to put veterans’ care in the palm of every single veteran in this country. We will have a formal launch and I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman came with me to that launch. We can then look at the figures together and perhaps work on getting the app into more people’s pockets as we go.[Official Report, 13 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 7MC.]
Margaret Greenwood [V]
The Minister said that the veterans’ gateway app will put veterans’ care in the palm of every veteran in the country. Will he tell us what estimate his Department has made of the number of veterans who do not have a smartphone and what his Department is doing to reach them?
Johnny Mercer
It is a completely fair point that many of our veterans are of an age group who will not be digitally able to access this app. The app was never designed to be something that is all encompassing. It is simply another measure in the suite of options that we are offering to veterans in this country to make sure that this is the best country in the world in which to be an armed forces veteran. There is a whole host of other ways of looking after our veterans, such as breakfast clubs that we all get involved in. When this app does come out, I will be looking at ways to make it even more user-friendly, particularly to our older veterans, to whom we owe such a great debt.[Official Report, 13 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 8MC.]
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to recognise that away from our response to covid in the UK, the armed forces have also been serving in many locations overseas, going about their normal duties. In my earlier answer to the shadow Minister, I spoke about the force protection measures we make available to theatre commanders, but it is important to recognise before the House that some of the operational requirements we place on our armed forces are so immediate that sometimes no mitigation is available, and they accept that risk on behalf of our nation. We are all very grateful to them for doing so.
Anthony Mangnall
On 10 June, I received a letter from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans in response to the cancellation of the overseas loan service allowance, which has significantly financially disadvantaged service personnel operating overseas. The letter also stated that the local overseas allowance would not be reduced from its normal rate. Sadly, it appears that this is no longer the case and that the LOA will now be paid at a reduced, residual rate. Since repatriation, any payments on the OLSA and LOA have been deemed as overpayments and are now being clawed back from service personnel. As people are the military’s greatest asset, can I please ask what will be done about this?
James Heappey
The Department has prepared a long answer to match my hon. Friend’s long question. The Secretary of State has just said he is gripping this.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The MOD is supporting the Government’s campaign against covid-19 disinformation by providing specialist personnel in advisory roles. This work is led by the Cabinet Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The Government are also working closely with social media platforms and academia to tackle this issue, and the Government’s focus remains on promoting factual public health advice and countering inaccurate content.
Tommy Sheppard [V]
Disinformation by active promoting of falsehoods poses a significant threat, but so too does disinformation by omission. The National Security Council’s report on Russian interference in UK politics has been ready for publication since October 2019. To have trust and confidence in our democracy, the people of the United Kingdom need openness and transparency, so if the Government have nothing to hide, why do they continue to refuse to release this report?
James Heappey
As these are Defence questions, I am somewhat outside my portfolio in answering in this question, but the Secretary of State, who sits in the Cabinet, tells me that the security committee is not yet formed, which is why the report has not yet been published.
Angela Crawley [V]
In many cases, disinformation about covid-19 can travel faster than the virus itself and pose just as great a risk to our security. Does the Minister agree with me and the majority of the public surveyed by the Open Knowledge Foundation that the Government need to urgently impose compulsory action on social media sites to clamp down on the spread of such misinformation?
James Heappey
Again, I am comfortable responding about disinformation, which the military has an active role in countering, but misinformation is the responsibility of my colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I met with my NATO counterparts, including Secretary Esper, on 17 and 18 June to discuss the alliance’s enduring role in European security.
Dr Lewis
I am glad that the Secretary of State has been making representations to the US about the importance of not cutting conventional forces in Europe, but can we make such representations if we ourselves have any intention to do what is reported in the press—namely to inflict swingeing cuts on the Army and to revisit the argument we won two years ago about the Royal Marines’ amphibious capabilities? Does he accept that, although we have 21st century threats to meet, that is additional to, not a substitute for, the conventional preparedness we need to maintain?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend has been in this House long enough to know that he should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers, especially around the time of an integrated review. We in the United Kingdom believe that, as the motto of Sandhurst says, we serve to lead. We lead by contributing and giving, which we have done over the history of NATO. We are the biggest contributor to NATO in Europe. We are the provider of NATO’s nuclear defence in Europe, and we will continue to be a main leader in NATO. That is how we believe we will see off the threats we face from the likes of Russia.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Armoured tracked vehicles remain at the core of Defence’s high-intensity war-fighting capability, and ongoing demand is evidenced in the Army’s investment in new fully digitised tracked Ajax vehicles.
Mr Holden
Cook Defence Systems in Stanhope in my constituency makes the tracks for all the Army’s fighting vehicles and increasingly for fighting vehicles overseas. Will the Minister join me on a visit to Cook Defence Systems to see what export opportunities could be achieved in addition to its work with the British Army?
Jeremy Quin
I am grateful for that invitation. I am speaking to north-east defence companies on a call next week. Our ability to make physical visits to companies has clearly been restrained by covid, but as soon as my diary allows, I would be delighted to visit Cook Defence Systems in person.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Ministry of Defence is forecast to spend £5.58 million on official development assistance in 2020.
Wendy Chamberlain
Back in April, the International Development Secretary commented that there should be regular reviews at ministerial level of what different Departments were doing with their official development assistance. In the light of the upcoming merger between the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will the Minister set out what conversations he has had with the Foreign Secretary about ensuring that any official development assistance programming from his or other Departments is transparent and subject to scrutiny?
James Heappey
The hon. Lady is exactly right. Development and security sit hand in hand and, as such, knowing that a review is ongoing, we are looking at exactly where development activity is essential to the security function that our armed forces are seeking to provide overseas. We will be making the case for that spending to remain unchanged.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government are currently conducting work on the UK’s defence and security industrial strategy to identify the steps we should take to ensure a competitive, innovative and world-class industrial base. I will use this opportunity to ensure that, as well as delivering the best capabilities to the UK armed forces, we are driving investment, employment and prosperity across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Philip Dunne [V]
I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend’s commitment to the defence industry in that answer. Investment by Defence in innovation often stimulates dual-use commercial opportunities. The Prime Minister is clear that he wants the UK to be a science superpower, so will the defence industrial strategy make the case that a great place to start would be to double Defence investment in innovation?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that defence procurement and innovation should be linked and should link into prosperity and alternatives, using that technology to enhance prosperity across the United Kingdom. During the financial year 2018-19, Defence invested £1.65 billion in research and development, which included £580 million spent on cutting-edge science and technology. Without trying to pre-empt the integrated review, it is absolutely clear that at the heart of it will be not only innovation but a recognition that prosperity is what our taxpayers, at local and UK level, should expect for their money.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence has rigorous ongoing processes to test and develop our capabilities and force structure to ensure that they are robust against current and future threats. During the integrated review, the Department is focused on reassessing our plans to ensure that we are delivering the right capability to keep the country safe now and in the decades to come.
Sally-Ann Hart
The UK has some of the most elite and specialist armed forces in the world. Bearing in mind that we cannot compete with the number of boots on the ground of, say, China or Russia, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that our armed forces are properly funded, that the very best people are recruited and that the very best training, skills and equipment are maintained?
Mr Wallace
We have the funds and plans in place to ensure that our armed forces are playing to their strengths. We are investing in the likes of the future combat air system technology initiative, in nuclear submarines and in cyber-technology to ensure that we are fighting the battle for tomorrow.
Angela Richardson
The work on the review of our foreign policy and national security—the largest of its kind—has been paused during this pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when it resumes, he will continue to ensure that we frame our thinking around threat at every stage of the review?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right—but the review was slowed down, not entirely paused, during the covid pandemic. We did continue to work on it in the Ministry of Defence. Last week I gathered the chiefs of all the services and the head of defence intelligence together to hear about the threat and the doctrine of our adversaries, and about how the chiefs are going to deliver a solution to that threat. That is my starting point for the integrated review. It is not the budget or the bureaucracy; it is the starting point for meeting the threat and the demand on our forces, and for ensuring that we give the men and women of the armed forces the best equipment and capability that they deserve.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
May I send the best wishes of the Scottish National party to the Veterans Minister on the birth of his new child?
Will the Secretary of State outline what assessment the MOD has made of the threat picture in the Arctic, the high north and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, and what capability will be needed to meet those future threats?
Mr Wallace
I fear that I have only a few seconds in which to answer that. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to explore the last part of his question because it is significant and we are working on a strategy to reveal just how we are going to meet those threats. He is absolutely right that a number of nations including Russia —indeed, even China—are very keen on what they are going to do in the Arctic. The danger is that the environment is damaged and that we end up against traditional geographical rivalries that could tip conflict in that direction.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The Secretary of State is absolutely right. Let me be clear: I want him to get the review and the capability right, but I am concerned, following what I think might have been the Tower of London away day that he and other defence officials went on, that there is going to be a pivot to the eastern Pacific, which is again going to leave us weaker in an area closer to home where the threat picture is growing, and where bad actors and the activity of bad actors are certainly increasing. Can he assure us that we will not be spread so thinly as to be sent far abroad while we leave our own defences closer to home wanting?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member asks a logical and proper question. I can assure him that we will not abandon one threat to meet another. We work incredibly hard with our Scandinavian and Nordic colleagues—some in NATO, some not—through the joint expeditionary force. We regularly plan, and NATO itself acts, in that area. Only recently a US and UK naval flotilla went into the Barents sea—the first time for many years—to ensure that we dealt with the growing threat from that side of the Russian flank.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Defence Science and Technology is drawing on its unique range of specialist skills to support the covid response, including assistance on testing laboratories, statistical analysis, modelling support, decontamination trials, and experiments to understand how the virus survives in the atmosphere and on different surfaces.
Dr Spencer
Covid is certainly just one of many emerging threats that we have faced and will yet face as a nation, including other possible pandemics and unconventional warfare such as cyber-attacks. Can the Minister assure me that, in order ensure that we can continue to rise to whatever challenges the future may yet hold, Defence Science and Technology will have the investment and support that it needs to remain the envy of the world?
Jeremy Quin
The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory—through covid, through its response to the outrageous attack in Salisbury and in countless other ways—has shown its value to the country, and that is also recognised by our international partners. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to invest to meet the threats of the future.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
We want a relationship with the EU that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and is centred on free trade. We are developing plans to ensure that the critical work of defence continues regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
Ruth Jones
What discussions exactly has the Minister had with counterparts in the EU on how the UK can, where it is in our interest, continue to co-operate with member states to further our collective security?
James Heappey
The whole ministerial team talks to our counterparts across Europe regularly in the context not just of Brexit, but of our bilateral and multilateral co-operations through a whole series of organisations and fora. That work will continue whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, because our military partnerships with friends and colleagues across Europe are vital to the security of this nation.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
This Government are committed to ending vexatious claims as quickly as possible. I am working closely with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland towards this objective. As set out in the written ministerial statement laid on 18 March, he has committed to bringing forward legacy legislation that will deliver for victims and ensure that Northern Ireland veterans are treated as fairly as those who served overseas. We will engage with colleagues from across the House as part of this process.
Bob Stewart
I rise as someone who has done seven tours in Northern Ireland and as a member of the Northern Ireland Veterans Association. The Prime Minister, on 23 July last year in the 1922 Committee, promised me that this matter would be a top priority for the Government. This promise was repeated in the Conservative manifesto, so I ask my right hon. Friend: when will our veterans from Northern Ireland be treated properly?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend, like me, has been a long campaigner on this—in fact, I went on my first Northern Ireland veterans campaign for just as much in 1998. I have fought for a very long time for veterans of Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Secretary of State are the lead in this. We have fed into the process. We are already committed to taking steps to protect our veterans. At the same time, my hon. Friend may not have missed this, but unfortunately, covid came along—a pandemic that no one predicted last year—and that has somehow certainly changed everything we are doing. It does not mean to say that the policy work has not been going on. We will deliver a policy that will get justice for veterans in Northern Ireland.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Since the 2015 strategic defence and security review, the world has changed. Our adversaries have invested more in their armed forces and have constantly been updating their doctrines. The threats to our interests and way of life are real and we therefore owe it to the men and women of our armed forces to ensure that we have a modern, capable and effective defence, able to tackle the threats wherever they present themselves. Only a fool starts the debate with numbers rather than threat. History is littered with generals and Governments who kept fighting the last war rather than preparing for the next one. This Government are committed to growing defence spending and we will use that money to ensure that we have a 21st-century capability, a modern workforce and a defence that matches our global ambition.
Theresa Villiers
Given the worrying cyber-activities of the Governments of countries such as Russia and Iran, will the Secretary of State ensure that cyber-security is at the heart of the forthcoming integrated defence review?
Mr Wallace
Absolutely. If I think back to the days when I was at Sandhurst, in defence, there were really three domains: air, sea and land. Cyber is very much a real and new domain that we must not only defend in, but master. That is why in 2016, the Government committed £1.9 billion to the national cyber-security strategy. That includes investment in offensive cyber, which I hope we can announce more details of later in the year.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I join the Secretary of State in paying full tribute to the military’s essential and continuing role in helping the country through this covid crisis? In the same spirit, he talked earlier of the lessons from covid for the integrated review. He is uniquely placed as the Defence Secretary and a former Security Minister to turn adversary into advantage, so will he use this period to consult widely in the armed forces and with the public, industry and experts, just as Labour did, on the challenges to creating a 21st-century armed forces? That is the way to banish any suspicion that this integrated review is driven from Downing Street, not by the MOD, or driven by financial pressures, not the best interests of Britain’s defence, security and leading place in the world.
Mr Wallace
First, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that this is not driven by financial pressures; it is driven first and foremost by threat. As a former Security Minister, which he rightly referenced, I believe threat should define what we do and how we meet it. That is why, as I said, we gathered the chiefs together last week. It was not a financial discussion and, contrary to what was reported, it was not a numbers discussion, either. It was a discussion about how we meet the threat and deliver our future armed forces to match that, taking into account cyber and many other areas. The Government are determined to continue to do that. We stand by our pledge to increase defence spending in real terms, and we will use that money, spending it wisely to ensure we meet those very threats.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
It is unfair that those soldiers, sailors, airmen and women required to live in Scotland should be made to pay more in income tax than military personnel living elsewhere. As we promised last year in our Scottish manifesto, we will announce soon how we will continue to mitigate the effects of higher Scottish income taxes on more than 7,000 of our service personnel in Scotland.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
An impact assessment will have been published with the Bill when it was brought to the House. We are hoping to get the Bill to Second Reading sooner rather than later, so the hon. Lady can see all those details and impact assessments. As my hon. Friend the Veterans Minister said, it is not the case that people will be prevented from seeking damages, through either tort—for damages against the MOD, rather than other people—or other processes. Obviously, from diagnosis is one of the key dates.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Mr Wallace
First, on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is the Committee that would publish the report, I gave evidence for that report as Security Minister, and, in fact I have read the report. My right hon. Friend should not hold his breath for the great sensation he thinks it will be. However, as he has said and everyone else has noted, when the ISC is formed, it will be the body that will release the report. I think we are getting to a place where the Committee will come together, and then everyone can read it at leisure.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Member often campaigns for shipbuilding in the UK and he has heard my answers. First, I am keen that it gets under way as soon as possible; indeed, I have asked officials to bring it forward from the proposed date. The plus side is that such ships are not highly complex, so once the competition happens and it is placed, I do not think it will take long to build them. I therefore do not anticipate a capability gap at all. He is right that British shipbuilding and British yards produce some of the best ships in the world and we should support them as best as we can and ensure our navy gets some great British-made kit.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right to champion the activities of the armed forces cadets and Air Force cadets in Clwyd South. It is amazing to hear what they have done to support their community during the coronavirus crisis, but also the cadets in his constituency and across the country have done an amazing job, through the commitment of their adult volunteers, to keep virtual training going throughout the pandemic, which has been hugely valuable to young people across the country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP) [V]
Mr Wallace
Only today, the permanent secretary and other officials attended the Public Accounts Committee to answer some of those questions, no doubt in detail. The point to be made is that the MOD spends £41 billion overall, and we make sure, where we can, that that is spent not only on the men and women of our armed forces, but on industry and equipment capability, such as, in Glasgow, buying two warships—both the Type 31 up at Rosyth and, indeed, the Type 26—which I never seem to hear the SNP ever really welcome.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
James Heappey
The Government will never forget the bravery of all former servicemen and women who served their country, and it is imperative that we do not forget the sacrifices that were made so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have today. The Ministry of Defence position is that memorials and statues that honour those who gave their lives should be protected.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
James Heappey
My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans has some nappy duties he has had to return to, so I will reply on his behalf. I know the hon. Gentleman, who campaigns hard on this, especially given his own personal experience, has already met my colleague. The Minister for Defence People and Veterans has asked that the MOD-sponsored independent medical expert group continue to look into it and report on progress and issues relating to these types of injury. I am certain that he will want to meet the hon. Gentleman further to discuss the matter.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
Forgive me, but 2015 was the last time we set the numbers for the armed forces. What we will do is make sure we give those men and women the best equipment, the best kit, the best leadership and the best purpose for why they are there to defend this nation. That is what we do, and we do it to make sure we meet the threat, not just to start the conversation about numbers, which I know the hon. Lady will be desperate to do.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
James Heappey
Our work to support the armed forces community through the covenant and the employer recognition scheme continues with our partners at a local level across the UK. As set out in the Queen’s Speech, we will further incorporate the armed forces covenant into law to help prevent any disadvantage faced due to the unique nature of service life.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Just to reassure my hon. Friend, we have 169 sites of special scientific interest in the defence estate, and we care very deeply about that and our role as a good champion of conservation. My hon. Friend is assiduous on behalf of the jobs in his constituency, and defence jobs in particular. I fully appreciate his concerns on coastal erosion, but I am happy to reassure him that it is not currently considered a risk to submarine movements, although I am grateful for his ongoing interest.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement on the global human rights sanctions regulations. As we forge a dynamic new vision for a truly global Britain, this Government are absolutely committed to the United Kingdom becoming an even stronger force for good in the world: on climate change, as we host COP26; as we champion 12 years of education for every girl in the world, no matter how poor their background; and on human rights, where we will defend media freedoms and protect freedom of religious belief; and, with the measures we are enacting and announcing today, hold to account the perpetrators of the worst human rights abuses.
I first raised this issue in a 2012 Backbench Business debate. It was a cross-party issue then, as I hope it will be now. I recall co-sponsoring it with the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. I also would like to pay tribute to Members from across the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who sponsored that debate, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who joined me in that initial debate and who has been chivvying me along ever since, normally from a sedentary position.
Dominic Raab
The idea of taking targeted action against human rights violators has received further cross-party backing since then, from hon. Members in all parts of the House, including five former Foreign Secretaries and the current Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. In 2019, it was in the Conservative party’s manifesto as a clear commitment.
Today I am proud that under this Prime Minister and this Government, we make good on that pledge, bringing into force the United Kingdom’s first autonomous human rights sanctions regime, which gives us the power to impose sanctions on those involved in the very worst human rights abuses right around the world. These sanctions are a forensic tool, which allows us to target perpetrators without punishing the wider people of a country that may be affected. The regulations will enable us to impose travel bans and asset freezes against those involved in serious human rights violations. We are talking about, first, the right to life, where it is threatened by assassinations and extra-judicial killing; secondly, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and, thirdly, the right to be free from slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. The powers enable us to target a wider network of perpetrators, including those who facilitate, incite, promote or support these crimes. This extends beyond state officials to non-state actors as well. So if you’re a kleptocrat or an organised criminal, you will not be able to launder your blood money in this country. Today this Government and this House send a very clear message, on behalf of the British people: those with blood on their hands, the thugs of despots, the henchmen of dictators, will not be free to waltz into this country, to buy up property on the Kings Road, do their Christmas shopping in Knightsbridge or siphon dirty money through British banks or other financial institutions.
The regulations are just the latest next step forward in the long struggle against impunity for the worst human rights violations. We have deliberately focused on the worst crimes, so we have the clearest basis, to make sure we can operate the new system as effectively as we possibly can. That said, we will continue to explore expanding this regime to include other human rights, and I can tell the House that we are already considering how a corruption regime could be added to the armoury of legal weapons we have. In particular, hon. Members will be interested to know that I am looking at the UN convention against corruption, and practice already under way under the frameworks in jurisdictions such as the United States and Canada.
Today we have also published a policy note, which sets out how we will consider designations under these regulations, for maximum transparency. As the House would expect, the legislation will ensure that due process will be followed in relation to those designations, reflecting the process rights contained in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. In practice, those people designated will be able to request that a Minister review the decision. They will be able to challenge the decision in the court. And, just as a matter of due diligence, the Government will review all designations at least once every three years.
In addition to introducing this new legal regime, today we are proceeding directly to make the first designations under the regulations. We are imposing sanctions on individuals involved in some of the most notorious human rights violations in recent years. The first designations will cover those individuals involved in the torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, the lawyer who disclosed the biggest known tax fraud in Russian history. The designations will also include those responsible for the brutal murder of the writer and journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and those who perpetrated the systematic and brutal violence against the Rohingya population in Myanmar. They will also include two organisations bearing responsibility for the enslavement, torture and murder that takes place in North Korea’s wretched gulags, in which it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of prisoners have perished over the past 50 years. With those first designations, the Government—and, I hope, the House and the country—make it crystal clear to those who abuse their power to inflict unimaginable suffering that we will not look the other way. You cannot set foot in this country and we will seize your blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try.
In practice, targeted sanctions are most effective when they are done through co-ordinated collective action, so we will be working closely with our Five Eyes partners, including in particular the US and Canada, which already have Magnitsky-style sanctions legislation, and Australia, which is considering similar legislation. We will also strongly support efforts to bring an EU human rights sanctions regime into effect and we stand ready to co-ordinate with our European partners on future measures. In fact, I discussed that in Berlin recently with our E3 partners.
Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to end by paying tribute to the man who inspired these sanctions, Sergei Magnitsky, a young Russian tax lawyer. Between 2007 and 2008, Magnitsky exposed the theft of $230 million committed by tax officials in Russia’s own interior ministry. While others left Russia, understandably fearing for their lives, Magnitsky stayed on to take a stand for the rule of law and to strike a blow against the breath-taking corruption that plagues Russia. That courage cost him his life. He was arrested in 2008 on trumped-up charges of tax evasion and, in a particularly Kafkaesque twist, the very tax investigators that Magnitsky had exposed were the ones who turned up to arrest him. The Public Oversight Commission, a Moscow-based non-governmental organisation, found that while in detention Magnitsky was subjected to physical and psychological abuse amounting to torture. Over the course of his time in prison he developed abdominal pain and acute bladder inflammation, but prison officers cruelly withheld the medical treatment he needed. Eventually, he was transferred to another facility ostensibly to receive medical care. Instead, he was handcuffed and beaten to death by riot police with truncheons. He died on 16 November 2009, aged 37.
The House will recall that the European Court of Human Rights found Russia had violated its most basic human rights, from the treatment of Magnitsky in prison to the lack of an effective investigation. None of those involved have ever been brought to justice. Perversely, some have been promoted or even decorated with medals. In fact, the only person ever prosecuted for this appalling crime was Sergei Magnitsky himself after his death; Russian’s first ever posthumous trial.
I pay tribute to Bill Browder, who employed Sergei Magnitsky and has campaigned for justice ever since his death. I hope that today we in this House show our solidarity with the family that Sergei Magnitsky left behind: his wife Natalia and his son Nikita. I can tell the House that they will be watching from my office in the Foreign Office as we speak. Amidst their enduring loss, they can be proud of Sergei’s courage, which inspires us to hold up a torch on behalf of all those who perished or suffered at the hands of those we designate today and to keep the flame of freedom alive for those brave souls still suffering in the very darkest corners of the world. I commend this statement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
May I start by strongly welcoming this statement and the advance sight of it? It has been, as Bill Browder rightly said, a long and difficult journey to persuade the Government to take this step. I know that it has been personally frustrating for the Foreign Secretary to be repeatedly challenged by me over recent weeks about the delays when he has spent the last eight years as its champion. For too long the UK has been a haven for those who use corruption, torture and murder to further their own ends. Today, I hope, sends a strong message that the UK is not their home and that their dirty money is not welcome here.
I pay tribute, too, to Sergei Magnitsky and his family, who have waited far too long for this day. Magnitsky worked for a British company, and it is right that, today, in his honour, we start to clean up the global corruption that he exposed and that cost him his life. I also put on record our support for ensuring that some of those responsible for his murder are the first to face consequences. The time for action against Russian Government officials who oppress LGBT people, Muslims and other minorities and who use chemical weapons on the streets of the UK is long overdue. This is a profound act of solidarity with the Russian people over those who have made their lives a misery for far too long.
I welcome, too, the Foreign Secretary’s action against those involved in the appalling murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I gently say to him that, although today is not the day for sparring across the Dispatch Box, it would be welcome if it marked the start of a more consistent approach from the Government towards Saudi Arabia, and in particular the arms sales from this country that are being used to harm innocent civilians in Yemen.
Similarly, we are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for including the Rohingya in Myanmar in today’s announcement. I hope that he will use his new remit to consider why the UK investment arm, CDC, continues to invest in those who are complicit in silencing people who speak out against human rights abuses in Myanmar.
I welcome the inclusion of trafficking in the measures; the former Member for Bishop Auckland would be delighted to see that, as the Government have previously resisted it. I express serious concern, however, that the Foreign Secretary has not yet been able to persuade his colleagues of the need to include corruption in scope. Corruption and human rights abuses go hand in hand and that must be urgently resolved. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, expressed regret that he had not acted on the issue earlier:
“I soon realised…the advantages of working together—with other countries—under a common heading…You get extra clout from coming together across the world and saying with one voice to those who are responsible for unacceptable acts: ‘We are united’”
The Foreign Secretary mentioned the USA and Canada and our desire to stand closely with them. They have included corruption in scope and the UK must follow suit.
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the measures apply to UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies? We must not create a back door that allows the laundering of blood money in the United Kingdom.
Will all names be published, including those subject to visa bans? I am sorry to do this to the Foreign Secretary, but I refer him to his earlier words. As he put it:
“If we are dealing with people who are complicit in torture and there is enough evidence to substantiate and justify a visa ban, what possible countervailing reason can there be, whether it is to change their behaviour or otherwise, for not making their name public? Would not making their name public deter others?”—[Official Report, 2 April 2014; Vol. 578, c. 300-301WH.]
He also tabled an amendment to the Criminal Finances Act 2017 seeking a public register of people who are subject to such orders, and he rightly set out in that amendment to ensure that third parties could refer to the list. We agree with him. There must be a clear mechanism for civil society to refer in line with the criteria. Can he give us an assurance that that will be forthcoming?
Similarly, will the Foreign Secretary reflect on arrangements in the United States that provide a congressional trigger and allow our Select Committee Chairs to make referrals to the list as well? I can see that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is nodding; I would expect him to agree with that suggestion. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree too.
Finally, as the Foreign Secretary has long championed, we must have transparency in the process. There has been serious concern about the influence of big money on politics. It is essential that there is independent oversight of the list to ensure that nobody can buy their way out of British justice. Will he commit to parliamentary scrutiny of the list and the way that decisions are taken? I know that he will face resistance from colleagues, but we will strongly support him in that endeavour.
Today is a day that we stand up against corruption and dirty money and for our values with the full support of this House. There can be no ambiguity and no double standards. The UK must lead the way at home and abroad.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her full-throated support. Although it is always a pleasure to spar with her, it is also worth reflecting on those occasions when the House can stand in unison and support such measures. I know that the family of Sergei Magnitsky will hugely appreciate her personal solidarity at what will be a difficult time, after an incredible and ongoing march for justice. I also agree with the wider support that she expressed for the designations.
Let me try to address her queries and concerns. On corruption, work is under way. We are committed to that. There are different definitions of corruption, which has been one of the challenges at international level, but I agree with the point that corruption and human rights abuses are often interlinked. Indeed, in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, what is astonishing is that we have one of the most egregious corruption cases, coupled with an appalling human rights abuse. I reassure the hon. Lady that that work is under way.
The hon. Lady asked about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, to which the legislation will be extended. The designations will be published online, so her plea for transparency is, I believe, fully met. Finally, whether in relation to Select Committees, scrutiny of the process or the designations, we would welcome a full and rigorous engagement and scrutiny of all that process. I will not, of course, tell Select Committees or the House how to organise their business, but we welcome that and engage with it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. We have been waiting for a while for excellent foreign policy suggestions, but we have had three in the past three weeks—one on British national overseas passports last week, and now this on the Magnitsky sanctions. This is another fantastic policy change by Her Majesty’s Government, and something that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the Foreign Affairs Committee have been clear on for a number of years. Indeed, I know that the hon. Gentleman will have read our “Moscow’s Gold” report of May 2018, in which this was one of the many recommendations. This builds on his earlier work as a human rights lawyer at the Foreign Office, and I pay tribute to him twice over.
There has been a remarkable silence on human rights violations in China. As yet, there is no announcement on any sanctions against those who are either exploiting or abusing the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang, or repressing democracy activists in Hong Kong. I wonder whether that is merely because this is the first stage of sanctions and the Foreign Office has not quite yet caught up with it, or whether it is a policy change. I also pay tribute to the few words the Foreign Secretary said about co-operation with others. As he knows, sanctions work best when they work with others. Working with our European and CANZUK friends is an important aspect of that.
I also pay tribute to two other people who have done incredibly well: Oliver Bullough and Luke Harding are two writers who have brought huge amounts of attention to the problems in the UK system, and I thank them for their work.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the work that he and the Foreign Affairs Committee have done. I thought he mentioned three foreign policy triumphs, but I felt a bit short-changed because he missed one out. [Interruption] There is plenty of time yet. I thank him for his warm words. We fully respect and engage with scrutiny from that Committee, but it is also good when we can work together and produce results, and today’s regulations are an example of that. He asked about China, and recently the Human Rights Council led a statement with 27 countries on the human rights situation in Xinjiang, as well as in Hong Kong. Of course, as with China and many other countries, people will wish to come up with further suggestions going forward, and we will consider those carefully, based on the evidence. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not pre-empt what the next wave of designations will be, but I assure him that we are already working on them.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I also thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. He is entitled to a quiet moment of personal satisfaction today, and it would be remiss not to recognise his role in getting the House and Government to this point. The SNP certainly supports those measures. We would like to see more of them. We called for them repeatedly for a number of years. I have to say, however, that I was surprised to read about them in the Financial Times before we heard about them today. That is something that we should all consider about how announcements are made.
I will pick up on two aspects of the statement, particularly on international co-operation. It is vital that the measures, welcome as they are, are co-ordinated across other countries—obviously with the European Union and the Five Eyes partners. I would also like a statement from the Foreign Secretary on how they will interact with British overseas territories. There is already a vast array of loopholes to tax transparency and other mechanisms of accountability. This is a welcome step, but how will it work with the other territories where we have some influence?
The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that dictators will not be able to launder their blood money in this country. Who would not be able to support that? Progress on the ground, however, suggests that we have an awful lot still to do. I refer him and the House to the Open Democracy report published last month that said that
“400,000 British companies do not, will not or cannot say who controls them”,
and, from its own research, Britain has long operated
“as a global hub for financial crime”.
We have a long way to go to build on today’s announcements. Scotland is not immune to that. Scottish limited companies have been abusing money laundering. We all need to work on this together. I would be grateful for some statements about how the British overseas territories will interact with the measures and, indeed, on the wider financial transparency reform that we need in order to clean up the UK’s jurisdiction.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Member for his support for the measures and the designations, and for his kind words. He is right about international co-ordination; the measures will be most effective if we can conjure a groundswell of co-ordinated action, even if we want to be free to assign the designations as and when we see fit based on the evidence. Co-operation with the Five Eyes countries, both those that have existing Magnitsky mechanisms in place and those that are working on it, like Australia, is important. Certain EU member states already have them, particularly in the Baltics, I think, but there is no EU-wide human rights regime. Certainly, if it wishes to consider that, that will be an area for strong ongoing co-operation, notwithstanding our departure from the EU.
The hon. Member asked particularly about the OTs. As I thought I made clear, we will ensure that the measure extends the regulations, and indeed the designations, to all the overseas territories and, of course, the Crown dependencies.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I unreservedly congratulate my right hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and others have said, he has personally been an advocate of this for some considerable time, so he will have the right to satisfaction on that. I also commend him for naming all those to do with the Magnitsky case and in Saudi Arabia.
Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, I again raise the issue of China, because this is where big business will start to lean on the Government quite hard. Last week started with an exposé from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China regarding the involvement of Chinese officials and Government in the Uyghur suppression, sterilisation and forced encampment, and it ended with their involvement in the stripping away of the rights and freedoms of the people in Hong Kong, all the way up to the top.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend to answer specifically, but I ask him a simple question. Given the announcement in the papers today, many in Hong Kong have said that it should go to whatever highest level the evidence takes it. Would he be prepared, therefore, to follow through with the measures no matter who the individuals are, no matter how high they go, and even if it meant starting with Carrie Lam, whose family, I understand, have the privilege of British passports?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that, with these regulations and this legislation, there will of course be a whole range of suggestions and proposals from inside this House, from civil society and from non-governmental organisations about potential names. We will, of course, want to ensure that we proceed in a rigorous way. We want it to be based on evidence, but the advantage that we have is that the measures—this is one of the reasons I have always been a fan, champion and supporter of them—allow us to continue to engage bilaterally with countries that, frankly, we need to, while having targeted sanctions, the visa bans and the asset freezes, on the individuals who may be responsible. Where the evidence shows that that is the case, we have the mechanism to deliver that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I too thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and congratulate him on what I think will be seen in years to come as a watershed moment in the development of human rights law. He is absolutely right to focus on the most clamant cases that he has listed in early designations today, but I hope that frees up time and resource within the Foreign Office to turn attention towards China, and particularly to those in Hong Kong, for whom sanctions of this sort would appear to be the logical next step.
The Foreign Secretary rightly outlines and refers to the role of the courts in due process and ensuring that proper safeguards are put in place. There is another element, which is the role of this House in that regard. Others have referred to the Select Committees. The one Select Committee we are missing at the moment is the Intelligence and Security Committee. Does he agree that the announcement he has made today, which has been so widely well-received around the House, demands the early constitution of the ISC?
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. These measures are important. I am not going to start, without proper appraisal and assessment of the evidence, handing out future designations. What I can tell him is that one of the delays or bits that took time was making sure we have a proper mechanism so that, as he rightly says, we go into a sort of steady state and can assess judiciously and carefully any future candidates for designations, if I may put it like that. He asked about the ISC. We want to see the ISC up and running as soon as possible. Once it is duly constituted, it will have a role in issues such as this.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) [V]
Many of us on the Back and Front Benches, especially my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, have been working for some time on the Magnitsky measures, and I congratulate him on this important announcement today. I just ask two questions. First, may we please see strong transparency and openness in how these measures are brought to bear? Secondly, and in particular, does he agree that Parliament should have real input into how the measures are put into effect?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done in this area and in promoting human rights in international relations, particularly in his time as International Development Secretary. There is clearly an important role for the legislature, not only in debates and scrutiny in this House, but in the Select Committees. Select Committees, individuals, NGOs and external actors can provide information and evidence, as well as suggestions about how we take these matters forward. We have also, to give maximum transparency to the House today, published a policy note to explain how we will go about it and in particular how the designation process will look at the worst crimes and those who bear the greatest responsibility for those human rights violations.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted. Well done. That is not least because human rights in the end are a seamless garment. Uyghur Muslims, gay Chechnyans, Russian journalists, Colombian campesinos and the Rohingya all have human rights. Corruption nearly always goes hand in fisted glove with human rights abuse and nearly always the first step is the repression of democracy—the preventing of people from enjoying their freedom of assembly and their freedom of speech. That is why I strongly urge the Foreign Secretary to look at another clause that would include the repression of democracy and the rights of assembly and of freedom of speech, and therefore look very carefully at whether Carrie Lam should not be on the list.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman and also pay tribute to him. These measures would not have come about without the tenacity and advocacy he has consistently put into this area over many years and on a cross-party basis. As I said, this is a first step, and we will consider how we can proceed, but I make no apology for wanting to make the first step a sure-footed one. Just for clarity, the most serious human rights abuses that we have chosen often are used precisely to suppress peaceful protest or freedom of speech. Magnitsky himself was a whistleblower who was tortured for blowing the lid on the biggest tax fraud that we know of in Russian history. I take the hon. Gentleman’s wider points. We will look to progress, develop, fine-tune and enhance this regime as we proceed.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement, which adds serious substance to underpin the values, particularly in respect of human rights, that global Britain will champion around the world. Does Ramzan Kadyrov appear on this list? Has my right hon. Friend seen “Welcome to Chechnya: The Gay Purge”? If he has not, I commend it to him. I also commend the incredible courage of the people who documented what happened in Chechnya’s gay purge, so that formal legal action can begin at some point, whether in the European Court of Human Rights or elsewhere. Clearly, there is a case for sanctions on Ramzan Kadyrov, and on President Putin, who gives Kadyrov impunity for his actions. This is a jurisdiction that does not criminalise homosexuality, but there are 72 around the world that do, including 34 in the Commonwealth. I sincerely hope that this issue will be a leading part of the work carried out on human rights.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who will be able to see the list and check individual names for himself. There are 25 individuals under the Magnitsky designation, 20 under the Khashoggi one, and two under Myanmar, and two organisations in relation to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. As I said, in the interest of maximum transparency, they will be published. I take his point and commend him for the full-hearted and full-throated way he has championed human rights in this House.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I strongly support the measures and personally congratulate my right hon. Friend on pioneering them. May I echo the words of many right hon. and hon. Members that it will be good to see representatives of the Chinese regime included, whether it is because of Tibet, the Uyghurs or Hong Kong, where we learn today that, free speech by protest having been suppressed, libraries and bookshops are now being purged? All three of the criteria apply in those cases. Will he look closely at my Tibet (Reciprocal Access) Bill, which I shall be re-presenting straight after this statement? It would ensure access by UK officials to investigate human rights abuses in places like Tibet, and if access were denied, there would be repercussions for Chinese officials based on legislation that had unanimous support in Congress. That would be another tool to confront serial abusers of human rights.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and his generous remarks. We will of course look carefully at any further proposals he might wish to make to strengthen the measure. I will not pre-empt or prejudge further designations down the track, but we are already working on the potential next wave and will proceed based on evidence.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I, too, warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. I assume that when he talks about the powers applying around the world, it means they will be open to individuals from any country, not just those on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s list of countries of concern. On corruption, he says he wants to extend the regime. He will be aware that, over a decade ago, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was used to seize the assets of three former Nigerian state governors. It would be helpful if he told the House what further powers he is considering to bring corruption within the scope of the arrangements that he has just announced.
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for all his work on human rights in the international sphere, both in the Select Committee and previously as a Minister. We have the asset-freezing powers in place; the additional element that makes the Magnitsky model is the visa bans. We will look throughout at ways to fine-tune and strengthen the measures. With corruption, the legal definition is an issue. We want to get it right and to avoid all sorts of people bringing litigation against the Government regarding people on the list; we do not want to mis-step in that regard. Also, we want to make sure we have a firm basis for the regime, so that we are not judicially reviewed, so we have started with the clearest and most serious human rights violations. We want to proceed based on evidence and I am certainly open to further consideration of evidence and information, which we will assess independently, from Members in all parts of the House, and to suggestions of other ways to strengthen the regime.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I also warmly welcome the statement. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will implement the new regime without fear or favour; that if necessary we will go after individuals from ally states; and that we will target the decision makers who order human rights abuses and atrocities, and not just the little men who execute them?
Dominic Raab
It is for precisely that reason that we set out a policy note that gives, I hope, my hon. Friend and hon. Members across the House reassurance about how we are going about this. Obviously, our approach will need to be evidence-based and evidence-driven, but if she takes a look at that policy note, once it is published, it will give her the reassurance she needs.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
Despite the humanitarian situation, the UK has traded almost £5 billion to Saudi Arabia since the war began, which eclipses the aid it has given to Yemen. The Foreign Secretary has just said he wants things to be evidence-based. The UK Government have to be willing, therefore, to stand up to countries they see as allies, and there must be consequences where UN-confirmed systemic human rights violations and murders have been committed. Does the Foreign Secretary agree and will he give that effect in the UK’s sanctions regime?
Dominic Raab
I agree with the hon. Lady, and that is precisely the reason for the designations we have made today. If she looks at them, she will see that we have not ducked the issue. We need to be evidence-based; we cannot do it on a whim and it must be able to withstand legal scrutiny, but she will see from the designations, including the ones we will do in the future, that this regime will be applied without fear or favour.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I warmly welcome this statement. At a time when it seems that every dawn brings notice of fresh human rights horrors, it is good to see the Government taking such decisive action. Will my right hon. Friend reassure those of us who see Britain as a force for good in the world that this is just the first step in a review that will see him and the Government take whatever action we can to hold to account those who commit these dreadful human rights abuses?
Dominic Raab
The Magnitsky regime is the third of three pillars. We have been pioneering a campaign—I pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—with the Canadians to champion media freedom, by protecting individual journalists and strengthening the legal codes in more vulnerable countries around the world. Our media freedom campaign continues apace. We are also supporting freedom of religious belief and plan to co-host the international conference next year. These Magnitsky sanctions are, if you like, the third pillar. They will provide direct accountability through visa bans and asset freezes for those who commit these appalling abuses.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s long-overdue introduction of the global human rights sanctions regime, but does he not concede that the delay in publication of the Russia report and the lack of constitution of the Intelligence and Security Committee seriously undermines the Government’s credibility in the eyes of our allies? The Russia report has been gathering dust on the Prime Minister’s desk since last year. In order to ensure sufficient scrutiny of this error-prone Government, right hon. and hon. Members have been demanding for months that the ISC be finally formed. What has the Prime Minister got to hide?
Dominic Raab
The ISC of course does incredibly important work and will be up and running as soon as is practicable, but it needs to constitute itself. It is correct that there is a Government role in that, but there is also a parliamentary one. We look forward to and will embrace its role once it is up and running.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Does he agree that this will act as a deterrent to those who wish to commit the most horrific human rights abuses around the world while attempting to live a life of luxury in this country on the back of dirty money?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are sending a message that people cannot do things that in the past some have got away with. We hope that, particularly in concert with likeminded countries, we can start to have a deterrent effect and also embarrass those countries from whom these individuals come. It is through that co-ordinated action, backed by hard measures such as asset freezes and visa bans, that we can make a difference.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
I too welcome today’s statement. Israeli annexations are a violation of international law and jeopardise any chance of a two-state solution. I would like to believe that a two-state solution is not a lost cause, but that is only possible if we speak up. I urge the Government to take action and condemn violations such as the recent bulldozing of a historic Muslim cemetery in Jaffa. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such contempt for international law warrants sanctions? If not, could he please explain his reasoning?
Dominic Raab
We certainly oppose not just the settlement building but other violations of international humanitarian law. The hon. Gentleman may have seen the letter that the Prime Minister recently published in the Israeli press, which made it clear that we are not giving up on a two-state solution. We oppose annexation and we want both parties to come to the table and negotiate a lasting settlement.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his truly important statement. If employed wisely, it promises to be a great force for good in the world. As he knows, hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, other Muslims and Christians continue to be imprisoned in inhuman Chinese camps, which are a revolting violation of the universal rights held sacred by freedom-loving people everywhere, namely the freedom to live, work and worship as desired.
In 2019, 23 countries, including the UK, US and Japan, signed a letter addressed to the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly Third Committee urging communist China to close its camps. It saddens me that, as we condemn slavery and other beastly historical crimes, horrific exploitative labour continues—
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the passionate way in which made his case. I reassure him that, if he looks at the statement that the UK led on with 27 other countries on the Human Rights Council, we have condemned the human rights abuses that he refers to against the Uighurs and in relation to Hong Kong. That is the first time the issue has been on the agenda at the Human Rights Council. We will continue to keep up that work and shine a light on what, I agree, are appalling human rights abuses.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary has said today—he will not be surprised to hear that—but in the interests of transparency, will he look at the possibility of amending the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, not to curtail commercial lobbying, but so that there is some sort of register and we know who is hiring lobbying firms? The vast majority of those people are perfectly respectable, law-abiding and, in most cases, open, but some are not. We need to know who is doing it.
Dominic Raab
I know that considerable work is being done on both sides of the House on that issue. We want maximum financial transparency. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I will certainly take a look at that in the context of all the other work that we are doing on corruption in the next strengthening of the Magnitsky regime.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I very much welcome the establishment of the sanctions tools, which will allow Britain to take a far more robust position when dealing with breaches of human rights. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As a human rights lawyer, he was well placed to see this through. He will be aware that sanctions are designed to be targeted and focused on individuals, and to change and challenge behaviour. I join my fellow Chair, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to ask for an announcement on China, not just on tactical issues to do with human rights, but on the wider foreign policy stance, given China’s trajectory.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee. We have taken these measures. He has heard what we have said on Hong Kong. He will know that Huawei is going through the review in the context of US trade sanctions. The integrated review is coming forward, which will be completed by the autumn. That is the right opportunity, in parallel with the comprehensive spending review, to make sure that we have the right strategy and the resources to back it up.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the application of the sanctions regime will be transparently even-handed and will not be blind to human rights abuses carried out by or in the name of our so-called allies and friends such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel or India, or indeed countries with which we are seeking to secure a post-Brexit trade deal?
Dominic Raab
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the designations, he will see that we have answered that in the first round that we are making today.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his personal commitment to human rights, which is becoming a hallmark of his tenure and is extremely welcome. If we are to have an international order that promotes not just our economic interests but our democratic values, there have to be consequences for people who violence those principles, which is why this statement matters. Will the Foreign Secretary look at whether the process for deciding who gets designated should become an independent process, as we have with compliance with the consolidated criteria for arms exports? That could be a way to disentangle the decision from the complexities of diplomatic relations, which we have to have even with nefarious states.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to him for all the work that he did at the Foreign Office to promote human rights, particularly in respect of the media freedom campaign, which we continue to champion. He makes an interesting point. I have not seen another jurisdiction that has done it as autonomously as he suggests but, as I said, we want to take sure-footed steps and will look at ways in which we can strengthen the regime, including making it more resilient, in the weeks and months ahead.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and commend the strong stand that we are taking on human rights. This is clearly a Secretary of State who get things done. He referred in his statement to holding up a torch and the “flame of freedom”; we must question any sanctions policy that does not target the Chinese officials responsible for the mistreatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, where more than a million are in concentration camps. In addition, an independent tribunal in Xinjiang concluded that forced organ harvesting is undoubtedly taking place with the knowledge and support of the Chinese Communist party. Will the Secretary of State join his US counterparts and act against human rights abusers in China?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We certainly want to make sure that we can work with allies. We are already talking to our Five Eyes partners and I hope to have another a call with them shortly. We will certainly look at the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has made. We need our approach to be evidence based. Sometimes, in the most authoritarian countries, evidence is difficult to come by, almost by definition, but I hope he will see from the designations that we make today that when we have the evidence and the crimes are clear, we are willing to act.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the commitment that he shows to the rule of law being just as important in international affairs as it is in domestic matters. I also welcome his reference to continued co-operation and alignment with our European partners, which is particularly important when it comes to enforcement. Will he therefore ensure that as we come to the end of the transition period, we make it a priority to maintain the same levels of access to policing and judicial co-operation as we have currently and, indeed, seek to expand that to other non-EU members, so that we do not have any gap in the ability to enforce these important and welcome sanctions?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend was very deft in getting the EU issue into his question. I reassure him that, at E3 level and more broadly, we want to co-ordinate with our European partners, friends and allies. The Magnitsky sanctions are a good illustration of how we can reinforce and strengthen co-operation in the years ahead. Law enforcement vehicles for co-operation are certainly important. We want to see what the right approach is under the future relationship, but I know the work that my hon. Friend has done and have no doubt about the value that such co-operation can add.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I wholeheartedly welcome the statement and the measures that the Foreign Secretary has announced today. Given its expertise in gathering intelligence and evidence of human rights abuses and corruption, will the Foreign Secretary be proactively canvassing civil society, both in the UK and globally, in drawing up the lists? May I press him further on the points raised by other hon. Members in relation to Hong Kong? Will he seriously consider opening the door to naming in any future designation the perpetrators of abuses under the new national security law?
Dominic Raab
We will certainly work with all our international partners to accumulate the evidence. The hon. Gentleman asked about civil society and non-governmental organisations; yes, we absolutely will work with them. Indeed, sometimes the primary evidence comes through open-source reporting, so that relationship is very important. As I have said to the House already, we will look at strengthening the regime as we go forward. I am not going to second-guess subsequent designations in relation to China or any other country, not least because of the importance, as has already been highlighted, of making sure that we have a rigorous and judicious process leading up to designation.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I, too, warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House today. Does he agree that the designations announced today show that this Government will act without fear or favour when human rights are at stake?
Dominic Raab
I believe they do demonstrate that. It is early days. We wanted to make sure that we took firm, clear steps, as the worst thing in the world is to trip up over this sort of thing; it gives precisely the wrong people succour. We also recognise that there will be scope for strengthening the regime even further. This, therefore, is the point of departure in terms of this sanctions regime, and we will look very carefully at it with the benefit of the House’s scrutiny in the months ahead.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions and I want them to be as effective as possible not only as a punishment, but as a deterrent. Will the Secretary of State just outline what provisions there will be in secondary legislation to ensure that not only the perpetrators are punished, but their agents and nominees, including family members and associates, who have benefited from these crimes?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her support. We will have a further debate before recess on the terms of the regulations. I think she will see that it is not just the direct perpetrators who can be captured, but those supporting and in other ways contributing to the human rights abuse. I hope that that will reassure her, but, as I have said, we will be looking to further strengthen the regime—for example, in relation to corruption—in the months ahead.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to Sergei Magnitsky. I think that, if Sergei and many others like him pay the ultimate price, they at least hope, in their final moments, that it will make a difference. I am sure that we can all agree that that is exactly what Sergei has achieved. Will my right hon. Friend outline to the House which other countries, some of which he has already mentioned, have similar regimes and how we plan to work with them on best practice and co-operate to make the most of our independent action in this regard?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend. I agree with what he said about Magnitsky. He was an incredibly courageous man. I think of him as the Solzhenitsyn of his age. To make these sanctions effective, to deter action and to hold people to account, we do need to work closely with our partners. We are one of the first major countries, certainly in Europe, to draw up this regime and start implementing it. There are some other countries doing so, but the EU as a whole has not adopted it yet. I can tell him that the US obviously has a mechanism in place, as do the Canadians, and the Australian Parliament is also considering it. We are talking with the full range of international partners, and indeed others, because we think that this provides a strong and resilient model for raising human rights and not allowing them to be swept under the carpet, while still engaging in the diplomacy that is required and all the other things that serve the British national interest.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, but why is the Commonwealth Development Corporation continuing to invest millions of pounds in a company called Frontiir, a telecommunications and internet company that has been obeying what the Myanmar Government have been telling it, which is to suppress the transmission of evidence of human rights abuses and atrocities being committed against the Rohingya?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I hope that she will be reassured to see that the designations include those in relation to human rights abuses against the Rohingya. I do not know about the specific case that she is referring to, but if she would like to write to me, I am very willing to take a look at it.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I too welcome the global human rights sanctions regime as proposed by the Foreign Secretary? Will he outline to the House whether this sanctions regime ensures that the UK continues to uphold the necessity of freedom of religion and belief around the world?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The regime focuses on the most serious human rights abuses—those against the right to life, the prohibition against torture, and the prohibition against slave labour and forced labour—but of course many of those abuses can be directed at journalists and those practising their religion, and if he looks at the designations that we have made today, he will find that that is true even in relation to the first wave.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
May I add my voice to the congratulations to the Foreign Secretary? This has been a personal crusade of his and this is a great moment not just for him, but for the Government and the country as well. May I press him to go a bit further and a bit faster, perhaps, on the points that he has made about fighting corruption and extending these measures to include corruption? He will understand that while many human rights abusers are indeed corrupt, there are many people who are corrupt but who are not necessarily human rights abusers, and therefore we may be able to get people only on corruption charges. Strengthening that element is vital if we are to be able to get people designated on corruption by Christmas.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work he has done not only on human rights but on transparency and anti-corruption. As I said, we will look at this. Work is already under way on the corruption element. I look forward to his contribution as we develop these proposals.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome the designation of those from Saudi Arabia responsible for the death of Jamal Khashoggi. I also welcome the fact that in the notes that the Foreign Secretary has provided, there is clear indication that non-state actors who have acquired a significant degree of control, authority and organisation over people in an area will also be held to account. As the Foreign Secretary knows, for the past few years my constituent Luke Symons has been held by the Houthis in Sana’a in Yemen, in a severe breach of his human rights. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to doing all that he can to secure his release and make sure that my constituent and his family can leave Yemen and travel to the United Kingdom?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s advocacy and tireless campaigning on behalf of his constituent. Of course we want to secure his release from the Houthis. The hon. Gentleman rather smartly wove in the non-state actor element of these regimes. That is important, because this is not just about perpetrators who come from arms of the state: there are a lot of other people out there, whether from militia, armed groups, various organisations or organised crime, who are aiding and abetting and supporting these human rights abuses, and we need to target all of them.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I particularly welcome the reference to the hundreds of thousands of people who perished in the gulags of North Korea—a country about which we learn very little from television reports or social media posts. In his statement, the Foreign Secretary mentions organisations rather than individuals in respect of North Korea. What are we going to do to publicise the names of the individuals responsible for these heinous crimes, in North Korea and globally?
Dominic Raab
Part of the problem in North Korea, as we discussed earlier, is the clandestine nature of the decision-making process. However, my hon. Friend is right that we would certainly now be able and willing to proceed to name and designate any individuals. The two organisations that we are designating are bureau 27 of the Ministry of State Security, which oversees the political prison camps, and the Ministry of Public Security’s correctional bureau, which oversees the ordinary prison camps—both ghastly in their own right.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
This announcement is indeed welcome, but will the Secretary of State ensure that justice is at the heart of this global human rights sanction regime? With that in mind, will he commit to supporting women human rights defenders in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where women are legally the property of their closest male relative and denied basic freedoms? Will he guarantee that these women are not overlooked in any attempt to address the abuse of human rights?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady and assure her that, when I was in Saudi Arabia before the coronavirus lockdown, I raised the women’s rights defenders case with all my interlocutors. I can hopefully therefore reassure the hon. Lady that we raise that issue specifically with the Saudi Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How will the Foreign Secretary prevent existing human rights law from being used to thwart sanctions against those whom he would list?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It is a perfectly good question, because all sorts of legal issues have to be scrutinised very carefully when introducing these designations. We have done our due diligence. We have lawyered this very carefully. I hope I can give him the maximum reassurance that the risk is being mitigated to the very lowest level.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I add my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary? I pay my respects to the memory of Sergei Magnitsky and to his family. I also pay tribute to Bill Browder, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting a couple of times in this place.
Will these regulations allow us to follow the money and prevent other people—family members or close business associates—from being used as a front to try to give financial legitimacy to people who are abusers? Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that people who are associated with the abusers will feel the effects of these regulations too?
Dominic Raab
I hope that the expressions of support for Sergei Magnitsky give solace to Natalia and Nikita through their enduring grief. The hon. Member is absolutely right. One of the reasons that this matter has not been discussed quite so much has been the opportunity with this regime to follow the money; if we can cut off the money and the people who are profiting from these appalling human rights abuses, we have a better chance of cutting out the activity and deterring it for the future. The hon. Member is bang on.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The largest group in the world subject to persecution today are Christians. We are not just discussing lethal persecution such as in North Korea; in many parts of the world there is persecution for churchgoing, blasphemy and many other issues. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that this new regime will be used to target with sanctions those who deliberately target Christians?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this new regime gives us that power. On top of the legal regime, the asset freezes and the visa bans, the work of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief has been immense; it has been a herculean shift. We are working with our international partners and intend to co-host a conference on freedom of religion or belief. That will give us the ability to do precisely what my hon. Friend wants us to do.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi are all classed as close trading and political allies of the UK. What they also have in common is locking up political prisoners, torture and execution without due process. Zuhair Abdullah and Husain Rashid are in imminent danger of execution in Bahrain, having exhausted legal remedies. Will the Foreign Secretary be sure to sanction human rights abusers in so-called friendly countries, as well as those that are not so friendly?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman has been a passionate human rights defender over many years. He can take reassurance from the designations that we have made, and can see that the Government are willing to do—and are doing—just that.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The introduction of global human rights sanctions sends a strong message to those who violate human rights across the globe that they are not welcome in the UK, and reinforces our position as a defender of human rights at an international level. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will continue to work with other countries to ensure that perpetrators of such violations are held to account for their actions?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have mentioned some of our existing partners, but what we want to do is show—by the measures that we are taking and the efficiency with which we go about this, in a targeted and smart, evidence-led way—that this is a regime not only that can hold individuals to account, but which other countries can adopt. That is certainly part of our advocacy and diplomatic plan in the months ahead.
Point of Order
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I spoke to you about this matter this morning. Some Members attend St Margaret’s church, which is just across the way. A letter has been sent out to say that the church services there on a Sunday will be stopped. We all know that this is a result of the repercussions of covid-19 and the visitors who attend Westminster Abbey. I seek your guidance. What would be the best way of highlighting this issue to ensure that the Government can help St Margaret’s to continue? Would it be through an urgent question, an Adjournment debate or direct contact with the Minister?
Mr Speaker
Seeing that you intervene on everybody else’s Adjournment debate, it might be a good idea to see if we can facilitate one for you.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 6th July 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 6 July 2020 - (6 Jul 2020)
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 330 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 338 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 16—Special measures in family proceedings: victims of domestic abuse.
Government new clause 17—Special measures in civil proceedings: victims of specified offences.
Government new clause 18—Prohibition of cross-examination in person in civil proceedings.
Government new clause 20—Consent to serious harm for sexual gratification not a defence.
New clause 1—Pornography and domestic violence: research—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission research into the impact of pornography consumption on levels of domestic violence.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the research before Parliament within 12 months of this Act being passed.”
New clause 2—Research into the incidence of domestic abuse within different living arrangements—
The Secretary of State must commission research on the incidence of domestic abuse in the context of different forms of relationship including marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation, with special respect to both adult and child wellbeing and reporting to the House with this research and policy recommendations within 12 months of this Act becoming law.”
New clause 3—Report on domestic abuse incidence and sentencing—
The Secretary of State must provide a report to the House reviewing trends in the incidences of domestic abuse and sentencing for domestic abuse offences over the last ten years in England and Wales with a view to making policy recommendations including with respect to increasing both minimum and maximum sentences for domestic abuse offences and present to Parliament within the 12 months of this Act becoming law.
New clause 4—No defence for consent to death—
‘(1) If a person (“A”) wounds, assaults or asphyxiates another person (“B”) to whom they are personally connected as defined in section 2 of this Act causing death, it is not a defence to a prosecution that B consented to the infliction of injury.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the death occurred in the course of a sadomasochistic encounter.”
This new clause would prevent consent of the victim from being used as a defence to a prosecution in domestic homicides.
New clause 5—No defence for consent to injury—
‘(1) If a person (“A”) wounds, assaults or asphyxiates another person (“B”) to whom they are personally connected as defined in section 2 of this Act causing actual bodily harm or more serious injury, it is not a defence to a prosecution that B consented to the infliction of injury or asphyxiation.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the actual bodily harm, non-fatal strangulation, or more serious injury occurred in the course of a sadomasochistic encounter.”
This new clause would prevent consent of the victim from being used as a defence to a prosecution in cases of domestic abuse which result in serious injury.
New clause 6—Consent of Director of Public Prosecutions—
In any homicide case in which all or any of the injuries involved in the death, whether or not they are the proximate cause of it, were inflicted in the course of domestic abuse, the Crown Prosecution Service may not without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in respect of the death—
(a) charge a person with manslaughter or any other offence less than the charge of murder, or
(b) accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter or any other lesser offence.”
This new clause would require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions if, in any homicide case in which any of the injuries were inflicted in the course of domestic abuse, the charge (or the plea to be accepted) is of anything less than murder.
New clause 7—Director of Public Prosecutions consultation with victim’s family in domestic homicides—
‘(1) Before deciding whether or not to give consent to charging a person with manslaughter or any other offence less than the charge of murder in an offence of homicide in which domestic abuse was involved, the Director of Public Prosecutions must consult the immediate family of the deceased.
(2) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements, including the provision of a grant, to enable the immediate family to access legal advice prior to being consulted by the Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the Director of Public Prosecutions to consult the immediate family of the victim before charging less than murder in a domestic homicide and provide the family with legal advice so they can understand the legal background.
New clause 8—Offence of non-fatal strangulation—
A person (A) commits an offence if that person unlawfully strangles, suffocates or asphyxiates another person (B), where the strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation does not result in B’s death.”
This new clause will create a new offence of non-fatal strangulation.
New clause 9—Offence of non-fatal strangulation in domestic abuse context—
A person (A) commits an offence if that person unlawfully strangles, suffocates or asphyxiates another person (B) to whom they are personally connected as defined in section 2 of this Act, where the strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation does not result in B’s death.”
This new clause will create a new offence of non-fatal strangulation in domestic abuse offences.
New clause 10—Prohibition of reference to sexual history of the deceased in domestic homicide trials—
If at a trial a person is charged with an offence of homicide in which domestic abuse was involved, then—
(a) no evidence may be adduced, and
(b) no question may be asked in cross-examination, by or on behalf of any accused at the trial,
about any sexual behaviour of the deceased.”
This new clause will prevent the victim’s previous sexual history being used as evidence to prove consent to violence in a domestic homicide case. This draws on the legislative measures in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to prevent rape defendants raking up or inventing complainants’ previous sexual history.
New clause 11—Anonymity for victims in domestic homicides—
‘(1) Where a person (“A”) has been accused of a domestic homicide offence and where the person (“B”) against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed has died in the course of sexual activity, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as B shall be included in any publication.
(2) The matters relating to a person in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) applies (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection) include in particular—
(a) the person’s name,
(b) the person’s address,
(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment attended by the person,
(d) the identity of any place of work,
(e) any still or moving picture of the person.
(3) If, at the commencement of the trial, any of the matters in subsection (2) have already appeared in any publication, the judge at the trial may direct that no further reference to any of these matters may be included in any publication.
(4) If any matter is included in a publication in contravention of this section, the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—
(a) where the publication is a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;
(b) where the publication is a relevant programme—
(i) any body corporate engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included; and
(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper;
(c) in the case of any other publication, any person publishing it.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“domestic homicide offence” means an offence of murder or manslaughter which has involved domestic abuse;
a “publication” includes any speech, writing, relevant programme, social media posting or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public (and for this purpose every relevant programme shall be taken to be so addressed), but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.”
This new clause will provide the victim of a domestic homicide with public anonymity.
New clause 12—Domestic abuse: report on incidence and sentencing—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—
(a) the incidence of domestic abuse in England and Wales since 1 January 2010, and
(b) sentencing for any offence where judgment was handed down after 1 January 2010 and it was alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse.
(2) A purpose of a report under subsection (1) shall be to inform a decision on whether or not to increase the minimum or maximum sentence for any offence where it is found the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse.
(3) “Domestic abuse” shall, for the purposes of this section, have the meaning given in section 1 of this Act.”
New clause 13—Screening for acquired brain injury in domestic abuse cases—
‘(1) A woman who has been the subject of domestic abuse shall, with her consent, be screened for traumatic brain injury, and other forms of acquired brain injury, including concussion.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a woman has been the subject of domestic abuse if—
(a) she is the person for whose protection a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order has been issued, or
(b) she is the person against whom it is alleged that domestic abuse has been perpetrated when the accused is charged with an offence that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.
(3) In the case of subsection (2)(a), the screening shall take place within two weeks of a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order being issued.
(4) In the case of subsection (2)(b), the screening shall take place within two weeks of a charge being made for an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.”
New clause 14—Acquired brain injury screening for female prisoners—
‘(1) All female prisoners must be screened for traumatic brain injury, and other forms of acquired brain injury, including concussion, within two weeks of starting their sentence.
(2) A purpose of the screening will be to assist in a determination as to whether a prisoner has been the subject of domestic abuse.
(3) If the screening shows that there is an acquired brain injury—
(a) an assessment must be made of whether such an injury has been acquired as a result of domestic abuse, and
(b) the prisoner must be given appropriate rehabilitation treatment and advice.”
New clause 19—Anonymity of domestic abuse survivors in criminal proceedings—
‘(1) Where an allegation has been made that a relevant offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the survivor.
(2) Where a person is accused of a relevant offence, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed as the survivor shall during the survivor’s lifetime be included in any publication.
(3) This section does not apply in relation to a person by virtue of subsection (1) at any time after a person has been accused of the offence.
(4) The matters relating to a survivor in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) or (2) apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in that subsection) include—
(a) the survivor’s name;
(b) the survivor’s address;
(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment the survivor attended;
(d) the identity of any place where the survivor worked;
(e) any still or moving pictures of the survivor; and
(f) any other matter that might lead to the identification of the survivor.
(5) At the commencement of a trial at which a person is charged with a relevant offence, the judge may issue a direction for lifting the restrictions only following an application by or on behalf of the survivor.
(6) Any matter that is included in a publication in contravention of this section must be deleted from that publication and no further reference to the matter may be made in any publication.
(7) If any matter is included in a publication in contravention of this section, the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—
(a) where the publication is a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;
(b) where the publication is a relevant programme—
(i) any body corporate or Scottish partnership engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included; and
(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper;
(c) in the case of any other publication, any person publishing it.
(8) For the purposes of the section—
“publication” means any material published online or in physical form as any well as any speech, writing, website, online news outlet, social media posting, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
a “relevant offence” means any offence where it is alleged by the survivor that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse;
“survivor” means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
This new clause provides lifetime press anonymity for survivors of domestic abuse, and reflects similar protections for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. It prevents identifiable details from be published online or in print, and creates a new offence for breaching this anonymity.
New clause 21—Register for domestic abuse—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for the creation of a register containing the name, home address and national insurance number of any person (P) convicted of an offence that constitutes domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act.
(2) Each police force in England and Wales shall be responsible for ensuring that the register is kept up to date with all relevant offences committed in the police force’s area.
(3) Each police force in England and Wales shall be responsible for ensuring that P notifies relevant police forces within 14 days if they commence a new sexual or romantic relationship.
(4) A failure to notify the police in the circumstances set out in subsection (4) shall be an offence liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.
(5) The relevant police force shall have the right to inform any person involved in a relationship with P of P’s convictions for domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act.”
This new clause would require that any person convicted of any offence of domestic abuse as defined in section 1 must have their details recorded on a domestic abuse register to ensure that all the perpetrator’s subsequent partners have full access to information regarding their domestic abuse offences.
New clause 22—Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors—
‘(1) The Immigration Acts are amended as follows.
(2) In section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 after subsection (10) insert—
“(11) This section does not apply to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section [Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors] of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.”
(3) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section [Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors] of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020, or”.
(4) In section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 at the end of subsection (3) insert “or if P is a victim of domestic abuse”.
(5) In section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not make or maintain a condition under subsection (1)(c)(ii) on leave granted to a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section [Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors] of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020; and it is not a breach of the immigration laws or rules for such a victim to have recourse to public funds.”
(6) For the purposes of this section, evidence that a person is a victim of domestic abuse may consist of one or more of the following—
(a) a relevant conviction, police caution or protection notice;
(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or order, occupation order, domestic abuse protection order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;
(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic abuse;
(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference;
(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic abuse;
(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic abuse;
(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she is satisfied on the basis of an examination that a person had injuries or a condition consistent with those of a victim of domestic abuse;
(h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;
(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in providing services to a person in respect of allegations of domestic abuse;
(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic abuse support organisation; or
(k) other evidence of domestic abuse, including from a counsellor, midwife, school, witness or the victim.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
“victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.
(8) Within 12 months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions in this section.
(9) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts – including exclusion from public funds, certain types of support and assistance and the right to rent – do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse. There will be a review into the operation of this provision.
New clause 23—Commissioning specialist domestic abuse services for victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse—
‘(1) It is the duty of relevant public authorities in England and non-devolved relevant public authorities in Wales in the exercise of their functions to commission sufficient specialist services for all persons affected by domestic abuse regardless of status.
(2) To ensure compliance with the duty under subsection (1) public authorities must—
(a) regularly assess population and support needs changes in their area;
(b) take account of any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister of the Crown; and
(c) co-operate to discharge the duty.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue regulations making provision for the resolution of disputes between public authorities relating to the discharge of the duty under subsection (1).
(4) In relation to the provision of domestic abuse support as defined by section 54(2), each relevant local authority may discharge the duty under subsection (2)(a) through compliance with its obligations under section 54(1)(a).
(5) In performing the duty under subsection (1) a relevant public authority must secure sufficient specialist services for (among others) the following persons—
(a) any victim of domestic abuse aged over 18;
(b) any child aged under 18 who experiences or witnesses domestic abuse;
(c) any person aged over 18 who exhibits abusive behaviour towards another person to whom they are personally connected;
(d) any child aged under 18 who exhibits abusive behaviour towards another person to whom they are personally connected.
(6) In performing the duty under subsection (1), a relevant public authority must where necessary secure specialist services designed to meet the particular needs of a group that shares a status to ensure appropriate and effective service provision.
(7) In this section—
“abusive behaviour” is behaviour that is abusive within the definition in section 1(3).
“domestic abuse” has the meaning given by Part 1 of this Act.
“personally connected” has the meaning given in section 2 of this Act.
“relevant public authorities” are public authorities with statutory functions relevant to the provision of specialist services, including but not limited to—
(a) Ministers of the Crown and Government departments;
(b) local government in England;
(c) NHS Trusts in England;
(d) Police and Crime Commissioners;
(e) prison, police and probation services.
“status” means a status for the purpose of Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, and combined forms of any such status.
“specialist services” include but are not limited to the following when provided in connection with domestic abuse, whether provided by a public authority or any other person or body—
(a) protective measures and action taken to protect persons against domestic abuse;
(b) residential accommodation, including refuge services and other relevant accommodation and support as defined in section 54(2);
(c) counselling and other support;
(d) advocacy services;
(e) access to welfare benefits;
(f) perpetrator programmes;
(g) financial support;
(h) legal services;
(i) helplines;
(j) services designed to meet the particular needs of a group that shares a status to ensure appropriate and effective service provision, including separate or single-sex services within the meaning given in Part 7 of Schedule 3 the Equality Act, and “communal accommodation” within the meaning given in paragraph 3 of Schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010.
“victims of domestic abuse” includes—
(a) persons towards whom domestic abuse is directed and
(b) persons who are reasonably believed to be at risk of domestic abuse.”
This new clause would establish a statutory duty on relevant public authorities to commission specialist support and services to all persons affected by domestic abuse. This includes refuge and community-based services; specialist services for groups with protected characteristics; services for children and young people; services for perpetrators.
New clause 24—Proceedings under the Children Act 1989—
‘(1) Part I of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (the welfare of the child) after subsection (2B) insert—
“(2C) Subsection (2A) shall not apply in relation to a parent where there has been domestic abuse which has affected the child or other parent.
(2D) Evidence of domestic abuse may be provided in one or more of the forms set out in regulation 33(2) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012.”
(3) Part II of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 9 (restrictions on making section 8 orders) after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) No court shall make a section 8 order for a child to spend unsupervised time with or have unsupervised contact with a parent who is—
(a) awaiting trial, or on bail for, a domestic abuse offence, or
(b) involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence.
(8A) In subsection (8)—
“unsupervised” means where a court approved third party is not present at all times during contact with the parent to ensure the physical safety and emotional wellbeing of a child;
“domestic abuse offence” means an offence which the Crown Prosecution Service alleges to have involved domestic abuse.””
This new clause seeks to change the presumption that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare when there has been domestic abuse. It also prohibits unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences, or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.
New clause 25—Effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, receive—
(a) equally effective protection against domestic abuse, and
(b) equally effective support.
(2) In this section—
“status” includes a status for the purpose of Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence and any combined forms of such status.
“victims of domestic abuse” includes persons who are reasonably believed to be at risk of domestic abuse.”
This new clause ensures all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status, in line with Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention).
New clause 26—Victims of domestic abuse: leave to remain—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, lay a statement of changes in rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (“the immigration rules”) to make provision for leave to remain to be granted to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom.
(2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom; and the statement must provide for those rules to be commenced no later than one month of the laying of the statement.
(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for granting limited leave to remain for a period of no less than 6 months to any person eligible to make an application under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2); and such leave shall include no condition under section 3(1)(c)(i), (ia), (ii) or (v) of the Immigration Act 1971.
(4) The Secretary of State must make provision for extending limited leave to remain granted in accordance with subsection (3) to ensure that leave continues throughout the period during which an application made under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2) remains pending.
(5) Where subsection (6) applies, notwithstanding any statutory or other provision, no services shall be withheld from a victim of domestic abuse solely by reason of that person not having leave to remain or having leave to remain subject to a condition under section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971.
(6) This subsection applies where a provider of services is satisfied that the victim of domestic abuse is eligible to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.
(7) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (5), issue guidance to providers of services about the assessment of eligibility to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.
(8) In this section—
an application is “pending” during the period—
(a) beginning when it is made,
(b) ending when it is finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned, and an application is not finally decided while an application for review or appeal could be made within the period permitted for either or while any such review or appeal remains pending (meaning that review or appeal has not been finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned);
“person subject to immigration control” means a person in the United Kingdom who does not have the right of abode;
“provider of services” includes both public and private bodies;
“services” includes accommodation, education, employment, financial assistance, healthcare and any service provided exclusively or particularly to survivors of domestic abuse.”
This new clause would make provision in the immigration rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to migrant survivors of domestic abuse and limited leave to remain to a survivor who is eligible to make an application for indefinite leave to remain.
New clause 27—Victims of domestic abuse: data-sharing for immigration purposes—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim of a domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of a witness to domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of that abuse, or to assist the victim of that abuse in any legal proceedings, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to the personal data to which subsection (1) or (2) applies.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to—
(a) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom;
(b) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; and
(c) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the victim or witness, by an express statement of that person signifying agreement to the processing of the personal data for the relevant purpose;
“immigration control purpose” means any purpose of the functions to which subsection (4)(ii) and (iii) refers;
“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services; and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;
“victim” includes any dependent of a person, at whom the domestic abuse is directed, where that dependent is affected by that abuse.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of migrant survivors of domestic abuse that is given or used for the purpose of their seeking or receiving support and assistance is not used for immigration control purposes.
New clause 28—Enabling access to abortion in abusive relationships—
‘(1) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 1 add—
“(5) Subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner who is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the woman is unable to access treatment for the termination of pregnancy in a hospital or a place approved by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) by reason of the abusive behaviour of a person with whom the woman is personally connected within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.””
In cases of domestic abuse where a woman seeking an abortion is subject to coercive control, this new clause would remove the legal requirement for attendance at a hospital or licensed premises in order to access lawful abortion services.
Amendment (a), line 4 after “apply to the” insert “medical”
Amendment (b), line 6 after “faith,” insert
“that the pregnancy has not exceeded nine weeks and six days and”
Amendment (c), line 10 at end insert—
‘(3) This section may not take effect until the Government has conducted an inquiry into the safety, number, and impact of abortions carried out under the temporary coronavirus crisis provisions where the place of abortion was the woman’s home, and has laid a Report on this before Parliament.”
New clause 30—Local Welfare Provision schemes—
‘(1) Every local authority in England must deliver a Local Welfare Provision scheme which provides financial assistance to victims of domestic abuse.
(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the nature and scope of Local Welfare Provision schemes and review this biannually in consultation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other such individuals and agencies the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide local authorities with additional funding designated for Local Welfare Provision, to increase per year with inflation.
(4) For the purposes of this subsection “domestic abuse” is defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.”
This new clause would allow victims of domestic abuse to access a local welfare assistance scheme in any locality across England.
New clause 31—Guidance: Child maintenance—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance relating to the payment of child maintenance where the person with care of the child is a victim of domestic abuse.
(2) Guidance issued under this section must take account of—
(a) the potential for the withholding or reducing of child maintenance to constitute economic abuse under section 1(4) of this Act;
(b) the need for enforcement action to prevent non-payment; and
(c) the difficulties faced by victims of domestic abuse in obtaining evidence to support an application for a variation of a child maintenance calculation.
(3) The Child Maintenance Service must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function to which the guidance relates.
(4) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Child Maintenance Service to tackle the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments.
New clause 32—Assessment and management of serial and serious domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators—
Within six months of the commencement of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing arrangements for assessing and managing the risk presented by serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators.”
New clause 33—Monitoring of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under MAPPA—
‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 325 (Arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders) —
(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327” insert—
““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;
(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “offenders” insert “(aa) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”.
(3) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—
“327ZA Section 325: interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator
(1) For the purposes of section 325—
a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or the condition in subsection (2)(b).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—
(a) P is a relevant serial offender;
(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.
(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.
(4) In this section—
“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence; or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;
“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in Section 1 of this Act;
“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
(5) Within six months of the commencement of this section, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing the interpretation of the term “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” for the purposes of section 325.
(6) A report under subsection (5) must give specific consideration to arrangements for assessing and managing the risks of domestic abuse or stalking posed by perpetrators convicted of offences other than a specified offence.
(7) Subject to a report under subsection (5) being laid before both Houses of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend this section.”
This new clause amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for the establishment of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (“MAPPA”), to make arrangements for serial domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators to be registered on VISOR and be subjected to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA.
New clause 34—Threat to disclose private photographs and films with intent to cause distress—
In the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, after section 13 insert—
“33A Threat to disclose private photographs and films with intent to cause distress
(1) It is an offence for a person to threaten to disclose a private sexual photograph or film of a person to whom they are personally connected without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film if the threat is made to either—
(a) the individual who appears in the photograph or film, or
(b) another individual who is intended to tell the individual who appears in the photograph or film,
(2) But it is not an offence under this section for the person to threaten to disclose the photograph or film to the individual mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
(3) For the meaning of “consent” see section 33(7)(a).
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable —
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both), and
(b) (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both).
(5) (5) For the purposes of this section, “personally connected” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.”
New clause 35—Duty to co-operate: children awaiting NHS treatment—
‘(1) The Commissioner must within 6 months after section 14 comes into force issue a request under that section to the NHS bodies in England mentioned in subsection (2) to co-operate with the Commissioner to secure that the objective set out in subsection (3) is met within 12 months after that section comes into force and continues to be met.
(2) The bodies are—
(a) every clinical commissioning group established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006, and
(b) every other NHS body in England (as defined in section 14(7)) whose co-operation the Commissioner thinks is necessary to secure that the objective set out in subsection (3) is met.
(3) The objective is that where a child affected by domestic abuse has been referred for NHS care or treatment in the area (“Area A”) of a clinical commissioning group as a result of being so affected moves to the area (“Area B”) of another clinical commissioning group, the child receives that care or treatment no later than it would have been received in Area A.”
New clause 36—School admissions—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the school admissions code issued for England under section 84 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 (“1998 Act”) contains such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).
(2) The Secretary of State must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (1).
(3) The Welsh Ministers must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the Welsh Government school admissions code issued under section 84 of the 1998 Act contains such provision as the Welsh Ministers consider necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).
(4) The Welsh Ministers must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (3).
(5) The objective is that—
(a) oversubscription criteria for admission to any school to which the school admissions code applies give the same priority to children falling within subsection (6) as to looked-after children (within the meaning of section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989), and
(b) the Code contains appropriate guidance about admission of children who have moved home to avoid domestic abuse or who are otherwise affected by domestic abuse.
(6) A child falls within this subsection if the child—
(a) is in the care of, or provided with accommodation by, a body exercising a function in respect of children affected by domestic abuse which, if the body were a local authority, would be a social services function of the kind mentioned in section 22(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989, or
(b) has moved home as a result of being affected by domestic abuse.”
Amendment 3, clause 1, page 1, line 15, after “abuse”, insert “(see subsection (4A))”
This amendment would provide the ability to further define specific abuse.
Amendment 25, page 2, line 3, after “that” insert
“, unless A believed they were acting in B’s best interest and the behaviour in all the circumstances was reasonable,”
This amendment is alternative to Amendment 1. It clarifies that economic abuse has to be unreasonable and not cover incidents of the withholding of money where it is intended to be in a person‘s best interest – e.g. someone caring for another or the partner of a gambling addict who gives consent. This amendment uses similar wording to the defence for controlling and coercive behaviour.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 3, after “effect”, insert “without permission, consent, necessity or any other good reason”
The aim of this amendment would be to specify that economic abuse has to be deliberate and unreasonable not just the withholding of money, for example, with lawful authority or good reason – e.g. someone caring for someone or the partner of a gambling addict who gives consent etc.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “acquire, use or maintain money or other property” and insert
“maintain their own money or personal property”
The aim of this amendment would be to specify that economic abuse must involve the person’s own money and not the lawful property of someone else.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
‘(4A) “Psychological, emotional or other abuse” includes but is not limited to—
(a) parental alienation, false allegations of domestic abuse by A against B, or
(b) A deliberately preventing B having contact with their child or children for no good reason.”
This amendment gives specific examples of domestic abuse – parental alienation, false allegations of domestic abuse and the prevention of contact with a parent for no good reason.
Amendment 24, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
‘(4A) “Psychological, emotional or other abuse” includes but is not limited to—
(a) parental alienation, or
(b) A deliberately preventing B having contact with their child or children for no good reason.”
This amendment is alternative to Amendment 4. It gives specific examples of domestic abuse – parental alienation and the prevention of contact with a parent for no good reason.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
‘(4B) “Parental alienation” is defined as a child’s resistance or hostility towards parent B which is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by parent A.”
This amendment defines parental alienation.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (5)
This amendment removes the potential creation of two victims of a single act of abuse.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (6)
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 6.
Amendment 11, clause 6, page 4, line 3, after “the” insert “objective”
This amendment aims to ensure there is no bias and that pre-conceived notions do not form part of the identification of domestic abuse process.
Amendment 12, page 4, line 8, after “abuse” insert “;
(e) a gender-neutral approach to domestic abuse”
This amendment would recognise explicitly that domestic violence affects everyone regardless of their sex.
Amendment 13, page 4, line 23, at end insert—
“(h) monitoring the estimated number of actual victims of domestic abuse compared to those prosecuted for such offences according to the sex of the victim and making recommendations to address any differences in outcomes between the sexes;”
This amendment would make sure that male and female perpetrators of domestic abuse are prosecuted in similar relative numbers.
Amendment 14, page 4, line 23, at end insert—
“(i) monitoring the estimated number of actual victims of domestic abuse in same sex relationships by gender.”
This amendment would ensure that those in same sex relationships are separately monitored in line with the gender neutral approach to domestic abuse.
Amendment 40, clause 7, page 5, line 2, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “Parliament”
This amendment changes the provision enabling the Commissioner to report to the Secretary of State to one enabling the Commissioner to report to Parliament.
Amendment 41, page 5, line 5, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
‘(3) The Commissioner must ensure that no material is included in the report which—
(a) might jeopardise the safety of any person, or
(b) might prejudice the investigation or prosecution of an offence.
(4) The Commissioner must send a copy of any report published under this section to the Secretary of State.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 40.
Amendment 15, clause 11, page 6, line 38, after “Board”)” insert
“through an open recruitment process”
This amendment would ensure that members of the Advisory Board are appointed via an open recruitment process.
Amendment 19, page 7, line 7, after the first “of” insert
“each of (a) male and (b) female”
This amendment would ensure that different people separately representing the interests of male and female victims are appointed to the Advisory Board.
Amendment 46, page 7, line 7, after “abuse” insert—
“in England;
“(aa) at least one person appearing to the Commissioner to represent the interests of victims of domestic abuse in Wales”
This amendment would require representation for domestic abuse victims in Wales, ensuring that both the interests of domestic abuse victims in England and Wales are equally addressed.
Amendment 20, page 7, line 9, after “with” insert
“each of (a) male and (b) female”
This amendment would ensure that different people separately representing the interests of male and female organisations are on the Advisory Board.
Amendment 16, page 7, line 11, leave out paragraph (c)
This amendment would remove the necessity for a representative of health care providers to be on the Advisory Board to make space for representatives of both male and female victims/groups.
Amendment 17, page 7, line 14, leave out paragraph (d)
This amendment would remove the necessity for a representative of social care providers to be on the Advisory Board to make space for representatives of both male and female victims/groups.
Amendment 44, page 7, line 21, after “abuse” insert “;
(g) at least one person appearing to the Commissioner to represent the interests of charities and other voluntary organisations that work with victims of sexual violence and abuse that amounts to domestic abuse in England”
This amendment will add a representative of sexual violence and abuse specialist services in a domestic context to the Commissioner’s advisory board.
Amendment 18, page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (6)
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 17.
Amendment 42, clause 13, page 8, line 16, leave out from “must” to “on” and insert “report to Parliament”
This amendment changes the requirement for the Commissioner to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State to a requirement to report to Parliament.
Amendment 43, page 8, line 25, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
‘(3) The Commissioner must arrange for a copy of every annual report under this section to be laid before Parliament.
(4) Before laying the report before Parliament, the Commissioner must ensure that no material is included in the report which—
(a) might jeopardise the safety of any person, or
(b) might prejudice the investigation or prosecution of an offence.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 42.
Amendment 21, clause 55, page 36, line 11, after the first “of” insert
“each of (a) male and (b) female”
This amendment would ensure that different people separately represent the interests of both male and female victims on the domestic abuse local partnership boards.
Amendment 22, page 36, line 15, after “with” insert
“each of (a) male and (b) female”
This amendment would ensure that different people separately represent the interests of both male and female organisations on the domestic abuse local partnership boards.
Amendment 45, page 36, line 22, after “area” insert “;
(h) at least one person appearing to the authority to represent the interests of charities and other voluntary organisations that work with victims of sexual violence and abuse that amounts to domestic abuse in its area”
This amendment adds a representative of Sexual Violence and Abuse specialist services in a domestic context to the Local Authority’s advisory partnership.
Government amendments 27 to 29.
Amendment 26, page 46, line 38, leave out Clause 64.
Amendment 8, clause 67, page 51, line 12, leave out paragraph (b)
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 6.
Amendment 23, page 51, line 15, at end insert—
‘(4) If it transpires that the local authority has been given incorrect information or that it has taken into account false allegations of domestic abuse as the basis for granting a tenancy, it must revoke the secure tenancy within 7 days of receiving this information by giving the tenant 28 days notice to quit in addition to passing on such information to the police, where they are not already involved, as soon as is practicable thereafter.”
This amendment makes provision for someone who has made false allegations of domestic abuse to lose the home they gained under these false pretences.
Amendment 35, clause 68, page 51, line 28, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under this section which takes account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.
(2B) In preparing guidance under subsection (2A) the Secretary of State must require the chief officer of police of any police force to provide information relating to—
(a) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force; and
(b) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force which, in the opinion of the chief officer of police, have also involved domestic abuse.
(2C) In this section—
“chief officer of police” and “police force” have the same meaning as in section 65 of this Act;
“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act;
“relevant crime” means a reported crime in which—
(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex,
(b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex, or
(c) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to follow a course of conduct pursued by the alleged offender towards the victim that was motivated by hostility based on sex;
“sex” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010.”
Amendment 47, page 51, line 28, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must issue separate statutory guidance on domestic abuse that also constitutes teenage relationship abuse and such guidance must address how to ensure there are—
(a) sufficient levels of local authority service provision for both victims and perpetrators of teenage relationship abuse,
(b) child safeguarding referral pathways for both victims and perpetrators of teenage relationship abuse.
(2B) The guidance in subsection (2A) must be published within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent and must be reviewed bi-annually.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), teenage relationship abuse is defined as any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse, which can encompass, but is not limited to psychological, physical, sexual, economic and emotional abuse, including through the use of technology, between those aged 18 or under who are, or have been in a romantic relationship regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish separate statutory guidance on teenage relationship abuse. The statutory guidance would cover not just victims of teenage domestic abuse but extend to those who perpetrate abuse within their own teenage relationships.
Amendment 9, page 51, line 30, leave out from “that” to the end of line 31 and insert
“victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse in England and Wales are both male and female.”
This amendment removes the sex specific reference to females, to include male victims of domestic abuse and reflect the fact that both men and women are perpetrators of domestic abuse.
Government amendment 30.
Amendment 10, page 51, line 31, after “female”, insert
“and this should in no way exclude male victims from the protection of domestic abuse legislation and services for survivors.”
This amendment is an alternative to Amendment 9.
Government amendments 36, 37, 31, 32, 38, 33, 34 and 39.
Victoria Atkins
Homes should be places of love and safety, but for 2.4 million people across the country they are not. We want the abuse to stop, and we want victims to live, peaceful, safe and happy lives. That is why the Government are bringing forward this Domestic Abuse Bill.
Domestic abuse does not just affect adults. It affects the children living in abusive households too. The Government have always recognised the devastating impact that domestic abuse has on a child who sees, hears or experiences it. Indeed, the need to consider the effects on children runs through the Bill, through the draft statutory guidance and in our non-legislative work. As I hope is acknowledged, our approach throughout the extensive scrutiny of the Bill has been to listen, and that is exactly what we have done. We have listened carefully to my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). We have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) in Committee, as well as other Members across the House, including the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who have encouraged us to do more. I am, therefore, pleased to introduce new clause 15 to the Bill, which states that children who see, hear or experience domestic abuse are victims.
As with the statutory definition in clauses 1 and 2, we expect the new clause to be adopted more generally by public authorities, frontline practitioners and others responding to domestic abuse. Indeed, it is vital that locally commissioned services consider and address the impact of domestic abuse on children.
We have also listened to the harrowing experiences of victims going through the family and civil courts. It is vital that victims of domestic abuse are supported to give their best evidence in court and to minimise the distress that this can cause. The Bill on introduction already ensured that victims of domestic abuse are automatically entitled to special measures in criminal proceedings, meaning that they can, for example, give evidence from behind a screen or via a video link. New clauses 16 and 17 now extend that automatic eligibility to victims giving evidence in family and civil proceedings.
In May last year, the Ministry of Justice established a panel of experts to review how the family courts deal with the risk of harm to children and parents in private law children’s cases involving domestic abuse and other serious offences. The panel received more than 1,200 submissions and the report was published just a couple of weeks ago. The submissions highlighted that many victims of domestic abuse feel extreme anxiety about appearing in the family court and coming face to face with the perpetrator. Anyone who has tracked the progress of this Bill, or who has worked with and listened to victims outside the confines of this Chamber, will know just how terrible some of those experiences can be. The panel has recommended that the provisions in the Bill concerning special measures in the criminal courts should apply to all private law children’s cases in which domestic abuse is alleged. New clause 16 does that, and new clause 17 achieves the same in civil proceedings.
However, we have gone further with regard to civil proceedings, as new clause 18 prohibits cross-examination in person where such cross-examination by the perpetrator is likely to diminish the quality of the witness’s evidence or would cause significant distress to the witness. This new clause also prevents the victim from having to cross-examine the alleged perpetrator in person, with counsel being appointed by the court, if necessary. In each scenario, such cross-examination can serve to re-traumatise victims and, again, prevent them from giving their best evidence in court. Cross-examination in person is already prohibited in the criminal courts. The Bill, on introduction, extended the prohibition to the family courts and, on the recent recommendation of the Civil Justice Council, we will now ensure that the bar applies across all courts. These changes will have a profound impact on victims in all our constituencies who are seeking justice.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly support everything that the Minister has said, but one additional factor that can make it more difficult for a victim of domestic violence to feel secure in this system is that they have had a brain injury which might not have been diagnosed. So all the anxiety, loss of memory and loss of executive function may be completely misunderstood by many other people around her. Is it not time that we made sure, as my new clause 13 would do, that all victims of domestic violence and abuse are screened for acquired brain injury?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I, of course, pay attention to the fact that he has had a long-standing campaign on this matter. I have looked carefully at his proposals, and the Government have two chief concerns. The first is that any clinical need of the individual must, of course, be a matter for doctors. I would be very worried about making a blanket application for anyone who is a victim of domestic abuse, not least because we know that, as clause 1 sets out, domestic abuse can take many forms and is not just restricted to physical violence. So I believe that the correct way to deal with the very important point he raises is to enable clinicians to make that judgment. The second point relates to screening. I understand that the UK screening authority would have to consider whether such a universal programme should be introduced. I believe that it has looked at this relatively recently and has concluded that the evidence is not there. If I may, I will return to the text of my speech now. I will hear his arguments develop during the course of this afternoon and comment further if need be.
On the subject of justice, one of the most chilling and anguished developments in recent times has been the increased use of the so-called rough sex defence. This is the subject of the last of the Government’s new clauses on Report, new clause 20. Before I develop the argument for the new clause, I would like to pay particular tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who have been unrelenting in their work to secure justice for victims about whom the most difficult and violent claims can be made by defendants in the course of a criminal trial. They have been absolutely committed in their campaign to clarify the law. Indeed, I seem to remember that my hon. Friend raised this issue in the first Second Reading debate in October, which reminds us all of the journey that this Bill has had. They have called on the Government to codify the law in relation to the use of violence in consensual sadomasochistic sexual acts and the so-called rough sex defence. I am incredibly grateful to them for their continued and constructive engagement on this important and sensitive issue. I also note the support that Members across the House have given to these provisions, and I thank everyone for their work on this.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is setting the scene very clearly regarding what is important and what we wish to see happening, and I congratulate her on that. The increase of this type of activity by some 11.6% on worldwide internet traffic has concerned me. This is not just about getting at people individually; it is also about getting at the people who are the drivers who make it happen. What has been done to ensure that those who buy into that system—some might do so inadvertently, but they none the less find themselves in a difficult situation—and who make it available and make it happen can be caught?
Victoria Atkins
If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is not just addressing the use of this so-called defence in our courts but reflecting on the wider impact of pornography, particularly internet pornography, on violence towards women and girls in particular. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) will be raising this in her speech and if I may I will respond to her in that part of the debate, but I very much take on board his point.
The hon. Gentleman will know that part of the problem that has emerged in the last 15 to 20 years is that, whereas in the old days cases were reported freely in the newspapers and so on, such cases are now also reported on the internet. In that regard, I must pay particular tribute to the family of Natalie Connolly, who have suffered in more ways than anyone can really contemplate. I am pleased—and I hope they are satisfied—with the developments that have resulted from the hard work of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. I hope that Natalie’s family are satisfied with what we have reached in this Bill.
We have been clear that there is no such defence to serious harm that results from rough sex, but there is a perception that such a defence exists and that it is being used by men—it is mostly men in these types of cases—to avoid convictions for serious offences or to receive a reduction in any sentence when they are convicted. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor indicated on Second Reading, this area of law is extremely complex. It is therefore important that anything that is placed in the Bill does not have unintended consequences. In acting with the best of intentions, we do not want to inadvertently create loopholes or uncertainties in the law that can then be exploited by those who perpetrate such crimes.
If I may, I would just like to take a moment to thank my friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). As the co-Minister on the Bill, he has brought all his legal expertise to the consideration of how we can address the mischief and the upset, which we all want to address, in a way that does not have unintended consequences.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I join the Minister in doing that? This issue has bedevilled criminal law cases going back to the 1920s and 1930s. The attempt in the past has been to fit appropriate legal protections within the framework of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It is particularly to be welcomed that we have now moved away from that rather antiquated straitjacket and have something that is fit for purpose. The work the Government and my hon. Friends have done is immeasurably important to legal practitioners, as well as to victims.
Victoria Atkins
I am happy to take that intervention and I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his support.
In new clauses 4 and 5, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest have, broadly, sought to codify the principles set out in current case law in this area, namely that which resulted from the case R v. Brown. That case involved a group of men who participated in sadomasochistic activities. We have taken up the challenge set by the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend and, working closely with them, have tabled new clause 20 to achieve just that. More specifically, the new clause aims to make it clear that consent to serious harm for sexual gratification is not a defence in law. The new clause codifies, and therefore restates, the general proposition of law expressed in the case of R v. Brown, which is that a person may not consent to the infliction of serious harm and, by extension, their own death. Those interested in such matters will note that we have been careful to preserve the position in relation to sexually transmitted infections, but we have done so in a way very much in keeping with current case law. I hope that the House has been reassured that new clause 20 achieves the objective of providing the confirmation and clarification of the law requested.
I am very conscious that many Back Benchers wish to speak—sadly, many have put in to speak but will not be called due to the level of interest in this important piece of proposed legislation—but, if I may, I will take a little time to address an issue that I know is of great importance not just to those of us in this place, but to those who work in the world of tackling domestic abuse and, of course, to the victims themselves. That is the issue of migrant women, in particular migrant women who have no recourse to public funds. If I may, I will deal with new clauses 22, 25 and 26 in this part of my speech.
I hope hon. Members received a “Dear colleague” letter this morning from me and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, explaining our position. We are absolutely committed to doing what we can to support all migrant victims of domestic abuse as victims first and foremost. In 2012, we introduced the destitution domestic violence concession—the DDVC—to support migrant victims of domestic abuse who are living in this country on the basis of certain partner visas. Such people have come to the UK with the intention of living here permanently with the reasonable expectation of obtaining indefinite leave to remain. The DDVC is not available to people who enter the country on other visas, such as visitor, student or work visas, or, indeed, to anyone who is here illegally. This is because in order to obtain such visas they will have confirmed that they are financially independent and therefore require no recourse to public funds, and their stay will be for a defined period of time. They do not, therefore, have a legitimate expectation of securing indefinite leave to remain. Simply extending the DDVC to all migrant victims is therefore not the way to address the needs of migrant victims who currently cannot claim under that scheme. We need to find a way of ensuring that they have adequate support, rather than provide a pathway to indefinite leave to remain or a blanket lifting of the no recourse to public funds condition.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the points that the Minister has made on other topics, but on this one, if she wants to do further research and investigation why not just lift the provisions and requirements on no recourse to public funds in the meantime, until the research is completed and she has more information about what she wants to do next?
Victoria Atkins
The right hon. Lady makes a point that I know would, at first blush, be attractive, but the problem is that we do not have that bedrock of evidence. We are coming to the Dispatch Box with an open heart, and I hope that it is acknowledged across the House that that has been our approach throughout the Bill proceedings. I do not know whether she has had a chance to read the report that we published last week into the work that the Home Office has done. There has been some very good work by charities, through the tampon tax funding and so on, but we are unable to put in the figures that we need to in order to undertake the sort of reform that she is urging upon us. We must have the data to ensure that anything that we are putting forward in the longer term best meets the needs of victims and is sustainable.
A person who comes to this country on, for example, a six-month visitor visa falls under one of the categories that one of the witnesses gave evidence to the Joint Committee on, in the evidence that was given to us as part of this review—the Southall Black Sisters. The right hon. Lady will know that people on visitor visas, who may be here for six months, will have made representations to the Home Office specifically on their financial circumstances, and we want to ensure that we can treat such people fairly and give them access to the help that they need. It is why we are very keen to focus on support rather than to follow the urgings of others that we deal with immigration status before we look at support. We want to help these victims to access help first and foremost as victims.
The pilot programme is to determine how we ensure that victims can obtain immediate access to support, and that any future strategy meets the immediate needs of victims and is fit for purpose. Support for migrant victims is a very important issue for all of us. We recognise that, which is why we are committed to launching the pilot project as quickly as possible. We are currently reviewing the options for implementing the pilot and expect to make further announcements in the summer, ahead of its launch in the autumn. We must resist the urge to act before we have the evidence on which to base comprehensive proposals, to ensure that measures are appropriate.
As I say, I want to give plenty of time to Members to debate the Bill at this important stage of its scrutiny. Before I do, I thank hon. Members—I hope I do not speak too soon—for the very constructive, collegiate approach we have taken, all of us, on this Bill. I know some very different viewpoints may be held on particular issues that will be debated in this Chamber this afternoon, but I know that the House will keep at the forefront of its mind that we are debating this Bill because we all want to help victims of domestic abuse and we all want the abuse to stop.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As the Minister has said, there is a lot of interest, not surprisingly, in wanting to take part in this debate. For the first four non-Government contributors, I will allow seven minutes, and thereafter the limit will be five minutes. Even with that, I am afraid not everybody is going to get in.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I would like to start by saying that we on the Labour Benches fully support all the Government’s new clauses and amendments today. Many of them and, in fact, many of the changes to the Bill since its very first draft, all those many moons ago, have been things that we on the Opposition side of the House have championed from both the Front and Back Benches. The Government have taken an approach throughout the whole process of this Bill of seeking always to try to improve it. For this, we are very grateful, and the victims in this country will be grateful. The Bill still has a number of processes to go through in the other place, and I very much hope that the Government will continue to have this attitude to positive change as the Bill progresses, although let us hope it progresses perhaps quicker than it has in the past.
To touch on a number of the Government’s amendments very briefly—in support—the changes suggested to the family courts were, by and large, amendments tabled by the Labour party in Committee, and they come hot on the heels of the Family Law Panel review, which was a very good, thorough and timely piece of work. I want to praise my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle), for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituents and victims across the country to seek that review. I make a very special mention of Women’s Aid, and of Rachel Williams, Sammy Woodhouse and Claire Throssell—all victims and campaigners who have pushed family law reform for victims of sexual and domestic violence through their own pain, suffering and loss.
The amendment on including children in the definition of domestic abuse was again an amendment tabled by the Labour party in Committee. For this, we are eternally grateful, and I look forward to seeing it in today’s amended Bill. Huge thanks for this go to all the children and young people who joined the campaign to speak of their experiences of living with domestic abuse and about how, without question, this had victimised them. I want to say thank you to Charlie Webster and, in memory of Karl, Jack and Daniel, we once again pay tribute to them. To all the children’s charities from national groups such as Action for Children, Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children’s Society to local grass-roots campaigners such as Free Your Mind in London, WE:ARE —Women’s Empowerment And Recovery Educators—in Birmingham and Wirral Women and Children’s Aid in Merseyside, I say thank you for all seeing those children and fighting for them.
As for amendments regarding the rough sex defence, so ably championed by my inimitable right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the new hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), as well as by the brilliant campaign We Can’t Consent To This, I simply want to say one thing. Natalie Connolly’s name and story has rung out around this Chamber and been told in many newspapers, and the bravery of her family will see this law changed. Today, I do not want to remember her for how she died or to allow a violent man to get to say what her story was. I simply want to remember Natalie, a brilliant, beautiful, bright mother, sister, daughter—a woman who had a story all of her own about the things she loved and cared for. I hope that now the story of Natalie Connolly can be that: one that centres her as a human, just like all of us, not the story that somebody else told.
As the Minister has alluded to, we are debating new clause 23, which stands in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition, and we return to what seems now like an age-old issue: how we deal with victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds. In Committee, the Minister and I disagreed over the terminology for who we were talking about. I decided to refer to our care workers, NHS workers, people in this building serving us our drinks, to highlight the kind of people I was talking about when I referred to people with no recourse to public funds. The Minister, quite rightly, cited evidence of asylum seekers or even those with irregular immigration status.
Fundamentally, it does not matter on which rhetorical side of the fence we fall. We are talking about people, humans, who, when they have been raped, beaten, controlled and abused, before we ask them how we can help, first we ask what stamp is in their passport. This cannot be right. What is more, the situation as it is today is not only hindering support to victims; it is helping to leave rapists, abusers and violent perpetrators on our streets.
Since our debate in Committee, a number of police officers from across the country have been in touch with me. This is what they told me. One officer said:
“For years now, we have faced difficulties trying to effectively safeguard subjects of very serious offences. There are some things in place, such as the destitution domestic violence concession, but this process can take weeks to sort. The refuges are usually very helpful, but they obviously cannot operate without being paid, so we are often left with subjects being isolated in hotels for weeks, which is a bad outcome for everyone.”
Another officer from a different force got in touch and said:
“The current situation has a serious impact on the police’s safeguarding duties. It also has a knock-on effect on our ability to investigate domestic abuse as crimes, since officers are distracted by the need to find alternative safe accommodation and support, rather than concentrate on their primary role, which is to investigate the commission of potential criminal offences.”
The Minister is right to seek evidence, so I have looked to my own force, in the west midlands, which is a place obviously close to my heart. There the police public protection unit last year, out of police force funding, spent £23,161 on temporary accommodation. While some of this will have been due to the pressure on refuge places, I understand from the force that a common reason is accommodating out of police resources victims with no recourse to public funds. As the Minister seeks to gather evidence, I wonder if she will ask every police force how much police money—money that could fund a police officer—they are spending on such temporary accommodation.
The Government’s own draft guidance essentially admits that no recourse to public funds is a barrier to women getting out of abusive situations. In the Government’s words:
“Victims who have entered the UK from overseas may face additional barriers when attempting to escape domestic abuse that are related to their lack of access to public services and funds, leading to higher dependence on the partner or family that has supported their being in the UK. This may be exploited by partners or family members to exert control over victims.”
The police are saying this is a problem, all the expert charities bar none are saying it is a problem, Members of Parliament who face these issues every day are saying it is a problem, and the Government’s own guidance highlights that it is a problem and is being used by perpetrators, so why do we not seek to fix the problem? Our new clause seeks to meet the Government in the middle using what they suggested in Committee. We are suggesting that for the year of the pilot project outlined by the Government they trial the end to no recourse to public funds for victims of domestic abuse.
We have listened to the Government’s concerns regarding the pathways to settled status and essentially pleaded with Ministers to test whether giving these victims access to public funds will make a difference. The experts all say it will. Although I recognise what Ministers are saying about needing hard data, you cannot prove a negative; we will never know how many people turned up for help but were turned away because access was not available to them.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that we just do not know what the picture is. If we were to do away temporarily with the “no recourse to public funds” condition, that would bring people forward, confident that they would not be penalised in any other way.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. I agree not because it suits my purpose, but as someone with a vast amount of experience of handling cases of victims with no recourse to public funds, both as a support worker and as a Member of Parliament. My heart sinks when somebody tells me that they have no recourse, when I know there is very little I can do. That is when they come to me—someone who knows the different possible pilots that are happening. With the greatest respect to Members in this House, does everybody know how they would go about accessing exactly what was needed? Now think of Sue, who is at your local homelessness centre. The reality is that we will never know how many get turned away—that data will never be available—but by dropping “no recourse”, we can find out if it works.
As legislators, if we know something is a problem, we have a responsibility to address it. Our ideology should always be trumped by facts. I understand that often making law is complicated—seeing the consequences of this or the repercussions of that, the risks, benefits, checks and balances—but I think the Bill before us is quite simple. Today, we are making a law that tries to save people from domestic abuse.
New clause 25 would insert a non-discrimination clause to ensure that all are protected. If we stand here today and create a Bill that, not unintentionally or accidentally, but purposefully and wilfully excludes some from safety, we say that those people do not matter. We say that their life is not as important to us. In the votes today, we will be deciding whose lives are worth trying to save and how serious we are about trying to save them. Our new clause seeks to meet the Government in the middle. It is certainly not, as the Minister knows from the many amendments I tabled in Committee, necessarily what I always wanted, but it is an attempt to meet the Government in the middle. I simply ask that they walk toward us.
New clause 23 would expand an area where the Bill is very good—the duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based services. This part of the Bill was hard won, and I will be thrilled to see it on the statute book, as it has the potential to put refuge services finally on a sustainable footing. However, 70% of domestic abuse victims do not receive services in refuge; instead, they are supported in community-based services. The victims in those services are often at highest risk of harm and homicide, and we want the same level of sustainability and strategy there as in refuge services.
I spoke last week to a brilliant community worker in Merseyside, who told me that their service, which has only four support workers, is currently supporting 776 complex domestic abuse cases. She had yet to receive any money from the announced covid-19 schemes, which would only last until October anyway. She told me how the easing of lockdown and the good and right national conversation about domestic abuse was massively increasing the numbers and the complexity of their caseload.
Our clause would place a duty on all relevant public bodies, not just local authorities, to do their part in commissioning domestic abuse services in the community. Every single health commissioner should have a duty to look at what domestic abuse services they can provide. Instead, as it stands, some A&E departments, such as those at the hospitals in Birmingham, have specialist domestic abuse workers on site, but the vast majority do not. If public bodies are working with people, they are working with victims of domestic abuse. All should do their part.
The new clause would also ensure consideration for specialist groups catering for child victims, disabled victims, those working with perpetrators of abuse, LGBT victims, male victims and older victims, as well as services run by and for black and minority ethnic women, so that they have proper strategies in place to protect them. Groups such as Sistah Space in Hackney, which offers specialist services for black women, and Stay Safe East, which is one of only a tiny number of specialist disabled victims’ services, live hand to mouth, never knowing how sustainable their services might be. They rely on crowdfunding and fun runs to fund life-saving services.
I remember what it was like working in those services, drafting letters every January to put community-based staff on notice because we did not know, for example, whether our project catering for child victims or stalking victims would be funded after April. That is the reality for the vast majority of community services. The Bill recognises that refuge needs to be put on a sustainable footing. Bravo! It is absolutely brilliant. I think I said to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that I might retire when that happened, but I will renege on that—sometimes even I do not tell the truth.
We must give the same attention to vital life-saving community services, which support the vast majority of victims in this country. One-hundred-and-twenty specialist community-based support services from all across our country wrote to the Government, and to all of us, to say:
“Our services have remained open during COVID-19—our staff have moved heaven and earth to make that so—ensuring we don’t let victims of abuse down. Now we look to you”—
the Government—
“to continue that commitment by pledging to recognise the huge contribution of community-based services in the Domestic Abuse Bill.”
Our new clause would do that.
In new clause 24, we seek, once and for all, to take decisive action to protect the lives of children who live with domestic abuse and have their cases heard in the family court. Between 2006 and 2019, at least 21 children were killed during contact with fathers who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. The Government’s report, released last week, states that many mothers explained how they fled the relationship with their father to protect their children, only to find that protection undermined or destroyed by the family court. The Opposition recognise that the Government, and especially the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), committed to a review of the pro-contact family court culture and how in some cases it endangers the lives and welfare of children. I have heard Ministers and Secretaries of State stand in the Chamber and cite the case of Claire Throssell, whose two sons, Jack and Paul, were murdered by their father after he was granted contact. We should not just say her name or think of her loss as some grisly exception when the Government’s own commissioned review shows that there is a systematic problem. We should act now to save lives and improve the safety of our country’s children while we have this Bill in front of us. At the very least, the Government should seek to ensure that their planned review is time-bound to conclude with the return of the Bill from the other place. If it is not, we could lose the legislative opportunity that is presented to us.
The argument to end the presumption of contact for proven violent perpetrators is, in my mind, made. There are already dead children—and I do not want to have to call for an urgent question to ask Ministers where we are with the review each time a new case of child homicide hits the media. I want us to act now, or at least to commit to a short timeframe of when and how the Government will act. I have no doubt that Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice understand the severity and importance of the issue and, like the Opposition, do not want to kick the safety of our children into the long grass.
Amendments 40 and 43 relate to the degree of independence afforded to the commissioner of domestic abuse. The Bill before us deviates from the precedent set for the Children’s Commissioner by requiring reports and advice to be submitted to the Home Office rather than Parliament. Our amendments would retain the statutory requirement for safeguarding considerations but remove the possibility of the Home Office interfering, putting on undue pressure, or, in reality, just delaying the commissioner’s work. Every commissioner who gave evidence to Parliament in consultation for the Bill supports this approach. We will not press these amendments to a vote today, but we are keen to see further debate on the commissioner once the Bill arrives at the other place.
We do not stand here today to fight a political battle. The Domestic Abuse Bill has all our fingerprints across its pages. Its very existence sends a message to the victims in this country that we can see them, and to the perpetrators, that we will not tolerate them. We tabled the amendments and new clauses because, as has been the case since the Bill’s inception many, many moons ago, we want it to be the best it can be and for it to ensure that, no matter who you are, where you come from, where you work or whether you need refuge or want support in your own home, here in this Great Britain, we want to help you, because that is the kind of country we are: one that leaves no victim behind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We move on to the seven-minute limit.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
May I say how much I welcome the fact that the Bill has returned for its Report stage and Third Reading? This is a very important Bill. I will not be able to speak on Third Reading, so I shall take this opportunity to thank the Ministers who have shown their significant commitment to the Bill in taking it through the Committee and the House. I thank all the officials in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, who I know, from my time in the Home Office, also have a very real commitment to seeing that we have improved legislation to help the victims of domestic abuse. I also thank all Members of this House, because this is truly a Bill where there has been cross-party support and where every effort has been made to ensure that the Bill can go through in the best shape that it can. I will come to an area where there is obviously, as we have seen, a difference of opinion across the Chamber, but I think that this has been an excellent example of the House at its best, working with Government to improve the lives of victims up and down the country.
I want to welcome, particularly, two of the amendments that the Government have put forward—first, new clause 15, which relates to children. I have said before in the Chamber that this is, as my hon. Friend the Minister referenced, an important area. For too long, we turned a blind eye to the impact that domestic abuse had on children in a home in which that abuse was taking place. It is absolutely right that we should now recognise that those children are also affected. Their lives are affected and for so many, their whole future adulthood has been affected by what they have experienced, seen or heard within their home, where domestic abuse is taking place.
I also particularly welcome the way in which the Government have dealt with the issue of the rough sex defence. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the campaign that they have fought to keep this at the forefront of thinking and ensure that some changes could be made in relation to the Bill.
I want to pick up on what is—as is clear from what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), has just said—an area of disagreement across the Chamber in relation to migrant women. I and others across the House will of course have dealt with cases of constituents who have come to this country, very often with the hope and expectation that they would marry and have a happy and settled life here in the future, only to find themselves the victims of domestic abuse and to find that their immigration status, or their uncertain immigration status, is used by their abusers as a further way to abuse them and keep them within that abusive relationship. Obviously the DDVC acted in relation to those who are here on partner visas, but there is concern that there are those who still fall through the net and find themselves unable to access the support necessary for them.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that some of the posters we have seen during the course of covid, emphasising that domestic abuse is something that always works at home, have been incredibly compelling in getting across the message that she is seeking to make?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would also say that some of the local health trusts in my area in Berkshire have put together small videos getting out important messages about the support that is available and the fact that that support is there for people who are the victims of domestic abuse.
I hope the Government are going to publicise this Bill. It is important that victims and perpetrators know the implications of the Bill, particularly the fact that for domestic violence protection orders and notices, for example, it is not up to the victim to apply—others and third parties can apply for those things. Perpetrators need to know that.
Overall, this is a very important Bill. I welcome the cross-party support for it. I hope it will have a swift passage through the other place, because the sooner this Bill is on the statute book, the sooner we can provide extra support and help to the victims of domestic abuse. We will be able to say to them, “We are on your side. We understand. We want to help. It is not your fault”. The sooner the Bill is on the statute book, the sooner we can say to perpetrators, “This has got to stop.”
Yvette Cooper
May I begin by welcoming the work that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has done on domestic abuse over many years, the personal interest that she has taken in the issue, and her work on coercive control and on getting this Bill started in the first place?
I welcome the Bill and the amendments that the Government have tabled, particularly those around strengthening protections for children, strengthening protections in court and ending the appalling rough sex defence. I welcome the Government’s response to Members right across the House, who have been campaigning so powerfully for added measures and for changes to protect people from this awful crime—this torture in the home. The importance of this Bill and these measures has only grown during the coronavirus crisis, as perpetrators have exploited lockdown to increase their control and abuse, and calls to helplines and concerns have increased. Since the beginning of lockdown, 35 women and children have been murdered by a partner or ex.
I particularly want to speak to new clauses 32 and 33, which have cross-party support. I pay tribute to Laura Richards at Paladin who was behind a lot of this work, and encourage the Government to look at the report that she has published today which shows that there is a serious gap in the way our system responds to the risk from serial perpetrators of abuse. There are systems in place, such as multi-agency risk assessment conferences, to manage the risks to repeat victims, but there are no proper systematic approaches in place to monitor or tackle repeat perpetrators. These are dangerous people—predominantly dangerous men—who may go on to become ever more dangerous.
We need to make sure that when the call comes in about domestic abuse by someone who has been convicted before for abuse against someone else, it is not just treated as a new or one-off offence. We need to ensure that there are systems in place to join up the dots to link police, probation and support services together and to monitor people who have a series of previous domestic abuse or stalking convictions so that if they start a new relationship, the police and local services know that a new family are at risk and can take action. Too often, that does not happen. Clare’s law does not solve the problem because it relies on an individual asking about an offender’s history. What if they do not know to ask? What if they are too scared? Why is it still left to victims to ask for help, rather than having a proper system in place to monitor serial abusers and offenders? As Laura Richards points out,
“professionals load the victim up with actions and a safety plan and rarely do any multi-agency problem solving and risk management regarding the perpetrator.”
New clause 32 calls on the Government properly to review the way in which serial abusers are monitored and managed, and to publish that review swiftly. New clause 33 sets out a stronger way to respond to serial abusers, by bringing them into the process for managing serious offenders—the multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPAs—so that serial domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers can be properly addressed. So far, the Government have resisted this.
In response to the recommendation in our Home Affairs Committee report on this subject a few years ago, they said, “Well, we will work with the police and with existing information systems.” Those information systems are not working. The police national database is far too sporadic and patchy with regards to the way in which police officers respond to this issue across the country. The Government have said that they do not want a stand-alone register, but this does not have to be a stand-alone register. The whole point is to bring this into the existing MAPPA and violent and sex offender register—ViSOR—processes that are currently used for sex offenders and the most serious violent offenders. We have processes that can work. Why not use them for serial domestic abusers who can escalate that abuse?
Nor is it good enough for the Government to simply say, “Well, there’s a lot of good work under way. We’ve got to respond to pilots.” We have already heard them say in response to the powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), on the need to address the issue of no recourse to public funds for migrant women, that we need to wait for pilots. In that case, it is not enough to respond to pilots. We should be taking some action while we wait for those pilots to conclude.
Similarly, on serial domestic abusers, by all means let us have pilots and different measures in place on how best to respond to perpetrators, but let us get on with having the systems that can join up the information so that the police and probation can work together and know who those dangerous serial abusers are. The tragedy is that Laura Richards’s report lists case after case where that did not happen, where someone has been murdered and the killer had a history—the killer had abused many times before—and the police, probation services and others did not have a system in place to identify that and to respond. It has happened too many times.
If Ministers will not listen to me and will not listen to the Select Committee when we make these recommendations, perhaps they will instead listen to the calls from the families of victims. Perhaps they will listen to the words of John Clough, the father of Jane Clough, who said,
“It’s way past time serial abusers and stalkers were treated with the same gravitas as sex offenders and managed in a similar fashion”,
or those of Celia Peachey, daughter of Maria Stubbings, who said,
“My mum was failed and the lessons have not been learned. Our current system is failing women and children—violent men must be made visible. Men with violent histories must be checked and joined up.”
I urge the Minister not to simply reject these amendments out of hand. Even if the Government are not yet able to accept new clause 33, which would set up the system and process to manage serial offenders, I urge them to at least accept new clause 32, to urgently review the risk management of these serial abusers and offenders across the country and report back, so that we can keep more women safe.
Caroline Nokes
I welcome the opportunity to speak once more on the Domestic Abuse Bill—I have done so several times now. It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Theresa May), who has given so much passion and commitment to this incredibly serious issue, and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has demonstrated ably that it is possible to work on a cross-party basis, even convincing me to add my name to some of her amendments. She makes a good case about the importance of identifying and registering serial perpetrators of domestic abuse, so that victims can be forewarned of what they are potentially getting themselves into.
I am conscious that many Members wish to speak, but I am also conscious that we are missing the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who has spoken so passionately in this House. I hope that, this afternoon, all of us can be a voice for her. My hon. Friend the Minister has worked incredibly hard on this Bill, and during its passage she has still made time to listen to many Back-Bench Members who have wanted to raise their concerns. I appreciate that she has brought forward a series of amendments on Report which demonstrate that she has been listening, and in those areas where she has not been able to bring forward amendments and new clauses, she has still shown commitment. I use as an example the conversations I have had with her about the fact that domestic abuse should be recorded whatever the age of the victim. She has undertaken to continue to work with the Office for National Statistics. We know that, tragically, abuse can occur at any age—just being a pensioner does not make someone immune or exempt. It is crucial that we have the statistics and that she continues that work so that we can understand the full scale of the problem.
I am relieved to see the inclusion of new clauses that give greater protection to children who witness abuse and the commitment on housing victims of abuse. Finally, after an incredible pincer movement by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Harriet Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), we have new clause 20, which will bring to an end the so-called rough sex defence. That new clause and much of the other work that has gone on shows that this place is better when we can put aside the adversarial nature of the House and ensure that we find cross-party solutions. However, inevitably, I will turn to some of the areas on which we have failed to find cross-party solutions and consensus.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of my new clause 34, which seeks to make it an offence to threaten to disclose private photographs. We all know from the debates that we have had and the representations that we have received that abuse occurs in many forms. It can be financial. It can be the withdrawal of a passport. It can involve mental control and coercive control. It is already an offence to share private intimate images or films. My new clause seeks to make it a specific offence to threaten to do so, because that is part of the mental control that abusers use over their victims. It need not necessarily be an actual act but can be the threat of an act.
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend knows that in recent days a range of views have been expressed, including by two Royal Colleges, on new clause 28 and what it seeks to achieve. Indeed, there are difficulties with the new clause. The Government therefore consider that the right way forward is to undertake a public consultation on whether to make permanent the current covid-19 measure allowing for home use of early medical abortion pills up to 10 weeks’ gestation for all eligible women. Does that reassure her?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for that commitment and look forward to the consultation coming forward. It is important that we have the opportunity to look further at how these emergency regulations have worked during the period of covid and that we understand how they can assist women. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will say something about this in his closing comments. I do not know whether the appropriate place is via new legislation or via the consultation that my hon. Friend referred to, but there is clearly a real need for debate and for this House to be able to express its view and understand the issue thoroughly.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke with her usual forcefulness, and she will know that I have found common ground with much of what she said. I welcome her support for the broad direction of the Bill. I also welcome her comments about the need for us to find a mechanism to support migrant women who are the victims of domestic abuse. I have said this previously in the Chamber and I have no doubt that I will say it again. I vividly recall sitting around a table with my hon. Friend the Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who was then in the Ministry of Justice; the noble Baroness Williams, who I think was the Victims Minister; Southall Black Sisters and other charities; and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, who I always regard as an expert on these matters. There was consensus around the room that we have to find a way to treat the migrant victims of domestic abuse as victims first. I am sure that there are differences of opinion—as there were in the room that day—as to how we best do that. I very much hope that the pilot projects of which my hon. Friend the Minister has spoken will be able to provide us with the data that we need so that we can find a long-term, enduring solution to help, and help effectively, victims of domestic abuse who are here perhaps with no legal public funds or with insecure immigration status that means they are dependent on their partner for their right to be in the UK.
Whether it is the much-needed changes that are to be introduced in respect of the family courts—I welcome new clauses 16, 17 and 18—or other measures, it is crucial that we find a way to make our court system support the victims of domestic abuse. We must find a mechanism whereby it supports the children who might otherwise be obliged to come into contact with perpetrators. I welcome the fact that we are moving to a position wherein the legal process will no longer be able to perpetuate abuse.
My hon. Friend the Minister has worked hard on the Bill, and I welcome the changes that have been introduced. I commend her for having made such enormous progress. It has been a difficult journey for a Bill much delayed. We are not there yet, but I sincerely hope that our noble Friends in the other place do not delay the process much further. I commend my hon. Friend her for her very hard work.
Sir Robert Neill
This is a very important Bill and I warmly welcome it. It deals with a number of what have hitherto been quite intractable legal and social issues. It is to the Government’s great credit, and to the credit of Members from all parties, that we have managed to find a practical way forward to resolve a number of those otherwise intractable issues.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I particularly welcome the measures to bring procedures in the family courts into line with the protections that have existed for a long time in the criminal courts. That deficiency is a problem that has been recognised for a long time by practitioners and many of the judiciary in the family courts, so we are right that to plug that gap.
I hope the Minister will indicate that we will have regulations to set out the specified offences in relation to new clause 17 as soon as possible, so that there is clarity on that.
On new clause 18, proposed new section 85H is a particularly important provision. It specifies in subsection (7) that the qualified legal representative appointed by the court to carry out the cross-examination
“is not responsible to the party.”
That is necessary and deals with the difficult situation wherein the abusive party seeking to make the cross-examination raises issues that in the interests of justice need to be tested by the cross-examination of the alleged victim or victim, but that rightly should not be done by the abuser because they will continue the abuse. The court therefore appoints the advocate, and it is important that we stress that that advocate is, in effect, acting as amicus curiae—they are acting to assist the court—and has no responsibility to the abusive party.
I hope, too, that we will make it clear that the regulations that provide for the remuneration of those advocates are interpreted generously, because those who assist the court in such a way will be undertaking a particularly onerous and difficult task. They may well often be hampered by the hostility of the abusive party while acting in the interests of the justice whose case they have to test by cross-examination the case of the victim. That is a difficult position that we are, out of social necessity, putting that advocate in, and they deserve to be properly recompensed for the time that I suspect is likely to be required to do that job properly. Subject to those caveats, the provisions are very welcome.
The abolition of the consent defence in new clause 4 is particularly welcome. There is no doubt that the matter was settled in large measure by the case of Brown and the decision of the House of Lords—the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, as it then was—but the law had been very difficult going back to the case of Donovan in 1934, which stood during the early days of my practice at the Bar. Even on the Brown decision there was dissent within the House of Lords. A number of judgments in the Brown case suggested that because of the awkward interaction of social policy and the attempt to fit the regime with that in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which hardly works for the type of pornographic videos and so on that we see nowadays and that propagated some of this behaviour, if it were to be changed further it needed the intervention of Parliament, not least because it also engaged issues such as the right to privacy under the European convention on human rights. It is right that we act in the way that we do to give legislative clarity, rather than placing the courts in the difficulty of interpreting such policy areas.
I will turn, if I may, to the point about acquired brain injury that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made. I am not sure that legislation is the way forward, but I know that the Justice Committee, in a number of our considerations, noted the fact that it is only in recent years that the extent of pre-acquired brain injury and the impact that it can have within the justice system—criminal, civil and family—has begun to be recognised. Further work and research in this field will be a very welcome thing in any event.
I listened with great care to the shadow Minister’s case for new clause 24 and the proceedings under the Children Act. I am very sympathetic, but my only qualm is in relation to section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014, which set up the presumption of parental involvement and was regarded as progressive in its time. We do know, and she is absolutely right, that there have been the most egregious and terrible cases of abuse of that presumption, but if we are to change it, are we right to move from a presumption to an outright prohibition in a certain classification of case—where the issue of abuse arises, I accept that—or are we better to go to something like a rebuttable presumption against access in such supervision cases? That is the area in which we need to have a proper debate. That is why I welcome the panel’s recommendation of further consideration of how we get to where I think we all want to be, with the best, most legally watertight and most effective measure.
In relation to new clause 28, with every great respect to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), I rather agree with the formulation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). The only other issue that I would raise from my experience as a criminal practitioner is that, on more than one occasion, I found instances where part of the abuse had been to force the victim to have an abortion. The irony is that reliance on a telephone call to procure the means of doing that does not give the safeguard of knowing who is standing next to the victim when she makes the telephone call. I have certainly seen instances of that in practice, as other criminal practitioners will have done. Although the intentions are good and well meant, I have a concern about moving down the route set out in new clause 28.
All in all, however, this is a good Bill. There are good, constructive amendments that I hope we will forward today. I, too, express the hope that the other place will pass the Bill swiftly, because it is a major piece of reform that has been embarked on here and, for once, the way that the House has worked together on this should bring credit to our system and our consensual approach, for which we should all be very grateful.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Minister for the helpful and courteous way that she has navigated this Bill through the House over the years? I was a member of the draft Bill Committee and then of the Bill Committee that met just before the general election in 2019. I have watched with interest as the Bill has developed and, I am in no doubt, improved. I also thank my own party’s Front-Bench team for their work and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for her tireless campaigning.
The issue that I want the House to consider today is one that has not been discussed before in all the hours of debate around domestic abuse, and it has arisen out of the covid-19 pandemic and the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that women could access reproductive healthcare services during lockdown. The Government made it very clear that that was going to be a temporary measure and that it would be revoked as soon as possible. Although the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee chided me in her contribution for tabling new clause 28, I am sure that she will understand that the opportunities to raise these matters are very few and far between and it seems to me that if you don’t go fishing, you don’t catch any fish.
New clause 28 is supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, the British Society of Abortion Care Providers, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Marie Stopes, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Women’s Aid. Hon. Members will be aware that current abortion law restricts the ability of healthcare professionals to provide care to women. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that abortion takes place on licensed premises.
That means that, outside covid regulations, women have to attend a clinic or hospital to administer the first pill as part of an early medical abortion, even if a woman is unable to safely attend a clinic because she is in an abusive relationship.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This is a really good Bill that has been made better by scrutiny. I pay tribute to the Prime Ministers, Ministers and shadow Ministers past and present who have made such fantastic contributions to it. The cross-party working, as ably demonstrated with regard to the rough sex defence, is a particular tribute to this House. I pay tribute, too, to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for Newbury (Laura Farris). There are other good additions to the Bill that have not had that level of publicity that I will speak to before I reference my new clauses 35 and 36.
I am really pleased that, with new clause 15, children have been added to the Bill. We know that about three quarters of child safeguarding cases involve domestic abuse. I hope that the Bill will apply to all children and babies—none should be outside the definition. It needs to apply to unborn babies as well, because, again, disgracefully, we know that something like a third of domestic abuse begins during a woman’s pregnancy. The impact that that can have on the woman herself, of course, and on the relationship with the baby, and the stress levels that are caused, are considerable and could be with that child throughout their whole lifetime.
New clause 15 is important to view children and the impact that the perpetrator has on them as part of the equation and to make sure that support is available to help them. I hope that the domestic abuse commissioner, when she makes the community based services assessment, will make sure that appropriate provision for children is included in it.
I certainly support new clauses 16, 17 and 18, which will hopefully counter the re-traumatising of victims in the court environment, as we have done for rape cases as well. I have added my name to new clauses 32 and 33 with the Home Affairs Committee Chair. One item that is not included in the Bill—I also raised this on Second Reading and I hope the Minister will take it on board—is recognising suicides that are caused as a result of domestic abuse. It is really important that they are investigated properly by the police, as they would be if they were domestic abuse homicides, and that they are recorded as suicides. I would be grateful if that could be looked at.
My new clauses 35 and 36 are not rocket science. New clause 35 contains a duty to co-operate in relation to children awaiting NHS treatment. I want to thank the domestic abuse charity Hestia, which is one of the largest providers of refuges in London and the south-east, and its UK Says No More campaign, which has been so powerful. According to the Children’s Commissioner, 831,000 children are in households where there has been domestic abuse. About half the residents in refuges are children. The traumatic impact on children cannot be underestimated, particularly on their mental health in the short, medium and long term. Those who have to flee their home to go to a refuge, sometimes moving out of area altogether, should not lose out on timely access to the healthcare services they have relied on before the domestic abuse impact, as well as those that have resulted from it. Waiting lists and approved treatments can differ from one clinical commissioning group to the next, so this new clause is modelled on the priority access for military veterans under the armed forces covenant for servicemen, servicewomen and their families when they move around the country. It would maintain children’s places on waiting lists with the co-operation of various parts of the NHS.
New clause 36 follows a similar principle for school admissions. Local authorities have a duty to provide school places for looked-after children and adopted children as a priority. As we know, it can be highly disruptive when children are forced to leave their school, and in cases of domestic abuse, that can happen all of a sudden and through no fault of their own. Based on the principle that we apply to looked-after children, we need a simple revision by the Secretary State for Education to the schools admission code. These two new clauses are simple but important measures to ensure that, at such a traumatic time for children escaping domestic abuse, their health and education should be impacted as little as possible.
Finally, I would like to comment on new clause 28, on abortion, tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). As she knows, I have been supportive of the temporary measures and of the measures to include women from Northern Ireland in the ability to access these services, but I believe that this is a step too far. This is the wrong place for such a measure. It would make a temporary emergency provision long term and permanent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, has said, this could have a detrimental impact, with abusers forcing an abortion on their partner without the scrutiny of clinicians. On that basis, if the hon. Lady does force her new clause to a vote, which I hope she does not, I will be voting against it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and to participate in the debate. I want to take this opportunity to remind Members that figures published this week indicate that, in Northern Ireland in the past three months during the pandemic, there has been a 15% rise in 999 emergency calls relating to domestic abuse compared with the corresponding three months of last year. There is therefore a pertinence to today’s debate. I know the sincerity with which Members have approached these issues, given the contributions to the Bill’s different stages over the past number of months, not least those of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). I praise her again for her efforts.
It will come as no surprise that in previous contributions I have recognised the importance of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I have also acknowledged that there is a separate and corresponding Bill in our devolved legislature, but I have lamented the fact that the Bill in Northern Ireland tries only to close the gap in domestic abuse legislation prior to this Bill. The progress of this Bill will leave further glaring omissions in our legislative protection for abuse victims in Northern Ireland. There will be no statutory gender definition in our legislation, no provision for a domestic abuse commissioner or office in Northern Ireland, and no reforms to our family courts or review of child contact. No changes outlined in this Bill on housing, homelessness and refuges will have corresponding changes in the Northern Ireland legislation. No additional welfare policies in this Bill will apply in Northern Ireland to protect women and children, and there will be no protection for migrant services either.
I hope that in the contributions today and during the passage of this Bill, legislators in Northern Ireland will take appropriate account of the progress and changes that we are attaining here in the House of Commons and recognise that they are appropriate for further legislative consideration in Northern Ireland. There is no provision on stalking in our legislation, and no change on the non-fatal strangulation or rough sex issues. I commend the Minister for the work she has done and those who have campaigned on the rough sex defence, because today’s provision is an important step forward. I know I am going to be followed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and I think that our amendments are important; I hope he will take the time to outline the rationale behind providing legislative protection on parental alienation and recognising that those are important issues. I hope that they will receive support this afternoon.
On new clause 28, I agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We are not normally in the same place on issues such as this, but the rationale they have outlined at this time, on this Bill, is an important consideration.
Jim Shannon
We all know my position on abortion. Does my hon. Friend agree that this attempt to add new clause 28 to a Bill that is designed to protect from harm is opportunistic and simply wrong, and that we can never support it, although we absolutely advocate for the need for changes in our domestic abuse legislation?
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I agree with him in part, but I will say this about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson): I have never found her contribution on issues such as this to be provocative, offensive or sensationalist in the way she presents them, although I do not agree with many of them. She presents them in a very cogent and sensitive way, albeit I doubt we will ever agree on the issue at hand.
I look forward to the contribution from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I have said before that she embarks on herculean efforts when it comes the defence of life and of the rights of the unborn child. The three amendments she proposes to new clause 28 highlight its frailties. In amendments (a), (b) and (c), she highlights that it makes no reference to the nine-week, six-day time limit associated with the coronavirus provision of telemedicine abortion and no reference to whether new clause 28 applies to medical terminations or surgical terminations. As with the contribution from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, the new clause also makes no reference to the impact on victims of domestic abuse at home and the benefit of leaving that home and entering a clinical setting or engaging with the clinician, to highlight not just the pregnancy that they are struggling with, but the issues of abuse that they are struggling with. No reference is made to the 7% of women within our country who procure abortions not because they want them, but as a result of coercive control; there is no reference to the 7% of women who are forced to proceed and procure an abortion because of domestic abuse. In fairness, the hon. Lady was not in a position to outline the frailties associated with her new clause 28. I am grateful that, given the contributions I have heard so far, I do not think the House will be minded to support it. I will be very clear in my position that I can see no circumstances in which I could support it at all.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I have tabled 26 amendments, so I have about 10 seconds per amendment. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Minister for her consideration of my amendments. We may not have ended up in total agreement on them, but I appreciate the time she has spent engaging with me on them. They are simply about trying to make sure we protect all victims of domestic abuse. I have had many, many conversations with men and women on this subject, where they have agreed wholeheartedly with what I am trying to achieve. Most people understand that both men and women can be and are victims of domestic abuse, and both men and women can be and are perpetrators of domestic abuse. There are those who seek to claim that domestic violence is a gendered crime—in other words, that it is a crime done by men to women. Not only does this insult the male victims of domestic violence and ignore gay and lesbian victims of domestic abuse, but it is utter rubbish. For example, according to the official figures, a woman in a lesbian relationship is one and a half times more likely to be a victim of domestic abuse from her partner than a woman in a heterosexual relationship.
Mrs Miller
I am listening to my hon. Friend very carefully and I have read through his amendments very carefully, but I am not clear which aspect of the Bill he is disagreeing with, because this Bill of course covers every victim of domestic violence. What changes does he want to the Bill?
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, but unfortunately the Bill is not actually quite as it seems. There are references saying that the Government should take note of, and services should be provided on the basis of, the fact that women are more likely to be a victim than a man, but it should be irrelevant. It does not matter whether the victim is a male or a female—it is completely irrelevant—and we should take out any of those kinds of reference. The Bill should be gender neutral. That is the point I am trying to make.
In the rest of the time allowed, I want particularly to focus on my amendment 24, which is about classing parental alienation and when a parent deliberately prevents the other parent from having contact with their child or children for no good reason as domestic abuse. There are thousands—hundreds of thousands—of mums and dads, as well as grandmas and grandads, who do not have any relationship with their children at all, simply because one parent has deliberately and for no good reason turned their child against the other parent. I think they will find it quite extraordinary that all the main political parties are trying to block parental alienation being in the Bill as the criminal offence of domestic abuse. Parliament is failing those people, but I will keep speaking up for them. This is simply cruel—not just for the parent, and the grandparents, deprived of access, but for the children. It should be quite clearly classed as domestic abuse if this is done without any good reason at all.
I am very grateful to the Minister for including parental alienation and preventing contact with children as examples of domestic abuse in the recently released draft of the statutory guidance that goes alongside this Bill. I would have liked to see this in the Bill itself, but I believe that this is a momentous development, as it means that when considering domestic abuse, parental alienation and preventing contact are now specific examples that the Government have highlighted in their guidance. Such individuals, including those men and women who have written to me about their distressing personal experiences and who are clearly suffering now, have a message from the Government that what they are experiencing is clearly abuse. I very much hope that this will be of significant comfort to those who currently feel completely helpless in these situations.
Of my other amendments, I want to highlight one in particular in the time I have left. It is about lie detector tests, which have not come up in the rest of the debate. My amendment 26 would remove the use of lie detector tests. I am on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and we did an inquiry into “The Jeremy Kyle Show”. Many people in this House revile Jeremy Kyle because he used lie detector tests on his programme, and people pointed out that they are not reliable and that they come up with dodgy results. It seems extraordinary that the same people who pointed out that it was outrageous for Jeremy Kyle to use lie detector tests in an entertainment programme because they were not reliable would support using them in something as serious as this, when clearly the tests are just as unreliable as in his case. I would like to see the evidence that says that these tests are accurate and justifies their use, which, by the way, will presumably exonerate Jeremy Kyle; otherwise, we should not touch them with a bargepole. I look forward to hearing the Government’s evidence to support the use of lie detector tests. However, the main important message from me is that parental alienation is and should be domestic abuse.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is not particularly a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who talks about the alienation of fathers and grandparents when the family court has given and continues to give parental rights to men who have perpetrated violent crimes against their children. I find it absolutely disgusting.
The ongoing covid pandemic has shone a light on the paucity of services available to victims of domestic violence. Since 2010, funding for services has been decimated, as has been shown time and again, with mainly women and children finding themselves homeless and unsupported after falling victim to domestic abuse. That is why the Bill is welcome, even though it has been a long time coming. The Bill, at its heart, must be about providing services to people who have become victims of abuse by their partner, regardless of their gender. We know that it is mainly women who suffer from domestic abuse, be it physical violence, threatening behaviour or coercive control. The consequence of that could be an unwanted pregnancy.
Throughout lockdown, access to telemedicine has meant that illegal and highly unsafe abortion has almost completely disappeared across Great Britain. That is why I fully support new clause 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), which would ensure that women in abusive relationships can access care in a way that would not put them in danger. Abortion is essential healthcare, and many women in abusive relationships would seek to end a pregnancy without their partner’s knowledge. The current law puts those women in danger. That situation cannot continue. I welcome that the Minister mentioned a public consultation. The new clause would not change the underlying law on abortion. It would not change the time limit or the many healthcare laws and regulations that govern abortion. It would simply enable the most vulnerable women to access the care they need without the threat of prosecution.
Prosecutions must be brought where a defence of rough sex is invoked. There can never be consent where someone dies—never. I commend the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on this matter. Protection for women killed by men who claim that consent was granted is surely one of the most basic rights. We should pass into law measures that make it clear that that will not be tolerated. Speaking out on one’s experience of domestic violence is a very brave thing to do. A fear of reprisal stops many from speaking out. That is why I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who found it too difficult to come to the Chamber to speak this evening.
Many of the measures in the Bill are welcome, but there is such a hill to climb. We need to keep on protecting victims and their children. That is not just victims of domestic abuse. We must ensure that we provide a safe and fair family court system and that our justice system protects those who have been subjected to sexual assault. The overhaul of the family court for domestic abuse victims will transform so many lives, many of whom I have represented. I welcome the Government’s commitment to amending the Bill so that victims of domestic abuse will be automatically eligible for special measures in the family court.
I have been dealing with a young woman who was groomed and raped at age 15 by a man many years her senior. Her case was not taken seriously, and even though the perpetrator admitted what he had done in a police interview, it was not taken any further. Now, a few years on, this man has been sentenced to prison and is on the sex offenders’ register, but my constituent has suffered the most appalling neglect and lack of support in bringing the case, so much so that she feels worse for doing it. No victim of any crime should ever be made to feel such regret. This is not an isolated incident; we have all dealt with cases where women have not been believed and where children have been endangered. Without proper funding, services cannot be provided to people who need them. Without funding, people fall through the cracks, and for far too long too many have fallen through these cracks and been let down. We cannot let that continue. I think we all, on both sides of the House, agree on that.
Mrs Miller
We are dealing with extremely serious issues here, but I have to say that, at times, the passage of this Bill has been a little like the running of the grand national. Whether it is Brexit getting in the way, or general elections, or most recently covid-19, Ministers should get an award for resilience in taking the Bill forward, and we have to make sure that it does not fall at the last hurdle—Becher’s brook, perhaps. We must resist the temptation to make it a Christmas tree Bill—to put in so many things we feel strongly about that the Bill falls, perhaps not in this place but in the other place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was right to say that we have to make sure the Bill is the best shape it can be.
I am pleased that the Minister listened carefully, not just to Labour Front Benchers, but to the Joint Committee I chaired that looked at the evidence submitted on the first draft of the Bill, and has agreed to make fundamental changes through new clause 15, about including the impact on children of domestic violence; new clauses 16 and 17, responding to recommendations we made about special measures in family court proceedings; and new clause 18, which reflects the Joint Committee’s recommendations on blocking cross-examination of victims by alleged perpetrators. That is important cross-party work, which shows that Joint Committees can add considerable value to the progress of Bills such as this one. I pay tribute to the Ministers for continuing to listen and for acting so swiftly on new clause 20, about rough sex, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and my new hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for all their hard work in bringing this to fruition in such a short time.
In common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I believe that, although there is room for changes such as the inclusion of new clause 20, this is not the time to address the issues—the very serious issues—that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) raises in new clause 28. The rushed nature of its drafting leaves us with a clause that is open to great misinterpretation and does not do justice to the hon. Lady’s entirely honourable intentions in raising the issue. I could not support the new clause if she pressed it to a vote, because without the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), there would be a serious risk of exposing some of the most vulnerable members of our society—victims of domestic abuse—to what would be, to all intents and purposes, an unregulated abortion service, which I know is not the hon. Lady’s intention.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am a little concerned about what the right hon. Lady just said. We have the Abortion Act 1967 and a plethora of regulations and professional standards, so even with the telemedicine currently in place, it is governed by regulation and legislation. I would not want anyone to think that was not the case.
Mrs Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but she would be encouraging people to undertake abortions outside regulated premises. That is not necessarily her intention, but it is how the amendment could be interpreted.
Let me turn to a couple of issues that the Government still need to consider. First, there is the issue of migrant women, which many organisations have raised as a continuing concern. Equally, I am concerned that there is a lack of evidence on which the Government can base a more concrete solution. I am pleased that the Government have announced a £1.5 million fund to support safe accommodation for migrant women, but I am not pleased that it is yet another pilot because pilots have a tendency to go on, and then we have elections and then nothing really changes. Can whoever is summing up for the Government go into a little more detail on that? In Committee, the Minister touched on the use of the national referral mechanism for trafficking victims as a possible concrete route forward. Could that be scaled up to deal with this issue? How would victims access it?
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me a bit earlier than I was expecting.
I rise to speak to new clauses 4 to 11 in my name and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and to Government new clause 20. As we all know, these measures refer to the case of my constituent Natalie Connolly, who tragically died in 2016 at the hands of John Broadhurst—an individual who then used the rough sex defence to try to reduce his sentence. I overheard a conversation between two of my colleagues on the Back Benches, and I want to make it clear that these provisions are not about trying to stop people engaging in BDSM if that is what they choose to do. They are about preventing the use of the rough sex defence to try to lessen the charge against an individual.
The tragedy with Natalie Connolly was that she was a perfectly normal person. She was not into this type of thing, but she entered into a relationship with a man who serially abused her by coercing her into this type of rough sex, and who eventually, during an appalling afternoon, ended up killing her in the most brutal and intimate way, the details of which are available and are tragic to read. The problem with this is that not only was she not into this—had been coerced into it—but that the whole conversation about the case resulted in Natalie Connolly’s name being associated with rough sex.
I was trying to work out a good way of getting across how vile this is. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), in her opening remarks, was incredibly sensitive and really summed this up; the reality is that Natalie Connolly was the victim of abuse and of a flawed legal system. I received an email from Natalie’s father, Alan Andrews, a couple of days ago, talking about this. I will read out some parts of the email, which is incredibly moving. He says, “There is no way that a man should be able to bat away brutal sex violence as just an accident and pave the way to get away with it. To cope with her private life being explored in intricate detail on top of the grief of losing her has been unimaginably hard for the whole family. Natalie is no longer here to tell us what he did to her or why he left her where he did. One thing is for certain; Natalie didn’t fantasise about being killed or leaving her daughter without a mum that night.”
When Natalie’s daughter, Maddison, gets a bit older and starts googling her mother, we do not want her to find all these stories about her mother being described in this way. We want Maddison to look on her mother with immense pride and say, “As a result of my mother’s death, thousands of women are now protected against this type of defence in the future.” That is why this is so incredibly important and I am so grateful to all the people who have been involved.
The amendments that the Mother of the House and I tabled, which were co-signed by 70 MPs from both sides of the House, look at the rough sex defence, the review from the Director of Public Prosecutions in the event of a charge being reduced, the anonymity of the victim, and at something else, which is peculiar to modern Britain, where people spend too much time, perhaps, looking at a different type of pornography online from what was perhaps available many years ago.
To find an answer to this problem, we cannot address all those issues; some are quite complex legal issues. They are certainly beyond someone like me, although not my colleagues. However, I am convinced that the Government have come up with a solution in new clause 20 that addresses the issues, either directly through the provision on the rough sex defence, or obliquely by removing the need for specific anonymity for the victims. I am grateful for how the Government have moved on that.
I will say a few specific thank yous to some people. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) has provided a simpleton like me with extraordinary insight into the legal process, the like of which people like me really need. She is an incredibly important new Member of this House. I also thank the two Ministers on the Front Bench: my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for their incredible hard work. They have been absolute rock stars—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle.
Jess Phillips
I just wanted to thank the hon. Gentleman, in order that he can continue thanking people.
Mark Garnier
I thank the hon. Lady; I am conscious that there are a lot of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle came to Kidderminster to meet with Natalie’s family. It was not a visit to tweet about afterwards, or to put out a press release; it was an incredibly private meeting with a grieving family to find out the effects of the appalling killing of poor Natalie Connolly. It was, frankly, an extraordinary afternoon, and I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for taking the trouble, and for all the work that she has done with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham. The Prime Minister has also been involved, and the Justice Secretary has worked incredibly hard.
In this House, we all know that it is an extraordinary privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to represent our constituents, but it is also an extraordinary privilege to be able to work with quite remarkable, extraordinary long-term parliamentarians. Working with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham has been an experience the like of which I have rarely had. [Interruption.] It has been a privilege, not a peculiar experience. It has been truly remarkable to be able to work with somebody who has worked so hard for so many years standing up for women’s rights, and with some extraordinary achievements.
Liz Saville Roberts
It is truly an honour to follow the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), given the work that he has done to prevent the rough sex defence, alongside the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I welcome many of the Government’s new clauses and pay tribute to Members across the House who have worked constructively during the Bill Committee, and previously on the Joint Committee, to achieve that. Thanks to their efforts, the Bill now includes many landmark changes—frankly, too many for me to list in the time that I have. It is a pleasure for once to stand on this side of the House and welcome so many of them. I am sure that the whole House will join me in commending the outcome of what has been effective cross-party co-operation.
In that spirit, I urge the Government to take unequivocal action to guarantee that all victims of domestic abuse will be treated equally, and to afford them the same support and resources regardless of their immigration status. We were talking earlier about the evidence gap in relation to some victims, and how temporarily lifting the “no recourse to public funds rule” might provide the evidence required to address that gap, which seems to hamper the pilot project at present. How to find out exactly whom to target certainly seems to be an issue.
I add my voice to the call for further updates, especially on how the pilot scheme might achieve the ratification of the Istanbul convention, which I believe all Members present would very much welcome. I therefore urge the Government to support new clauses 22, 23, 26 and 27, which call for special attention to be paid to the exceptional circumstances migrant women face.
Amendment 46, in my name, would ensure that a representative for Wales would hold a seat on the commissioner’s advisory board to reflect the particular circumstances faced by women in Wales. Many of the services aimed at preventing and supporting people affected by domestic abuse are of course devolved, whether relating to healthcare, housing or social services. Specific Welsh legislation exists in the form of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. Much of the funding arrangements are already also devolved in Wales. With the role of the commissioner, it is important that the voice of victims of domestic abuse is heard. What I fear is that, as things stand, the voice of victims of domestic abuse in Wales will not be represented. It is important to remember that there are people who are at present experiencing the jagged edge of legislation, which will hold until Wales gains full legal jurisdiction. The designate domestic abuse commissioner has already done excellent work in co-operating with organisations in Wales—I commend Ms Jacobs for her hard work and her keen interest in the specific circumstances faced by Welsh women—but I beg the Minister to consider that the amendment would safeguard that relationship into the future, rather than being one on voluntary grounds.
Finally, my new clause 21 calls for the creation of a domestic abuse register to ensure that greater protection is provided for potential victims of domestic abuse from individuals who have a track record of abusive behaviour within a relationship and whose potential for repeat violent actions warrants proactive intervention. A domestic abuse register would provide the incentive for a shift in focus away from reacting to domestic abuse towards a preventative approach. We know that repeat offending by perpetrators with violent and controlling histories of abuse is common. Data provided by the Metropolitan police to the London Assembly as part of the Assembly’s domestic abuse report showed that in the year up to September 2019 there were 13,600 repeat victims of domestic abuse and that 21% of the cases discussed at the 2018 multi-agency risk assessment conference were repeat cases. One concern raised in Committee with regard to the domestic abuse register was the consequential increased bureaucratic burden it might place on police forces. Although I argue that cross-force technology offers opportunities, I respond in the spirit of compromise and urge the Government to support new clause 33, tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as a way of improving the current situation, or even new clause 32.
We must take this opportunity to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill includes lifesaving measures to protect all victims of abuse. Recognising predictable perpetrator behaviour and addressing it is key to the Bill’s future success.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I want to speak, if I may, on new clause 28. I thought a consultant who wrote to me summed it up very well: “Of course, we recognise that the Bill is important in view of widespread psychological, physical and emotional sexual abuse of women.” That is a view we all share. However, new clause 28 relates to the enabling of access to abortions in abusive relationships and the effect of the new clause will be to lead the way to coercive abortions within the concept of abusive relationships.
The consultant continued: “From a clinical perspective, I cannot understand how there would be any confidence in detecting an abusive relationship on the basis of a telephone conversation or audio-visual interview. How can the clinician distinguish between a false claim of abuse in order for the women to access a home abortion and a genuinely abusive relationship in which the woman might well be coerced into having an abortion by a partner or other family members? As a consultant”—I stress that this is not my argument, but the consultant’s argument—“I would take any abusive relationship very seriously, as it may directly impact upon patient welfare and raise important safeguarding issues. Indeed, what would be the situation if the doctor believes in ‘good faith’ that a ‘home abortion’ is being forced on the woman as the result of an abusive relationship with the father? The presumption behind the new clause is that the woman wants an abortion, but is prevented from proceeding because of the abusive relationship. However, it is likely that in the context of an abusive relationship she is being forced to have the abortion by her partner. New clause 28 would enable access to such coercive or forced abortions in abusive relationships.” That is a very clear argument from a consultant working in the field about the dangers of new clause 28.
Jess Phillips
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government-funded telephone lines for domestic abuse if it so difficult to take advice and to give advice to women in a domestic abuse situation over the telephone.
Sir Edward Leigh
I think it was designed by the Government as a very temporary measure. I do not think for a moment that it was designed as a permanent measure; it was designed simply in the context of covid-19. Body language and visual signs cannot be observed over the telephone. It is not a perfect way of consulting. There are already investigations into nine cases where pills issued via telephone were taken beyond the recommended gestation. This is less than two months after the service commenced. In one case, the abortion took place some 18 weeks over the legal limit of nine weeks and six days. We have also seen, of course, the media give better attention to domestic abuse and that increase in visibility may have given victims greater strength to come forward, which is good, but the gravity of women being coerced into abortion does not seem to have been taken as seriously as it should have been. It seems obvious to me that a woman seeking an abortion under duress may be being observed by abusive partners, or are otherwise acting in fear, and they will be less likely to come forward and disclose abuse.
I could quote doctors on this again and again, but there is not enough time. One said to me:
“This proposed amendment would place doctors in a very risky situation. Deciding whether a patient might be in an abusive situation by one telemedicine consultation would be almost impossible… Assessment of women at risk of domestic abuse should be part of a comprehensive safeguarding strategy—it should not be left to a single doctor working under time pressure, via the medium of telemedicine.”
I know that there are strong views and I respect the position of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). None the less, we will never agree, and this is, frankly, lazy legislating. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. Abortion is such an important issue that we need to have a serious debate around it. We in the Pro-Life lobby recognise that we will never change the fact that if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one, but we will never give up arguing the importance of the value of all life, however frail, and the dignity of all human beings. We consider it a vitally important issue and it should be dealt with properly by parliament.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). In fact, it is a pleasure to have reached this stage in the journey of this Bill. As the Minister said earlier, it has in some ways been a very collegiate experience. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) also referred to that as well. It was certainly something that I felt about the Committee. Perhaps that has been because it is a journey that we all appreciate will be life changing for the hundreds of thousands of women particularly, who in this country and every year, face domestic abuse. If there is one message that we all want to go out from this place today, it is that we will accept no excuse for domestic abuse against anyone, whether physical, emotional or financial. It will simply not be tolerated.
In the time I have been involved in the Bill, I am happy to acknowledge that the Government have moved their position in several significant ways, and I am particularly pleased to see children now included on the face of the Bill, because we all recognise the impact that domestic abuse can have on them.
I also acknowledge the fact that the Government have listened to calls from the Liberal Democrats to improve protection of abuse survivors in family courts, where often perpetrators have been able to continue to coerce and control the person they have abused. However, there are still significant changes that many of us in this House would like to see—I will come on to migrant women in a moment—but we also want to strengthen support available from local authorities and measures to support teenagers involved in relationships that are abusive.
As I said, most importantly before us today are the amendments particularly relating to migrant women who encounter domestic abuse. That could enable the ratification of the Istanbul convention—it is now eight years or more since this country signed it. On that subject, I would specifically like to mention new clauses 26 and 27. I am mindful of the Minister’s comments on supporting the support for migrant women scheme, and I look forward to seeing that come to fruition, but new clause 26 would give migrant women who survive domestic abuse the right to remain in this country.
I note that the Government said in their letter that they did not believe a blanket proposal was appropriate, but as Amnesty International points out, expanding the domestic violence rule to offer leave to remain to all survivors is by far the simplest and surest way to stop anyone falling through the cracks. During covid-19, we have seen that it is all too easy for people to do that, regardless of good intentions.
The other relevant new clause I would mention is new clause 27, which would prevent the sharing of data between Government agencies such as the police and the Home Office and reassure those afraid to come forward and report violent and unacceptable abuse for fear that their immigration status might be investigated and they could ultimately be deported. How can we help people? What would it matter what steps were put in place to support them when they are too afraid to come forward in the first place? Surely we must offer those facing the most horrific of personal circumstances the comfort and security of knowing that they will be helped unconditionally. Numerous charities, such as Southall Black Sisters, End Violence against Women and other organisations, have called for these measures, and we heard heart-breaking evidence in Committee from a woman who had come here from Brazil only to find herself eight years later facing the most difficult of situations because of domestic abuse. I believe the Bill can change that, and all survivors of domestic abuse, regardless of where they come from or who they are, must have the same protection in law.
There is one other vital issue and that is misogyny as a hate crime, in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which I have supported throughout the passage of the Bill. The reason is simple for me: if we are truly to tackle domestic abuse effectively—not just respond after the fact but prevent it in the first place—we have to understand where it comes from. That is the aim of amendment 35 in requiring police to record and act on offences that are motivated by misogyny—a hatred and disregard for women. It has been in place in Nottinghamshire since 2016, and campaigners there say that the approach has given women the confidence to report abuse.
In commending those various amendments to the House, I would also like to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and hope that when we conclude the proceedings she is happy with what we have done with the Bill she first brought forward.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I support this landmark Bill and the Government’s amendments to it. I wish to speak to new clause 1, in my name, new clause 28 and my amendments to it. In 2018, the Select Committee for Women and Equalities concluded:
“There is significant research suggesting that there is a relationship between the consumption of pornography and sexist attitudes and sexually aggressive behaviours”.
The Minister has rightly said that the rough sex defence is unconscionable. In the light of recent survey evidence showing a clear link between rough sex and the influence of pornography, I tabled new clause 1, to ask the Government to investigate this further and to highlight the urgent need for action to be taken by Government to tackle pornography concerns more widely, such as addiction, and to protect children from seeing it and being forced to engage in it. In tabling new clause 1, I am seeking from the Minister—and I appreciate the fact that I have found a listening Minister during the progress of the Bill—an assurance that Government will take early steps to tackle concerns about harm from pornography, so that I do not have to press new clause 1 to a vote.
I cannot put the key objections to new clause 28 better than a response I obtained from a female GP. It is long but worth repeating. She says:
“I am very concerned about the proposed changes to new clause 28. It is extraordinary that it should be argued that a woman suffering or at risk of domestic abuse, seeking abortion should somehow be considered to be at less risk if she consults a doctor remotely by telemedicine and given abortifacients to take at home. Where is the opportunity to check with her, privately, that she is not being coerced or that she may be in danger, to examine her to determine her stage of pregnancy, to offer support and clear advice in a place of safety? As a medical practitioner working remotely, how can I reliably ensure she is at the stage of pregnancy she says she is, as the use of abortifacients used later than the 9 weeks 6 days limit carries greater risk of complications which I would be responsible for providing care for? And how can I provide assurance that this woman is suffering from domestic abuse unless it has been previously disclosed to me… These factors are virtually impossible to verify without a face to face consultation”.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady for all she does in this House on preserving life in every sense of the word. In a context where article 39 of the Istanbul convention highlights the need to counter coercive abortion, does she agree that the proposal to allow women in domestic abuse situations unique permanent access to medical abortion, without needing to leave their abusive environment for a physical consultation, is nothing if not seriously misplaced? That is why her amendments (a), (b) and (c) to new clause 28 are very appropriate.
Fiona Bruce
I will come on to that; I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
I want to quote someone who works regularly with victims of domestic abuse. She says:
“This proposal in reality is actually a gift to male abusers who want their partners to abort.”
New clause 28 will not help abused women. It could put them in a worse position, and it is dysfunctional. I tabled amendments (a), (b) and (c) to illustrate that fact. I want to thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for underlining and accepting that. Amendments (a) and (b) address the fact that there is no 10-week gestation limit, which is potentially dangerous, and that this potentially includes surgical abortions outside clinically approved settings, which is similarly concerning. Amendment (c) relates to the vital need for some sort of review of the current emergency legislation before any extension of the legislation is brought forward. I thank the Minister for her proposal of a consultation. Will she confirm that it will be a proper inquiry?
Victoria Atkins
I emphasise that the Government are neutral on the very sensitive topic of abortion, but I hope that my hon. Friend and others across the House who hold a range of views—genuine views—on this topic will take comfort from the fact that the Government intend to launch a public consultation, as I outlined in my earlier intervention, and I thank her for her work.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for that. On that basis, I will not press amendment (c) to a vote, and nor will I press amendments (a) and (b), because they have achieved their purpose, which was to point out the flaws of new clause 28.
Mr Speaker has—quite rightly, for constitutional reasons—ruled new clause 29 as out of scope. This is a domestic abuse Bill; it should not be hijacked by those continuously campaigning on another issue and constantly looking for opportunities in this place to add badly worded amendments to Bills with unforeseen implications and complications.
We have already seen the outcome of such an approach with the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. This House should, I hope, be very wary of repeating that. I support the Government’s endeavours to tackle domestic abuse: let us ensure that that is the focus of this Bill.
Chris Bryant
This is what happens all too often: a man, and it is normally a man, comes home, perhaps he is drunk, or he loses his temper, or he quietly and dispassionately decides to deal with his partner to teach her a lesson—perhaps to slap her around a bit. Maybe he lashes out with a punch to the face, or he shakes her violently, repeatedly and at length, or he strangles her, or he pushes her down the stairs. I have heard of men slamming their partner’s head against the wall, against the door, against the bathroom cabinet, against the toilet bowl, against the kitchen worktop, or against the oven.
These are horrific instances, and in many, many cases there is absolutely no visible wound, or even a bruise, but the damage is invisible and internal, inside the brain. That internal damage can last for years. The woman, and it is normally a woman, may suffer from anxiety or depression expressly because of the injury to her brain. She may suffer from memory loss. She may be more confused. Her language—her speaking—may often be slurred because of the brain injury. Many may doubt her in the criminal justice system because she is confused and finds it difficult to turn up to events on time having lost some of her executive functions. She may suffer from terrible fatigue, which is a very common aspect of brain injury. It is almost certain that she will not have gone to the doctor about it, either because she has a coercive partner who will not let her, because she is frightened of talking to anybody about the domestic abuse that she has suffered, or because she does not realise that a brain injury can do as much damage as any other kind of injury.
Depressingly, we have very little idea of how common this is in this country, because there has been remarkably little research done. That is why my amendments, which are tiny little amendments, seek to redress the balance a tiny little bit. In the United States of America, some work has been done showing that 88% of those referred to a traumatic brain injury clinic from local abuse services had had more than one brain injury from their partner. Only 21% of them had ever volunteered to go to the doctor with it. Work done by Ohio University found that 81%—81%—of domestic abuse survivors had received a blow to the head. But in this country we have no idea of what the true numbers are.
The Disabilities Trust did a really good piece of work in Drake Hall Prison with women prisoners coming on to the secure estate for the first time. It found that 64% of women had had a brain injury and 62% of those injuries had been from a domestic violence incident.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I welcome and endorse the hon. Gentleman’s excellent amendments. Not for the first time, he has brought brain injury to the attention of this House. I wonder if I might, through him, invite those on the Front Bench, either by means of an intervention now or in the concluding remarks, to commit to the kind of research that he has recommended to the House.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a doughty advocate for those who have suffered from brain injuries, not least because of his own experience. That has been invaluable to the House.
The Disabilities Trust’s work, and work that has been done with male prisoners across the estate, was the result of a pilot scheme introduced by the Ministry of Justice. It has been very effective. It is very simple screening —just three simple questions are asked of prisoners arriving. Nevertheless, it has enabled people to rectify some of the problems within the prison—for instance, prisoners who, because of their brain injury, find loud noise, clanging, smashing and things like that to be very disruptive to them. They have, very simply, been able to be put down at the quiet end of the prison. Sometimes, very simple measures have transformed the experience of those individuals and the likelihood of their reoffending, and given them a better opportunity in life.
That is writ even larger when it comes to women prisoners. The evidence is clear that many of the women coming into prison have been victims of domestic violence themselves, so the victim ends up being victimised a third time. All my new clauses are designed to ensure, first, that every single woman coming on to the prison estate is screened—a very simple screening, involving three questions, as has already been done in Drake Hall—and secondly, that every woman coming on to the prison estate who it has already been decided is a victim of domestic violence should be screened for brain injury, so that we can give such women the proper neurorehabilitation they require, so that they can understand the condition they have and lead a fuller life.
I was disappointed by the Minister earlier. I am sure she did not intend to mislead the House, but she said that the national screening agency—I think she means the National Screening Committee—considered screening, when in fact the committee considered screening every single adult in the country for domestic violence. That is not what we are talking about here. I hope she will correct the record when she winds up the debate.
Sir John Hayes
I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman, who, as I said, has made a persuasive case, to which I hope the Government will respond in the way he suggests.
For most of us, home is where the heart is; it is where we find love and warmth. I guess that most people here would say that is true of their constituents, by and large, but for too many of the people we represent, home is where the hurt is. It is a place of hate and pain—a pain that, for many of them, dare not speak its name, because they feel shame. The irony—the bitter irony—is that some of the victims of domestic abuse feel that they are in some way to blame, that they are in some way guilty, and it goes on year after year, unrecognised, unnoticed, and therefore untreated, undealt with. This Bill is a brave Bill that, to some degree, begins a process. It will not end here; this is a start, not a conclusion. It begins a process by which we can highlight, recognise and then act upon this awful spectre of domestic abuse.
I remember the case of a constituent who came to see me. We all have, every week, every month, horrible things to deal with—things that are memorable in the worst way—but this constituent stands out in my memory. It was a gentleman I knew—I had known him for years; I knew his son. I had no reason to believe he was unhappy —he was always cheerful, a rather jolly sort of chap in his mid-50s. He arrived at a surgery; I did not know why, as I had received no notice of what he wanted to see me about. He sat in front of me and, with almost unbearable tension in the air, revealed to me that he had for years been the subject of domestic abuse. His wife had been beating him. He was a disabled man, so the poignancy of that exchange was exacerbated by knowing that she was much stronger than him and much more powerful. As he burst into tears, I recognised that he was far from the only person like that in my constituency and in all our constituencies. In two thirds of cases, the victims are women, but they can be men, too. That personal experience gave me an insight of what domestic abuse can be and mean for so many of those we represent.
G. K. Chesterton remarked that
“the business done in the home is nothing less than the shaping of the bodies and souls of humanity.”
Home is where most of our experiences take place, and the impact on the formation of an individual’s earthly experience happens disproportionately in homes. That is why the Bill is important and why I commend so warmly Ministers for bringing it to the House, and particularly my great friend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—I mean no disrespect to my equally good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), by the way—for championing this cause.
My new clauses seek to do two things, as the House will have seen. The first is to monitor the connection between the kind of relationship that people are in and the propensity of domestic abuse. There is some evidence that the sort of relationship in which people are fitted has an impact on the likelihood of domestic abuse taking place. While postmodernists may resent the idea that the Government should play a part in family formation and social solidarity, I do not share that view because I am not postmodern—in fact, I am not even modern, as many people here know. I ask the Government to look at that in some detail, because there is some disturbing evidence to suggest that some kinds of relationships are particularly prone to domestic abuse, which is a heinous crime by any measure.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must absolutely not allow this vital piece of legislation to be potentially used by abusers to coerce pregnant women to have an abortion, and that our duty of protection towards vulnerable people should also have regard for the life of the unborn child, so new clause 28 has no place in the Bill?
Sir John Hayes
I was not going to deal with new clause 28 because it has been debated at some length, but I simply say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who tabled it, and who is a respected and experienced Member of this House, that it was not wise to do so for two reasons: not only because it is imperfectly drawn up, but because, if anything, it takes emphasis away from the main thrust of the Bill, which is to deal with the heinous crime that I have described—
Sir John Hayes
I will in a second. But more than that, it may even frustrate the very purpose of the Bill by putting vulnerable women, already suffering from the fear that I described, into an even more fearful circumstance. I happily give way to the hon. Lady, who will no doubt put a counter-view.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to make it clear that the new clause was obviously drafted to be perfectly in order—it refers to victims of domestic abuse and the particular circumstances they find themselves in in accessing reproductive healthcare—so I am getting a little frustrated. I hear what hon. Members think about the way the clause is drafted, but it is perfectly in order to put a new clause in the Bill about women who are suffering from domestic abuse.
Sir John Hayes
I think there are times and places to have these debates. We take different views, but this is not the time or place to have the debate, and to say more would be to worsen that sin.
I mentioned the research about particular kinds of relationships. The Office for National Statistics research from the year ending March 2019 shows that cohabiting women are almost three times more likely to have suffered domestic abuse than married women or women in civil partnerships. The figures also demonstrated that separated women were significantly more likely to suffer abuse than those in relationships, so there are issues around the connection between abuse and particular family circumstances.
My new clause 3 calls for the Government to look at the character of these crimes and the sentences they attract, with a view to raising the minimum and maximum sentences. Frankly, we ought to be doing that in all kinds of cases, but this crime in particular warrants the Government looking at these things again. I hope that the Government will look at my new clauses. I will not press them because, rather in the spirit that I have just suggested, this is a time for the House to come together in common cause, not to be divided, which is another reason why I am disappointed with new clause 28 and hope that the hon. Lady will have the grace not to press it.
C. S. Lewis said:
“Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good”.
Supporting my new clauses will help do good, as will the Bill.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I warmly welcome the Bill and the amendments to it that have been tabled. It has been urgently needed for a great many years, but perhaps never more so than now. I add my thanks to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for all they have done on the campaign against the “rough sex” defence, and associate myself in particular with amendment 35 on misogyny as a hate crime, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and spoken to very ably by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
Like many others, I urge the Government to look again at the issue of migrant women and the issue of “no recourse to public funds”. I do not think that, so far, the Government have really recognised what is at stake. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), suggested, simply taking away the existing law would be a positive way to deal with the crisis right now.
I wish to speak in particular to a survivor’s right to press anonymity, in respect of which there is an omission in the Bill. That gap in the legislation risks undermining many of the provisions designed to increase reporting and access to justice. Currently, the law allows the media to identify domestic abuse survivors when they appear in court. For survivors, the majority of whom are women, that means accepting yet another level of fear and risk. It potentially means that a perpetrator can more easily find them. It means that every aspect of their past behaviour is potentially subjected to unaccountable scrutiny and judgment. Without press anonymity, domestic abuse survivors face the risk of being abused all over again.
My new clause 19 has been developed with RISE, which is one of the leading service providers and advocates for women in my constituency, and it is based on RISE’s wealth of experience of what prevents women from reporting domestic abuse and what keeps them as safe as possible once it does happen. The new clause seeks to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse receive the same guarantee of press anonymity that has been in place for survivors of sexual assault for almost 30 years via the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. In essence, it would prevent identifiable details from being published by the media, online, in print or on social media, and require any content that breaches anonymity to be deleted. The right to anonymity would come into force as soon as domestic abuse is reported to the police and last for a survivor’s lifetime. The new clause would also create a new offence whereby a publisher could be fined for anonymity breaches. That penalty, and the level of fine, is consistent with the 1992 Act and the rights of survivors of sexual assault.
There are many reasons why a failure to guarantee anonymity for survivors weakens the objectives of the Bill. First, domestic abuse victims and survivors are more likely to be killed within the first year of their leaving an abusive partner—a timeframe that frequently coincides with their cases coming to court. Naming survivors in the media puts their wellbeing and safety at further risk, putting them and their children under unimaginable strain and anxiety during what is already an extremely difficult process.
Secondly, the fear of being identified by friends, family members, work colleagues and employers after being named in the press actively discourages survivors from reporting domestic abuse. As one told RISE:
“"None of my family knew, neither did my employer…I felt sad, ashamed, embarrassed and violated.”
It must be a survivor’s choice as to who they tell about an abusive relationship, and when, not one taken from them by the media. The law as it stands wrests power and control from women in a situation in which a loss of power and control are already factors in their abuse.
Thirdly, cases of domestic abuse can involve sexual abuse, too, and inconsistent survivor-anonymity provisions may lead to a breach of the 1992 Act, perhaps inadvertently. The best way to keep survivors safe is to protect their anonymity, especially as sexual violence may not always be disclosed in domestic abuse reports.
The view expressed by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), in Committee was that the anonymity provisions are
“an exceptional interference with open justice.”––[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 325.]
With respect, I think he is wrong. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck, but there are precedents not only in the 1992 Act but in the Serious Crime Act 2015 in respect of female genital mutilation and in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 as well.
Under my new clauses, survivors could still be named in court and journalists could still report on other aspects of the case; they simply would not be able to publish identifiable details, such as photographs or the survivor’s, name, address or workplace. It is not about restricting free speech; it is about keeping survivors safe and alive. There is no justice unless that is one of the Bill’s primary objectives. I urge the Government please to consider my new clause again. It would bring this Bill in line with the 1992 Act and make it better and more consistent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There have been a lot of interventions, which has extended the time of speeches, so I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker in order to get as many people in as possible.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill, which is the product of input from all over the House, and all the better for it. I particularly welcome the definition of what constitutes domestic abuse and the emphasis placed on sexual abuse in the definition. We all know that sexual abuse is very much in the toolkit of any abuser and, just as domestic violence was a taboo subject in the past, the role of sexual violence has been, too. What is striking about the passage of the Bill is how it has been a game changer on that—the clause that deals with rough sex most certainly is. In that respect, the Bill makes a very clear advance in favour of the victims and against the abusers. We must ensure that we do everything we can to protect those who are most vulnerable and bring the purveyors of evil crimes to justice.
We must also consider how sexual violence can clearly take place in the domestic context not just with partners but with children. I would like to highlight the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who talked about the sharing of sexual imagery via phones, which again could be considered domestic abuse given that it comes from relationships. That example really highlights how normalised sexual abuse has become in some contexts. I feel strongly that we collectively in this House—male Members as well as female Members—must do all we can to ensure that women feel empowered to have control over their own destiny when it comes to their relationships. I fear that some of the pornography now available and so widely circulating is normalising sexual behaviour that is not in the interests of our women and girls. We must all collectively be vigilant about that.
I tabled two amendments to give added emphasis to the importance of considering sexual violence in the domestic violence context. I did so in consultation with Rape Crisis England and Wales, to which I have the great pleasure of giving so much support. It does so much work and is often considered the Cinderella for the reasons that I have described. The real issue for victims of sexual violence is that it never leaves them. It is one thing to bring a perpetrator to justice, but these women, these girls, these victims are not pieces of evidence; they are people, they are fragile, and they need our support—a lifetime of support. I am pleased that the NHS has recognised that with its lifetime support care pathway for victims of sexual violence, but, as with many things in public policy, we can talk the talk, but we do not always walk the walk.
I am pleased to see that police and crime commissioners regularly step up to the plate to commission sufficient services for victims of sexual violence, but all too often locally I see the NHS not doing its bit, and equally we expect more from local authorities. The amendments in my name are there to reboot the emphasis on sexual violence as an element of domestic violence in terms of the functions of the domestic violence commissioner and local authorities. I hope that the Minister in responding will articulate the very real need for holistic support for victims of sexual violence and an expectation that the domestic violence commissioner will do the requisite thing and encourage good practice throughout our public services.
In view of time being very short, I will say little more than that, but I want quickly to address the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on abortion. Much criticism has been made of it, which, frankly, is unfair. The real point is that the law is 50 years old and no longer fit for purpose, but, because it is seen as a free-vote issue, Governments do not look at it. I welcome, to a point, what my hon. Friend the Minister has said today, but we need to look more holistically at the safety of our abortion services. It is all very well to say, “Okay, we have had these regulations for covid. Let’s just extend them.”, but I do not think that is good enough. We are told nowadays that as many as one in three people have had access to abortion, so let us look at it more holistically.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I wholeheartedly support the sensible and necessary amendments to this Bill brought forward by several of my courageous and learned colleagues. I particularly wish to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who has spoken courageously on domestic abuse, and my excellent colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), because of her ongoing work to have misogyny treated as a hate crime. I am proud to represent Nottingham East, the birthplace of the movement to recognise misogyny as a hate crime, and I pay tribute to pioneers at Nottingham Women’s Centre, as well as Juno Women’s Aid, and, in particular, to Mel Jeffs.
No recourse to public funds renders many of the most at-risk individuals completely powerless and increases their chances of being preyed upon by abusers or falling into destitution. The choice presented to Members today is whether this Bill progresses with or without leaving migrant women behind. Many migrant women are, in effect, excluded from the protective measures in this Bill as they have no recourse to public funds. What advice has the Minister sought as to whether the Bill, in its current form, is compliant with paragraph 3 of article 4 of the Istanbul convention? We know that migrant women face additional barriers to safety, because abusers commonly weaponise fears of immigration enforcement and separation from their children to control them. The draft statutory guidance to accompany this Bill clearly recognises that migrant women face these additional obstacles to safety and are afraid of reporting. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s current policies in this area, in effect, encode and entrench the abuser-victim dynamic into the system? Will she acknowledge that the legislation, as it currently stands, does not match the facts recognised in the statutory guidance?
It is promising that some key amendments have made the cut, including the recognition that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right, as well as the expansion of the ban on abusers cross-examining the victims in court. However, as Pragna Patel, the director of Southall Black Sisters, has said:
“The decision to leave migrant women out of this bill sends the message that their lives are not valued, they are disposable, they are second-class people, they are invisible”.
This invisibility is exacerbated through clause 53, which neglects the commissioning of specialist support for BAME women in the community. There are only 30 specialist by and for black and minoritised women’s refuges for the whole of the UK, with 50% of BAME specialist refuges having been forced to close or been taken over by a larger provider because of Government funding cuts in the past decade. I wish to close with words from the End Violence Against Women Coalition, which has stressed that
“Amending the Bill is the only route to guarantee a fair system to all victims”
and ensure compliance with the Istanbul convention, which this Bill seeks to ratify.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Let us consider these words: “When I met my ex, I was a confident 17-year-old woman, but he wore me down until I did not recognise myself any more.” They are the words of a remarkable woman, my constituent Natasha Saunders. I wish to share some of her story with this House today. First, let me say that this Bill has seen this House at its best, working together to increase awareness of domestic abuse and its devastating consequences, to strengthen support for victims and to bring more perpetrators to justice. It will support victims to give evidence in court and it will end that most pernicious of defences, the so-called rough sex defence.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I will confine my remarks to Government new clause 20, which concerns the rough sex defence. Those on the Front Bench should feel proud of the new clause. The first question that any Government have to answer when they bring new legislation before the House is why the legislation is needed. It has been said, “If the common law already says that someone cannot consent to serious injury or death, does Parliament need to legislate?” The answer is emphatically yes, and here is why. R v. Brown, the authority for this issue, which is nearly 30 years old, does not cover consent in all forms of sexual harm. There are other cases—contradictory cases—that can be applied, and we saw that pretty starkly in the case of Natalie Connolly, where R v. Brown was applied, but only in part. When it came to her internal injuries—the ones that were the most savagely inflicted, the most serious and the most proximate cause of death—the court applied a completely different case and concluded that the violence in that context was lawful. That could not happen under new clause 20, because it rules out the possibility of consenting to any serious harm for sexual gratification, and the inconsistency goes.
The second problem with Brown is that it answered one specific question: whether the defence of consent should apply to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of sadomasochistic encounters. I have heard it described as a case about consensual torture. That has always created the risk of conflating violent sex in a domestic abuse context with BDSM, as we saw in Natalie Connolly’s case and those of others. Sadomasochism becomes a prism through which the violence on the night is interpreted, because Brown invites that.
Not only does that traduce the reputation of the victim, but it offends one of the most fundamental principles of justice, that he who asserts must prove. In those serious cases, it was not proven in a way that a member of the public would understand. All we know is that it was violent and it was sexual and that she is dead. New clause 20 reduces the risk of the courts being drawn into such considerations by drawing a line through consent in the first place.
Above all, codifying the defence sends a powerful message about what we as a society say about sexual violence and degrading behaviour in a way that the common law never could. In fact, new clause 20 is not didactic—it does not try to tell people how to live their private lives—but it sends a powerful message to the perpetrator that they will be responsible for all the consequences of their actions, which is a game changer when rape convictions are at an all-time low.
The most affecting feature of the last two weeks has been other countries’ reactions to the Government’s decision. In New Zealand, where they were as appalled by the Grace Millane case as we were, Ireland, Hungary, Germany, France and Canada, people are writing about what the British Government are doing in the context of similar cases that have been before their courts and with reference to Members of their own Parliaments who are working to achieve the same thing. The Ministers involved should feel proud of the leadership that they have shown.
Finally, the most powerful message of new clause 20 is a tacit one about the dignity of the women who have been killed in this way. It is not the perpetrator in the dock who gets to define her, or the judge in his sentencing remarks, but we in Parliament who draw a line in the sand and say, in effect, what the victims and their families never could: that she could not consent to that.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a delight to have heard the excellent points of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). I put on record three fantastic women who have worked in this area in my constituency: Denise Marshall, who was the chief executive of Eaves, the wonderful Mary Mason, who was the chief executive of Solace Women’s Aid, and Harriet Wistrich, who is the director of the Centre for Women’s Justice and who worked hard on the Sally Challen case. That case is not dissimilar to those that the hon. Lady mentioned, although, of course, Sally Challen was acquitted after many years in prison and was subject to some awful coercive behaviour from her partner who she actually killed. My constituent Harriet Wistrich worked hard on that case, which is now a precedent. We need those important test cases to prove how we can improve the law and women’s experience.
I welcome three other elements of the Bill: first, the robust framework for the new domestic abuse commissioner; secondly, the two new civil protection orders, which will strengthen the everyday practice on domestic abuse; and thirdly, the secure lifetime tenancy in England housing authorities. I mention briefly the work of Hearthstone, which is Haringey Council’s excellent housing provision for women facing domestic violence. The fact that it is embedded in the local authority allows much better quality allocations for women who face uncertain housing situations.
The test of the Bill is not just how well written it is or what fantastic speeches we may give tonight, but the quality of the legal aid that women and victims of domestic violence can get day in, day out in our courts. I am sorry to say that legal aid still does not match the desperate need of so many women victims. I hope that the Government will look at the provision of legal aid in future, although not necessarily specifically in this legislation. In terms of the practice and the everyday experience, we need excellent legal representation for those women. I also put on record my support for amendment 35 looking at misogyny as a hate crime, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has spoken eloquently about as part of the ratification of the Istanbul convention.
I want to put on record my support for new clause 22 for women who have insecure immigration status and a fear of deportation. Looking through my casework of this month, I had the case of a woman who had no recourse to public funds and was not able to gain access to important financial provisions in that she did not have access to housing benefit and all the other provisions. Fortunately, having written to the Home Office, my caseworker had an amazing success—a huge thank you to my team—but this cannot be down to individual cases on a case-by-case basis such as this; we need a much more holistic look at “no recourse to public funds”.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister announce this evening that there will be a pilot scheme worth £1.5 million, but I fear that pilot schemes peter out, are introduced very late on in the financial year and tend to be very piecemeal. In my view, we desperately need to pass new clause 22 so that we can take in the most vulnerable women, including those with no recourse to public funds, whom we see in our surgeries. We cannot rely on the fact that they may pop into our surgeries and we can write to the Home Office. We need a much more inclusive provision, so hon. Members should please vote for new clause 22.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I would like to start by saying this is a good Bill. I would particularly like to add my support to new clause 20, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for their work on this. I would also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for her work on new clause 15, which I think achieves a great deal of good.
I will briefly touch on new clauses 22, 25 and 26. I welcome the Government’s long-standing commitment to support all domestic abuse survivors, including migrants, and they should always be treated as victims, regardless of their immigration status. The introduction of the destitution domestic violence concession and the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain scheme in 2012 were important steps in supporting migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse. It is important to note that obtaining these visas means that those affected have set up their lives in the UK with the expectation of obtaining indefinite leave to remain here. Already, this concession permits them to receive welfare payments, support and safe accommodation, and the scheme enables them to apply for the indefinite leave to remain that they would have had had they not been victims of domestic abuse.
The concession and the scheme are not available to people who enter the country on other visas, such as visitor, student or work visas, or to those here illegally. As we have heard, this is because, to obtain such visas, they will have already confirmed that they are financially independent and therefore require no recourse to public funds and, as such, their stay will be for a defined time. They do not therefore have a legitimate expectation of securing indefinite leave to remain.
I welcome the fact that the Government have pledged £1.5 million towards a pilot later this year, which will be used to assess the level of need for migrant victims of domestic abuse and to inform decisions. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in hoping that this will identify the gaps in the current support available.
At this point, I was going to talk about amendments 40 to 43, but, as I understand from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that they will not be brought forward, I will not labour that point as time is short. None the less, I would like to put on the record how welcome are the appointment of Nicole Jacobs as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the establishment of her independent office, which rightly holds the Government to account to ensure that all areas are working better to protect victims. I have the utmost confidence that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will listen to her sage advice.
Abuse can come in myriad forms—not just physical control or coercion, but financial and mental. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), it is clear that we also have to consider the new forms that abuse can take as technology and society develop. I welcome the fact that the commissioner will be required to have specific focus on victims from minority groups, and I hope that she will include the LGBT+ community, who experience disproportionately high levels of domestic abuse and distinct barriers in accessing support.
Finally, I would like to thank the Ministers and Members from both sides of the House for all their work on this truly historic Bill, which puts the determination to protect victims and their families at the very heart of our law.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
Children are victims of domestic abuse, not just witnesses. In March I held a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue, and that was the start of a series of conversations thereafter. At the conclusion of that debate, I said to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is no longer in her place, that I would like her to go away and “grapple some more” with a resolution to include children in the Bill, so today I am really pleased to see new clause 15, which will indeed include children in the definition of domestic abuse. This has had such widespread support from charities and organisations across the children’s sector and the violence against women and girls sector, which have come together to assure us that they are united in believing that children should be included.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I was proud to support the Bill on Second Reading, and am happy to see it back here today for its final stages.
This is a landmark piece of legislation, which shows the best of this House; we can work cross-party to achieve something fundamental. If I were to have one criticism, it would be that the Bill could achieve so much more. That said, this is an admirable start and one that I fully endorse. However, the Bill needs to be the starting point for protecting victims, not the destination.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for securing the amendment on rough sex—new clause 20— which will prevent men from literally getting away with murder.
This needs to be a victim-led process. There are concerns about a stalkers register that means that the victims need to correct their behaviour; that cannot be right. If a victim has to modify their behaviour, then we have let down the victim. I am hopeful that the Minister will agree that there is scope to review victim support services, and that victims should be included in that process. Despite the good intentions of stalking protection orders, I fear that they will not protect victims in the way that they should.
This truly is a heinous crime. If not prevented, it can and often does lead to further crime, such as sexual abuse and even murder. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) mentioned the murder of Jane Clough. I am a long-standing friend of her sister, Louise Berry, who tragically lost Jane 10 years ago. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to John and Penny Clough for the fantastic, tireless work that they have done with the Justice for Jane campaign to prevent other women from paying the ultimate and avoidable cost of this crime. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) for securing an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that allowed the prosecution to appeal against bail, to further aid victims of this awful crime.
I conclude by reiterating my opening remarks. If we are serious about tackling this most heinous of crimes, which has affected millions of women throughout recent years, we really need to ensure that the victims are fully included in the entire journey, and that this is a journey. This is not the destination; it is just the start of the process to ensure that we tackle this crime fully. In doing so, we need to ensure that adequate funding is in place, not only to bring the perpetrators to justice but to protect victims in their entirety. I trust that the Minister will continually review the matter, and take further action where needed to truly support victims of this most awful crime.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, and Members from both sides of the House, for bringing to fruition a Bill that will protect and support victims of domestic abuse. As many in this House have outlined, domestic abuse is on the rise in the UK. Northern Ireland figures released today show an increase of 1,000 cases in the past three months. The figures show a 15% increase on the same period last year, and domestic abuse is no respecter of gender or age.
Last week, as I travelled by car around my constituency, I listened to an interview about a young lady called Joleen Corr, a 27 year-old girl from Downpatrick. She was a mum of one and she was propelled down a set of stairs and died as a result of a brain injury. Her mum was devastated, and continues to be devastated. I trust that the legislation will assist in bringing some comfort to people like the Corr family. As a wife and mum, I am thankful for the safe haven of my own home, but I know that many throughout the UK do not have the safety that I enjoy. I want the Bill to be just the start of great things to assist victims. I also pay tribute to Mr Steven Smyth from Northern Ireland, who is today running 100 miles to raise awareness for Men’s Alliance Northern Ireland, a support group for male victims of domestic abuse. I commend him for his efforts.
A person who works with women experiencing domestic abuse in England said of new clause 28 over the weekend, “We work every day with women who experience domestic abuse. We see the way they are controlled and manipulated. To me, this suggests the legislation will only be making that worse. It will give abusers more power and more reason to keep the woman being abused at home, away from people who can really help them.” This House should not hinder those professionals in their work.
The new clause seems to be a clear attempt to use the Domestic Abuse Bill as a vehicle to advance an agenda that is emphatic on expanding access to abortion, seemingly failing to acknowledge that allowing women to have an abortion at locations other than hospitals or places approved by the Secretary of State has already led to serious complications. We all know that abortion is not the answer to domestic abuse. Surely we should be addressing how women find themselves in such difficult situations, and take measures to prevent that?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that pushing that agenda has led to the ludicrous situation in Northern Ireland where one Minister brought forward a proposal to allow for abortion pills to be administered by a foreign jurisdiction over the phone to patients in Northern Ireland? Is she as appalled by that proposal as I am?
Carla Lockhart
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have an absolutely terrible situation in Northern Ireland as a result of the legislation that was railroaded through this House, and forced on the people of Northern Ireland.
The amendment makes no provision for helping women to get out of the abusive situation. Providing women with abortion pills while failing to address the reasons why women may be unable safely to attend a clinic does not present itself as a responsible or logical solution to tackling domestic abuse. Our laws should be designed to help vulnerable women escape domestic abuse situations, not enable them to remain in those horrific situations. Indeed, if a woman is not assessed in person—and, specifically, given an ultrasound—and if she has gone beyond the legal limit for an abortion by pill, the risk of complications goes up dramatically. Coercion of some kind is frequent in an unplanned pregnancy and in removing the requirement of a face-to-face consultation, there is no guarantee that a patient can speak freely without the coercive party listening in. Furthermore, we know that women are coerced into having abortions based on sex selection. If an abusive partner does not want a particular sex of child, they can force their partner into having an abortion via telemedicine.
On new clause 1, I welcome changes being made to remove the defence of consent in cases of rough sex, but I believe we need to do more to tackle the drivers for rough sex practices. I strongly support new clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whom I commend for her efforts and work in this regard. The House needs to be clear about depictions of rough sex in pornography. Such practices cannot be normalised, and such content should be made illegal. In terms of pornography, it is already illegal, but it is notable that the campaign group We Can’t Consent To This, which has been advocating for a change in the law on the rough sex defence, states:
“In four of the most recent killings”—
of women and girls—
“the men viewed ‘extreme porn’ featuring violence including strangulation…before or after the killing of the women.”
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
This Bill, as it stood at Second Reading, was a remarkable piece of legislation, but having gone through Committee, I believe it has been improved further. After Third Reading, when it comes, it will be legislation that the whole House can be very proud of.
The Bill sits on a long and impressive list of legislation that successive Conservative Governments have introduced over the past 30 years—the Children Act 1989; the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which created the offence of harassment; the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which created the offence of stalking; and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) took through the House, which created the offences regarding slavery, servitude and human trafficking and made provision for the protection of victims.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I served on the Bill Committee together. I completely agree with everything she has said, but does she agree that bringing forward the Bill during the coronavirus pandemic and pushing it forward throughout lockdown is further evidence of the Government’s support for victims?
Nickie Aiken
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Also on the list is the Serious Crime Act 2015, which created the offence of coercive control. In 2017, the Conservative Government doubled the maximum sentence for stalking and a couple of years later passed the Stalking Protection Act 2019, creating stalking protection orders. That leads us to today and the Bill, which I dearly hope we will see become law shortly. That is an impressive history from Conservative Governments, taking strong, decisive and meaningful action to protect those who are unable to protect themselves and giving a voice to the most vulnerable. It is also important to note the notable gap in such laws between 1997 and 2010.
I was honoured to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, my first as a Member of Parliament. It is important to say that on Second Reading and in Committee I highlighted the need to amend the definition of domestic abuse to include children within households where such abuse is present, and to recognise children of the victims of abuse, not just as witnesses. It is estimated that up to 30% of children live in a household where abuse is taking place. Until now, children were seen as the hidden victims of domestic abuse who were never directly affected, but we know that that is not true. Every day, children’s services teams up and down the country, and children’s charities such as Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society, see the devastating effects that witnessing such abuse can have on a child’s development, educational attainment and long-term mental health. I saw this myself as children’s services lead at Westminster.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), but I was disappointed that she struck a more partisan tone than other speakers have done today and perhaps did not recognise as fully as she might the contribution to the Bill that has been made by Members on the side of the House. I am glad that it has been acknowledged by others across the Chamber.
I want to speak specifically on new clause 22, on access to public funds for survivors of domestic abuse. People are often surprised to discover that there is a large number of law-abiding, hard-working families in the UK, often with children born here, sometimes with children who are UK nationals, whose immigration status is subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. In the Liaison Committee on 27 May, I asked the Prime Minister about the position of a Pakistani-origin family in my constituency whose two children were both born in the UK. The father had stopped work because of the coronavirus lockdown, and the family were being forced into destitution because they had no recourse to public funds. The Prime Minister’s answer was that a family in that situation
“should have support of one kind or another”,
and I very much agree with that view. Unfortunately, the Government’s current policy does not deliver help to families in that situation. More than 3 million people have claimed universal credit since the beginning of March because their work has ended and they have not been eligible for one or another of the Government’s schemes. That vital safety net provided by universal credit is simply not available for people with no recourse to public funds, and both the Home Affairs and the Work and Pensions Committees have recommended unanimously that the no recourse to public funds restriction should be lifted for the duration of the current crisis. One of the points the Prime Minister made at the Liaison Committee was that he would find out how many people are in that position. Unfortunately, he has not been able to do so, because the Home Office does not know. It appears that the Home Office does not even have an estimate of how many there are. Fortunately, the Children’s Society has reported that there are more than 100,000 children in the UK whose parents have leave to remain but no recourse to public funds.
Where someone is a victim of domestic abuse, having no recourse to public funds is catastrophic. Protections that the House supports for victims are simply not available. The barriers they face are generally insurmountable. Only 5% of refuge vacancies are accessible. The reason is that housing costs in a refuge are largely met through housing benefit. People with no recourse to public funds cannot claim housing benefit. As Women’s Aid points out, the options for a woman with no recourse to public funds and unable to access a refuge space are shocking: it is either homelessness or returning to the perpetrator.
I welcome the fact that a small pilot is under way, but we know what the gap is. Anyone who came to the UK, other than on a spouse visa, cannot benefit from the domestic violence concession. The other people in this category need that help as well, and I urge the House to support new clause 22.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate having sat on the Bill Committee. It was indeed a privilege that my very first Bill Committee was on such a ground-breaking piece of legislation and so ably led by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is a dedicated Minister.
I have met numerous victims of domestic abuse, each with a moving personal story of their sadly continuing ordeal. All too often, the abuse continues and, sadly, escalates after a relationship ends. I believe that this Bill addresses that. Although the majority of victims of domestic abuse are women, we know that men are victims, too. I draw upon the family experience of a relative of mine who was attacked by his wife, who attempted to stab him, who attempted to poison him and who inflicted broken bones. She repeatedly harassed him with abusive telephone calls at work. The harassment continued even after a traumatic divorce. Abuse and manipulation of their children continue, too. The scars on my relative and his children are long lasting. It is my belief that this Bill would have curtailed that abuse at a much earlier stage and saved much trauma to the victim and his children and saved many wasted resources. I welcome new clause 15.
Family Help in Darlington was one of the UK’s first women’s refuges. It has been doing amazing work in my constituency since 1976. I thank its staff for all that they do and for the help and understanding that they have given me in respect of this important issue. Although they welcome all that this Bill does, they have asked that I urge Ministers to ensure that funding streams will enable them to plan into the future.
Rydal Academy, a primary school in my constituency, is undertaking fantastic work with its higher than average concentration of children from homes where abuse takes place. The key safeguarding leads at the school are keen to see perpetrator programmes put in place locally, and to end the generational cycle of abuse that is all too familiar. Again, I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will address that.
Domestic abuse is not confined to heterosexual relationships alone, and I welcome the fact that this Bill provides the same protections to those victims who are sadly suffering in same-sex relationships. I echo the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) on this point.
This Bill has had a long passage, having undergone many stages in this House and in the previous Parliament, but we can be proud of the protections that we are bringing to the statute book, building on the protections listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). However, this Bill is not the place to make changes to our abortion laws. I will therefore be opposing new clause 28.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a privilege to sit in this debate and hear so many very personal stories not just about constituents, but about family members. It was interesting and moving to listen to the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talk about his family, to remind us that it is not just women who are victims of abuse.
I thank all Members of the House who have pushed the Bill to this point—through Prorogation, covid and lots of other challenges—for all their hard work. I have spoken twice on the Bill, and was honoured to put my name to the new clauses in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Although Labour will not press move those new clauses, we will strongly support Government new clause 20.
I am grateful that the Government have listened to the demands here and in the wider community for major new inclusions, because 60 women in the UK have died, with more being injured, in what men claim is violence that “she asked for”. No one can fail to be moved by the courage of the parents of those who have been brutally murdered by so-called lovers, only for the abuser to use the rough sex excuse to lessen their sentence. Like so many others in the House, I thank the campaign group We Can’t Consent to This for the work that it has done to ensure that justice is served, and support its request that the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions collect and evaluate data on this issue and report back on any use of rough sex claims. The Government say that they will continue to keep the criminal law under review. We must see a clear statement of how that will be done.
I thank my council—Kirklees Council—which has committed an extra £400,000 in this year’s budget to improve local domestic violence support services. Many Members know that we rely on local support to help women and girls at risk of violence, and that that support has faced desperate cuts, including to policing and preventive services, for almost a decade. Hopefully this legislation will go some way to supporting those authorities, because we need support in the community, not just in refuges.
I pay tribute to the personal commitment of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for explicitly recognising children as victims of domestic abuse. New clause 15 puts children in the proposed legal definition. This helps to put children at the heart of how our society deals with domestic abuse and is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). This measure is vital, as there is compelling evidence that shows that children exploited in gangs are more likely to see domestic violence call-outs, which is another reason that we have to eradicate domestic violence when there are children in the family. The impact is felt throughout children’s lives and we must protect them with every tool at our disposal.
Domestic abuse affects children and young people in different ways. A range of interventions must be available so that children can get the right form of specialist help. But it is obvious that we need the money. Between 2010-11 and 2018-19, central Government funding for children and young people’s services fell by £2.2 billion. Women’s Aid Federation of England’s survey on the impact of covid found that 60% of the service providers that responded had needed to reduce or cancel their service provision for children. Crucially, we need local authorities, but they have reported that policy and best practice guidance on domestic abuse are insufficient, and most feel that a statutory duty that is adequately funded to provide services would support them.
Let me finally say to all those young women who have contacted me: we are listening to you. Just because you are not in a domestic situation does not mean to say that you are not being abused. Hopefully, this Bill will be there to help you.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Domestic abuse is a scourge on our society. We must take robust and meaningful action to tackle the perpetrators and protect the victims of this despicable crime. I warmly welcome the Bill and the Government amendments that recognise the vulnerability of children, victims giving evidence in court and those in sexual relationships.
I wish to speak on three new clauses. First, new clause 28 extends a temporary provision for abortion pills to be posted and taken at home, threatening to hijack the Bill and draw our focus away from the very serious subject matter at hand. Abortion is an incredibly sensitive matter that deserves close consideration. Such a seismic change to the law should not be tacked on to a domestic abuse Bill as an amendment, as it lessens some of its impact. Disturbingly, the new clause does not have a gestation period limit and is not limited to medical abortion. In terms of addressing domestic abuse, as we have heard, the new clause could in fact worsen the very problem that it tries to address. By removing confidential face-to-face meetings between women and a medical professional, it becomes impossible for clinicians to establish whether the woman was coerced into requesting the home pill or even whether it was in fact her on the telephone. This is a serious point. We should not do anything that could make domestic abuse any worse.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 35 in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who could not be here to contribute to this debate in person as her childcare needs mean that she has a proxy vote. I would like to express my appreciation to her for her work in tabling amendment 35.
Amendment 35 goes to the heart of so many cases of domestic abuse in that it makes the link between domestic abuse and misogyny. Violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum. Hostility towards women and girls generates a culture in which violence and abuse is tolerated and excused. Changing that means challenging not only individual acts of abuse but the very source that enables them. The gathering of evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls, and how that interplays with the experience of domestic abuse, is crucial to recognising these connections.
The amendment proposes to mandate police forces around the country to record misogyny as a hate crime where they are not ordinarily doing so. The mandatory collecting of data by police forces would help to assess how misogyny influences the experience of domestic abuse. Once we start to record the experiences of women victims by acknowledging, naming and recording the problem of male violence, male entitlement and gender bias together with women’s reported experiences, we not only start to track perpetrators but can seek to add to our understanding of the nature of violence against women in order to work on how to end it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said, for many abusers the idea of a strong, independent, successful woman is just that—an idea—but
“they do not like the reality”.—[Official Report, 2 October 2019; Vol. 664, c. 1273.]
Misogyny in the context of domestic abuse can present itself in an abuser characterising women other than his partner with sexist stereotypes and admonishing his partner to be different. An abuser may want his partner to dress and groom attractively or even modestly but then label her for doing so. Despite evidence from a number of police forces around the country about the benefits of adopting such an approach, the Government have not yet commented on whether all police forces should do so. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that.
The Law Commission is about to launch a consultation on how to include misogyny in hate crime legislation. It is right to wait for the outcome of that work, but that should not prevent the Government from gathering data that would influence the prosecution of such a crime or recognise its place in understanding violence against women. I would welcome the Minister’s views on the Government’s understanding of the role of misogyny in causing violence against women and their assessment of the impact the policy has had to date in police forces where it has been enacted, such as in Nottingham. The amendment will no doubt allow women to name their experiences and let them know they will be believed when doing so.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in the debate and hear the recounted stories that so many hon. Members have brought to the House. Domestic abuse is a horrific experience; I have spoken to many of my constituents who have suffered it. However, this is a landmark Bill, and we should all be rightly proud of what is going on this afternoon.
I was sorry not to be able to contribute on Second Reading. However, I listened carefully to hon. Members from across the House, whose contributions were heartfelt and have added great weight to the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), on their extraordinary work in ending the perverse and unjust rough sex defence. The addition of their amendment will ensure that perpetrators can no longer escape justice from the most heinous and horrific crimes.
My reason for speaking in the debate is twofold. I do so first as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on preventing sexual violence in conflict and, secondly, because a new domestic abuse prevention group has been set up in my Totnes constituency called SASHA—support, advice, safety, help and aid. I hope my work on the former and support for the latter will be of use in tackling this issue and helping all those who, too often, suffer in silence. Much of the work that I and others have done on preventing sexual violence is based on tackling the culture of impunity, ensuring that justice is delivered, and supporting and providing the assistance that so many need. The same can be said of this Bill, which I hope will deliver for people across the country and serve as an inspiration to people around the world, with other countries following suit. I suggest we should be very proud of that.
At the start of the debate, I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who spoke passionately about advertising and ensuring that people are aware of the contents of the Bill. That cannot be expressed enough. People must understand what the clauses do and how there will no longer be the injustice of people getting away with a flimsy defence. The Bill will end the reality of people thinking that domestic abuse is just something that occurs and that it is of a time. We can do better than that.
Covid-19 has highlighted the prevalence of domestic abuse both at home and abroad. The sad fact is that crises and conflicts only see gender-based violence increase, regardless of where someone is or where they live. The facts speak for themselves. As other hon. Members have said, 26 women and girls have been killed since the lockdown began in March. That is a tragedy in itself. The lockdown has forced people from their schools, their places of work and their social areas—essentially their refuges and places of safety—and pushed them back into the arms of abusers, behind locked doors from which they cannot call out, cry out or ask for help. Again, that is something that the Bill will deal with in its entirety. However, for every crime, how many will not be reported? For every bruise, every broken bone and every rape, how many people will not be able to come forward? That is of serious concern. We must continue to work that.
The Bill, as I said, is a landmark piece of legislation. It does all the things in the right area. However, it is also important to note that it is the first step of many that I hope this Government and future Governments will take to ensure that we can always seek justice for those who need it. Only when victims have places of safety and perpetrators feel the full force of the law will we be able to believe that progress is being made. I see that my time is already running out, so I will just make the point that the creation of a commissioner, the new civil domestic and protection notice, and the international jurisdiction are all incredibly useful.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who spoke so passionately. I echo and support his calls.
It is an honour to speak on the Bill, which I know has the potential to change the lives of so many domestic abuse victims across the UK. Colleagues may be aware that I sat on the Bill Committee. We heard compelling evidence from a wide range of charities and campaign groups, including Women’s Aid, Welsh Women’s Aid and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service. I pay tribute to them for the fantastic work they do every day, although it is of course frustrating that their services are required and relied upon by so many victims in the first place.
I also pay tribute to my fantastic colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). I know that her bravery in speaking up about her personal experiences has formed the inspiration for many of our speeches today. I thank her and admire her for her courage. I hope that by speaking up I can do my bit to ensure that the experiences of domestic abuse victims remain at the forefront.
It is clear that coronavirus has confirmed and exposed what I already knew to be true, based on experiences with domestic abuse victims in my own constituency: there is simply not enough protection and support for domestic abuse victims. Since December, my team and I have dealt with more cases of domestic abuse than I ever imagined possible. It feels as though domestic abuse is seen by many people as a hidden offence, something that happens in the newspapers, behind closed doors or somewhere else, but not to people on our doorsteps. The harsh reality is that domestic abuse is a very present threat to so many individuals in so many households. It is happening right now, right this minute.
Ultimately, 10 years of Tory austerity has impacted the ability of local authorities to fund the specialist services that support survivors of domestic abuse. I welcome the Bill, but it must go further to provide equal protection for all victims of domestic abuse: men, women and children. A one-size-fits-all approach to tackling domestic abuse will prolong the suffering of victims, so it is vital that we use this opportunity to ensure that the Bill commits to a co-ordinated cross-Government response to domestic abuse. The Bill must deliver the changes that survivors urgently need in all areas of their lives, from housing to healthcare, from immigration access to justice and to welfare reform.
The changes simply must apply to migrant women, who we know face a unique set of acute barriers when seeking support, coupled with the Home Office hostile environment. Migrant women face the unique threat of having their immigration status used as a form of coercive control, which may prevent them from seeking support. I find it hugely concerning that more than half the police forces in England and Wales confirmed, in response to freedom of information requests, that they share victims’ details with the Home Office for immigration control purposes. Surely, it is our duty to protect victims. They should be prioritised ahead of and above immigration action.
I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic work of Laura Richards and others for all their hard work in relation to new clause 33. Colleagues may be aware that domestic abuse currently costs society at least £66 billion a year, yet that estimate does not include stalking or the psychological impact of stalking. Therefore, the cost is likely to be much, much higher. It is clear that we could save the lives of many, if only the violent histories of domestic abuse perpetrators were actively joined-up. It is vital that our police, prison and probation services are able to identify, assess and manage serial and serious domestic violence perpetrators and stalkers ahead of them committing an offence. The Bill presents a real opportunity to better protect victims, intervene and prevent further abuse, but it does fall short of committing to a multi-agency problem-solving approach by statutory agencies.
To conclude, public protection must be at the forefront. Our current incident-led approach to patterned offences such as domestic abuse and stalking is costly with people’s lives, especially for victims.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
After giving my maiden speech on the Second Reading of this landmark Bill, I would like to acknowledge the cross-party work since then in Committee that will rightly protect so many. I recognise the courage it will have taken for Members across this House to speak of their own experiences and for every victim who has come forward, including my constituents. They have shaped the Bill.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on such an important subject. In the weeks and months to come, this House will debate the economic recovery from covid-19, and the decisions will mainly affect women. The poor financial situation of women is one of the main factors contributing to the difficulty of leaving an abusive relationship. Today, we have a chance to create a more secure future for the millions of women at risk of domestic abuse across the UK. It is our duty as representatives to understand the environment in which domestic abuse is allowed to manifest and thrive, and to create legislation to protect victims from that environment.
I represent constituents in the London boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley. In 2018-19, the London borough of Greenwich had the highest volume of domestic abuse offences across London. In 2019, Bexley borough reported an 8.5% increase in domestic abuse offences. Such offences, which already number in the thousands in Greenwich and Bexley, are likely to have increased during the covid-19 period. By April 2020, the Met had reported a 24% rise in domestic violence across London and warned that the true extent of offending was likely to be greater. Women in low-income households are 3.5 times more likely to experience domestic violence. While everyone across the UK will feel the financial impacts of covid-19, women will face an increased risk of financial difficulties and be at more risk of domestic abuse, which is why it is so important that we support the Bill today.
In my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead, women’s median earnings are 40% lower than men’s. Some 75% of women’s income in my constituency is absorbed by the median private rent cost, compared with 44% of men’s. If single women are priced out of renting in Erith and Thamesmead, how will they feel financially able to leave an abusive relationship? If women cannot afford basic necessities for themselves and their children due to mainly low-paid or insecure work, how will they feel financially able to leave an abusive relationship? If women are more likely to lose their jobs due to covid-19 and face financial instability, how will they feel able to leave an abusive relationship? The answer is that they will not and many do not.
We have a responsibility in this House to support these new measures to protect victims of domestic violence at a time when there is likely to be an increase in offences. Those measures include secure lifetime tenancies in English housing authorities, which will remove the barriers that prevent victims from leaving their existing social housing tenancy and support them to remain in homes that the perpetrator has left. There is also the framework for the new domestic abuse commissioner to hold public authorities to account and the statutory definition of domestic abuse that will allow victims to report abusive behaviour that may prevent them from leaving a harmful situation, such as control over their finances.
I call on Members to support new clause 22, on access to public funds for survivors of domestic abuse, which would ensure that victims get the vital support and services that they need to escape abuse, regardless of their immigration status. I also call on Members to support new clause 23, which would introduce a duty to commission sufficient specialist domestic abuse services for all victims of domestic abuse so that all victims can receive support within their home, community or local refuge.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for her courage in speaking up for victims of domestic abuse and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), who spoke so passionately on behalf of victims in Committee.
When it was introduced, the Domestic Abuse Bill was a groundbreaking piece of UK legislation. The Government have followed through on their commitment to update and future-proof the law by bringing this enhanced Bill to the House. In preparation for my role on the Bill Committee, I spoke with representatives of Gorwel to understand how domestic abuse presents itself in my constituency. Gorwel, which means “horizon”, provides support services for up to 500 victims of domestic violence and homelessness every week across north Wales. From my discussions with them, and my previous work with other support services, it is clear that domestic abuse cuts through every cultural, social and gender divide.
In Committee, we heard horrific evidence of violence and abuse. We sought to clarify and understand where support is most needed and how it can best be provided. The Bill is backed up with genuine funding to help our authorities tackle this horrendous offence. It provides the most comprehensive package of protection for victims of domestic abuse ever seen in the UK.
The Committee recognised, too, that there are some areas in which there are significant gaps in data and where more work is required to understand the best ways to support specific groups of victims, such as migrant victims. We heard much evidence from groups such as Southall Black Sisters and discussed the matter at length in Committee. We know that some migrant victims have no recourse to public funds and may not be eligible for the destitution domestic violence concession. The Government have already provided more than £1 million of support for those victims through the tampon tax fund. However, it is a complex and nuanced area of concern, with a wide variety of associated issues, such as immigration, trafficking, child protection and asylum.
We identified that there are still significant gaps in our understanding of the needs of the group. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of a £1.5 million pilot project, which not only will support migrant victims to find safe accommodation and services, but will be designed to assess gaps in provision and gather robust data to inform future funding. Improving our understanding of the needs of migrant victims will allow the Government to invest public money in providing appropriate support mechanisms that are fit for purpose.
I entered politics to help those who have no voice, and this landmark legislation has allowed me to do just that. It has been an honour to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, and I am proud of the difference that the Government are making to the lives of people all across the UK.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The next Member on the list has withdrawn, so we go directly to Laura Trott.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the Bill. I am relatively new to the House, but cross-party working on matters that will make a real difference to people’s lives is exactly why I wanted to be here.
I wish to speak to new clause 20, make a brief mention of new clause 28, and then say a word about parental alienation. First, on new clause 20, I join the wholehearted praise for my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for Newbury (Laura Farris), and for the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman).
The legislation we will pass today is too late for Natalie Connolly, although I hope it will bring some comfort to her family. It is shameful that the perpetrator was given three years and eight months for what he did to Natalie, but it is not too late for the many other victims. It is important to note that new clause 20 is about serious harm, not just murder. The Centre for Women’s Justice has worked on numerous cases that have been dropped due to the rough sex defence. I very much hope that those cases can be looked at again and that the CPS will open itself up to bringing cases forward. I cannot imagine how hard it is for someone to go through the process of going to the police and reporting the case, only to be told that because of rough sex their experience is not valid. We must make sure that never happens again for any victim and that the cases of people who have gone through it can be addressed. I really hope that the CPS will do something about that.
I understand why new clause 28 was tabled and strongly support the review announced from the Government Front Bench announced earlier. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) made an important point about access to the provision of abortion, particularly for people who are victims of domestic violence. It is true to say that access to abortion services is not the same as access to GPs, and that should be the case. We all know that when someone takes abortion pills the effects can be quite dramatic and quite quick. It is important that women are very close to abortion services, to allow dignity in a process that can be so difficult for so many. I hope that that is considered as part of the review.
On parental alienation, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), we need to be very careful, as I know those on the Front Bench will be. Parental alienation is brought up quite frequently in the divorce process and is something in respect of which there is a huge amount of conflict. I am nervous about bringing it into the definition of domestic violence, because I worry that it will add something else that will bring conflict to a process in which there are already so many issues. I know that those on the Front Bench are conscious of that, but I nevertheless urge that we really should tread very carefully in that respect.
I will conclude—because I know that I have to. We are all worried about the rise in domestic violence that has happened during the covid-19 process. I hope that what has happened with this Bill today will send a strong message to the country that this House will not tolerate it and we will act to address it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid there is very little time left, so I have to tell everyone except the next speaker that they will not have the chance to speak this evening. I am sure you will all have worked that out.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to take part in this debate and say a few words on behalf of the many people in Newport West who have written to me about the Bill in recent days.
It is important for us all to acknowledge that domestic abuse is a serious and widespread issue that primarily affects women and children. There are 2.4 million victims each year, and in England and Wales two women a week are killed by a partner or former partner. From representations made to me by constituents in Newport West, including Rob, I know that men are also victims of domestic abuse and need and deserve our support too.
The Government’s own figures state that domestic abuse costs taxpayers in Newport West and throughout the UK £66 billion a year. The wonderful charity Women’s Aid, to which I pay tribute for its work and campaigning, estimates that £393 million is needed for domestic abuse services annually. When winding up the debate, I hope the Minister will reassure my constituents that the domestic abuse sector will get the adequate long-term funding required by diverse specialist services. That funding must be allocated now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is fair to say there were moments in the past two and a half years where I did not quite believe that I would be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and deliver the winding-up of the Bill’s Report stage, so it is a genuine pleasure to be here doing exactly that.
We have seen extraordinary contributions from across the House, not just in this debate but over the history of this Bill and its progress through Parliament. We have heard from Members who have bravely given their own experiences of the abuse they themselves suffered, whether that was the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who moved us all on Second Reading in October last year or, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who brought to the Chamber his own experiences as a child living in an abusive household. Those are but two examples; there are, sadly, many, many more examples we have heard, both through the direct experience of colleagues, but also through the experiences we have all tried to bring into the Chamber.
There are people we know as soon as their names are said—names such as Clare, Rachel and Holly. We know their stories. If one thing can be drawn from today’s debate and the progress of this Bill, it is that we do not just talk about them and the experiences they endured and the experiences that were forced on them, but that we talk about the legacy their lives have had. Their legacy is written throughout this Bill.
As the Minister, I have to, of course, try to respond to the many points that have been made in the debate, and I apologise that I simply will not be able to do so. To give some indication of just how much cross-Government working there has been on the Bill, as well as the work in Parliament, there are now seven Departments—and counting—working on it. During briefing sessions for the Committee sage, the officials briefing me had to have a queueing system because they could not all fit on a conference call. That gives an idea of how many people have been involved in the Bill, and I thank each and every one of them, because I will not have the honour of doing so on Third Reading.
I will jump now to some of the substance of today’s debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and many Opposition Members, as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), raised—understandably and rightly—support for migrant victims. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to helping victims and to the support for migrant victims scheme, which I announced on Second Reading. We expect to make announcements in the summer about this. We will be working with charities. We are working with the domestic abuse commissioner—I spoke to her about this only on Friday. We want this scheme to have the trust and involvement of everyone who is as concerned about migrant victims as we are. We are aiming to publish the framework of the scheme ahead of Lords Second Reading, and we very much hope that everyone will feel able to support it.
Jess Phillips
If the approximately 3,630 women who we imagine might want to access this scheme a year breaches the £1.5 million that the Government have allocated, will the Government turn people away, or will they make more funds available?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady has rather set out the problem we have, which is measuring the number of women. She will know that we already help around 2,500 women under the DDVC. She will also be aware that, alongside the pilot project, we have the tampon tax funding, which is continuing. I very much see the two schemes running in tandem.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West has tabled new clause 27, which concerns the firewall. She will know that the police are facing a super-complaint relating to police data sharing for immigration purposes and that there is a judicial review outstanding. Obviously, we have to wait for those cases, but in the meantime we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the guidance it issues does the job that is required, so I ask her not to press the new clause.
Members across the House dealt with new clause 23. We all want to support domestic abuse victims and their children, regardless of where they reside. We must, however, ensure that any new statutory duties are properly considered, costed and robust. The new duty on tier 1 local authorities in part 4 of the Bill is the product of extensive consultation and engagement with local authorities and sector organisations. The same cannot be said of new clause 23. The Government are committed to gathering this evidence, and I am grateful to the domestic abuse commissioner for agreeing to lead an in-depth investigation on this. We have to be able to understand where services are and are not provided, to identify best practice and to consult fully with our charities, local authorities and other important parties before considering any statutory commitments. Any new duty must also be properly costed, taking into account existing provision. We expect the commissioner to set out her recommendations in a report under clause 7, and as those who have been following closely will know, we and others will then have 56 days in which to respond. We will act on this, and we will respond promptly.
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I will make some progress.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley in particular raised new clause 24, and she urged us to act on this—we are doing so. Alongside publishing the family harms panel report, we published the Government’s implementation plan for that report. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), is acting on the advice of the panel, which gave careful consideration to the issue of the presumption of contact. The panel concluded that an urgent review of the presumption should be undertaken—it did not conclude that we should legislate immediately. My hon. Friend is beginning this work. He is convening the Family Justice Board this month, and we hope and anticipate that this work will be completed by the end of the year. We share the sense of urgency, and we will act on it.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, raised new clauses 32 and 33, and new clause 21 has also been raised during the debate. On new clause 21, there was compelling testimony from several witnesses who gave evidence in Committee against the introduction of a separate register, as proposed in new clause 21, because that might diminish, rather than increase, safety. However, we are very conscious of the concerns that the right hon. Lady and others have raised.
We continue to work to keep the effectiveness of risk management processes under regular review, as well as to modify the processes in accordance with emerging evidence and good practice. For example, the College of Policing is testing a revised domestic abuse risk assessment process, with a view to rolling out an improved model across all police forces. Individual forces are also trialling enhanced risk assessment models, and there will be an evaluation of the new stalking protection orders as well. So there is work to be done, and we will very much keep it under review.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Basingstoke both raised important cases of threats to disclose—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) raised this as well—and we very much understand their concerns. Threats to disclose, regardless of the connection between the offender and the victim, can in many circumstances already be captured by a range of offences. However, the Law Commission is conducting a review of the law relating to the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images with a view to assessing the currency of the law. In the meantime, we are working with the College of Policing to ensure that the police have all the information they need to make the right charges and arrests, where appropriate.
Victoria Atkins
I will in a moment, if I may.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) introduced new clause 28, and may I thank the House for its thoughtful consideration of this new clause? As I set out earlier, the Government consider that the right way forward is to undertake a public consultation on whether to make permanent the current covid-19 measure allowing for home use of early medical abortion pills up to 10 weeks’ gestation for all eligible women. In answer to the question she asked earlier, I can confirm that we will keep the current covid-19 measures in place until the public consultation concludes and a decision has been made. I understand that the hon. Lady has been good enough to indicate that, in those circumstances, she will not push the new clause to a vote. I thank her and other Members for their consideration and their responses.
Very quickly, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) raised important issues regarding research. As Minister for Women, I commissioned research into the impact of pornography on attitudes towards women and girls. This research is to be published soon, so I invite my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are concerned about this to save their fire for the online harms White Paper and the research that will be published. Again, of course the Government will keep under review the concerns that my right hon. Friend raised in relation to the circumstances of domestic abuse.
Victoria Atkins
I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene—very quickly.
Chris Bryant
The Minister knows perfectly well that I do not want to divide the House on my amendments, because I want the whole of the House to be supporting women who have suffered acquired brain injury. Will she simply guarantee that she will meet me and other Members of the group before this goes to the House of Lords so that we can clear up any misunderstandings there may have been?
Victoria Atkins
Yes. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
If I may, I am going to gallop to the finish. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions—whether remotely, or they are not even here at all—such as those of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for Newbury (Laura Farris), who talked so movingly and rightly about the consequences of the rough sex provisions.
May I sum up by saying that this Bill is not just for the victims that we have heard about in this Chamber? It is for the victims that we have not been able to help in the past and it is for preventing the harm to victims in the future, including children, that we bring this Bill forward. This is a Bill in which we can all take pride. We are doing some great work with this, and I thank each and every hon. Member for their help in getting us to this stage.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a real pleasure to have made it to the first Third Reading of this Bill. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and I were reminding ourselves, there were two Second Reading debates, and the fact that we have reached Third Reading is a significant milestone not just in the history of the Bill, but for the millions of people who have either suffered in silence or who have had their stories told, either here or to courts and other proceedings up and down our country.
The passing of this Bill by the House marks an important milestone in our shared endeavour to provide better support and protection for the victims of domestic abuse and their children. It is the culmination of over three years of work and I again pay tribute, in particular, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for championing this Bill, as well as to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. We know that this Bill went through a draft Bill procedure —one that I commend and support in particular in this instance, because the prelegislative scrutiny that was undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and her colleagues in that Joint Committee made it clear and ensured that this Bill, as it came to the House, was already in a strong state.
The Bill was improved during the course of debate. It was scrutinised properly in Committee. I am grateful to the Committee members of all parties, who not only did their duty but threw themselves into the process with enthusiasm, vigour and purpose. It shows that, contrary to how some of the commentariat often scoff at the Committee process in this House, the process is not only alive and well but working well. That is a vote of confidence in a vital part of line-by-line scrutiny
The Bill now expressly recognises the devastating impact of domestic abuse on the lives of children growing up in a household where one parent is being abused by another. Such children are also the victims, and it is right that the Bill recognises that, allowing them to gain better access to the protection and support they need.
During the passage of the Bill, we have also strengthened protection for victims in court. No victim of domestic abuse should be re-traumatised as a result of being subjected to cross-examination in court by their abuser. Such cross-examination in person is already prohibited in the criminal courts, and the Bill now extends that protection to the family and civil courts.
We must also do everything we can to enable the victims of domestic abuse to give their best evidence in court. That might mean, for example, giving evidence from behind a screen or via a video link. Again, that principle should apply in all court proceedings. As a result of an amendment, we now have automatic eligibility for special measures in criminal, family and civil proceedings.
We have also delivered on our commitment to make the law crystal clear in relation to the so-called rough sex defence. We now have it enshrined in statute that no one can consent to serious harm, or indeed their own death, for the purposes of sexual gratification. I join in commendation of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), both of whom have met me on several occasions to discuss these matters and to whom I am grateful, and, most importantly, the family of Natalie Connolly, who have assiduously campaigned on this issue.
Fiona Bruce
I raised on Report the link between rough sex and pornography, with recent surveys indicating that there is indeed a link. Would the Secretary of State be good enough to give a little more information on the assurance I sought that the Government would take early action to address concerns about harms resulting from pornography?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which she brought the issue to the debate via her amendment and the constructive approach she has consistently taken. Yes, I can give her that assurance, which will come in several forms. Research is being done by the Government Equalities Office on this sensitive and important issue. That will be published soon, and through legislation and the online harms policy, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for, we have again a vital opportunity for early action to deal with the issue she rightly raises.
The Bill has been a prime example of how the Government, parliamentarians and campaigners have come together to identify an area where the law falls short and done something about it, yet we recognise that, in relation to a number of other issues, there is still more to be done. The recent publication of the report by the expert panel on harm in the family courts and the Government’s implementation plan affords, I think, a unique opportunity for the family justice system to reform how it manages private family law cases involving children. I put on record my own personal commitment to the process. That report was uncompromising, it made for difficult reading and it was critical, but I felt strongly that it had to be published, warts and all, because if we are going to deal with this problem, we have to be honest about the failures of the past, and through that process of honest assessment come up with something better. We owe it to the families who look to the court as a place of resolution rather than a place of further abuse, strife, hurt and horror.
The panel received more than 1,200 submissions of evidence and the report provides significant insight into the experience of victims of domestic abuse in family courts. It is a launch pad for the actions that we are going to take to better protect and support children and domestic abuse victims throughout private family law proceedings. There is more work to be done, because I strongly believe that although the adversarial principle is an important one and serves to advance the interests of justice in many settings, in private family law proceedings in particular we have to look for a better way to resolve the issues and to achieve a higher degree of justice for everybody involved, not least the children whose voices must be heard and who, despite the best efforts of the Children Act of 30 years ago, still do not necessarily get their voices heard in the way that we owe it to them to allow.
Sir John Hayes
While my right hon. and learned Friend is in the mood to concede and be generous, might I ask him to look again at the issue of maximum and minimum sentences? He is of course right that during legal proceedings victims should be treated with the respect and regard that they deserve, but once people are convicted, there needs to be exemplary sentences—there needs to be just deserts. Will he look at that issue through the prism of the new clause that I tabled, which I have no doubt inspired and impressed him?
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend he tempts me into new territory. As the Government and I develop a White Paper on sentencing reform that will be published later in the year, we will have ample opportunity to engage properly on such issues. My right hon. Friend knows that I come to this role with, shall we say, a little bit of form on the issue of sentencing and a long experience in it, and I want to use that White Paper as the opportunity to set something clear, firm and understandable that will only increase public confidence in the sentencing system in England and Wales.
Before I move on to the question of migrant victims, I pause to pay warm tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and, indeed, to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is part of my ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice. Together, they did not just do their duty, but did it with zeal, passion and a deep commitment to the issues. I know that that commitment is shared by Opposition spokesmen, too, and pay tribute to them for their assiduous work on this issue. True cross-party co-operation can move mountains, and this Bill is an emblematic example of that important principle.
Let me return to the important issue of migrant victims of domestic abuse and the review that has been conducted. We acknowledge that more needs to be done to support migrant victims who do not qualify under the destitute domestic violence concession or other mechanisms—that is very clear—but we do need to assess precisely that need, as outlined by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. That is why the £1.5 million pilot scheme that is to be launched later in the year will provide support additional to the mechanisms that have already been discussed. It will also provide the evidence necessary to help to inform decisions about a long-term solution.
The provision of better protection and support for victims of domestic abuse and their children is at the very heart of the Bill. In the first Second Reading debate —on the previous version of the Bill—I told my own story about being a young barrister dealing with a domestic abuse case, one of many that were dealt with somewhat differently, shall we say, in those days from how they are dealt with now. That does not necessarily mean that we should be complacent about where we have come to with regards to how we deal with domestic violence, but it is right to say that if the phrase “It’s only a domestic” has not previously been consigned to the history books, this Bill will make sure that it is. We owe it to the 2.4 million victims a year to ensure that the justice system and local support services work better for them.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the kind remarks he made earlier. He has just outlined the importance of this Bill. Will the Government do everything they can to ensure that, in timetabling it through the other place, it is given the priority it needs to ensure that we can get it on the statute book as soon as possible?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and with alacrity I give her that undertaking. I know that my colleagues in the other place will share the same ambition that we have here, and I will work with them to make sure that the Bill makes its proper passage through that House so that we can give it the Royal Assent that we all want it to attain.
Ultimately, we all just want the abuse to stop, but in the meantime we must, and we will, do everything we can to protect vulnerable people, to protect victims and their children, and to offer them the safety and support they so desperately need and deserve. I commend this Bill to the House.
Jess Phillips
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Chancellor. After three years, I am delighted that I might get the last word on this Bill. I will echo some of the thanks that he has laid out.
When I was speaking to the Deputy Chief Whip earlier, he said, “You know on Third Reading, Jess”—which I have not prepared for at all, because I did not think we would actually get to it—“you’re not allowed to just go on about what you want in the Bill,” so I might just sit down, because my forte is going on about what I want in the Bill. As it passes Third Reading, I feel slightly bereft about not updating it anymore. It seems that, since I was elected to this House, it has been going through.
I pay huge tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her work in the Home Office and latterly as Prime Minister. I told a story in Committee about how, on one occasion when she was Home Secretary, I was a candidate in the election so when she visited the refuge where I worked, I was allowed to work from home that day for shame that I might show up the organisation with the Home Secretary there. She visited where I used to work on a number of occasions and has always been, I would say, mostly in the right place around domestic abuse. We would not be here today had it not been for her efforts.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the work done by the Joint Committee, which was very thorough and detailed and has definitely led to the Bill being in the position that it is.
Mrs Miller
That gives me the opportunity to thank the other members of the Committee in both Houses, the other place and here, for the assiduous way in which they attended the Committee and for the excellent evidence that we were given by a large number of organisations. I also thank the Clerks of the House, who, when it comes to these sorts of Bills, go from a standing start to being ready for action almost overnight. They have our undying gratitude.
Jess Phillips
I could not agree with the right hon. Lady more about the Clerks of the House. I had not quite understood, until I was in my current position, exactly how much they do, but I feel as though Kevin from the Clerks’ office is currently on my speed dial and I will definitely be buying a hat if he ever gets married. I feel very close to the Clerks of the House now.
I want to pay tribute to the Ministers on the Bill Committee. Everybody today has rightly paid tribute to Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice for their efforts and their open hearts and minds throughout the Bill, and I certainly echo that. I also want to pay tribute to a former Member, Sarah Newton, who is no longer here. I was about to say that she was the first Minister I ever sat down with and talked to about the Bill, but actually I think that was the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). I pay tribute to them both.
On my side of the House, I first wish to say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). Since he has taken up his position, he has really prioritised the issue of domestic abuse. In the context of the covid crisis we are currently facing, he is pushing every day for things to be better for victims in England, Wales and across the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) dealt with these issues very ably in Committee. I also want to make a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who felt that she could not speak today. We owe her an enormous debt of gratitude for what she has done.
Inevitably, I am going to forget somebody. Never list a group of people, because you will inevitably forget some of them. I do it with my children, so we will have to see how I go. I wish to thank: Women’s Aid, SafeLives, Southall Black Sisters, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, Nicole Jacobs, End Violence Against Women, Vera Baird, Hestia, Refuge and every single organisation working every day across the country to support people directly. They have worked on the Bill just as much as anybody in this House. They put a lot of effort into the policy work and we are better representatives for the work they have all done.
I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said with regard to timeliness, and the severity and importance that he puts on the issue around the family courts he mentioned today. I look forward to the details of the review, and the pilot scheme, of migrant women’s support services.
I came to this House inspired by women and children who had been abused. It is an honour to stand in the Third Reading debate of the Domestic Abuse Bill. This place can seem completely otherworldly. The words written in the Bill will seem in many cases completely otherworldly to the vast majority of the people I have supported in my life as victims of domestic abuse. But the message it sends is that we can hear them, and that is a message we should send loud and clear from this place. Finally, in Third Reading part 1, I hope the Bill only ever has a part 1.
Sir Robert Neill
Those were two very powerful speeches, which is right because this is a really important Bill. It is a major aspect of reform of family private law. The Lord Chancellor is entitled to great credit for what he has done. It is the second time in almost a fortnight that he has brought in major reforms and we should remember that. We have reformed divorce law and now how we deal with private family law.
I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) from the Opposition Front Bench, because this is something we ought to deal with together. It is a difficult and complex area. As Chairman of the Justice Committee, I can say that we have wrestled with some of those issues from time to time. As a practitioner, as a constituency MP and as a human being, I have seen the consequences of some of the deficiencies in the law as it currently stands. This is a major reform and we should welcome it. There is more to do, I have no doubt, but it is a good step forward. In particular, the changes to the procedures in the family court, which have taken some time to get through, are really important. I hope we will now see that properly resourced. I hope also that we will follow that through in some of the understanding that is required, for example, with regards to acquired brain injury—a point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in a previous debate—and some of the pressures that are put on people through coercive control, which this Government have recognised and taken on board beyond most others. We need ensure that we keep practice in line with the letter of the law.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill has dealt with the issue of non-fatal strangulation. As a legal practitioner, it always struck me that this was a real difficulty—when one could not prove the necessary intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The irony was that if somebody died, we could prove manslaughter, but sadly we could not prove anything less. That is another gap that the Bills fills.
An awful lot of really important points have been covered by the Bill, but I suspect that the overall thrust is that we are determined to improve the situation of victims in the criminal courts and the family courts. Ironically, crime got in front of the family division in many ways, when it came to the protection of witnesses and the special care that should be given to people. Judges and practitioners have repeatedly sought this and it has been delivered. I hope that we can now move forward towards better reform of private family law generally. But may I just make a final prod to the Lord Chancellor in a nice way, and say that that requires resource? It requires resource for the judges, the ability for people to sit the requisite hours, and resource for those who undertake a number of onerous duties referred to in the Bill on behalf of the public to be properly recompensed. I suspect that he will do that.
We ought to welcome this legislation, and, above all, welcome the fact that we are moving away from what was rather a blame culture in the way in which we dealt with family law, and towards something that is much more constructive. Maybe we should move forward in such a way in a number of other matters too.
Yvette Cooper
In the last few minutes remaining, I want to thank the Government for bringing forward this important Bill and for listening. I thank Ministers and the Labour shadow Front-Bench Members, who have been such passionate advocates for improvements to the Bill. I also thank Members across the House who have tabled important amendments, proposals and reforms, and have very much come together in the kind of cross-party spirit that we would expect in dealing with such a terrible crime—a crime that destroys lives and haunts children’s futures for very many years to come.
We have already come a long way since the Home Affairs Committee’s report on domestic abuse two years ago, and since I raised with the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), questions about having a domestic abuse commissioner back in—I think—2012. We have seen great progress as a result of cross-party working and the decisions that the Government have taken to put these measures into practice. We all owe thanks to the many organisations that work so tirelessly every single day to support domestic abuse victims right across the country and to rescue families, put lives back together and give people a future.
I join the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). Her words and her bravery in speaking out have already provided great comfort and growing confidence to many other people across the country who have experienced something similar. Her reaching out and saying, “You are not alone”, has been extremely powerful.
We also need to think with some humility about what happens next. Although we may have come together and agreed legislation, legislation does not solve everything. This is not just about how legislation is used, but about how Government policies work, how partnerships work and how things happen right across the country. That humility should be even greater at this moment, because we have come together to say how important this legislation is at the same time that domestic abuse has been rising during the coronavirus crisis. It is to all those who are still suffering that we owe an ever greater commitment to help them and to rebuild their lives.
Robert Buckland
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to place on the record my thanks to all the officials who have laboured very hard in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice on this matter, and I seek your guidance on how to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As the most brilliant lawyer in the Chamber—[Interruption.] —in the House, the Lord Chancellor has made his point perfectly. Rarely have I seen a Bill with such co-operation from everyone right across the House, wonderfully worked on by the Clerks, and rarely have I seen a Third Reading conclude with everybody so satisfied and pleased at the result.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills
Policing in Devon and Cornwall
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I am delighted to bring this debate to the House, to present and highlight the incredible work that Devon and Cornwall police do, and to raise a number of the very particular, in some cases unique, challenges that they face. I am delighted to be joined this evening by colleagues from Devon. It is one of the few occasions on which out-and-out co-operation and unity can be seen between Devon and Cornwall Members of Parliament.
I place on record very firmly my thanks to Devon and Cornwall police. Day in and day out, week in and week out, throughout the year they do an incredible job keeping the people of our two counties safe. As I am sure we are all aware, the covid-19 pandemic has brought a great number of new challenges to our police across the country. The pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges for our police, as they have had to adapt to new operational and resource pressures, and to a rapidly changing police environment.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I endorse the fact that it is great to be with Cornwall tonight—not always, but tonight. Seriously, the police are dealing with covid-19 and with lots of tourists coming into our area now. They have a greater challenge than ever, and I very much respect that they police by consent in this country, especially in Devon and Cornwall. Can we ensure that, as our tourists come, they please behave, because that will make the police’s job so much easier?
Steve Double
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I suspect that not for the first time this evening another Member will make a point that I will go on to make, but I join him in acknowledging the very proactive but sensible way Devon and Cornwall police have approached the pandemic. They have indeed policed with consent, and even though they, I believe, have issued the fourth-highest number of fixed penalty notices in the country—I believe we are currently up to just under 1,000—it has been done in a very sensible way.
The police have continued, I believe, to enjoy the overwhelming support and respect of the people of Devon and Cornwall in the way they have gone about policing this pandemic. I want to say a big thank you to them, and I pay tribute to them. I also want to place on record my great thanks to both our police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, and our chief constable, Shaun Sawyer, for the clear leadership they have provided during these past few months, as it has really helped the police on the ground to carry out their work so effectively. In my own constituency, I want to thank the inspectors in Newquay, Guy Blackford, and in St Austell, Ed Gard and the Cornwall commander, our very own IDS—Ian Drummond-Smith—for the way that they have provided the pragmatic and sensible approach that we have needed. I just want to say thank you to them all.
The image of Devon and Cornwall for most people is that of a picturesque, rural and coastal part of the world where people love to visit for their holidays. Policing in Devon and Cornwall is just as challenging as it is anywhere else in the country—in some ways, it is more so because of its very unique situation. Let me give colleagues an idea: the Devon and Cornwall police force area is the largest in England, covering more than 4,000 square miles. Our emergency services deal with more than a million calls per year, and their work is cut out because we have more than 13,600 miles of road, the highest in the country, 85% of which are rural. As we all know, rural roads are, in fact, the most dangerous and often the most challenging to police. The force area also has the longest coastline in the country. Cornwall itself has 675 miles of beautiful cliffs, beaches and coves. Devon is not quite so great or quite so beautiful, but, equally, that in itself presents a number of incredible challenges to our police force.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I cannot possibly let that stand. Does my hon. Friend agree that the state-of-the-art new police headquarters, based in my constituency of East Devon, is a prime example of the investment that our police need in Devon and Cornwall?
Steve Double
Absolutely. Those improvements are very welcome. They represent, I believe, some of the investment that is going into the area, but, as I will go on to say, it cannot end there. We do need continued investment.
Another factor that is often overlooked when we consider all our public services, but particularly with regard to policing, is the fact that we are a peninsula and therefore not able to share resources with nearby forces or other county areas. That often means that our police are isolated from other assets. I believe that one statistic is that only 10% are within seven miles of another police asset, which in itself presents a number of very great challenges to the way the police operate.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I would like to highlight, as my hon. Friend has done, the excellent work done by Devon and Cornwall police. The force really has managed huge influxes of visitors, so, despite what he says about Cornwall versus Devon, we have seen a huge influx of visitors to Devon in recent weeks, and we simply cannot borrow from our neighbouring forces given our geography and our extensive rural road network. We just need more local police. Unless visitors are going to start to bring their own, we need a more sustainable solution.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes the point very well. I will come on to talk about that in a bit more detail.
Before I go any further, it would be wrong of me not to mention the Isles of Scilly, largely because my wife hails from there. She was born and bred there and her family still live there. It is also another unique part of our force area. The five inhabited islands that are 25 miles off the mainland need to be policed by Devon and Cornwall police, and that adds further complexities to their work.
The Devon and Cornwall police area has a number of very particular challenges. When taken together, it is clear that no other police force in the country has to face this combined complexity. None the less, the Devon and Cornwall police do an incredible job. Devon and Cornwall is the second safest region in England and Wales and has the lowest rate of victim-based crime nationally. But what is incredible is that, despite all those challenges, the force provides an excellent service in keeping us safe with lower than average national funding. The Devon and Cornwall force receives 52p per day per person in police funding, compared with the England and Wales average of 61p per person per day, while having to cope with the challenges that our rural peninsula presents.
In addition to all this, as colleagues have mentioned, we must include the impact of tourism and the summer surge that we see every year. The funding gap is even more significant when we consider that Devon and Cornwall experience the highest level of visitors in terms of overnight stays, second only to London. In fact, I learned during the lockdown that the constituency I have the pleasure of representing has the highest number of overnight stays, at 4.7 million a year, of any individual constituency in the whole of the UK. During the extended tourism season, we experienced a 14% increase in the number of incidents, including an 11.7% increase in recorded crime. This represents the highest seasonal increase in recorded crime across the whole country. The intensity of calls for service seen in the extended summer period places considerable pressure on our services for the rest of the year, as staff seek to catch up on training and annual leave and to address the toll that the summer season pressure takes on their workloads. So the pressure of tourism is not just felt during the peak tourist season; it has an impact on policing across the whole year.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for securing this Adjournment debate. If he would like to have a vote on whether Devon or Cornwall is better, I would take our odds as a good chance. He is talking about the geographical issues as well as the population influx that we have in the south-west. Would he support what has been done by our police and crime commissioner in the councillor advocate scheme, which gives new mechanisms for people across the area to support their police officers and help to eradicate crime?
Steve Double
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he highlights a point I was going to make. The pressures and the below-average funding that our police face mean that the Devon and Cornwall force is often at the forefront of innovation and finding new ways in which to work and use its resources in the very best, most efficient way. The example he highlights shows a way of working within the community to ensure that effective policing takes place despite having lower than average funding. We should praise our police force for the work that it does but at the same time make the case that it deserves better funding.
I also want to take this opportunity to mention the excellent piece of analysis that the office of the police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall has put together. It is entitled “Understanding the exceptional policing challenges in Devon and Cornwall from tourism, rurality and isolation”. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with this piece of work. It shows in much greater detail the unique challenges that our police force faces.
I want to talk a bit more about funding. The current funding gap between rural and urban police forces needs to be addressed. This is something that I have raised continually since I was first elected five years ago, and I know I was not the first to do so. It is a long-standing issue that needs to be addressed. I would again draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that funding for Devon and Cornwall police is 9p per day less than the England and Wales average, and that when we factor in the adjustment to the population for tourist numbers, it is 13p per day. That situation needs to be addressed, so I seek confirmation from the Minister that any future review of police funding will factor in these different elements and ensure that police funding better reflects the position on the ground and the challenges that the police force actually faces. We need a better funding formula that really reflects the complexities that policing in rural areas, particularly in Devon and Cornwall, faces. The current formula fails to reflect the very high volume of calls for services faced by the police, which cover a very broad nature of incidents. Last year, as much as 84% of Devon and Cornwall police force’s total demand fell under the non-crime categories, many of which occur in rural and remote locations that are very time-consuming to get to, and so are an intensive use of resource. The role that our police officers play in rural areas, more than in urban parts of the country, is much broader than what is captured in the recorded crime figures.
I would like to make reference to the allocation of police numbers. I believe that all colleagues here will have welcomed the 141 new police officers that Devon and Cornwall was allocated out of the initial 6,000 tranche of the 20,000 new officers that we are going to put on to the frontline. However, we await the Government’s decision regarding how the remaining 14,000 of this 20,000 uplift will be allocated. If we are truly to deliver on the Government’s levelling-up agenda across the board, we need rural areas such as Devon and Cornwall to get a better share of new police officers in future. An allocation model based on population, for instance, would provide a truer reflection of the universal service demands placed on policing, given that the vast majority of all emergency calls do not in fact result in a recorded crime, particularly if such calculations include the increase we face through tourism. We do not want an approach that is largely based on recorded crime or levels of specific crimes such as serious violence, because that is urban-centric and favours inner cities over rural areas. When it comes to allocating the new police officers we are recruiting, I ask the Minister to consider these matters carefully to ensure that new officers are deployed in the best way to meet the challenges our police are facing.
I again pay tribute to our police officers across Devon and Cornwall for their hard work and dedication as they continue to work to keep us safe. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to listen to this case this evening. I hope he understands the unique challenges and circumstances that we face in our two counties. I look forward to working with him positively, going forward, to ensure that we get the results that we need in Devon and Cornwall.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Can there be any greater pleasure than to gather together late at night to talk lyrically about such a wonderful part of the country, second only in its beauty to the North Wessex downs, which I happen to represent? It is a remarkable part of our heritage and a part of the country that is very well policed and guarded by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and his colleagues, but also by the police officers who serve in that part of the country.
I want to join my hon. Friend by starting with a tribute to Shaun Sawyer and his team in Devon and Cornwall. I know Shaun of old. He was the head of counter-terrorism at the Metropolitan police when I was chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and deputy Mayor for policing in London. He and his team have done a remarkable job over the past few years, but most particularly over the past few months, when, as my hon. Friend said, they have coped with extraordinary circumstances with aplomb. They have stayed resilient, with low absences and a commitment to keeping their fellow citizens safe in the face of all sorts of hazards—seen and, as we are learning from this pandemic, unseen. It has been a fantastic job all round.
Among the officers my hon. Friend thanked, I would also like to single out Deputy Chief Constable Paul Netherton, who has been leading the local resilience forum and has done fantastic work in pulling together all the organisations that have been engaged in dealing with the pandemic. We should also thank, as my hon. Friend rightly did, the police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, who has been a voluble voice in the weekly calls I have held with PCCs from across the country, putting the case for her police force with vigour but also with reason and proportion. She serves both counties extremely well and has shown exactly the kind of leadership that one would expect from a police and crime commissioner.
That has been reflected in all sorts of areas. Obviously we have seen crime reduce very significantly, but personal protective equipment, which one might have expected to be an issue in such a large, rural part of the country, has actually been managed with aplomb. The force has been rated consistently green on the red, amber, green rating scale for PPE, which is very reassuring for everybody.
My hon. Friend, as usual, puts a powerful case for his force and his county colleagues. He shows a passion and commitment that one would expect from a true Cornishman. I have seen that in previous roles. When I was Housing Minister, I made a wonderful visit to his constituency and those of his colleagues. He dragged me down there, as no doubt he will again, to see the police in action. He rightly pointed out that alongside the new headquarters in east Devon, significant investment is going into Devon and Cornwall policing from central Government, alongside the flexibilities that the police and crime commissioner has used to raise the precept.
The budget for D and C is moving up to £338.4 million, which is £23.2 million large on last year. That is the biggest funding increase in a decade. As part of that, there will be an uplift in police officers of 141 across the force area, as he rightly pointed out, of whom I am pleased to say 61 have already been recruited to the end of March. Recruitment is going particularly well despite the pandemic, not least because Devon and Cornwall is one of the 22 forces in the country that have adopted the virtual assessment centre that the College of Policing put together in double-quick time so that applicants to be police officers were able to go through the process online, rather than face to face. That recruitment will obviously continue.
I hear what my hon. Friend says about future allocations. No decisions have been made yet on the future allocation of police officers, but we are hoping the decision will come before the summer recess, because one thing that has become clear from forces across the country, including Devon and Cornwall, is that a number want to run ahead of the target. A number have already reached their annual allocation with nine or so months to go, and some wish to recruit beyond their allocation, but they need certainty on what they will get in years 2 and 3 so that they can commit to those bright, shiny, new police officers with confidence. We hope and believe that will help them to do that.
All that means that the relaxation of the lockdown, which ordinarily would bring significant challenges that are not to be underestimated, has been dealt with extremely well in Devon and Cornwall. The tourism industry is vital to that part of the world. I think I read in the paper that the estimates are that the two counties have lost something like £665 million in income over the two or three admittedly off-season months. That is still a huge amount of money for businesses to bear in losses, and it shows the urgency and the need to restore something of normality to that industry, on which my hon. Friend’s constituents and others rely so heavily.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the unique geography and beauty of that region attracts people in numbers from across the world, and we want them to come. I know that the police in that area are standing up strongly to ensure they can enable those people to come safely and sensibly, rather than, sadly, what has happened in other parts of the country, where people have been greeted with hostility. They have been greeted with proportion, sense and good management in Devon and Cornwall, which is exactly what we want to see.
My hon. Friend laid down a number of challenges to me, first to appreciate the nature of rural crime in his part of the world. Given that I represent a constituency that is about 220 square miles in size—not far off his —and is largely rural, he will be pleased to know I am well aware of the problems that rural crime can create. He will have noticed that in our highly successful manifesto for the election last year, we had a commitment to allocate some of the extra resources to tackling rural crime. While the allocation of police officers in a particular force is obviously a matter of operational independence for the chief constable to decide, nevertheless at the Home Office we can influence some of the priorities across the country. We hope to turn to rural crime relatively soon.
The funding formula has been a persistent issue for all Members of Parliament, who I think universally claim that it is unfair to their force. That cannot mathematically be correct. Obviously, in any funding formula change there will be losers and winners, yet we seem to have a House of Commons where everybody believes they can be a winner. If there is a review of the funding formula—I cannot give a commitment on that—I would anticipate that there would be a large and vigorous consultation process, in which my hon. Friends here tonight would doubtless participate.
The current funding formula is old and has been around a long time. We have had one or two abortive attempts at reform, and no doubt we will turn to it in time, but before we do so there are important tasks to do—more important to the people we represent—such as fighting the uptick in crime that we have seen across the country in the past few years. Dealing with the county lines problem, which plagues all the constituencies in Devon and Cornwall, is high on our list of tasks to complete first. I am pleased that in the past few weeks, during lockdown, given the drop in volume crime—robbery, burglary and so on—police forces have to been able to concentrate on targeting the villains out there who perpetrate this trade. We have seen some extraordinary results, not least with Operation Venetic, which Members will have seen details of in the newspapers. It broke into a huge international communications network used by the criminal fraternity at a very senior level, and this resulted in 700-odd arrests last week. The data that has been collected from that system in the past few weeks and months means that there will be arrests into the future as we piece together the picture of serious and organised crime, which is delivering drugs into my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine, and damaging our neighbourhoods and, in particular, our young people.
We will see much more such work, including dealing with murder—we have set that as a National Policing Board priority. We will drive down murder and reach back into the crime types that often result in a murder, such as domestic violence, drugs, serious youth violence and gangs. We will be asking police forces to think about whether they can not just detect someone who commits a murder, but prevent them from committing it in the first place, by finding that route towards the crime.
We will see much more of that, too. On acquisitive crime, which I know is a problem in parts of Devon and Cornwall, we have launched our £25 million safer streets fund, which is targeted at particular geographical areas that show they have a problem with acquisitive crime, be it robbery or burglary, but where physical alterations can be made, such as through alley gating, CCTV or better street lighting, which we know can deter crime. The police are then able to concentrate on prolific offenders in both those areas.
There is a huge amount for us to do before we get there. Happily for my hon. Friend, his police force adopts new innovations with alacrity and works hard to try to innovate for itself. Nowhere is that clearer than in its leadership on modern slavery, which has, unfortunately, plagued both counties in the past few years but on which they have taken a lead across the country and shown the way for many other forces as to how the issue should be tackled.
On that note, I congratulate my hon. Friend for gathering us all today to talk about these two beautiful counties and my second favourite subject, which we know is close to the hearts of our constituents: the power and efficacy of their local police force. Although we see from time to time in the newspapers heavy criticism of our police force, we all know that if anything untoward happens to us, they will be our first call.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Jim McMahon |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) | Stuart Andrew |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Mark Tami |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Mark Tami |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Mark Tami |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Mark Tami |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) | Mark Tami |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Patrick Grady |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Alex Norris |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Leo Docherty |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Mark Tami |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | Mark Tami |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Mark Tami |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Mark Tami |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) | Caroline Nokes |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dave Doogan (Angus) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Mark Tami |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) | Conor McGinn |
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) | Mark Tami |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Mark Tami |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) | Mark Tami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) | Tom Tugendhat |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) | Aaron Bell |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) | Julie Marson |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Mark Tami |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Mark Tami |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Mark Tami |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Wes Streeting |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Mark Tami |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) | Mark Tami |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Mark Tami |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Mark Tami |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Ruth Edwards |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Mary Kelly Foy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Mark Tami |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) | Cat Smith |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) | Robert Courts |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) | Stuart Andrew |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) | Mark Tami |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Mark Tami |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Cat Smith |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Mark Tami |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Sir David Amess |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Giles Watling |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Mark Tami |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) | Patrick Grady |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) | Patrick Grady |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) | Alex Norris |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Mark Tami |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Mark Tami |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) | Mark Tami |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Mark Tami |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Mark Tami |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Mark Tami |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) | Patrick Grady |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) | Stuart Andrew |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) | Robert Courts |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Mark Tami |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Mark Tami |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) | Patrick Grady |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Mark Tami |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Ben Lake |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) | Rachel Hopkins |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) | Mark Tami |
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 592).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. You and the Committee might find it interesting to hear that my officials did some detailed notes for me, and I had the interesting dilemma of having a range of choices as to the length of my speech. Unfortunately for all present, I have not gone for the shortest version, because a number of things need some airing in a public forum. However, people might be happy to know that I have not gone for the longest.
I have a number of important points to make in the debate. We have introduced the regulations to make it mandatory for passengers to wear face coverings while using public transport services in England. This instrument was made on 14 June under the powers conferred by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. It is being brought before the Committee today for the scrutiny and debate that it requires, and to ensure that due process and the rule of law are maintained.
The regulations are in Committee for scrutiny and debate under the emergency procedure approved by Parliament for such measures. It should be noted that, above all, the regulations will help to save lives. That is why Parliament has given Ministers these powers. There has already been a huge amount of public debate and scrutiny of the issues.
I hope that most agree that the regulations are exceptional measures, but a necessary response to the serious and immediate threat to public health posed by the spread of coronavirus, that have been introduced to mitigate the unprecedented impact of the covid-19 pandemic. They comply with all the Government’s human rights obligations.
This country has been, and still is, engaged in a national effort to beat coronavirus. We are moving along a path of cautious relaxation of some of the restrictions, taking small steps to ease the measures, guided by the science. The public transport network is vital to the safe relaxation of the restrictions. Our advice remains to work from home if people can and to avoid public transport where possible, but demand for public transport has now increased as sectors of the economy reopen and more people return to work. In the not too distant future, as rail Minister, I hope that we can change our messaging to welcome more people back on public transport.
The Government are committed to ensuring the safety of passengers travelling on the transport network during the pandemic. Wearing a face covering provides some protection to those around people where social distancing is difficult to maintain. That requirement sits alongside existing advice on social distancing and the practice of hand hygiene, which remain critical. The regulations were made to coincide with the easing of other lockdown measures, to help people protect one another on public transport where it is not always easy to socially distance.
I will outline what the regulations do and set out the policies and processes underlying their development and implementation, finally moving to their monitoring and review. The regulations introduce a requirement for passengers to wear a face covering while travelling by public transport in England from 15 June, unless they are exempt or have a reasonable excuse not to. They apply to passengers when travelling on public transport in England, including by bus, coach, tram, ferry, hovercraft, cable car, aircraft, and domestic or international train. School transport services, services provided by taxi private-hire vehicles and cruise ships are excluded from the scope of the regulations.
We have introduced the measure to help people protect one another on public transport, where social distancing is sometimes very difficult, as the evidence shows that wearing a face covering offers some protection from transmitting the virus to others. The regulations sit alongside the other advice.
The regulations describe a “face covering” as
“a covering of any type which covers a person’s nose and mouth”.
People should make or buy their own. We are asking people not to use medical-grade personal protective equipment, as that must be reserved for health and care workers. However, someone wearing PPE would obviously be compliant with the regulations.
While the Government expect the vast majority of people to comply with the changes voluntarily, the regulations include powers for operators and the police to deny access to service, direct someone to wear a face covering or direct someone who is not wearing a face covering to leave a service. Operators have discretion over whether they choose to use those powers. They do not have an obligation to do so.
The police also have the power to remove passengers from vehicles if it is reasonable or necessary for them to do so, and to direct an individual who has responsibility for a child aged 11 or over to ensure that the child complies with the regulations. If a passenger chooses not to comply, there are new powers for the police and for Transport for London authorised personnel to issue fixed penalty notices of £100, or £50 if they are paid within 14 days. Children younger than 18 cannot be issued with a fixed penalty notice.
The regulations create new criminal offences: it is now an offence not to wear a face mask or face covering on public transport unless you are exempt or have a reasonable excuse, to obstruct a person carrying out a function under the regulations or to contravene a direction given by transport operators, staff or the police with regard to face coverings. Those offences are punishable with an unlimited fine. The Crown Prosecution Service has prosecution powers, as does Transport for London following the designation order made by the Secretary of State for Transport on 30 June.
Working with British Transport police, we have developed a six-step process for escalation and enforcement, with an initial focus on communicating the requirement to passengers. Engagement, rather than enforcement, is our preferred approach, with enforcement as a last resort. We expect to see a gradual ramp-up of enforcement, supported by significant communications campaigns over the coming days, weeks and months. The six-stage process is based on common sense and draws on years of experience from British Transport police and public transport operators, which call them the six Es: engage, explain, encourage, enable, entry—or lack thereof—and enforcement.
Although we want as many people as possible to wear face coverings, we recognise that some people are not able to wear a covering, for a host of reasons. As a result, the regulations exempt certain people and provide a non-exhaustive list of what is described as a “reasonable excuse” not to wear a face covering. People who therefore do not need to wear a face covering include those with certain disabilities or health issues that mean that they might not be able to wear one, and children younger than 11. People also do not need to wear a face covering if they are travelling with, or providing assistance to, someone who relies on lip reading and facial expressions to communicate. I place on record here my thanks to the various disability groups and accessibility campaigners who have advised me and the Department on these issues.
We have also taken into account other circumstances in which some people do not need to wear a face covering or can remove it for recent reasons of safety or practicality. Passengers can remove their face covering to avoid harm or injury to themselves or others, to take medication, and, if it is reasonably necessary, to eat or drink. People do not have to wear a face covering if they are travelling to avoid injury or to escape the risk of harm and they do not have a face covering with them. Being asked to remove a face covering by the police or a transport operator is also included as a reasonable excuse. We have been working with the transport operators to ensure that customers, passengers and staff are aware of all these exemptions and that they are in place. There has been quite a big marketing campaign around that by the various train operating companies.
The regulation applies only to passengers. It does not apply to the transport workforce, the police and emergency responders or other public officials in the course of their work. The wearing of any protective clothing or PPE by the workforce is a matter for the operators to address, following a risk assessment and as part of their health and safety responsibilities.
We have worked closely with transport operators to ensure widespread communications around the need to wear face coverings on public transport. We have set out the detail of this policy in our guidance, including information on enforcement and the exemptions in place for those unable to wear a face covering. As expected, initial reports from operators indicate widespread compliance with the requirement to wear a face covering on public transport, and there is significant public support for this measure.
Office for National Statistics public surveys show a significant increase in the number of passengers wearing a face covering while travelling on public transport in England. The figure rose from 57% between 4 and 7 June, before these regulations came into place, to 91% between 22 and 28 June. We are working closely with operators and British Transport police to monitor levels of compliance and enforcement.
Importantly, a review clause is included in the regulations. That requires a review at least every six months of the need for the requirements imposed by the regulations, and a sunset clause is included so that the regulations expire 12 months after the day they came into force. We will continue to monitor the impact and effectiveness of this policy in the coming weeks and months, and we will develop our approach to enforcement and communicating the policy as necessary.
The Committee might like to know that I had numerous conversations with the transport unions and an extremely helpful conversation with the shadow Secretary of State about these matters before the regulations came into effect.
The Government are committed to ensuring the safety of passengers travelling on the public transport network during this pandemic. The mandatory requirement to wear a face covering on public transport is a key addition to our safer transport guidance for passengers and will help to maintain public health as lockdown measures are eased. We believe that the requirements imposed by these regulations are proportionate to what they seek to achieve, which is a public health response to the threat. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, especially for my first opportunity to respond to legislation as a Front-Bench MP. I start by thanking the Minister not only for providing advance notice of this statutory instrument to the shadow Secretary of State for Transport and to me, but for the briefing that he offered me last week with his team and civil servants. That was valuable in providing further details on the statutory instrument and addressed some of the queries that I had, and I thank them all for their time.
Although the statutory instrument imposes time-limited restrictions on people’s personal liberties, it is important for the reasons the Minister has just outlined: to reduce the spread of coronavirus and, ultimately, to save lives. I agree that this is a proportionate measure to achieve those aims and I do not think it particularly controversial. I and the Labour party wholeheartedly share the Government’s aim of defeating coronavirus and protecting public health. I therefore support the SI, but I would like to take a few moments to place a few points of concern on the record.
The first point, and perhaps the most important from a public health perspective, is that although this measure is welcome, it should have been implemented long before now, as Labour consistently called for. The Government have once again been too slow to act. The SI was laid in Parliament, and came into force, on 15 June. On the same day, the Foreign Secretary stated in the Government’s daily press briefing that across the country there were 1,056 new coronavirus cases. That figure was thankfully part of a sustained trend of declining cases and came as the Foreign Secretary was also announcing that some of the lockdown restrictions from March were being relaxed. I do understand that, as the Government relax lockdown restrictions, they want to keep the infection rate low and prevent a resurgence of the virus, but why are the Government only now introducing this simple step of infection control? Surely a much more sensible time to have introduced these measures was at the start of lockdown itself, months ago, when we were experiencing approximately 6,000 cases a day. Why was no effort made to introduce this then? That was a time when those using our public transport network were largely essential workers, yet the Government chose not to take this basic step to protect them from contracting coronavirus.
I expect the Government to say that they have been following World Health Organisation advice, but this SI does not in fact follow that advice. The WHO updated its advice on 5 June to recommend that cloth masks made from at least three layers of fabric be worn by the public on public transport, in shops and in other confined or crowded environments. Ten days later, we get the statutory instrument we are considering today, but it makes no mention whatever of the fact that the public must wear face masks that have at least three layers of fabric. In fact, it makes no mention of face masks at all. Actually, a T-shirt pulled up over one’s mouth and nose, or a visor that does not make any contact with one’s mouth and nose, are face coverings. Although such coverings are completely fine under this SI, they are a far cry from the recommendations of the WHO. In that respect, this measure is yet another missed opportunity to take the steps that are needed to protect people using public transport.
On compliance, since this measure was introduced, we have seen patchy figures for people wearing face coverings on public transport, so it would be good to hear how the Government plan to monitor compliance and take steps to increase the number of people wearing face coverings.
It is my considered view that enforcement of this legislation is a job for the police and not for transport staff, so I would be grateful if the Minister reassured me that the issuing of fixed penalty notices will be done exclusively by the police and perhaps by Transport for London enforcement officers as applicable, but not by other transport staff. If the Government expect other transport workers to enforce these restrictions, what training and additional protections will they provide to keep transport workers safe from abuse in their place of work?
Across the UK, public health is a devolved matter, but there is obviously a large amount of cross-border travel on public transport, as I am sure you will attest, Mr Hosie, so I ask the Minister to guarantee that the Government will take a joined-up approach with the devolved Governments to ensure that, as passengers travel across borders, they comply with the different and evolving requirements in each nation.
The Minister, as he will no doubt be aware, is required to review this SI in six months, but I hope that before then he will consider the issues raised in today’s debate, seek feedback from the police, transport unions and operators as to the impact that this SI is having, and—if necessary—make changes sooner rather than later.
I realise that this is a period of some uncertainty and that the situation we are in today will probably not be the same months or even weeks from now, so I reaffirm to the Minister my commitment to work with him constructively on all issues, but especially on this one; I am sure he will agree that it is too important an issue not to get right. On that note, I thank him for his co-operation, and I thank you, Mr Hosie, for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I want to ask the Minister just a couple of questions. I very much welcome the regulations and I entirely agree with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and with the Minister’s remarks. However, I have been lobbied by the Hadley Wood rail user group, which has concerns about safety on public transport.
One of the group’s concerns is whether wearing a face mask also relates to stations and to the outside of carriages before a train leaves the station. The group’s other concern is about whether there will be sufficient resources for enforcement as to people breaching these regulations—so, whether there will be sufficient resources, including sufficient staff, to make sure that there is proper enforcement.
Those are the only issues I want to raise, and I am sure the Minister will respond to them.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Member for Slough, who spoke for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for their contributions. I will answer their questions briefly and hopefully we can draw this debate to a close.
I guess that I should answer the concerns of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate first. We are trying to encourage people to wear face coverings wherever possible. Today, we had an uplift in our rail services to nearly 87% of normal capacity. We have an extra 4,500 people out and about across the railway network to engage with people as they enter stations, to remind them that they need to wear face coverings. In fact, since the regulations came into effect, and for another couple of weeks, we have been facilitating people doing so by providing face coverings at most stations up and down the country.
We have huge numbers of people and Volunteering Matters, a fantastic charity, assisting us at certain transport interchanges across the across the country and outside stations, to engage with people and make their journey more friendly, and so they are not surprised by what they see when they enter a station. I was sent pictures of Liverpool Street station at 7.30 this morning, where more people were looking out for passengers to advise them about wearing face coverings than there were passengers—something I hope changes in the not-too-distant future.
I like to think that we are getting the tone of this about right. The vast majority of the public are keen to support such public health measures, and do. To be frank, we have seen that people who are travelling for leisure are slightly less likely to wear face coverings, so we probably need to enhance our communications so that they understand that this measure applies to them as well. I have, however, been impressed by the way the British public have reacted to what we have needed to do.
The hon. Member for Slough asked about a couple of points, which I will take on. He asked who can issue fixed penalty notices. That is only the police and TfL enforcement officers, as one might rightly expect. Fortunately, they are not having to issue too many. Interestingly, TfL enforcement officers did a spot check today—or a spot count, which is counts of people getting on and off different modes of transport with or without face coverings —and they did a count on buses over the weekend, where there is a lower level of compliance with the measure. That guides us on our next steps as to what we need to do and where we need to target. That sort of statistic—based on fact, on what we can actually see happening—points to where we move next.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that perhaps we should have moved sooner. The Government have said consistently throughout the pandemic that we are guided by the scientific advice that we are given. He should also understand that very few people were travelling on public transport in the early stages of the pandemic. On trains, in some places, we got to a 95% drop in passengers. Therefore, it was very easy and simple to maintain social distances of way more than 2 metres. Now, as we release lockdown, more and more people—we hope—will gradually be using public transport as the advice morphs into a more positive frame. It was therefore thought to be logical to add a further mitigating measure of requiring face coverings at that time.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned international travel and—as you are in the Chair, Mr Hosie—what happens when someone is on a train travelling to Scotland or Wales, where the requirements might be different. Actually, the requirements in Scotland are exactly the same and—to join two points together and to make a slightly political point when I probably should not be making any political points at all—the Government have acted on the science given to all the nations’ Governments, but in Wales face coverings are only recommended. It is actually Labour Wales that is slightly behind the curve on this particular issue, although we fully expect it to join us in the not-too-distant future.
Anecdotally, the stories suggest that people getting on public transport across all the nations of this country are using face coverings in the appropriate way, at the appropriate time, and in similar percentages, no matter what the guidance has been, even if it had been different in different areas. We consider the safety of the public as they travel on the public transport network during this pandemic to be vital, which is why we introduced the regulations when we did.
We also recognise the importance of Parliament having an opportunity to scrutinise the regulations, which is why I am pleased to have set out their content in Committee today. I hope that the Committee has found our interactions informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Future of the aviation and aerospace industry
Written Statements
Historic Records Transfer
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 amended the Public Records Act 1958 and introduced a 20-year rule for the transfer of historic government records to the National Archives. This replaced the 30-year rule in force since 1967. The Act made provision to phase in this change over 10 years, beginning in 2013. The transitional arrangements require the Cabinet Office to transfer records of 1997 and 1998 by the end of this year. The Cabinet Office’s historic records include those of the Prime Minister’s Office. This statement provides an update on the impact of covid-19 on our work in this area.
Since 2015, the Cabinet Office has made two transfers a year, in July and December. The July opening is discretionary and reflects the Cabinet Office’s commitment to opening as much as possible as early as possible.
Measures to contain covid-19 have inevitably had an impact on work in this area. It will not, therefore, be possible to transfer records in July this year. Whilst work has continued as normal in many areas across the Department, archival work requires physical access to hard copy files to complete the review and preparation of documents for transfer.
In addition, the National Archives building in Kew closed to the public and staff on 17 March 2020 and at present is unable to facilitate the transfer of new records.
I remain fully committed to meeting our obligations under public records legislation. The Department is undertaking an assessment of the wider impact of the covid-19 restrictions on work in this area. We will work with the National Archives and the advisory council on national records and archives and will provide a further update to the House in due course.
[HCWS335]
Higher Education Student Finance
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I am announcing details of student finance arrangements for higher education students undertaking a course of study in the 2021-22 academic year starting on 1 August 2021.
Maximum tuition fees for the 2021-22 academic year in England will be maintained at the levels that apply in the 2020-21 academic year, the fourth year in succession that fees have been frozen. This means that the maximum level of tuition fees for a standard full-time undergraduate course will remain at £9,250 for the 2021-22 academic year.
Maximum undergraduate loans for living costs will be increased by forecast inflation (3.1%) in 2021-22. And the same increase will apply to maximum grants for students with child or adult dependants who are attending full-time undergraduate courses in 2021-22.
We are also increasing support for students undertaking postgraduate courses in 2021-22. Maximum loans for students starting master’s degree and doctoral degree courses from 1 August 2021 onwards will be increased by forecast inflation (3.1%) in 2021-22.
I am also announcing today changes to disabled students’ allowance (DSA) that will increase flexibility for students to access the support that they need. The undergraduate DSA, which is currently structured as four separate sub-allowances, will be simplified into one allowance in line with the postgraduate DSA.
The same maximum allowance (£25,000) will apply to both full-time and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate DSA recipients in 2021-22. This will apply for both new and continuing students. An exception for travel costs will be made to this maximum cap, which means that travel costs will in effect continue to be uncapped.
I am announcing today that individuals who have been granted indefinite leave to remain as a bereaved partner, and resident in the United Kingdom and islands since the grant of such leave, will not be required to demonstrate three years’ ordinary residence in the United Kingdom and islands before the start of a course to qualify for student support and home fee status in relation to new higher education courses from 1 August 2021 onwards.
I am also announcing today that individuals in protection based categories (those with humanitarian protection leave, Calais leave, section 67 leave and stateless leave) starting or continuing higher education courses in 2021-22 will no longer be required to demonstrate three years’ ordinary residence in the United Kingdom and islands before the start of a course to qualify for student support and home fee status.
Further details of the student support package for 2021-22 are set out in the attached document.
I expect to lay regulations implementing changes to student finance for undergraduates and postgraduates for 2021-22 later in 2020. These regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-06/HCWS336/.
[HCWS336]
Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I have today laid before Parliament, under the powers of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020.
These regulations enable sanctions to be imposed on those who are involved in serious violations or abuses of human rights. This sanctions regime is not about punishing countries or peoples. It is a smart tool allowing the Government to impose both asset freezes and travel bans on specific individuals or entities in order to provide accountability for and deter serious violations of human rights around the world and prevent those responsible from coming to the UK or laundering their assets here. These sanctions will help to ensure that the UK is not a safe haven for those involved in serious human rights violations, including those who profit from such activities.
The regulations allow Ministers to impose sanctions on persons who are involved in activities that would amount to a serious violation of the right to life; the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. The global human rights sanctions regime can be used to target different forms of involvement in such violations of human rights, including those who profit from them. The regulations allow for non-state actors as well as state actors to be designated.
The introduction of this autonomous human rights sanctions regime will give the UK an additional, powerful tool to support human rights across the world, and underpin global Britain’s role as a force for good in the world.
Today, I will also publish the first persons to be designated under this new sanctions regime.
[HCWS337]
M15 Compliance Improvement Review
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
On 15 July 2019, my predecessor made a written ministerial statement regarding the MI5 compliance improvement review conducted by Sir Martin Donnelly. Sir Martin made 14 recommendations focused on achieving lasting improvements in the areas of compliance, openness and legal assurance.
The director general of MI5 and I remain fully committed to the implementation of the recommendations.
As Sir Martin recommended, it is my intention to independently verify the implementation of his recommendations. However, it has become apparent that, due to the impacts of Covid-19, the start of this verification, which was originally due to be completed by the end of June 2020, will have to be postponed.
MI5 expect to complete the implementation of Sir Martin’s recommendations by the end of 2020. The independent verification will therefore commence at the beginning of 2021.
I have full confidence in the integrity of MI5 officers and their commitment to complying with legal obligations. They do a vital job in keeping our country safe, a task that, at this time of uncertainty, is more important than ever.
[HCWS334]
Travel Corridors
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
It is vitally important that we manage the risk of a second wave of coronavirus and keep the number of cases of covid-19 in the UK as low as possible. Health protection Regulations concerning international travel came into force in all parts of the UK on 8 June. These require people who arrive in the UK from outside the common travel area to self-isolate for 14 days and to complete a passenger locator form. The regulations have helped to reduce the risk of importing cases into the UK.
For arrivals from some countries and territories into England, where the risk of importing Covid-19 is sufficiently low, the Government consider that it can now end the self-isolation requirement. Therefore, passengers will not be required to self-isolate when they are returning from travel abroad or arriving as visitors to England from a number of exempt countries and territories. Contact information will still need to be provided on arrival except by people on a small list of exemptions.
The process to date
We have been guided by the science and worked closely with health and policy experts from across Government to ensure the steps we are taking will minimise the risk of importing covid-19 cases, while helping to open our travel and tourism sector.
The joint biosecurity centre, in close consultation with Public Health England and the chief medical officer, has developed an approach to assessing the public health risk associated with inbound travel from specific countries and territories. The categorisation has been informed by an estimate of the proportion of the population that is currently infectious in each country, virus incidence rates, trends in incidence and deaths, transmission status and international epidemic intelligence as well as information on a country’s testing capacity and an assessment of the quality of the data available. Data has been used from official sources in each country and modelling by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, as well as from Public Health England and the national travel health network and centre. Other data sources may be used in the future.
This categorisation has informed the Government decisions about relaxation of border measures and has allowed us to establish travel corridors through which passengers arriving in England from certain countries and territories will be exempted from the requirement to self-isolate. Those who have visited or transited through any non-exempt country or territory within the 14 days preceding their arrival will be required to self-isolate for the remainder of the 14-day period since they last left such a country or territory. The decision on these exemptions forms part of the first review of the health protection regulations concerning international travel which apply in England. FCO travel advice should always be consulted before booking any travel.
The Government are continuing to discuss this approach with the devolved Administrations who will set out their own approach in time. Passengers travelling from overseas to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from outside the common travel area should ensure they follow the laws and guidance which apply there.
Countries and territories exemption list
From 10 July, unless they have visited or transited through any non-exempt country or territory in the preceding 14 days, passengers arriving from the following countries and territories will not be required to self-isolate on arrival in England:
Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bonaire St Eustatius and Saba, Croatia, Curagao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, France, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Reunion, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, New Caledonia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Seychelles, St Barthelemy, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Pierre and Miquelon, San Marino, Serbia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Vatican City State, Vietnam.
Ireland is already exempt as part of the common travel area, as are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In addition, we will be exempting the 14 British overseas territories. We will keep the conditions in these countries and territories under review. If they worsen we will not hesitate to reintroduce self-isolation requirements.
In addition, the UK Government will be making a small number of sector-specific exemptions to the border health measures as a result of the first review. From 7 July, certain transport workers who do not come into contact with passengers in the course of their journey to England will no longer be required to complete the passenger locator form. This will help pilots, seafarers, and Eurostar and Eurotunnel drivers who make regular crossings without coming into contact with passengers. There will also be additional exemptions for certain groups, including elite sportspersons and essential support staff returning to England or participating in certain elite sports events, and individuals coming to England to work on British film and television productions.
Next steps
My Right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State has announced exemptions to the global advisory against all but essential travel. Travellers should review this advice before making travel plans, and purchase travel insurance.
The Government will keep the requirements and exemptions set out in the regulations under review. The next review of the regulations will be by 27 July 2020. For further information, please visit https://www.gov.uk/uk-border-control.
I hope this announcement provides good news to the many of us who want to enjoy a holiday abroad this year, visit family and friends overseas or travel to do business and will help protect jobs in the international transport and tourism sectors. The Government continue to work closely with international partners around the world to discuss arrangements for travellers arriving from the UK and will continue this engagement ahead of the changes coming into force.
[HCWS338]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. A limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally, wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak—please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points, and I ask that Ministers’ answers also are brief.
Television Licences
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to discuss with the incoming Director General of the BBC the postponement of the withdrawal of free television licences for people aged over 75.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government congratulate Tim Davie on his appointment as the new director-general of the BBC. The Secretary of State spoke to Tim Davie on his appointment and looks forward to working with him in the months and years ahead. However, I must make it clear that the BBC is responsible for the over-75s licence fee concession, not the Government. The BBC board is keeping the start date of its new policy for the over-75s under review and has said it will announce its decision on any further delay to the changes to the concession in July.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, that is a totally unacceptable Answer. Surely both the BBC and the Government have accepted by postponing for two months how vital television is for old people to keep in touch with vital information from the Government, as well as entertainment and other information. Now, since older people are being asked to be in lockdown, many of them indefinitely, surely it is not too much to ask the Government and the BBC to get together now to discuss postponing this withdrawal of free TV licences, also indefinitely. Will the Minister give the assurance today that the BBC and the Government will get round the table to discuss postponing this indefinitely?
Baroness Barran
The Government are well aware of the sacrifice that many people, particularly elderly people, have made during the past few months. However, the responsibility is absolutely clear and was debated extensively by this House during the passing of the Digital Economy Act in 2017: the BBC is responsible for this matter.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
The Covid-19 crisis has emphasised more than ever the dependence of the over-75s on their television sets, particularly those who are isolating. The arrival of a new director-general at the BBC gives an opportunity to open up again what was an extremely controversial negotiation with the Government about the licence fee. Will the Government bear in mind during these proposed negotiations that the cohort of over-75s who watch television is very varied indeed? Some of them are extremely rich and can afford it, but many of them, the most dependent, cannot afford it at all. Therefore, there is an opportunity here, given a new negotiation, to offer some scale of payment that the Government and the BBC might consider appropriate.
Baroness Barran
There will be a very wide range of issues, I am sure, to be discussed between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the new director-general of the BBC when he comes into post. The Government are clear that everyone entitled to claim pension credit should do so, and we are aware that that is not the case universally, so we are also working in particular on that.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
In light of what our elderly have already experienced with Covid-19—the isolation and loneliness they have endured—many will have serious long-term effects. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the BBC to stop the blame game and honour the clear commitment already given to the over-75s?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord is right to highlight the sacrifices made by the over-75s, but we are all aware that sacrifices have been made in many age groups. It is critical that we are clear that the BBC remains operationally independent of government.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Lord Caine. No? Then I call Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the BBC has proved its gold-dust weight during this crisis of the Covid pandemic and lockdown, providing a reliable source of national and local news for all, an essential aid to those home-schooling, and solace and entertainment for the lonely and elderly. In which case, why do the Government not take back responsibility for the licence fee concession for the over-75s, introduced by a Labour Government in which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, served, as something to be paid for by the Government, not by the licence fee payer, and which the BBC was, frankly, forced to take on? Does she not agree that not doing so means that the BBC will inevitably have to cut back on the essential services I have referred to?
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness is right to say that over the past few months, the BBC has certainly provided high-quality information, education and entertainment, and has shown great agility in its response. However, I do not accept the second part of her question. The framework for negotiating the next stage in terms of the licence fee with the BBC will be settled by the end of next year, and I am sure that a number of these issues will be taken into consideration.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
Bearing in mind that pensioners have suffered more than most in the lockdown, and sadly with the extent of deaths among them from Covid-19, and that TV remains their number one contact with outside life, is it really sensible or fair that the vast majority of them are going to face an annual tax of £154.50, or £40 a quarter? Surely the BBC should find a way to pay for this long-held free TV licence. First, why not look again at the Peacock report, published in May 1986, which recommended selling off Radio 1 and Radio 2 to fund it? Secondly, if it was acceptable for the BBC World Service to take advertising, why not consider it for a part of the BBC now?
Baroness Barran
My noble friend raised a number of different options but, at the risk of repeating myself, we are very clear that it is the responsibility of the BBC to work out how it spends its budget. Most recently, in giving evidence recently to a Select Committee, the BBC’s director of policy was clear that everybody would be given time to transition to a new system when it is announced.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, will the Government undertake to discuss with the new director-general the harassment of the BBC’s Persian service? The London-based staff face criminal investigations and asset freezing by the Iranian authorities, along with death threats and online attacks that are especially targeted at female staff. What specific practical help can the Government offer to this vital part of the World Service?
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness has raised an important point, which I will share with colleagues in the department.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the BBC is not solely responsible for the cuts that it is now having to make. This was a budget cut imposed on it by the then Chancellor in a crude attempt to evade the Government’s statutory responsibility for welfare policy. One of the proposals that was rejected by the Government during the passage of what became the Digital Economy Act was for an independent assessment to be made of the BBC’s funding needs in order to deliver its charter responsibilities. Will the Government look at this fair and equitable policy during the next licence fee round?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord is critical of the last settlement, but I would remind him that the BBC itself regarded it as a good deal.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, the licence fee was created by a Conservative Government to protect the BBC from intimidation and sniping by the Government of the day. Is it not time that the Government stopped using the licence fee as a bran tub to dip into for populist causes and gave the BBC the protection from political interference that it deserves?
Baroness Barran
I am slightly perplexed by the noble Lord’s question, because I do not think that the Government see the licence fee as a bran tub at all. As I have said in answer to almost every question today, the Government absolutely respect the editorial and operational independence of the BBC.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Medicinal Cannabis
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take to improve access to cannabis for medicinal purposes for (1) patients, and (2) research, in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her Question. There is no legal impediment to prescribing medicinal cannabis where clinically appropriate, and the Government are keen to make progress in this area. However, these are largely untested, unlicensed products. To support further NHS funding decisions, we have committed public funds to develop the evidence base. I thank NHS England, NHS Improvement and the National Institute for Health Research for their work to establish much-needed clinical trials and call on the industry to support clinical trials in refractory epilepsy and other treatment areas.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, from 1 November 2018 consultants have been able to prescribe medical cannabis as an unlicensed medicine, as the Minister implies, yet NHS doctors remain unwilling to prescribe, partly because medical cannabis remains on the list of controlled drugs. Hundreds of thousands of patients with severe and chronic conditions who find that cannabis is the only medicine that controls their symptoms without unpleasant side-effects continue to risk arrest every day by growing or buying their medical cannabis at exorbitant prices. Does the Minister agree that this is contrary to the patients’ human rights? How can we criminalise patients for saving the NHS huge sums of money by looking after themselves and doing harm to no one? Will the Minister appeal to Matt Hancock to write to the Home Secretary, urging her to remove medical cannabis from the list of controlled drugs?
Lord Bethell
There is a difference between the issue of controlled drugs and that of access to regulatory approved drugs. The noble Baroness is right that medicinal cannabis offers huge hope to those in pain and with severe symptoms. However, it is only through the process of regulation, clinical trials and scientific proof that we can guarantee that the benefits of this important medical opportunity are truly exploited.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the predicament of the person who suffers chronic and unbearable pain from degeneration of the spine, the only effective relief for which is medicinal cannabis in the form of Bedrocan? Is he aware that her medication is not allowed to be prescribed by a GP on the NHS, that it costs her an unaffordable £750 a month to obtain it on private prescription, that she can obtain it at an affordable price in Holland, that due to the circumstance of the pandemic she cannot make that journey, but that she is none the less expected to pay the Dutch pharmacist for the medication being held for her? What is she to do, and how will the Minister help?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I cannot comment in detail on the specific situation the noble Lord refers to. I recognise the high costs of medicinal cannabis, and we have done an enormous amount to bring those costs down and to regularise the transport and regulation of those drugs, but this is the way our medical arrangements are made in this country. Private prescriptions are an option for those who can seek them, and we are working hard to get more of these medical cannabis treatments on the NICE schedule, but they require clinical trials.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister accept that the existing protocols and regulatory mechanisms suitable for most pharmaceutical medicines are not capable of handling medical cannabis, which has multiple active ingredients and is therefore not suitable for the usual randomised control trials? Does he therefore agree that a new regulatory system is required for medical cannabis, as there is in many other countries?
Lord Bethell
I do not think the noble Baroness is right. There are always groups advocating that their medicines are different from every other type of medicine, but the processes of clinical trials have served medical science extremely well. I share her frustration that the process of medical trials around cannabis has not moved quickly enough. That is why NIHR is looking again at the way these trials are funded; I have spoken to it about how this can be accelerated.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
Given the importance my noble friend attaches to tests, may I ask whether any have started, the dates on which they started and when we might expect results?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is very specific in her questions, and I am afraid I am not able to answer them specifically because they are subject to restrictions and confidentiality. Where I agree with the thrust of her question is that we have been in a bit of a cul-de-sac in this area, but the department is working hard to unblock the problems that have existed. Despite Covid, we appear to be making some progress on this.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, two cannabis medicines have MHRA approval. One of them, Sativex—prescribed within the NHS for multiple sclerosis—has a high level of the active cannabinoid THC, so we know cannabis has medical value. There is no doubt that many more cannabis medicines will be licensed in the coming years. Does the Minister therefore agree that while we are reviewing our current trials, we should evaluate whether it is justified to regard cannabis, in a medical way, as a controlled drug in the long term?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to learn that I have just spent three and a half months looking at drugs that might make a difference to Covid, only to find that many of them are not helpful and often quite dangerous, so I do not share the optimism bias that many have towards unlicensed drugs. We remain conservative in our approach to clinical trials. I agree with the noble Baroness and others who have suggested that progress on this should be quicker, and I am leaning into the subject to try to bring that about as soon as we can.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is deeply concerning that no new NHS prescriptions for full extract cannabis oil have been issued since the medicinal use of the drug was legalised more than 18 months ago. This leads to a health inequality: 313 private prescriptions for unlicensed cannabis medicine items, including full extract oil, have been issued. Does the Minister share my concern that only wealthy families and those who can successfully raise funds in the region of £2,000 a month have access to cannabis medicines, while children from poorer families who are unable to afford the prescription are going without? What does he think needs to happen next?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness shines a spotlight on an uncomfortable but realistic fact of life in our medical service: those with money are able to pay for treatments beyond the reach of those who rely on the NHS for absolutely everything. Another area that concerns me is that those who have relied on fundraising have found that Covid has restricted the amount of money coming from donors. That is why we have put money into medical research charities and support charities that can help support those fundraising for their medicine.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
Since the law changed in 2018, only two children with severe epilepsy have accessed whole-plant cannabis medicine via the NHS. Recently, a child ended up in intensive care in the middle of the Covid pandemic and almost died because her parents could not fundraise the money to buy her medicine privately. Does the Minister accept that this is a complete failure of the policy and that a new regime for the regulation and control of access to medical cannabis is now required?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness’s point on fundraising is well made, and I think I answered it in my previous answer. We are looking at it closely. On policy-making in this area, it is extremely tough to regulate innovative drugs that simply do not have clinical trials and evidence bases behind them. We have put a huge amount of effort into this area. We are working closely with industry; I call on industry to do everything it can to help this process. We are trying our hardest to provide the right regulatory environment. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we have already made important changes to the law.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, the report of NHS England and NHS Improvement, commissioned by the Secretary of State, was published last year. Very little appears to have been done to implement its recommendations. Can my noble friend say which recommendations have been implemented and what plans he has to ensure that they are all met?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is right to point out the importance of that report, which we have taken very seriously. We have worked closely with industry to find a suitable product to take into the trial process, and it is a great shame that we have not found the right combination. We are looking at how to address that cul-de-sac and I hope to unblock it shortly.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for the Question has elapsed and we come now to the third Oral Question.
Food: Fruit and Vegetables
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables by (1) children, and (2) adults.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
The Government are committed to encouraging children and adults to eat at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables every day. Healthy Start vouchers enable low-income and disadvantaged families to purchase fruit and vegetables. Mandatory school food standards and the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme also encourage fruit and vegetable consumption. Public Health England encourages the eating of fruit and vegetables through the Eatwell Guide, catering guidance and marketing campaigns, including Start4Life, Change4Life and One You.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and declare my interests, as set out in the register. As noble Lords know, diets low in fruit and vegetables are now directly associated with 20,000 deaths a year in the UK. Despite the Government’s costly Five a Day campaign, our vegetable consumption is steadily declining and now equals what it was in the 1970s, with only 28% of adults eating the recommended amounts. First, what are the Government’s new plans to promote fruit and vegetables to adults?
Secondly, Professor Greta Defeyter, a colleague of mine at Feeding Britain, has discovered a dramatic reduction in disadvantaged children’s daily fruit and vegetable intake since the suspension of the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme. Can the Minister give both a date for the scheme’s return and a figure for the money that would have been spent on the scheme since March this year, but has not?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I pay testimony to the hard work of the noble Baroness in this important area. The schemes she mentions have been incredibly impactful and this subject is very important. The progress made by the Start4Life, Change4Life and Eatwell programmes has been encouraging, as it has raised awareness of options for children and adults. The battle they face against decisions people make about their diet is extremely tough, but we remain committed to those programmes and will continue to invest in them.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con) [V]
I ask the Minister what work the department has undertaken to explore the impact of fresh fruit and vegetables on the development of mental health in young people. In particular, what impact has there been from their being deprived of that during this period of home-schooling?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend touches on an interesting area. I cannot answer it precisely. I am not sure that we have taken any assessment of the effect of eating vegetables and fruit during the lockdown, but I will find out from the department and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Bull (CB) [V]
Can the Minister clarify where responsibility lies for overseeing the nutritional quality of food delivered to children eligible for free school meals? During Covid, reports have circulated on social media of packages containing crisps, chocolate biscuits and a block of fat marked “for cooking only”. In response to a letter by leading food policy experts, sent to both Defra and Public Health England, each body seemed to indicate that the other should be held responsible. Does the Minister agree that, without clarity on this, the focus on good nutrition is at risk and accountability too easily sidestepped?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right to cast a spotlight on an apparent area of policy confusion. Labelling is normally associated with Defra, and the provision of school meals with the Department for Education. If there is ambiguity about that, I would be happy to chase it down for the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme is a good scheme. My limited research suggests that children in year groups not currently eligible for the scheme miss their fruit and vegetables. Will the Government therefore consider extending it to all primary-age classes on reinstatement? Will the Minister undertake to work with teachers and the Royal Horticultural Society to promote gardening to grow vegetables, on school sites, for consumption by children?
Lord Bethell
I also pay tribute to the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme. However, it falls outside the remit of the Department of Health, so I do not have details about the scheme to hand, but I would be glad to track them down and throw my weight behind it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the past we have seen government-sponsored television advertising on specific themes. The Covid-19 pandemic is an excellent example. Diabetes is on the increase and, in extreme cases, leads to limb amputations, which are at a frightening rate. Given the proven links between the consumption of fruit and vegetables and good health, would the Minister sponsor such a scheme of television advertising for healthy eating, among his government colleagues?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right about the effects of diabetes, and the impact of Covid on those with diabetes has been profound. It is described well in the PHE report and is a source of enormous sadness. The Government are looking at ways to react to the Covid pandemic, but my instincts are to regard it as an inflection point for the nation’s health. The Government will look at ways to mark this moment with a suitable campaign to encourage healthy eating.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, the Minister may be aware of the pioneering work of the American nutritionist Clara M Davis, in the 1920s, who found that just-weaned infants, allowed to choose their own food from a range of healthy natural options, chose a balanced highly nutritious diet and enjoyed it. But our children see a continual parade on their screens and in the shops of highly processed food of low nutritional quality. Does the Minister not think that we need to create space, in their stomachs and minds, to allow the healthy fruit and vegetables in?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness does me a great service to point out the good work of Clara M Davis, who I was not aware of previously. She makes a very good point: the effect of advertising on children in school is profound—and not just on children but on adults, as well. The danger of ring-fencing children is that they do not learn how to make proper choices in the long term. That is why the emphasis of our work is on ensuring that children learn the difference between good and bad food, learn how to make the right decisions and learn the habits that can set them up for a lifetime.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, this subject is one of many covered in the House of Lords report published today by the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee, called Hungry for Change. I hope my noble friend has already been briefed by his civil servants on this. Will he work with his fellow Ministers in Defra to get the food industry to make available a wider range of vegetables—not just pre-packaged carrots and other vegetables, all of the same size, shape and colour—and at a more affordable price?
Lord Bethell
I thank my noble friend for reminding me of the important Hungry for Change report; I pay tribute to it and to its recommendations. If I understand his question correctly, the food given to schoolchildren falls within the realm of the Department for Education. He makes an important point about offering variety and a wide range of foods, and I am sure that that is on the department’s agenda.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, home production of both fruit and vegetables is declining, with last year being the lowest for 20 years in vegetable production. If we do achieve an increase in consumption, much of that food will come from increased imports from countries that are water deficient. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government have a cross-departmental strategy to address this, leading to increased consumption matched by increased production?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is quite right about the home production of food. During the Covid epidemic, Project Defend was put together to ensure that, as a country, we have resilient supply chains for key products, including food. The project will look at this area to assess whether interventions are necessary and will co-ordinate cross-governmental action.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Infection Rate
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the likelihood of an increase in COVID-19 infections as a result of lifting the restrictions in place to address the pandemic.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, tremendous sacrifices have been made by so many people to get the virus under control. The Government continue to be guided by the science and are easing restrictions in a cautious, phased way that protects lives and the NHS. We are closely monitoring the infection rate and are easing restrictions only when it is safe to do so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but I consider it absolutely inadequate. In the UK, during the epidemic, we have had more than 60,000 deaths, with 20,000 of those in care homes, leading to endless grief; we have had a failed test, track and isolate programme; we have had PPE failures; and we have had no real-time information to allow local councils to deal with cases properly. Today, the Government are now blaming the public for ignoring their confusing messages on easing the lockdown. Mistakes have been made, and that has cost lives. Is it not time that the Government admit their world-class, world-leading incompetence in running the country?
Lord True
My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question, which was about our view of the likelihood of increased infections as a result of lifting restrictions. If I were to write the history of this event, I would not write it in the lurid terms of the noble Baroness. I assure her that, at every stage, the Government and their advisers consider the best advice and take what they believe to be the right action at the right time.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, given the incidence of outbreaks of this virus in meat-processing plants and abattoirs in a number of countries, including our own, and the fact that many workers at such plants are often poorly paid and belong to ethnic minority communities, and frequently live in accommodation in multiple occupancy, what advice are Her Majesty’s Government giving to the managers of such plants to mitigate the spread of the virus?
Lord True
My Lords, I regret that I am not apprised of specific advice in relation to abattoirs, but I will certainly undertake to get that information to the right reverend Prelate. However, I can assure him and the House that the Government take seriously the safety of all workers—including the incredible number who have worked throughout the virus epidemic—at all times, and in particular BAME workers.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, I can see that, like me, my noble friend the Minister was the immensely grateful recipient of a much needed hair appointment over the weekend. Will he join me in thanking all those involved in the hairdressing industry, as well as those in our pubs and restaurants, for working so hard to make sure that clients and customers feel safe in this new world of eased lockdown restrictions? The work that has gone into preparing these new Covid-safe environments has been well thought through, and it is now for us—the consumer—to support these businesses and act responsibly, playing our part by ensuring that we keep to the guidelines and avoid any chance of spreading the virus.
Lord True
I strongly agree with my noble friend and reiterate what I just said about paying tribute to all workers, and to businesses which have been patient through this difficult time and have now made arrangements to reopen—it is very good to see those businesses reopening. I am glad that, after 35 years of loyal custom, I was allowed to have a hair-cut on Saturday.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord is well known and respected for his own respect for Parliament. Will he therefore please ask his noble friends to fully answer the topical Written Question which I tabled on 28 April, about the decision taken, when Covid restrictions were already in place in Spain, to permit on 11 March a football match between Liverpool and Atlético Madrid? Can he say what lessons we have learned about the imposition and lifting of restrictions from what then followed?
Lord True
My Lords, I will look into this specific matter. I am aware of the event the noble Lord refers to. He will also be aware that, at the time, the advice on large-scale events was not necessarily what it is today. I will certainly undertake to pursue the matter and will ensure that there is a response to Parliament.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, could early street-level data sharing with local directors of public health be the way forward for local lockdowns in the event of future spikes in infection? Will the Minister say why that did not happen in time in Leicester, and why pillar 2 testing data is muddled and full of duplications?
Lord True
My Lords, the role of local councils is extremely important—noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that, given that I gave half a lifetime to local councils. We are ensuring that all local and public health bodies have the data that they need to support their plans for potential outbreaks. Since 11 June, an operational data dashboard was made available for all local authorities, to give them a clear picture in their local area. This includes counts of total tests and total positives, and a rolling average for pillar 2.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister say what publicly available epidemiological criteria the Government are using to decide on area-based local lockdowns and when to lift them?
Lord True
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Government have published a great deal of information, including from SAGE meetings. We will continue to be as transparent as possible. Clearly, on the policy on local lockdowns, we have seen this in Leicester. We will be vigilant and try to provide the maximum amount of information about reasons.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My noble friend will know that lifting restrictions cannot and will not apply to everyone. The list of vulnerabilities has increased since March as we have learned more about how this virus affects the body. Will my noble friend make sure that, as things ease up, as I hope they will, this particular group of people is not forgotten when policy, support and guidance are given? They will need to shelter for a very long time.
Lord True
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. Although we are obviously relaxing restrictions for people who are shielding—indeed, from today—she refers to people who will continue to be extraordinarily vulnerable. The Government are well aware of that and very concerned for the welfare of such people.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
Those encouraged to emerge from shielding fear that they are now at increased risk as observation of social distancing by others decreases. Do the Government recognise that the symbol prompting people to respect social distancing everywhere, developed through the Bevan Commission and endorsed by NHS Wales and the First Minister, is very widely welcomed by those currently shielding and those close to them, and now needs to be adopted across the whole of the UK?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
We learned today from the BBC that people tested for the virus in England were not asked to provide addresses during the height of the pandemic. Indeed, they were asked to provide postcodes only from 23 April. Even after that, it took until 24 June for Public Health England to share this data with local councils. Could the Government guarantee that local authorities will have the data, power and resources to move speedily to identify those at risk of either having or spreading the virus?
Lord True
My Lords, current guidelines certainly include the requirement to give contact details. I note the noble Baroness’s point, but I repeat that the role of local authorities is fundamental. We have given them a great deal more money, which was recently announced to be £500 million, I believe.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that security is being jeopardised by those who totally flout the rule about social distancing? Does he not think that the time has come when those who congregate in great numbers, very often imbibing large amounts, are given real deterrent fines? That way we might achieve common sense throughout.
Lord True
My Lords, I very much welcome seeing my noble friend here today. People should behave responsibly. The Government have been very clear that some of these large gatherings were undesirable and unacceptable. I repeat the point I made about social distancing, but I also say that over the weekend, when there were many dire predictions, the overwhelming majority of people in this country behaved with the common sense, dignity and decency I always expect from my fellow countrymen and women.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber while others are participating virtually, but all Members are treated equally. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are about to speak. Please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will then be muted again after each speech. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply.
Business and Planning Bill
Monday 6th July 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 June 2020 (PDF) - (29 Jun 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howe, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
It is a great privilege to open Second Reading on the Bill in your Lordships’ House. This is my first Second Reading speech since I took my seat in this House in April, and I am honoured to speak on this Bill, which is so critical for our economic recovery.
Noble Lords may have seen the Prime Minister’s speech of 30 June, when the Government announced that we would launch a planning policy paper this month setting out our plan for comprehensive reform of the planning system. I make clear that the Bill is not part of those ambitions for planning reform and should not be taken as a signal for what that will entail. This Bill is about implementing urgent and mostly temporary measures to provide much-needed support to businesses across our economy. We have within this House some of the country’s finest experts on planning and local government, so I look forward to constructive and positive discussions on planning reform once the paper has been launched.
For now, I beg noble Lords to focus on the merits of this urgent Bill, which will provide a much-needed boost to key sectors of our economy at this extraordinary time. The measures in the Bill have been developed in collaboration with industry and key stakeholders. The Bill directly responds to asks from businesses to help them to overcome the challenges that they face. It is right and important that we now support businesses in overcoming the disruption that has resulted from the pandemic and to implement new, safer ways of working. The Bill will support businesses in four key areas of the economy: hospitality, SMEs, transport, and construction. I will take each in turn.
First, the Bill will provide critical support for the hospitality sector. Food and beverage service activity has fallen by nearly 90% in the last quarter. From last Saturday, pubs, restaurants and cafes were able to reopen while following Covid-secure guidelines. The Government want to support those businesses to make the most of summer trade and to operate in a safe way. The Bill will therefore make it easier for businesses that sell or serve food or drink to obtain a licence on a temporary basis to set up outdoor seating and stalls. It will do this by introducing a temporary fast-track process for obtaining a licence from the local council to place tables and chairs on the pavement outside their premises. This new process will cut the time to receive approval for a licence and will cap the application fee at £100.
We recognise that public safety and access for disabled people using pavements is of unquestionably great importance. That is why the Government have published a national condition. When that condition applies, licence holders will be required to take into account recommended minimum requirements for footway widths and distances required for access by disabled people. In addition, local authorities will be able to refuse or revoke licences where they assess that it is necessary.
The Bill also makes it easier for licensed premises to sell alcohol to customers for consumption off the premises. It temporarily and automatically extends the terms of on-sales alcohol licences to allow the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises as well. It also suspends any relevant conditions on existing off-sales licences, including conditions that require off-sales of alcohol in sealed containers and restrictions on sales for delivery.
We recognise the need to strike a balance between supporting businesses and ensuring safety and amenity for our communities. If in a particular location these alcohol licensing arrangements were to cause problems then any responsible authority, including the police or an environmental health officer, could apply for a new off-sales expedited review. This expedited review process will allow responsible authorities to quickly alter the alcohol licensing conditions, suspend it for up to three months or remove the permission for sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises. On receipt of an application, the licensing authority must consider whether it is necessary to take interim steps to the permission granted by the Bill within 48 hours of receiving that application, and must hold a hearing within 28 days of receipt. These temporary measures to support the hospitality sector will be in force only until the end of September 2021. This will enable businesses to make the most of outdoor seating opportunities in the summer months this year and next.
Secondly, to support small businesses, the Bill introduces measures to enable lenders to continue to issue bounce-back loans quickly and at scale. The Bounce Back Loan Scheme is designed to provide loans at speed to small businesses adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. So far £29 billion has been lent to small businesses under the scheme, providing a vital lifeline to many.
The effect of the Bill is to retrospectively disapply the “unfair relationships” provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for lending made under the scheme. This is necessary to remove some of the checks and processes that lenders would otherwise need to run, and which would prevent them from providing loans to small businesses at the scale and speed necessary in this crisis.
Thirdly, to support our transport sector, this Bill makes changes to driver licensing and enables changes to roadworthiness testing for commercial vehicles. It will reduce the backlog of checks and tests that grew over the lockdown. It will help us to get goods, and indeed people, moving across the country.
The Bill introduces a temporary—and, in Great Britain, retrospective—power to issue one-year lorry or bus driving licences, rather than the standard five-year licences. This flexibility will allow a licence to be extended for a year if an applicant is unable to obtain the medical report required for a full five-year licence. This helps to alleviate pressures on doctors and the NHS.
The Bill also reforms the powers to temporarily exempt goods vehicles, buses and coaches from roadworthiness-testing requirements. This will be a permanent change but our intention is to use the reformed power only temporarily in response to the Covid-19 outbreak. This will allow for the high demand for heavy vehicle testing, which was reintroduced after lockdown only on 4 July, to be managed so that the most important vehicles are tested first.
Fourthly, the Bill will support our construction sector to get building again. It will introduce a fast-track route through the planning system to apply for a temporary extension of construction hours so that firms can plan for the safe reopening of sites. Temporarily allowing longer working hours—for example, during the evening and at weekends—will help to facilitate safe working by spreading out the working day. Importantly, local councils will have discretion to refuse requests where they consider that longer hours would have an unacceptable impact. I make it clear that this measure will not apply to construction works to an existing house, which affords a measure of protection to neighbours from disturbance. This measure will expire on 1 April 2021.
In addition, the Bill responds to calls from both the development industry and local authorities to extend planning permissions and listed building consents that lapsed during lockdown or will lapse before the end of this year. As a result of the pandemic, almost 1,200 unimplemented planning permissions for major residential development have lapsed or are at an increased risk of lapsing by the end of this year. These account for 60,000 new homes. The Bill enables the extension of these planning permissions and listed building consents to 1 April 2021, subject to any necessary environmental approvals.
There are two further planning measures included in this Bill. The first supports the Planning Inspectorate to conduct hearings and inquiries while adhering to social distancing. It enables the inspectorate to combine written representation, hearing and inquiry procedures when dealing with town and country planning appeals. This change was recommended by the independent Rosewell review, following which a pilot reduced average decision-making time from 47 weeks to 23 weeks. This measure will apply permanently to support the improved efficiency of the Planning Inspectorate.
The second responds to a request from the Mayor of London. It temporarily removes the requirement for the Mayor’s spatial development strategy to be available for public inspection and for hard copies to be available on request. In a time of social distancing, that is not practical. This requirement is replaced with a duty to make the current version of the strategy available for inspection free of charge by appropriate electronic means. Nevertheless, the Government appreciate that not everybody will have electronic access. As a result, the Bill also requires the Mayor to take into account any guidance the Government publish on appropriate mitigation measures. This measure will expire on 31 December this year. Taken together, all these planning measures will support the recovery of our construction sector and help to get Britain building again.
Finally, the Bill contains a provision to enable the time-limited powers to be extended by secondary legislation, subject to Parliament’s approval. This provides necessary flexibility, given the uncertainties around the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic and the nature of future social distancing requirements.
The package of measures in this Bill has been widely welcomed by businesses and local government at this critical and extraordinary time. The Local Government Association is supportive of the Bill, which it says will help ensure that a consistent approach can be taken so businesses can reopen as soon as possible. The Federation of Small Businesses also welcomes the Bill, which it says will help small businesses in the hospitality sector to resume trading with confidence.
These measures are necessary to alleviate some of the current challenges that businesses face and help the economy bounce back as we emerge from this pandemic. I look forward to our debate today and I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill. A large number of Members of your Lordships’ House wish to speak in this debate, and we look forward to their contributions.
When a crisis hits, effective Governments do two things: first, they deal with the immediate challenge and, secondly, they anticipate the fallout and begin working out how to tackle the consequences in the months and years ahead. It is anticipated that the UK has spent over £200 billion on a first-stage economic rescue operation but there is, as yet, no plan for economic recovery. Millions of jobs are now at risk and even a VAT cut, which is widely anticipated and would be welcome, will not of itself return our economy to pre-crisis levels of activity. The reannouncement of major infrastructure projects remains just that; most are nowhere near shovel-ready and will take many years to come on stream.
The £29 billion in Covid-19 loans to 640,000 businesses has been a significant boost to liquidity but as loans, these are not earned income. They will leave even fundamentally sound companies with huge debts, which will restrict their ability to reinvest for the future while opening them up to predatory takeovers. The current trickle of bankruptcies may turn into a flood.
I say all this because I want to make the point that while the Government have acted to protect us from the supply shock caused by the pandemic, the resolve that delivered the furlough schemes, which currently maintain 9 million people who might otherwise be out of work, needs to be shown again as we start the recovery to stimulate demand and save jobs. It will be a long haul. The Government urgently need to come forward with a comprehensive, flexible and imaginative plan for the support and recapitalisation of viable British businesses, and the prevention of mass unemployment. But this Bill, welcome though it is, is not that plan.
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the constructive conversations that he and my colleagues have had on the Bill. It is a short Bill and there is a large degree of agreement on it. The headline provisions, as has been said, are to enable the hospitality industry to reopen quickly and serve a greater number of customers in a safe environment. My noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Wilcox will be leading for us on these sections.
We welcome the temporary loosening of licensing and planning regulations to enable bars, restaurants and cafés to serve customers outside their premises. Having said that, we will question why the opportunity has not also been taken to include street-food vendors and small breweries in this legislation. In these essentially local issues, it is important that local authorities continue to have discretion in these matters because they are best placed to make the judgments about local impacts. However, we have received requests to amend Clause 11 so as to prevent increases in anti-social behaviour in town centres late at night and in the early mornings. It is also right that we raise the concerns of USDAW about the safety of staff. The government guidance is clear about the mitigation and reduction of risk that is needed if one metre-plus social distancing is in place. It is also very important that the Health and Safety Executive has the resources and powers to enforce the safety of those extended workplaces. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case?
The introduction of more flexible planning appeals is also welcome in speeding up the processes, but we want reassurances that no legitimate voice will be excluded from being heard. Local government is worried about the cost implications of these new rules, so we urge the Government to publish a report detailing the extra costs that councils will face in processing increased volumes of planning applications at the new, reduced fee levels.
We also welcome the measures in enabling construction sites to get back to work more easily, through extended working hours. It is important, however, that communities do not feel that their interests are being ignored in this. We would like to see councils being given the discretion they need to restrict hours of operation, where there is a compelling and overriding local reason to do so. But as well as discretion, local authorities need certainty about resourcing. As was said in the other place, £10 billion-worth of costs have been loaded on to local authorities during this crisis but only £3.2 billion has so far been provided by the Government. When he comes to respond to this debate can the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explain how and when the Government are going to honour their commitment to stand behind councils and give them the funding they need, now and in the future? It is important that the Government also offer cast-iron guarantees that none of the measures in the Bill will place additional costs on councils that have to be financed by further cuts in their services elsewhere. I challenge the Minister to put this on the record.
We also welcome the changes to transport and vehicle licensing, an issue which will be handled by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. I will be in the lead on the proposal to remove the “unfair relationship” provision from the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There have been many calls over the years for reform of the CCA 1974, as the safeguards are cumbersome and often inconsistent with bona fide attempts to provide flexible solutions to customers who experience temporary financial problems. That pressure has clearly been increased by the pandemic and it is right to take action now on this issue, even though it is to be hoped that the wider issues are also under review.
Bounce-back loans have been very successful in getting money out to small firms which can use them. This compares with the CBILS, where only half of the applications have been approved. We still do not know why, or how many have been rejected and how many are still in the queue. One thing that we will be asking for is that in the interests of transparency, the Government should publish data on the number of rejections and applications, and list the banks concerned. After all, if moneysavingexpert.com can do it, why cannot the Government?
I press the Government to think again about the way in which they are restarting the economy. In particular, I call for a more nuanced approach to the ending of the current support schemes. Many sections of our economy, employing hundreds of thousands of people, have opened this weekend with important social distancing restrictions in place. The hospitality industry has restarted, which is good, but at much reduced levels of revenue; these are not sustainable and may translate into a risk to hundreds and thousands of jobs. Live performances, including concerts and the theatre sector, are still forbidden and many of our most important arts organisations are on the point of closure. The announcement today of additional funding for our arts and cultural bodies is very welcome, but we urgently need the long-promised road map to the reopening of live music and theatre venues. While the buildings may be saved, what will be performed? Many directors of small limited companies—often freelancers in the creative industries—have been denied support and are really struggling as a result. The Government are taking a one-size-fits-all approach to the furlough, when it is increasingly clear that we need a differential approach. Some sectors, such as tourism and the creative industries, are more affected by the public health measures than others, so surely the economic support measures have to match that.
The Government have been talking up a new deal in recent days, and we will presumably know more after the Budget later this week. From recent debates in this House and from polling data, it is clear that the idea of a green recovery is shared widely across the nation. People want jobs to be secured and new quality jobs to be created, but they do not want the economy to return to where it was. They want tangible action on retrofitting insulation in our housing stock, manufacturing low-carbon engines, adapting our towns and cities to walking and cycling, creating green spaces, and reforesting and rewilding.
To conclude, we welcome the Bill, but its measures are modest. The Government have shown that they are willing to take action to relieve the worst impacts of the pandemic, but we face the deepest and sharpest recession, possibly for hundreds of years, and government power has to continue to be used. The decisions taken by the Government in the coming weeks will determine how many jobs are saved and how many businesses survive. The commitment to do “whatever it takes” cannot be a hollow promise. In short, we need this Bill, but we also need an extension to the furlough scheme for specific sectors, an urgent job-creation programme with a green recovery at its heart, and real action on infrastructure, not just words. I urge the Government not to step back when our economy, businesses and workers desperately need their support.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the aims of the Bill, because it can help reduce lasting damage to the economy. The Bill is said by the Local Government Association to be a
“positive step in the journey towards economic recovery”
and I concur with its view. The broad aims of the Bill secured all-party support in the House of Commons, although it has been sent to us to examine in detail, which we must now do.
The pandemic has been unequal in its financial impact on households. Some households are in serious financial difficulty; other households with more secure incomes may have been spending less than normal. We need those with cash to spend more of it now to help generate jobs for others. This Bill is one way of encouraging that higher spending, with the obvious further benefit of generating extra tax income for local and national government.
In terms of licensing, no two places are quite the same, so a flexible approach—place by place—will be essential. For that reason, I hope the opportunity will be taken to review very soon the powers of local authorities in licensing and the powers held in Whitehall. This was needed anyway, but the pandemic has revealed anomalies. For example, decisions on the level of fees charged to licensed premises through the late-night levy were made in Whitehall. Pubs were closed for many weeks, but they still had to pay the levy because councils could not change the law. Surely councils should have the power to reduce or waive the levy fees without asking central government.
I said earlier that the Bill commands broad all-party support, and it contains many sensible proposals. That does not mean, however, that we should not scrutinise the detailed provisions of the Bill, and I hope the Minister will accept the need to look for improvements in Committee and later stages. There are a number of issues that I would wish to see probed in Committee next week and no doubt colleagues on our Benches will have others. I think we need to assess whether the costs borne by local authorities are at least neutral. There are issues around the hours of work permitted on construction sites. There are questions around the sale of alcohol in open containers to be consumed on the pavement. There are concerns about the right of pedestrians to walk safely on the pavement, which is a particular concern for those who are visually impaired. There is a need for quarterly reviews of the practical operation of this legislation, with scope for amendment. Perhaps we should consider whether enough will be done to ensure that necessary pre-consultation can take place before a 14-day period is triggered.
Finally, I wonder whether the Minister will confirm that the housing delivery test requirements of local authorities should not apply in view of the lock- down. Will the Government temporarily suspend the presumption in favour of the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and to the contributions during this Second Reading.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, my comments relate to planning. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and of the Local Government Association. I fully support the planning elements in the Bill, which are sensible and should minimise potential delays in the planning process caused by the pandemic.
However, as the Minister mentioned, the Prime Minister has spoken of more radical changes to planning to speed up the drive to “build, build, build”. I commend the PM’s emphasis on building back better, with more beautiful, greener homes, but there has also been talk of extending the controversial permitted development rights of housebuilders and developers so that they can bypass planning requirements and, indeed, avoid providing any affordable housing in their developments.
It is true that underresourced planning departments are sometimes slow, outwitted by well-resourced developers or overwhelmed by public hostility to a development. However, the answer is not to diminish the powers of the elected local planning authorities in the hope that the developers and housebuilders who have let us down in the past will do better if left to do as they please. Effective local planning requires adequate funding, which can be properly paid for by the developers which stand to gain so much from planning decisions.
Specifically on increasing the speed of development, we fortunately have some clear insights from the review that the Government commissioned from Sir Oliver Letwin. This explains why it takes so long for developers to actually build their developments: they only build more when they have sold what they have already built. Sir Oliver spells out that if we want much faster progress on big sites, we need to organise simultaneous development of a variety of types and tenures on these sites: homes that are affordable and for market renting, homes for older people and students, as well as plots for custom building by small builders.
Sir Oliver explains that councils could achieve this by buying sites through their own development corporations, capturing uplift in land values, and parcelling out the plots within a master plan—stronger, not weaker, planning; taking back control of development from the oligopoly of the volume housebuilders. Does the Minister agree that this positive, proactive approach should represent the direction of travel for our planning system?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, we should all welcome the general thrust of the Bill, especially the declared purpose of assisting businesses, especially the small and medium-sized ones, in the current crisis. For the most part, concerns from individuals and organisations about inconvenience caused by changes near to them or affecting their interests—for instance, open-air activities or the extension of hours on building sites—can be assuaged to some extent by the temporary nature of the relevant provisions and the accepted obligation already given by the Government to come back to Parliament if any extensions or retentions of these provisions are contemplated or, in their view, necessary.
However, my remarks today, like those of the previous speaker, will concentrate on the parts of the Bill that deal with planning issues. I do this in the full knowledge that the Government are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of planning law and regulations—as predicated in remarks made earlier this year by the Housing Secretary, my right honourable friend in the other place, Robert Jenrick, and my noble friend earlier—which is to be set out in due course.
As a lowly PPS in the Department of the Environment, I worked on the delivery of development corporations with my boss at the time, Sir David Trippier, to areas or zones of economic deprivation in the 1980s, and I regarded the special planning powers vested in their boards as key to revival. Such targeted zones, especially in inner cities, will in my view be necessary again in a post-Covid world. I hope my noble friend the Minister will look sympathetically with his colleagues at this possibility.
However, the reference to changing the planning appeals system in this Bill, which seems to emanate from some of the proposals for a White Paper, should be examined closely. I believe these ideas were contributed by the independent review panel, to which my noble friend referred earlier. These changes, unlike most of the Bill’s contents, are to be permanent, ahead of other more comprehensive changes, so we need to be most careful in examining these things as the Bill proceeds. I assume these changes will remain as part of the fuller proposals.
The balance between developers and planners and the communities the planners serve is sensitive. Many local planning decisions are already defeated under the current appeals system because of the sheer cost of the process. This is deterring many local authorities, with limited resources and strict rules on public expenditure, from standing up to speculative developers, often in cases where the development sought might be damaging to the local environment and unwanted by local communities. Some developers with large resources are unaccountable in the same way and therefore in a privileged position.
At first sight, any simplification of the appeals process could be thought to address the inability of local authorities to resist unacceptable applications. It is vital that balancing the protection of communities and the environment with the need to build more suitable houses and other buildings is maintained and, where necessary, altered so that the default does not unduly favour the developer.
On that point, I hope my noble friend will appreciate the problems with Section 106 provisions, which sometimes require a developer to offer some community contribution out of his profits. This has often proven a blunt sword. I trust that, in any new proposals to come before us, such provisions will be enhanced and clarified. I know of many cases where developers have avoided their responsibilities under Section 106 and any community infrastructure levy. It is vital that planning proposals, whether in this Bill or later legislation, maintain the important balance between community cohesion and acceptance, and the need to build.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, many aspects of this Bill are simple and straightforward and are to be welcomed. However, others are precursors to the wider planning Bill which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Best.
Given that I have only four minutes, I will concentrate on those aspects which concern me and which we should be clear should not be carried forward as a long-term proposition, because one person’s regulation is another person’s protection. The idea that, if we just sweep away many of the blockages in regulation, the enterprise and creativity of local businesses will somehow flourish without damaging the interests of the wider community, is simply untrue. It is untrue because those regulations and requirements have been brought in over many years for a purpose: to retain the balance between economic activity and enterprise, on the one hand, and the safe- guarding of people’s interests on the other. We should bear that in mind.
Other aspects of this Bill slightly bemuse me. While I am totally in favour of kick-starting elements of the economy that have been so badly damaged by the lock- down, I cannot see for the life of me that licensed premises selling alcohol off-premises—as though they will all now be off-licences—will actually do very much, other than fuel the already worrying concerns about activity late at night, particularly in the major cities, which has already been referred to but which I want to reinforce. Eating and drinking outside in an orderly fashion—linked, I stress, to the premises and not detached from them—is very sensible and, in the remaining summer months and next year, could contribute to not only economic activity but a different atmosphere in cities, towns and villages.
However, it must be done in a way that does not, as has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, damage the interests of those who will be vulnerable to unplanned and unrestricted obstacles on pavements. I have been asked, quite understandably, by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and others to draw attention to this and to say that there must be sensible safeguards if we are not to have almost Kafkaesque episodes like something out of “Monty Python”. I have a dog; other people do not. My current dog would not take a tender morsel off the table as it passes; one of my previous dogs undoubtedly would have done. I am just trying to lighten the load a bit this afternoon.
I am most concerned about the extension of hours for construction. It is welcome that the Minister, in introducing this Second Reading, indicated that this would not apply to neighbours. Believe me, the light pollution, noise pollution and damage cannot be justified by prolonged hours, as extension into the night will probably lead to less safety rather than more. Turning day into night is not the way to kick-start our economy. By all means, let us ensure that we have the enterprise we need to get us back on stream again, but let us also take the words of Winston Churchill from 1909: the worst should never undercut the very worst.
Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will focus on those aspects of the Bill relating to tourism. Tourism generates revenues of £155 billion per annum for the UK economy, including £28 billion in export earnings. The industry employs 3 million people, making it the UK’s third-largest employer. Every region has at least 100,000 tourism-related jobs. The sector has been disproportionately affected by the Covid pandemic; inbound tourist numbers are forecast to decline by 59% and expenditure by 63% this year, resulting in a loss to the UK economy of nearly £20 billion and a loss to the domestic tourism industry of a further £25 billion.
Councils have been working hard on measures to help hospitality businesses reopen, for example using town centres differently so that businesses can operate outside. However, a lot more can be done. While the Bill contains welcome new flexibility for businesses to put tables and chairs on pavements, there are at least three further measures we could take to help firms which have lost months of trading income.
First, the package travel regulations should be amended to make transport a mandatory component of package travel, thus allowing small businesses to make a combined offer of, say, accommodation in a guest house and a meal at a local pub without incurring all the responsibilities of a package holiday operator. Research suggests that this could boost domestic tourism by £2.2 billion with no loss in consumer protection.
Secondly, we should remove restrictions preventing caravan parks operating during winter. These parks have already lost between 35% and 50% of their income, and two-fifths of sites presently operate less than eight months of the year. There is an opportunity here to boost domestic tourism with year-round openings for all.
Thirdly, we should remove planning restrictions that prevent self-catering cottages being rented out as long-term lets during winter. These restrictions have a perverse impact, leaving holiday accommodation empty for many months of the year, with a knock-on effect for local pubs and restaurants, which see decreased trade. Over 80% of tourism businesses either were closed temporarily or have ceased trading altogether as a result of coronavirus. Some 92% say that their revenue has at least halved; 75% of their employees were furloughed, compared to just 24% in the jobs market as a whole. This is little short of a catastrophe for the industry.
The Government have the tools to help these businesses survive against the odds and to save jobs as the furlough scheme ebbs away. There can and should be a renaissance in domestic tourism here in the UK as well as a fresh look at how to offer the best to people visiting from around the world. Let us not shut out trade for the sake of arbitrary planning rules. Instead, we can hand much more power to local councils to make their own decisions over how to help the industry in their parts of the country.
I would welcome an initial response from the Minister to these suggestions since I intend to table amendments in Committee on all three subjects.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, although this Bill has the grand title of Business and Planning Bill it is something of a pot-pourri and the emphasis seems to be on consumer spending in the high street in bars and restaurants and the urgent encouragement of a single industry—construction—rather than on an industrial strategy in the round, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out. However, much current thinking has it that those towns which were the worst hit by austerity are also going to be the worst hit economically by Covid, so the encouragement of new industries, such as green industries, particularly in the worst affected regions, is urgently required.
Thinking locally, what discussions are the Government having with the Local Government Association about taking these measures forward and how will councils be supported financially to do so?
Of the measures to help the hospitality industry, I particularly approve of bringing cafes more on to the street, continental style, and I hope this will be a more permanent fixture across the country. It is one of those seemingly small but significant measures that can help knit communities together, although it has been prompted, of course, by the requirement for social distancing.
I support the LGA’s call for a range of different and alternative spaces, including roads and parking spaces, to be licensed when it is safe to do so.
We have heard a great deal about the need to get the hospitality sector back on its feet both in the media and in Parliament, including through this Bill, but not a great deal about the arts, which has similar problems with social distancing measures, at least not until today. The rescue package has been welcomed by arts leaders, but there must be a concern about how far £880 million in grant money will go and what will be lost in the arts, particularly as this money has come so late. I wish the Chancellor did not use the term “world beating”. However, much as the arts is grateful for it, this Covid emergency package for the arts is not world beating unless your world is confined to the shores of this country.
“Planning” is a curious word because it can mean different things to different people. Does the Minister agree that the planning in the title of the Bill should be for society, for our communities, above everything else and that there will not be a conflict between this Bill and preserving our community centres and cultural venues—the buildings themselves—that would surely go against the spirit of the arts rescue package. This concern was raised by Greg Clark at Second Reading in the Commons. He warned that
“we should guard against granting planning permissions that take them”—
meaning theatres and concert halls—
“immediately out of those very valued uses.”—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/2020; col. 53.]
As with the hospitality sector, concomitant measures are not yet being drawn up for the arts. I use the word concomitant because of the close association between the two sectors, particularly with regard to tourism. After hospitality, the Government now need to work on getting our arts venues, theatres, concert halls and clubs open as soon as possible. The longer this is left the more trouble the arts will be in, even with the rescue package. As with all other sectors, the business aspect is suffering with a loss of revenue from tickets. Also, if the self-employment support scheme and furloughing do not continue while our performing arts venues, in particular, remain shut, then the talents of many freelancers and permanent staff will be lost, the creative economy will collapse and the arts and our culture generally will be considerably poorer as well as our standing internationally. That cannot be emphasised enough.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his excellent opening speech, especially the announcement on wheelchairs and pavement access. He will make a worthwhile contribution to this House.
The Bill generally is welcome although I have a few concerns about some issues. First, as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I can say that it will consider the Bill on Wednesday morning and aims to report later that day, allowing a very tight window for Peers to table amendments on Wednesday on any of its recommendations if they so wish. It is a pleasure to see for a change a Bill with Henry VIII clauses all limited to changing merely the dates and which are all affirmative. However, the committee will be interested in the amount of guidance that may be given without parliamentary oversight and the apparently new concept of conditions which will have the force of law but no parliamentary approval.
I appreciate that the Government need to move quickly—there is no point in legislating for an open-air cafe society when the one week of English summer is over— but, on a personal note, I was concerned that the non-obstruction provisions in Clause 3(6) did not mention keeping sufficient space on pavements for wheelchairs and children’s pushchairs to pass; nor is it specifically mentioned under the condition in Clause 5. My noble friend the Minister, the Deputy Leader, may say that this is common sense and that local authorities are bound to make that a condition. Not so—not because they are hostile to wheelchair users but because we are never thought about. Every time I have been in Paris in past years I often cannot get through on the pavement because of the tables and chairs, not to mention the thousands of electric scooters cluttering the pavements, which we will soon have too. The carnage in Paris will be repeated in London. People are apologetic, jump up and move the tables but it never crosses their mind that there would be an obstruction problem for certain pavement users when the tables were set out. The same would have happened here— not out of malice or disrespect but because of sheer thoughtlessness.
I was going to move an amendment in Committee to put this in the Bill, but I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on introducing this national condition. I hope that my note to his department last week threatening to move the amendment had a role to play.
I am also concerned about the possibility of 24/7 construction. For six years I suffered the noise of massive construction works carried out near Marsham Street. The last two years were not so bad as they fitted out the inside, but the first two years were pure hell as massive power hammers demolished the old buildings, with 100 decibels of noise from 8 am until 6 pm. Of course, we must get construction working flat out to catch up but there must be limits to protect local residents. It would be odd if Heathrow has to close for almost seven hours at night and has noise limits but construction sites could carry on regardless.
I am further concerned that 24/7 construction work near special wildlife sites such as SSSIs could be damaging to the species affected. I declare my interests as in the register. Local authorities must check what conditions on construction near these sites were imposed to protect the wildlife there when the application was granted, and not diminish those protections now.
In conclusion, I suggest that where there are no residents for 300 metres, construction can go on 24/7. However, where there are residents living closer than 300 metres, noisy outdoor construction should be limited to a maximum of 7 am in the morning until 10 pm at night. That is an extra five hours a day work time in residential areas. All internal and quiet work could continue 24/7. With these provisos, I support the Bill.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests as a councillor, as noted in the register.
We are broadly supportive of the Bill, which will enable businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, to reopen quickly after coronavirus restrictions. We have consistently been calling on the Government to work with local authorities and take innovative action to help businesses both expand and adapt operations to boost trade. However, the provisions to relax licensing requirements so that cafes, bars and restaurants can serve customers outside must also be accompanied by clarity on the role local authorities have to play in making decisions at a local level.
There must also be further assurances over how relaxed licensing requirements will be policed, particularly where restaurants, bars and cafes are in residential areas or where these premises open out on to the street. Councils have already been working hard on measures that can be put in place to help hospitality businesses to reopen, including relaxing requirements, and considering how town centres can be used differently to enable businesses to operate safely outside. The Bill will help to ensure a consistent approach that can be taken across the country.
However, councils need to have the power both to refuse applications where these cannot be managed safely, and to act if any issues arise following the reopening of premises. The full responsibility and cost for making this policy work successfully does not sit with local authorities alone. With the initial burden falling on them, it is crucial that councils are supported financially to meet the costs of processing an expected large number of applications in a short period of time.
The provisions in the Bill will result in an extra workload for local authorities, whose budgets have already been stretched dangerously thin by 10 years of deep cuts, and now Covid-19 has dealt them a further blow. The Government should also publish a report detailing the extra costs accrued by councils as a result of processing increased volumes of planning applications through the new deemed consent route and additional environmental approvals. Consultation with local councils is therefore essential before making further changes.
It is right that the proposed licensing measures in the Bill are only temporary. In the long term there needs to be a comprehensive review of our outdated licensing legislation to ensure that it is fit for the future.
There is also great concern for the safety and well-being of people who work in this industry, and the Bill should require pubs to take certain steps to ensure the safety of workers. We should look at placing conditions on premises which want to apply for licences. They must first publish a risk assessment, including details of the risk from hours of operations, the use of cash transactions, provision of door security—including safe toilets—protection of BAME workers, who have statistically been shown to be at greater risk, and detail the provisions for sick pay and how they intend to implement trade union recognition for staff.
There are also concerns from the industry itself that the Bill introduces only minor changes and that the Government are ignoring the most important issues that they currently face, such as the difficulties that pubs have with rent after months of not trading, and the importance of encouraging consumer confidence to return to use the facilities of the hospitality industry. In essence, a reasonable first attempt, but could and must do better.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will address a range of issues, all of them quite quickly. First, Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 failed to include Transport for London and at least some development agencies in its definition of local authorities. It has left these bodies with a legal minefield as they act through virtual decision meetings, and it is seriously complicating economic recovery. It should all be in scope of the Bill, so will the Minister use the Bill to correct what I assume was very much an oversight?
Secondly, so many firms I have talked to are afraid that, as they bring back their workforce and customers following government guidelines, they will still be sued if an employee or customer catches Covid. They have no faith in insurance policies after the fiasco with business interruption insurance, and they do not understand why the Government have not offered indemnity to employers who follow the guidelines. Will the Minister please respond to this issue?
Thirdly, civil society groups like Protect and WhistleblowersUK are being inundated with phone calls from employees who have witnessed furlough fraud or the bending of safety rules, and all of this will increase as more businesses open. HMRC has set a terrible precedent in closing its fraud phone hotline and telling people to do online reporting—which of course they do not because they do not trust it, and because the forms demand so much disclosure. Will the Minister guarantee today that the HSE will keep manning its safety reporting hotline so that we can be absolutely on top of any abuse?
Lastly, the Minister referred to bounce-back loans, and I join him in being delighted that over £30 billion has been loaned to companies under the scheme. However, he will know that very many of those who have applied have been turned down, not because they are unsuitable but because the banks who have dominated these loans have no wish to add to their balance sheets. The banks have chosen not to on-lend cheap money from the term-lending facility they have with the Bank of England to enable more diverse and other players to engage extensively in the bounce-back scheme.
The British Business Bank has been rapidly trying to accredit diverse organisations to participate in lending under the bounce-back scheme, but it is slow going. Will the Minister make sure that for the future we have a structure in place that means that, when a programme and scheme like this is being put forward, it does not put the banks, frankly, in the catbird seat and enable them to do what they have been doing, which is cherry picking the customers who get these loans and leaving a very large number, particularly of small companies, in significant difficulty?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too support the Bill as an urgent and temporary measure designed to alleviate the effects of Covid-19 and stimulate the planning system. However, can the Minister confirm clearly that these are truly intended to be temporary measures and that standards of good design, particularly for the permanent future, will be maintained and, if at all possible, enhanced? I agree with every word of my noble friend Lord Best about the dangers of relaxing the high standards of planning design that we rightly aspire to. Modern techniques allow the most attractive, low-cost homes to be built at genuinely low cost. There is no need to cut corners.
I have one concern about the Bill, as a resident of the London Borough of Hackney. Our hard-working police force, based at Stoke Newington police station, has faced unacceptable challenge from disorder in the streets and unlawful large-scale drinking. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the changes contained in the Bill simply cannot be the basis of heightening disorder—whether it is by young people or older people, it does not matter. The police should not be required to attend at these scenes; the scenes should not occur.
My third point is about the way in which planning and party politics intersect. When I first became a Member of Parliament, for the beautiful Welsh constituency of Montgomeryshire, Lord Hooson QC, who had been a Member for Montgomeryshire before me and who had led me in a number of planning appeals when I was a young barrister, spoke to me very firmly about planning. He said that there were dangers in planning applications for politicians and political parties. He reminded me that one should never allow one’s political interests to interfere with sound principle. So my final point is to ask the Minister to confirm that it is embarrassing and sometimes unethical for developers to be seen as being too close to political parties, Members of Parliament, Ministers and councillors. Planning is an objective matter—there are rules—and paying large sums of money to have dinner near someone who is thought to have influence should never be acceptable. The lessons of history—some very high-profile cases—tell us that.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I recognise my noble friend on the Front Bench and say that it is hugely welcome that we have a senior Member on the Front Bench introducing the Bill who has a wide experience of local authorities and the areas we are talking about. The Bill is hugely welcome, and I for one say well done to the whole team that put it together in such a short time.
However, we have to recognise that it is only a start, because an avalanche of unemployment is coming down the track, and we need a spirit almost like that of the Blitz 80 years ago, which, ironically, started on 7 September 1940 and lasted until 11 May 1941. I suspect that September 2020 will last through to May 2021. It will be our challenge and it will require a herculean effort.
Much is made in debates of the V-shaped recovery. In this debate, I would rather risk doing too much now and pulling back later when the economy has fully recovered than the alternative of falling short, with too little stimulus, and allowing the economy to suffer and fall into a dangerous liquidity trap. The case for bold action, to increase the watchful public’s expectation of a steady recovery, remains as strong as ever. The Bill, short as it is, is just a start, but this is about not just the speed of response but the depth too. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will resist the temptation to micromanage the whole thing; that applies to amendments as well.
My focus is the construction industry; I used to be chairman of a housing committee and a director of a major construction company. The Bill principally deals with existing situations, such as permissions expiring, but I make a plea to ensure that there is close involvement with the relevant local authorities. Our objective is to speed up housebuilding now. We need a strategy to tackle the challenge of an average home costing eight times average earnings, compared to only four times in the 1990s, plus the challenge of social housing, on which all Governments have failed in the last 20 years. There is no doubt that we need about 100,000 of those homes. There is a way, which lies dormant. I refer to the New Towns Act. Why not speed up designation of new towns, or new garden towns, all over the country? We have a concept that has been proven over time—Welwyn Garden City, Milton Keynes, the development in Northampton, where I happened to be the Member of Parliament—driven by the new towns corporations, and there is no need for any new legislation. It works because all the legislation is there; relationships with local authorities are built up. It is successful and it is sitting there. Why do we not use it?
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, although the Bill provides a welcome range of measures to help businesses post Covid-19, it also represents a missed opportunity. For example, there is no acknowledgment of the call by the trade union Unite for the Government to involve the country’s 100,000 trade union health and safety representatives to help with test, track and trace, and with finding safer ways of working, to deal with the ongoing risks from Covid-19. The crisis is also an opportunity to make workplaces more productive, by encouraging closer co-operation at work and challenging both sides of industry to boost productivity by working in partnership. For example, in May, the Food and Drink Federation and the GMB, Unite, USDAW and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union highlighted how partnership between food and drink manufacturers, trade unions and employees has enhanced both the safety of workers and the effective running of workplaces.
The Government should encourage employers and unions to explore new ways of working together and embracing radical change. The Covid-19 crisis has shown that very many established ways of working are outdated. Many are inflexible; they hinder, rather than help, firms’ efforts to match their product or service to customers’ requirements; they undermine, rather than underpin, employers’ efforts to keep up with the competition; and they often alienate, rather than motivate, employees by treating them unfairly or locking them in to unrewarding routine tasks. By working together, unions and employers can deliver dramatic improvements in performance, boosting productivity and profitability, lifting living standards and enhancing job prospects. Instead of routine, robust co-operation between employers and unions, of the kind practised in Germany, Britain has low employee motivation, lagging productivity, lost competitiveness, jobs in jeopardy, shocking skills gaps, grossly unequal rewards and grotesque discrimination at work.
Instead of world-class standards of product quality and customer service, British businesses too often settle for second best. With a few notable exceptions, we have seen our market share drop and jobs disappear. The Prime Minister was right to cite Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as an example to follow, but he omitted to mention that the New Deal also radically reformed industrial relations in the United States, bringing in the National Labor Relations Board to even up the balance of power between bosses and workers and encourage union recognition. That did not create fair pay overnight, but it took a big step in the right direction. The Business Secretary and Treasury Ministers have held a productive series of sector-by-sector meetings with trade union and business leaders. The next step should be government backing to bring both sides of industry together in sectoral bargaining, to put a floor under pay and conditions of employment, raise and protect standards, and stop responsible employers being undercut by irresponsible rivals and workers being exploited unfairly.
Winston Churchill once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste, but turn it into an opportunity”—a chance to do things that might never have seemed possible before.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I understand the temptation to take a hatchet to the—sometimes annoying—bureaucracy associated with the planning system, but one man’s bureaucracy is another’s fundamental democratic right. Many noble Lords will have experience of serving as a councillor, as I have, and will know that planning applications are a sensitive issue. When you add alcohol licensing to that, you have a combustible combination. The short cuts proposed here, allowing pubs and restaurants to install pavement furniture, go beyond streamlining, but some sensible amendments could make them workable. At the moment, the provisions are self-defeating. If you give people only seven days to object, they will probably object, so give them time to talk to neighbours and find out more.
There are concerns about the shortness of consultation and the method to be used. The need only to display a notice, and no legal requirement to post the application online, is plainly ridiculous in the age of Zoom. The lamp-post notice is created on a computer, so posting it online is easy. People with sight loss cannot see lamp-post notices. As the Bill is drafted, it is discriminatory, because they are the people, together with wheelchair users, whose safety is most at risk when a café springs up on the pavement, forcing them into the road. I urge the Government to rethink the methods and timing of consultation. If the local authority does not deal with the application within 10 working days, it is automatically to be granted for a year. Why should local residents have to put up with an unsuitable use of the pavement for a whole year, simply because the council did not react fast enough? Surely three months would be long enough before it is reconsidered.
Any pavement development must leave sufficient space so that people, including wheelchair users, can pass safely. Recently, councils have been reconfiguring roads to encourage more cyclists, so they may be prepared to do that for pavement cafés too. However, some new cycle lanes have obliterated existing bus lanes, and this must be prevented. In future, we will need efficient bus services more than ever. Whether for cyclists or drinkers, any road reconfiguration needs to remember the buses.
The Bill also contains amendments to the licensing and testing of goods vehicles, and grants some temporary exemptions. It amends the requirements for medical reports for older drivers of those vehicles. These are issues of road safety, and any loosening of requirements must be looked at closely, especially in relation to buses, where passenger safety is at risk. If the Bill had come to this House in April, I would have understood. Now, we are giving the Government additional powers after the event. They have already reinstated the need for MOTs. They have never asked for powers to reduce the equally onerous requirements for those needing to renew their licences at the age of 70. Once again, the Government’s approach is to belatedly ask for a haphazard mismatch of additional powers, with no evidence of a strategic approach.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]
My Lords, others have raised the concerns of inner-city residents about the implications of Clause 11, which will encourage drinking in the streets into the early hours, and I hope my noble friend will consider whether the safeguards mentioned in the opening speech are in fact an adequate response.
Nearly all the measures in the Bill are temporary but I want to speak about one measure which is permanent —namely, Clause 20—as did my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. I speak as a former Minister for Planning who put the Planning and Compensation Act into law in 1991. This was meant to update the 1947 Act and provide a long- lasting framework for a modern planning system. I have lost count of the number of planning Acts since then with the same objective, and my successors seem to have fared no better, so we all hope that the proposed planning Bill trailed by my noble friend will finally take the trick.
Clause 20 implements one of the recommendations of the independent review of planning appeal inquiries, the Rosewell report. Of the 22 recommendations made last year, 16 had been implemented by March this year. It would be helpful to hear, perhaps in Committee, of the progress with the remaining six. The appeals system is one of the main blockages in the planning system and I welcome measures to speed it up and provide more homes. The main cause of appeals is the absence of adopted local plans decades after the system was introduced, and perhaps my noble friend can explain what action is being taken to get these up and running so fewer appeals are needed to fill the vacuum.
I have some specific questions for my noble friend on Clause 20. One category of decision is appeals in relation to an application to modify or discharge affordable housing requirements under Section 106BC of the 1990 Act. Affordable housing and planning appeals are a sensitive subject at the moment, so can my noble friend confirm that this proposed reform will not make it easier for developers to duck their responsibility for providing affordable homes through the “viability test”, as has been happening, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope? Indeed, we should be making it tougher. In passing, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said about planning and implementing Sir Oliver Letwin’s recommendations.
The Minister said that the clause would allow the Planning Inspectorate to use more than one type of procedure as part of the same appeal—part local inquiry, part written recommendations. I understand that this hybrid system, which on the face of it sounds more complicated, was tested last year, and my noble friend outlined some of the results, but can he say whether there have been any cost implications for any of the parties involved, particularly local authorities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson?
Finally, is the Secretary of State going to give guidance to the inspectorate about how the flexibility in the clause is to be used, or will the position remain as it is; namely, entirely down to the discretion of the inspectorate? Can he say when the measures in the Bill will come into effect? In the meantime, is progress being made with more virtual enquiries to avoid a pandemic backlog?
Perhaps in Committee we can have more detail of what is proposed, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but in the meantime, on the basis that the intention of the clause is to speed up the provision of more homes and to “build, build, build”, I welcome it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the construction and hospitality industries have been severely affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Over 40% of construction sector workers were furloughed as of the middle of May, and ONS statistics published in June show that food and beverage service activities dropped by nearly 90% in the last quarter. So, for the hospitality sector, the Business and Planning Bill will support recovery by allowing pubs, restaurants and cafés to serve outside, as well as the off-premise sale of alcohol, to make the most of this summer while upholding social distancing. The Bill also makes the application process quicker for construction sites to extend their operating hours to accelerate building works, speeds up planning approvals and appeals, and digitises parts of the planning application. The Bill will support small businesses to access the finance they need during the pandemic by enabling the process for the bounce-back loan scheme to be as simple as possible, ensuring that these loans reach businesses quickly, easily and at scale.
The efforts of the British Business Bank, Her Majesty’s Treasury and approved lenders provided a critical lifeline to many businesses, saving thousands of jobs and livelihoods. There remain critical challenges ahead and banks have a vital role to play in the recovery, yet we are by no means out of the woods. There are big concerns about a finance cliff edge in October as the job retention scheme and tax deferments end. The May PMIs continued to indicate a sharp fall in activity. The growth indicator of the CBI, of which I am president, suggests that activity fell at the fastest pace in the three months to May since the indicator began in 2003. The ONS survey on the business impact of Covid-19 reported that cash is still a huge issue, with 42% of businesses having cash reserves to last less than six months. Some £42.9 billion delivered to over 1 million businesses by the loan schemes shows how vital this finance has been and still is to business. Nearly £30 billion has been paid to almost 1 million businesses through the coronavirus business bounce-back loan scheme alone. These 100% loans are guaranteed up to £50,000, with over 80% of them being approved. Does the Minister agree that the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme—CBILS—has not been as successful, with less than 50% approvals? However, these loans are still very necessary.
With every pound invested in construction generating £2.92 in value to the UK, according to CBI research, this activity will support economic stability and future growth in the regions across the UK through increased spending and improved productivity for other industries. The construction industry has welcomed the efforts to allow more flexible working hours. Businesses have welcomed the Government’s temporary extensions to planning permission periods and consents.
From speaking to businesses of all sizes across the country, the CBI has a clear vision for the recovery of the UK’s economy, and in a recent letter to the Chancellor, the CBI called for the next wave of government action to support and protect the economy and save jobs. Firms need to know this side of the summer—that is why I am glad that the Government are speeding through this Bill—what government support will be available. The need is immediate and critical. The CBI has put forward ideas to target at-scale action to kick-start growth, support viable businesses and save jobs. These include: to develop schemes to support jobs with a focus on young people and the long-term unemployed; to extend grant support for SMEs via local authorities to save businesses vital to local communities and key supply chains; to extend business rates relief to mid-sized businesses in all sectors to reduce fixed costs for the next three months; to extend the windows for new applications for the CBILS by at least a further three months; to consider further policy measures to stimulate demand in the economy. The restaurant industry, for example, is asking for VAT to be reduced temporarily to 5%. Will the Government consider sectoral VAT reductions?
To conclude, the Secretary of State for Business, Alok Sharma, said in the other place that many businesses have lost revenue as a result of measures intended to halt the spread of Covid-19. He described the purpose of the Bill as being
“to provide an adrenaline boost to key sectors of our economy”,—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/20; col. 51.]
enabling them to reopen and increase sales as some of the Covid-19 safety measures are relaxed.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first opportunity in the House to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and I do so very warmly. He comes to us with a wealth of experience from local government, which is in short supply, and he is therefore very well placed to serve.
I support strongly most of what is in the Bill, subject only to the concerns that have rightly been raised about anti-social behaviour, where it looks as if the Government might need to give more reserved powers to local authorities. The problem is not what is in the Bill. I would like, in the short time I have, to raise three issues with the Minister about early action needed in this crisis in respect of matters not in the Bill.
The first is schools. Amazingly, we are opening pubs nationwide before we open schools. The headline in today’s Evening Standard says it all:
“We are leaving a generation of children behind”.
The key requirement now is to ensure that all schools are open for all pupils in September and, where head teachers and governing bodies wish it, they should also have the power to be open for a week or two before the start of term, particularly for years 11 and 13, where pupils face public examinations and may have missed much, if not all, of this term. Legislation giving head teachers and governors the explicit power to open early before September and to require pupil attendance would, I believe, be highly appropriate in the crisis.
Secondly, there is public transport. It is still the case, as I know from using the Jubilee line every morning, that virtually no one is on public transport at the moment. I can assure the House that at 7.30 am this morning at Baker Street, coming into Westminster, I was the only person on the platform and there was only one other person in my carriage. To make public transport safe and to make it appear to be safe, particularly in London and in cities with major commuter flows, we need to go beyond the current mask provisions to introduce staggered working and trading times for the start and end of the working day and give Transport for London and other public authorities the power to enforce them so that people can be reassured that social distancing can be maintained. The problem at the moment is not that there are too many people on public transport but that most people who need to use it will not go near it because they have a perception that it is unsafe. Until we can break that, we will not be able to get back into a virtuous circle.
Thirdly, we need to give a big boost to walking and cycling to work. There are a lot of non-legislative ways that this can be promoted. I set out a dozen measures in an article about this in the Evening Standard last Thursday. I shall highlight two changes where legislation could be helpful: first, to give local authorities the ability to revoke on-street parking on major roads to convert the space into cycle routes and, secondly, to provide that reasonable walking, cycling and running time to work can, for an initial trial period, be counted as part of the working day to encourage people to use these means of getting to work. To do that in the private sector would require legislation, but the Government and, in particular, the NHS could lead by example as employers without legislation by simply saying that they would allow reasonable time for walking, cycling and running to work to be counted as part of the working day, which could be a huge incentive for people to use these means of getting to work. When the Minister replies to the thousands of speakers in this debate, will he say whether he will consider this?
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to support the measures in the Bill. There are so many businesses that are potentially on the edge of a financial precipice and I am sure that, across the House, we want to see them get back to economic viability as soon as possible. I hope that the Bill and the measures contained in it will jump-start those enterprises and sectors. I am pleased that Her Majesty’s Government are being innovative and flexible in their plans for the recovery.
There are a few areas I would like to explore in a little more detail. The Bill has helpful measures for flexibility in planning appeal procedures to enable more use of virtual sessions and to reduce the need for members of the public to travel to appeal examinations. However, I have some concerns. While appreciating the speed with which the Bill needs to be passed in order to maximise the assistance, particularly for those who are financially struggling, there is a lack of consultation on this new legislation. The Minister, who I welcome to his maiden Second Reading debate, said regarding planning that there will be separate legislation, but he will be aware of my continuing concerns that there may be changes to the planning system which relate to environmental matters and are of significant public interest. Can the Government commit to any consultation on any forthcoming changes they may be thinking of making? That would confirm the Government’s ongoing commitment to no lessening of environmental protections for habitats and species.
I am also concerned about the provisions in Clause 16 on the ability to modify construction working hours conditions. Of course these measures are helpful in terms of economic recovery, but there appear to be no restrictions on an authority’s ability to agree to applications made. With the possible changes applying to construction up to 1 April 2021, I have worries about the relaxation of current planning permission conditions restrictions on construction working hours due to nature conservation interests—for example, in relation to disturbance to birds during the harsh times of winter, during their migrations or at the start of next year’s breeding season. Currently, the Bill simply states, in new Section 74B(4) inserted by Clause 16(2), that modifications can be,
“to allow construction activities to be carried out for a longer period on a particular day (which may be the whole of that day)”
or
“to allow construction activities to be carried out for the whole or part of a day on which they would not otherwise be allowed to be carried out.”
There is nothing about a need to check why those restrictions were made in the first place and whether it is appropriate to allow modifications. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that wider environmental issues are not affected by the decision to extend planning permissions? As already mentioned by several speakers, there are worries about the effect of the extension of working hours on residents. I hope that my noble friend can give some reassurance on these issues.
Finally, like many others, I have some concerns around Clause 11. As we have heard, this clause deregulates off-sales under the Licensing Act 2003. The change will automatically allow any premises with an on-sales alcohol licence—bars, pubs, clubs, restaurants et cetera—to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises in open containers for the same hours as for on-sales. I worry that this will encourage drinking in the street into the early hours. I fear that that would increase anti-social behaviour in town and city centres in the late evening and early morning. The images from the weekend, when in some places social distancing was increasingly reduced as the alcohol intake increased, give me real concern. Sadly, drunken and anti-social behaviour is not unusual in some city centres.
The Government say that the police and councils have powers to issue closure notices and that the Bill proposes an expediated review process. However, there are no powers to address the cumulative effect of having many premises in close proximity, and experience shows that these powers do not work effectively. Therefore, will the Minister consider an amendment to Section 11 to limit the deregulation of off-sales to 11 pm? With those comments, I otherwise support the Bill in its response to the current crisis.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to develop the views of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on alcohol licensing. There is much to commend in the Bill, but we must try to eradicate the unintended consequences. The principle is right: to mitigate the effects of social distancing by allowing licensed premises to trade on adjacent pavements, to deliver alcohol and to sell alcohol to be taken away to be consumed in another building such as an office or a dwelling. The unintended consequence of the provisions that allow unlicensed premises to act like off-licences is that they would enable those who have already had enough to drink to buy alcohol to take away with them to consume on the street. with the potential for disorder and disruption to local residents.
People travel from miles around to socialise in city centres. I am sure many people will have seen the scenes in and around Old Compton Street in Soho on Saturday night. Although such areas have some premises licensed until 3 am, the London Boroughs of Westminster and Camden are unique in London in having no 24-hour off-licences. In normal times, the rest of Greater London has hundreds, but central London has none. Presumably this is for the sake of local residents. Local authorities want revellers to go home at the end of the night rather than hang around drinking on the streets after the on-licensed premises have closed. If revellers in such locations are allowed to buy alcohol to take away when these late-night premises are about to close, there is a real danger that the disorder that we have seen recently, in which many police officers have been injured, which was caused by illegal street and block parties, could increase. If revellers are allowed to take alcohol with them when they leave when the party closes inside these late-licence premises, they are likely to continue the party outside on the street.
This legislation requires amendment to differentiate between deliveries and takeaway alcohol that are taken to another building for consumption, and street drinking outside the areas covered by pavement licences. At the very least, allowing off-sales of alcohol in open containers should be excluded. People walking down the street with pint glasses full of alcohol is a recipe for disorder and potentially for violence. The image of someone who had a broken beer glass pushed into his face is one I will never forget. Sales should preferably be not only in sealed containers but ideally in a sealed plastic bag, as currently happens with sales of duty-free alcohol in airports. This is done to prevent air rage caused by passengers who drink their duty-free alcohol on the plane rather than waiting, as intended, until they arrive at their destination. The same principle applies here. Everything possible should be done to ensure that alcohol is not consumed until the destination is reached.
At the very least, the Government should consider limiting the extension of off-sales from on-licensed premises to normal licensing hours—say 11 pm. The scenes in Soho over the weekend will have concerned many. Consider what might happen if those present are allowed to buy alcohol at 2:45 am to take away, just before the premises close. I suggest that they are far more likely to stay drinking on the street than to take their alcohol home with them. We must not allow this to happen.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has severely affected the economy of the country and, of course, caused immense disruption to the lives of people and businesses. I commend the Government for implementing the job retention scheme, providing help for the self-employed and small businesses, and, furthermore, arranging government-backed loans. However, the pandemic affected 75% of the hospitality sector and there has been a 90% reduction in its turnover. In the construction industry, smaller companies have particularly suffered; some 25% of these organisations have paused or ceased trading. I therefore welcome the Bill, which will enable us to trigger the revitalisation of our businesses and help support the well-being of the people. I welcome the provisions that relate to cafés, pubs, restaurants, licensed premises, government-backed loan schemes, vehicle testing, driving licences, construction works and planning permission.
We have more than 130,000 pubs, restaurants and cafes, which employ over 2 million people. They are the lifeblood of our high street; they not only create employment and generate income but enable people to go out and mingle with friends and relatives. I commend these organisations on their ingenuity and for revising their arrangements to comply with social distancing rules. However, I have a slight concern about the safety of the staff; I hope that this is ensured. I worry that allowing premises to have tables and chairs outside may cause nuisance on the pavements and in the neighbourhood. I am also worried about access and passage for blind and disabled people. Allowing licensed premises to make off-sales of alcohol could lead to anti-social behaviour. I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the issues that I have raised. Has there been any consultation with disabled and blind groups? Do local authorities have appropriate powers to deal with anti-social behaviour as a result of the changes?
I am pleased to note that there are provisions in the Bill to kick-start the construction industry, which contributes about 9% of our GDP. I understand that there are more than 1,000 unimplemented major residential planning permissions. As we propose to extend planning permissions and listed building consents, it is hoped that the construction industry may be able to build more than 60,000 new homes. As regards staggering the hours for construction work, my concern is that this could create nuisance for the neighbours. Is there a grievance mechanism to deal with complaints where there are disturbances?
I note the easing of requirements for accessing the Government’s bounce-back loan schemes. In this regard, I feel that lenders should have an understanding and compromising attitude to any difficulties with regard to repayments; the customer must be regarded fairly. I ask my noble friend to comment on this point as well.
Local authorities will be involved in putting into practice the provisions set out in the Bill. Do they have the capacity and the right attitude to deal with what is being proposed? They are already under a great deal of pressure. What additional help will be provided to them by central government? Finally, I reiterate that I fully support the Bill.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
My Lords, I join in welcoming the Bill. My brief remarks concern Part 1. We are acutely cognisant that the hospitality sector has suffered one of the largest declines in economic output; many restaurants and bars have already gone into liquidation. As the economy starts to reopen, I wholeheartedly support all innovative measures to support the recovery and save jobs while maintaining social distancing measures.
Pavement licences designed to make it easier for premises providing food and drink to serve customers outdoors through the temporary relaxation of planning procedures and alcohol licensing are an excellent initiative. But I share the concerns of many noble Lords about anti-social behaviour and take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it may be a good idea to consider serving alcohol in plastic containers. It is well known that the fear factor, in many cases spurred on by the media, has resulted in many customers being too frightened to return to enclosed restaurants but more comfortable about eating and drinking outdoors. Al fresco dining is to be welcomed in its efforts to support social distancing and provide a means for those who may be anxious about venturing indoors to enjoy themselves in the relative safety of the open air. In my opinion, pavement licences open up a much-needed additional source of revenue to premises that might not otherwise have been able to open because their internal space is too tight.
For residents and others who may be concerned about the free-for-all, the provisions of the Bill are subject to strict regulatory checks and balances, which, in my opinion, provide a robust means of protection, including local consultation. But certainly, I take the point that strict measures need to be implemented against any anti-social behaviour. There is a very real need to enact the provisions of Part 1 as expeditiously as possible so that the beneficiaries of the Bill can make the most of the summer trade.
In summary, as these measures are temporary in nature, I believe that they provide a balanced and innovative approach to assisting the hospitality industry to get back on its feet while ensuring the protection of local residents. To this end, I wholeheartedly support the Second Reading and wish the Bill a speedy progress through your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for the most part, I certainly welcome the Bill. It is very much a just-in-time Bill and will help deal with immediate pressures but in no way does it offer permanent solutions; these are temporary changes for good reasons. One general point I want to reinforce is that this Bill throws into sharp relief the need for creative, long-term strategic planning for better and safer communities.
The business section of the Bill will certainly help the hospitality sector get back on its feet; it is very welcome. However, as has been alluded to, there is the very real risk of the virus picking up again if social distancing breaks down. It is a very fine balance and there is a great deal at stake, which is why these changes—an avalanche of new and extended applications, which will have to be processed at speed, monitored and, literally, policed—must be got right. They involve costs and demand vigilance but, as we all know, local authorities are barely in a position to take on new burdens. Whatever the Minister says about new funding, it goes nowhere near addressing the huge deficits and even near-bankruptcy that local authorities now face. The Minister quoted the LGA very approvingly, but only partially. It went on to say that this cannot be a job for authorities alone and that
“it is crucial that councils are supported financially”.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will say in response to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. I also want to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: when there is such a need for consistency as well as speed, why does the Bill provide for statutory guidance but, unusually, no parliamentary process to support and guarantee this?
Regarding the Bill’s clauses on planning, I welcome the extension of planning permission and listed buildings consent, but again, this is just in time. Small construction firms, which have such a big contribution to make, have been the worst hit; almost a quarter of those which employ fewer than 250 people have temporarily paused or ceased trading. I am sorry that the Government failed to listen sooner to the RTPI, which has been calling for extensions since the beginning of the pandemic, and that they have failed until now to heed the warnings of the losses of over 400 residential permissions with a building commitment of 24,000 homes by the end of June. I welcome the additional flexibility being offered to the Planning Inspectorate to decide on different procedures.
Finally, I will make a more general and contextual point. For many small businesses on the high street, struggling to survive against the odds of online shopping and exorbitant business rates, Covid-19 has been the last straw. Despite great spirit and real ingenuity, as I have seen in my own town of Lewes, many shops and enterprises will fail to make it. The noble Lord, Lord Best, spoke powerfully about the need for social housing. This Bill is about the recovery of the high street and town centres. In his recent “new deal” speech, the Prime Minister talked about converting shops and offices in our high streets into housing. Change of use proposals mean that this is already happening. The evidence has been that it results in shoddy, inadequate and expensive housing, exempt from normal standards —in short, building the slums of the future while the high street is dying on its feet. This is no way to rebuild or recover.
Put simply, if we cannot save the vitality and diversity of the high street, we cannot save our towns, and that sits within a wider failure. The Prime Minister derides the whole profession and purpose of planning—newt gathering, as he puts it—but the real villains are the landholders and speculators. Covid-19 has proved beyond doubt that people need space to live safely. We should be using our planners and our local authorities as creatively as possible to build safely and beautifully for the future. We have learned to value community more; now, let us invest in it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome most of the measures in this Bill, which I can see are a necessary step to get the economy moving again. However, I have two concerns. The first has to do with the missing element in these measures, regarding the Government instructing the public to avoid using public transport. We know that private traffic levels have risen sharply since lockdown was eased. However, the use of public transport is very low, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, noted—about 16% of normal usage for the London Underground and 33% for buses in London, and less for buses outside London.
This government guidance is clearly a deterrent for people who do not have a car to return to work, yet who are being told not to use public transport, thereby contradicting efforts to get the economy moving again. When will the Government change that guidance to advise people to avoid travelling during peak periods—in order words, to be more flexible in their travel times—rather than not using public transport at all?
My other concern is to do with business bounce-back loans. While I can see and welcome the speed and agility needed to keep SMEs viable during this crisis, I am not sure about the long-term consequences of these measures. The Minister told us in his opening remarks that some £29 billion of overall business lending has been to small business. The lending institutions estimate that about 50% of these businesses are likely to default on the loans. They have been instructed by the Treasury and the British Business Bank that they will have to resort to their normal approach on the collection of the loans. This normal approach does not apply to the granting of the loans, in terms of the due diligence and creditworthiness checks, as would have been normal, and self-certification is the chosen route, along with people’s private assets not being able to be held as collateral. Therefore, we could end up in a situation in which the lending institutions are in what has been described as a toxic relationship with borrowers, which is not a fair creation. They will have to massively scale up their arrears handling, particularly as mortgage holidays will also be unpayable by some borrowers.
What assessment of losses, and the viability of some of these small businesses, underpinned the Government’s modelling of the default rates on these loans, given that the Government, and ultimately the taxpayer, are the lenders of last resort? What conversations are they having with regulators such as the FCA regarding setting up a dispute resolution scheme, as well as the business banking resolution service, to deal with the volumes that may be affected? Have they contemplated setting up a bad bank-type solution to move these loans off the balance sheets of the high street lenders?
I appreciate that perhaps some of these questions are too complex to be dealt with in this Bill, but I pose them because it is increasingly clear that this health emergency will be with us for some time, thus also prolonging the economic downturn. We need to spell out clearly the consequences of the risks for borrowers and lenders, and plan how they will be mitigated in time before many additional businesses are given a false hope that they can carry on a bit longer and all will be well. If hard choices must be made, they should be made with careful regard for what lies ahead.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the last time that I spoke in your Lordships’ Chamber was on Monday 16 March. It was a very different experience from speaking here this afternoon. I begin with a plea to all those who have charge of our proceedings: please let us get back to a normal Chamber as soon as possible. It is impossible to hold the Government to account adequately in either a virtual or a hybrid Chamber, and it is crucial that the Government are held to account. I very much hope that, come September, we will be here on a regular and proper basis.
The Bill illustrates the need for this. It has been given broad and general support by every speaker, and I welcome the Minister to his new role. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of local government and is the man for the job, but it is the man for the job who needs holding to account. I am broadly supportive, but the devil is in the detail, as with everything. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in what he said about Soho on Saturday night, pointed out that it is crucial that a Bill such as this, temporary as it is, is properly examined, but the most important thing is that it is temporary, and that the new planning Bill has plenty of chance for discussion in your Lordships’ House as well as the other place.
In the little time at my disposal, I will take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, talked about tourism, and she was right. It is a vital industry. However, we must remember why the tourists come here. They do not come for our weather or—excellent as it is often is now—our food. It is very important that the hospitality industry survives, but tourists come for our arts and heritage for the most part. Survey after survey illustrates that this is the case.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I greatly welcome the announcement today about the arts and heritage, but I want to trawl through the detail because it is important that we all do that. However, I regret that no mention is made in the Bill of arts and heritage venues, because they are so crucial not just to the encapsulation of our history but in bringing tourists to our shores. We all know that without our historic houses and castles, our cathedrals and our churches, this country would be a much less attractive place to visit. As a deputy high steward of Lincoln Cathedral, one of the greatest cathedrals in the world and one of the triumphs of Gothic architecture, I know the dire straits that buildings of that magnitude are in. Although it will probably not be possible to incorporate this into the Bill now, I hope that we will all look carefully at today’s announcement to make sure that it really does sustain those organisations which it is meant to sustain.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I absolutely respect the choices made by others, but one of the reasons that I have travelled to London each week since the beginning of June to attend your Lordships’ Chamber is because I believe very strongly that the Government and Parliament need to lead the country out of peak lockdown with confidence and clarity. That is best done if as many of us as possible are here and present to do so.
I wholeheartedly support almost every measure in the Bill and the purpose behind it. The Government are right to be leading the country out of lockdown and trying to energise our economy again, but I am a little concerned at the pace in the devolved nations, which should be more closely involved. There should be more effort across the four Governments of the United Kingdom to be more co-ordinated in their approach to releasing business activity and moving on from peak lockdown.
In this effort, the Government are in danger of being too inconsistent and lacking in clarity. For example, I cannot understand why we are allowed—and now I think that “encouraged” is the right word—to use aeroplanes and sit next to each other in a confined space while travelling for hours on end, yet people cannot take lifeline ferries to the islands off the west coast of Scotland. I do not understand why people can pack into pubs, not only to stand too close to each other and get drunk but also to use the same toilets and other facilities, but cannot move in a single-file, one-way system at a reasonable level of numbers through our national and local museums and galleries; or use health clubs, which would be a far better use of their time than getting drunk on a Saturday night. I do not understand why people can get their hair cut, as I did on Saturday morning—but if I had wanted to, I could not have gone to a nail bar to have my nails done.
I do not understand the choices that have been made. The Culture Secretary speaking on the “Today” programme this morning showed how difficult that is to explain when he was asked a question about museums and aeroplanes. He did not have an answer. When the Government are not clear and do not show the logic behind the decisions they are announcing, that does not release economic confidence, energy and entrepreneurship; it deflates it, because people remain worried and scared. My plea to the Government when bringing forward this Bill and other measures is this: there needs to be more clarity and consistency in decision-making, so that people feel confident to take the leadership role that they are being shown and thus re-engage with the economy in ways that are absolutely essential.
I am not at all convinced by the idea that we should encourage more off-sales of alcoholic liquor, and I will come back to that during the debates on the specific clauses of the Bill, I am sure. However, while I welcome the Bill and most of the measures in it, I make the plea that not only in Whitehall but also in Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast, the four Governments of the United Kingdom show more unity and urgency as well as much more clarity and consistency, because that is how the country will respond with the highest degree of positivity.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, much of this Bill is welcome, but my focus will be only on pavement licences. Some noble Lords have raised the question of alcohol and we have already seen the challenges in urban areas of people even spilling out on to roads and thus endangering themselves and others. I want to take up the issue of smoking in these new spill-out areas, and I thank ASH for its assistance on this. The noble Earl will be extremely familiar with the vital steps taken over the years to reduce the incidence of smoking and smoke-related harms; indeed, he helped in that process. I am glad that last summer the Government announced plans for England to be smoke-free by 2030. They committed to bring forward proposals on this, but a year has passed with no such proposals. The Bill will allow the Government to show that they intend to deliver on that major public health goal.
We know how transformative it has been to have banned smoking in public places. It now seems very unpleasant and strange when we find ourselves in smoky places. Lives are being saved, especially among those who had to work in those environments. However, the ban on smoking inside public places has displaced smokers to using adjacent outdoor areas, which exposes passers-by and those going in, with staff as always worst affected. Encouragingly, people now do not like being exposed to tobacco smoke. When Greater Manchester surveyed its population, over 70% said that they wanted the areas immediately outside public buildings to be smoke-free. Pavement licences will exacerbate the problem as they are designed to make it easier for bars, restaurants and pubs to serve food and drink to customers on the pavement immediately outside their premises. While previously those wishing to avoid second-hand smoke could stay inside, remaining indoors is both more restricted and riskier because of the coronavirus. Clause 5(1) states that
“A pavement licence may be granted by a local authority subject to such conditions as it considers reasonable.”
Local authorities could therefore prohibit smoking on an ad-hoc basis, but so far councils have not taken that up, even in central London where the pavements are crowded and space is limited. For example, Liberal Democrat colleagues who support Westminster City Council’s plan for reopening Westminster’s hospitality sector have called on the council to make outside dining and drinking spaces no-smoking areas, but to no avail. They have launched a petition, which is what has alerted me to this issue. A number of local restaurants would like this provision, but they need the council to take a lead.
We know that smoke-free hospitality venues did not just happen. They required legislation which was supported by the hospitality trade because it set a level playing field. If smoking is not prohibited, these pavement areas will not be family-friendly spaces. Not only customers and staff but neighbouring premises, particularly in crammed urban areas, will be exposed to second-hand smoke. The Government should make smoke-free status a requirement for all pavement licences. It will be easy to do but, if they cannot take such a simple step forward, we will have to doubt their commitment to deliver a smoke-free England by 2030. I hope very much that the noble Earl will help us to take this forward.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Part 1 of the Bill on pavement licensing, which will significantly reduce the application period—from 28 days to seven—for a business to obtain a licence to place tables, chairs and other items of furniture on the footpath. There are no requirements for the consultation to be accessible to people in the area with sight problems; the only requirement is for a written notice on the premises. If a licensing authority does not respond within the short timeframe, the application is automatically deemed to have been successful and the licence to place furniture on the pavement will be valid for a whole year.
This is a difficult and anxious time for everyone, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, there are particular challenges for people who are blind or partially sighted, with social distancing measures limiting independence and increasing isolation. Many people with sight problems rely on some form of guiding to navigate different environments, which often involves some physical contact. Social distancing measures make access to this support extremely difficult.
Public attitudes are also an issue. Research from the charity Guide Dogs has found that only 22% of the general public would feel “completely comfortable” offering to help someone with sight problems while social distancing measures were in place. Additionally, instructions on how to maintain a distance, such as one-way systems and floor markings in queues, are entirely visual and largely impossible for people with sight problems to follow independently.
Against this background, the measures in the Bill could see a radical increase in the amount of street clutter and reduce the already limited space on our crowded pavements. The increase in street furniture envisaged in the Bill could force blind and partially sighted people to walk in the road, change their route, avoid travelling independently or even stay at home altogether.
There is an understandable need to allow people to socialise as safely as possible and boost our economy by encouraging spending. However, the unintended consequences of these measures will further damage the confidence of blind and partially sighted people in getting out and about safely and independently. People who use wheelchairs or mobility scooters will also be adversely affected by obstructions on our pavements. Will the Government revisit these measures, extend the consultation period and require applications to be published in accessible formats so that they are open to meaningful local scrutiny?
The proposal to allow applications to be granted automatically should the local licensing authority not respond in time is particularly concerning. Many local authorities are already struggling and, if they are overwhelmed by requests from businesses, the automatic approval process risks allowing hazardous street furniture to be permitted in inappropriate locations.
Under the public sector equality duty, local authorities are required to have due regard to advancing equality, including removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics. How meaningful is the opportunity given the local authority to carry out this duty if it is essentially overruled and forced to accept applications? I recognise the desire to speed up approval of pavement licences, but this must not come at the cost of the duty to consider the needs of pedestrians with disabilities.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can support many parts of this Bill and reluctantly go along with some other parts, but it is hardly a recipe for economic recovery. I have two main points.
First, I find it bizarre that the first few clauses of the Bill—which is designed to promote rapid and productive economic recovery—are all about ensuring we can all drink more alcohol for longer periods and in more places. Like the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Randall, and others, I will focus on Clause 11, the late-night drinking aspects and the pavement licensing.
I am not being puritanical about this. I like a pint and have a yearning for café society, but drinkers spilling out on to the pavement in our inner cities, drinking off-sales outside premises that have an on-sales licence—which in central London can be until 2 am, 3 am or even 6 am—will not only cause pedestrians problems but cause serious anti-social behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined the situation in Soho in central London, where Westminster City Council has already given some temporary licences. The Met has had to break up several street parties, engage in arguments with pub staff about the extent of the tables on the pavement and deal with significant cases of drunkenness, disorder and anti-social behaviour. We also have to remember that most public toilets remain closed.
I hope the Government can review Clause 11 in particular and give the local authorities more powers—indeed, more duties—to take measures that will not lead to this kind of effect. I am particularly concerned about the inner cities and the centre of our towns.
My second point relates to the planning provisions. I am afraid that some of them are really designed to fulfil the Prime Minister’s “Build, build, build” mantra without constraint. I accept that we need more housing; indeed, I have long advocated more council housing and affordable housing. I support some of the infra- structure projects, although I feel it is probably the right time to drop HS2, massive road-building programmes and the third runway at Heathrow and use the money for more socially, economically and environmentally desirable expenditures.
On housing, it should not be just a question of numbers of new dwellings. Developers, big builders and the tax system are combining to encourage demolishing buildings where refurbishment, in particular for energy-efficiency purposes, would be a better option. Developers are using new developments to blight neighbourhoods where buildings really need to be in keeping with the surroundings and the natural environment.
The Prime Minister’s reported aversion to the planning system’s alleged tenderness for endangered newts seems to apply to almost all protection of wildlife and biodiversity in planning. It is in contrast to his support for inebriated newts in the first part of the Bill.
This is inevitably a rushed Bill, but in some respects it is also an ill-thought-out Bill that will have negative effects on the quality of life in some of our cities and towns and on the quality of our countryside. Parts of this Bill need a serious rethink and, in the limited time we have, only the Lords proceedings can press the Government to deliver that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I should declare that for 10 years I was the chief executive of the Beer & Pub Association, so I have had some experience in dealing with the Licensing Act 2003, when many of the points raised today were raised then. I will just touch on one or two points made previously and will come back to Soho in a second. Bournemouth, Broad- stairs, the assaults on police in parts of London and Manchester, et cetera, happened before pubs were reopened, so there are other factors at play. We have to address those as well as the issues genuinely raised today.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, about clarity, but it is clearly difficult to get it right when you are dealing with so many varieties of hospitality industry. I am pleased with some of the variations from one sector to another made recently in guidance—for example, in the use of toilet facilities and the like. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, there are clearly still inherent contradictions that have to be addressed, but it is worth noting that the Government are making steps along that route.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made reference to the arcane or archaic—I am using my words, not hers—Licensing Act. In fact, the Licensing Act was passed in 2003 and local authorities have policies between seven and 41 pages long that give guidance from which pubs, pub companies and restaurant companies need to operate.
However, I have serious sympathy for the problems relating to the blind, the partially sighted, the physically disabled who need wheelchairs, and the like. Again, I declare an interest in that I suffer from an MS-related illness and on Friday I was partially sighted for a period. I said earlier that we should look at what happened before licensed premises were open. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, knows Urlwin Street and Grosvenor Terrace only too well; they are roads close to where he grew up. It is not just the licensed industry that causes these problems. You cannot get a wheelchair down either of those streets, because of the street furniture placed there by the local council. So let us not address all the problems to at the hospitality industry. We need to be honest enough to look more widely.
I will comment on one or two aspects when we debate the Bill next week, but I draw Members’ attention to Clause 4, headed “Duration”. We are talking about introducing not rights that will last for a long period but powers for a specific period in these circumstances for the coronavirus crisis.
I have two small issues—or perhaps not so small. One is TENs, which we will return to and is a matter of intense detail and concern for small brewers. The other is the definition of “groups” in relation to hostels and the hospitality industry. People are allowed to go as two groups, but the definition we have in this country does not apply anywhere else in Europe. If four people turn up in a car or come by train together, they have travelled together. Therefore, they ought to be able to stay in a hostel. I will address these issues in greater detail when we debate the Bill, but I hope that I have raised a few small points for the Government to consider.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I have heard a lot of the debate, and a lot of the issues that I was going to raise have been dealt with already, so I will just mention them in passing. I will also take a moment to contradict noble Lords who have said that we need to get back into the Chamber as soon as possible. Quite honestly, many of us enjoy remote working and do not want to experience disease and death. We are happy with the way things are. I understand that this might change, but we have to learn to adapt. The lack of democracy and holding our Government to account comes not from the fact that we are remote but from the fact that we are being ruled by ministerial diktat at the moment. Again and again, laws are passed that could have been brought before Parliament to be properly scrutinised but were not.
This Bill is being pushed through very fast as emergency legislation, so there really is not much time to scrutinise it. I will come back to these issues at a later stage. I will be focusing on a few specific issues. Road safety is incredibly important. We have to bear that in mind when we talk about the use of pavements. Walking and cycling are extremely important. If we are to have a continental-style cafe culture, with beautifully arranged tables and street dining, we have to ensure that these places are safe and accessible. We do not want to impose disabilities on people. We should make sure that everybody has access to these spaces.
I will also mention environmental issues. The Prime Minister’s comments about newts were absolutely baseless and rather lowered the tone of the whole debate. We have to think about environmental issues when it comes to business and planning.
I have not heard community land trusts being mentioned. I would like the Government to do a little bit of research on this. Community land trusts enable communities to create the sort of housing that they want in their area, with the big advantage that it would be affordable houses that stay affordable in perpetuity. Unlike affordable houses built by councils, which can then be sold at the market rate the first time they change hands, community land trusts hold the houses for ever and allow them to be affordable to local people.
The last issue I will raise is provision of adequate toilet facilities. So many businesses have closed and, even when they are open, many are not allowing people to use their facilities. There could be real problems, especially with people drinking so much. I urge the Government to think about public toilets. Somehow in this century we do not like using them and we do not have many of them anymore. That is really something that we should consider.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I knew that there would be many speakers and much said, so I will confine my comments to just three quite small but specific aspects of the Bill.
First, the term “local authority”, as used in the Bill, gives the role and responsibility for these now infamous pavement licences to district councils. In two-tier areas this is often the responsibility of the county council, which is the highways authority. While some, such as my former authority, have agreements in place where the county has devolved this function to district councils, for many this is new ground. They have to try to introduce a whole new function very quickly. While they clearly have the best local knowledge, they do not have the policies, the application forms or the processes to do this—and, as we have heard, their capacity has been much diminished. Would it therefore be possible for the Bill to allow all local authorities to administer these licences, enabling local agreements for county or district councils to carry out this function, depending on what suits them best, instead of a default solely to district councils?
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Paddick articulated very well, things go wrong—we have seen that they surely do. There is a summary review power in the Bill. This, plus existing legislation, ought to give the police and councils sufficient powers to act should problems arise—but I am not confident about this, and I will flag up a reason that I believe warrants further exploration.
In my experience of working in partnership to tame a town centre described by a tabloid as “Ibiza on acid”, the real issue is what has come to be known as the cumulative impact problem, where there are several licensed premises within a compact area. The way the legislation is framed—this Bill is framed the same way—makes it difficult to use available powers to the desired effect. The whole process of reviewing the licence or pursuing a closure under anti-social behaviour legislation is predicated on proving that an individual premise is responsible for the anti-social behaviour, which, as we have heard from many noble Lords, often takes place outside in the street much later on. In my experience, the reality is that reviews often do not happen because of the difficulty of proving that the specific nuisance comes from specific premises. Yet the areas where there have been serious issues in recent days have been, in the main, exactly these sorts of areas. As we have heard from several noble Lords, Clause 11 will exacerbate this problem, so I am not reassured by the summary review power.
Finally, there are some legal uncertainties about whether the regulations in the Coronavirus Act that allow local authorities to hold decision-making meetings remotely until May 2021 preclude council meetings, including licensing hearings and planning meetings, being heard physically if they so wish and can do so safely. Some clarity is sought. Similarly, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Kramer, the mayoral development corporations, Transport for London and others were not included in the definition of a local authority in either the enabling provisions or the subsequent regulations. They therefore cannot hold meetings remotely, which they might wish to do—in fact, urgently need to do as backlogs mount up. These are small but significant issues that I hope can be amended and clarified during the passage of the Bill, which I support.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. In the short time available, I will cover two issues that concern me. The first is to do with roads, driver licensing and related matters, covered by Clauses 12 to 15, and the second is about a minor relaxation of the licensing laws.
Many noble Lords have spoken of their concern about the continuing suspension of the need for licensing or medical checks, where required. We have seen a lot of press reports recently that doctors’ surgeries are not full, because people are keeping away. We do not know why that is, but I would like some evidence from the Minister that the surgeries, or wherever else these tests are done, are not capable of meeting the demands of the industry for updates of medical and other tests of drivers—particularly drivers of passenger service and heavy goods vehicles. These are safety regulations, which I hope will save lives as required, alongside the coronavirus requirements.
As one noble Baroness said, it is odd that we seem to be making roads less safe, by not requiring people to keep up their licences and medical tests, while at the same time encouraging people to drive cars more and not use public transport. The latest figure from the railways is that only 11% of pre-coronavirus passenger numbers are now travelling, so there is a long way to go.
My other issue relates to the licensing of small breweries. It may seem a small point, but one of the joys over the last few years has been having a massive variety of beers to buy in cafes, restaurants or wherever, whether on the pavement or inside. One group of breweries is unable to operate at the moment, because about one in four currently have no way to sell their products directly to the public. Some of the small ones have seen their sales reduced by 60% to 80% because of Covid, but have not received the same level of financial support as pubs and other parts of the hospitality sector. Many have been mothballed. Of course, they want access to the market before the end of the summer.
Some do not have a premises licence, and therefore cannot offer takeaway services or deliver to the public. They all have temporary events notices to offer limited services, but these are limited in time and number. They are all registered with HMRC under the Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme. I would be pleased to hear the Minister’s comments on this. I am proposing one or two amendments to the Bill to allow breweries that cannot sell directly to the public to do so temporarily. I hope that gets some comment from the Minister, when he winds up.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, at this stage in the debate, much of what I might have said has already been said eloquently, but I will focus on the working-hours provisions for a moment. They provide an illustration of the tensions between the laudable objectives of the Bill and its consequences. Noble Lords are aware that the legislation gives an authority the power to approve, refuse or amend an application for variation of hours, but it cannot do any of these without investigation. Investigation will impose additional administrative burdens on planning authorities, many of which are ill-equipped to fulfil that responsibility. That will particularly be the case in areas of high activity and construction.
Noble Lords will know from experiences elsewhere that working hours are always controversial because of their impact on amenity. When the public realise that the proposed legislation carries with it the possibility of an extension to cover a whole day, perhaps that controversy will be even greater. In the circumstances, proper account must be taken of public objection to any application. Proper opportunity must be made to ensure that that objection can be put before the local authority. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, proper notice must be given so that the public are aware of precisely what is proposed. All of this is to be achieved within 14 days of the application for extension being received by the local authority. Is there not a risk that a planning authority, inundated with multiple applications, will give little weight to public amenity or, in the worst case, simply ignore it? It may even take refuge in the deemed grant provisions, all at the expense of public amenity.
When one is considering the impact of the issue of hours, is it not right to consider that the same local authority may be, in relation to planning permission extensions or outlying planning permissions extensions, already engaged in responding to the responsibilities that the legislation imposes? It might be 28 days, but that is still a colossal burden in many circumstances. Even the most well-intentioned local authorities may find themselves having to accept damage to amenity that they would not normally support, except that they find themselves compelled to do so because of the terms of this legislation. I believe we should make it clear to the public that, sometimes, in this particular balance, the amenity of the public will have to take second place.
Let me finish with this. I understand the need for the hybrid powers now being offered to the Planning Inspectorate. When I first read about this, I found a commentary which said that such powers would allow it to do its work quickly and efficiently. In an area where the public has an interest, the words “quickly and efficiently” should always raise a red flag. It will be important to ensure that public participation is not in any way prejudiced by the exercise of these hybrid powers.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this Bill, which paves the way towards economic recovery post Covid-19. I support the points on smoking made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover; that is very important for the comfort of customers and others surrounding them.
The Bill provides the opportunity to modernise and enhance our high streets’ commercial activities, to lift many planning activities into the modern age, and to promote new job-creating construction schemes. Although the briefing notes state that the measures in the Bill to address these many issues will be temporary, I suggest to your Lordships that some should be looked at as providing a more permanent solution to the woes experienced on high streets currently.
Those woes cannot be blamed simply on the effects of the pandemic. Our high streets have been steadily declining for years, with the advent of out-of-town shopping facilities and the internet. How easy it is to sit at home and order something from eBay or Amazon or such like and have it delivered to your door the following day—and you do not have to go into town or try to find a parking space. How can the high street compete with that?
For a long while, many of us who live in rural communities have been concerned at the demise of the high street in our rural towns. I live near Ashbourne in Derbyshire. The town is described as the gateway to the Peak District, which indeed it is, and therefore the gateway to a most popular tourist destination of outstanding natural beauty. The traffic flow through the town is vast; it comprises not just tourists, visiting the peaks with their bikes and caravans, but, as a main route in and out of a major quarrying and mineral-producing region and a vibrant agricultural region, includes quantities of large lorries and agricultural machinery, and leaves the town gridlocked, especially in the spring and summer months.
Who suffers? The street cafes, the local traders and the public houses—all small businesses. Car parks are expensive and full to overflowing. Industry, whose trucks have to go through the town, suffers considerable financial loss through long delays. A bypass to the town has been talked about for many years, and the Bill might just provide an opportunity to get those plans going again. I really hope this happens.
The Derbyshire Dales District Council has done a great job in the past couple of weeks in Ashbourne in converting the streets and pavements to be social-distancing friendly. The measures which will be enabled by the Bill might just help rural towns such as Ashbourne, where tourism, local hospitality and quality small shops are key, to pick themselves up and move forward to a brighter future.
Finally, the bounce-back loan initiative has been extremely helpful to many small firms—it is a lifeline on which I congratulate my right honourable friend Mr Sunak. However, and to their great detriment, some of the big four banks have been absolutely abysmal in their handling of applications. For example, on 5 May, the small business of which I am a director applied to HSBC to open a feeder account, with a view to applying to the BBLS. Despite phone calls, the bank has yet to respond, and we are now heading towards the middle of July. In mid-June, the company applied to Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank to open a new business account, and then applied for the loan. Within two weeks, the whole process was successfully concluded—Barclays Bank did not even answer the telephone. Will my noble friend tell me what percentage of BBLS applications have not been processed in time and what percentage have been declined?
I very much welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the overall aim of the Bill, which seeks to put in place measures to help businesses recover from the hit they have taken during the lockdown, to help protect jobs and return to healthy trading, and to make the most of the summer months. These are measures I support. Today I will restrict my comments to pavement licences and the off-premises sale of alcohol.
With over 47,000 pubs in the UK and a high concentration of them in our cities—there are, for example, in excess of 1,300 pubs in one London borough —many local authorities are expected to process a huge number of applications in a short space of time, publicise them, consult the public, consider their responses and provide ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the pavement licence. Can the Minister give confidence today to local authorities, which are already stretched thin financially, that they will be given the resources they need to deliver this new set of responsibilities?
Many local authorities are already facilitating the greater use of outside space by pubs and restaurants. For example, Brent Council has already agreed to extend the outdoor seating capacity at Wembley Park. The Liverpool Without Walls project, from the city council and the Liverpool business improvement district, is re-imagining the city with outdoor seating, road closures and pop-up parks. These examples are sensible plans to provide additional flexibility for businesses looking to welcome customers to eat and drink as safely as possible. The proposed pavement licences are therefore an economic opportunity for many and, in general, should be welcomed—but it should be acknowledged that they might also be a potential nuisance for local residents. The Government must get the balance right. The new streamlined and quick approach to securing a pavement licence is currently skewed towards businesses. The Government should give equal weight to the public’s view on any proposed licence.
Pubs are invariably in residential areas, which is why some licence conditions allow for on-street drinking but only up to a certain time of night. It is usually 9:30 pm, especially in midweek. We have already seen residents suffering in some areas. Drinking has been banned in London Fields after weeks of public urination and littering—across the green space and in people’s doorways. Seven days, which is in effect five working days, is too short a time for public consultation without additional proactive measures for community engagement. What more do the Government think that they can do to ensure that local residents are aware of new licence applications?
The more that can be done to get the licence conditions right in the first place, the better it will be for residents and council enforcement officers. That is why I am particularly concerned about the default position that a licence is deemed agreed after 10 working days, should there be no response from the local authority. Does the Minister think that this default position is as fair to local residents as it is to the applicant?
The Government must also be clear on how the new licensing requirements will be monitored and enforced. The local authority will undoubtedly have to provide extra street cleaning and deal with more noise complaints, so does the Minister believe that the £100 figure meets the extra cost burden placed on local government? How was that figure calculated? I understand the need to keep cost low for applicants—these measures are, after all, designed to stabilise their businesses—but should the Government not ensure that they cover the full cost to local government for the scheme? In addition, does he believe that litter clearing should be a condition of the licence, as it is with many fast-food restaurants?
Finally, I turn to the proposal for off-the-premises sales of alcohol. What is the reason for turning pubs into late-night off-licences, which will increase street drinking way into the night? Again, is this fair to local residents?
In conclusion, I support these measures, but I want to see the Government rebalance the economic consideration with the impact on local residents as regards pavement licences and off-premises sales of alcohol. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con) [V]
I first draw attention to my entry in the register.
My Lords, this is a timely and welcome Bill, but I believe that it could go further, as I shall explain. Whether or not we see further high tides of Covid-19 is in the hands of powers higher even than my noble friends the Ministers, but I am sure it is right that we should now focus our energies upon economic recovery and retrenchment. That is the vital principle behind the Bill. It understandably singles out hospitality as having suffered grievously during the pandemic and lockdown, along with construction. But other sectors, too, are in the direst jeopardy: perhaps most notably, live music-making and theatre.
Like many other noble Lords, I had always planned to raise concerns about the creative arts today, and I warmly welcome the Government’s support package. I still fear, however, that an opportunity has been missed by not including live performance in the Bill. Theatre and music-making come in many shapes, forms and sizes. Many of our so-called crown jewels, such as the Royal National Theatre, the Royal Albert Hall and the Southbank Centre, will no doubt receive substantial support from the new government fund. I am all for that, but I hope the beneficence trickles a little further down, too. For those vast edifices of great renown are built ultimately on the foundations of smaller venues such as rooms above pubs and found spaces, and innovative, often tiny, production companies at fringe venues across the land and in the vital ecosystem of off-West End, which even boasts its own prestigious awards. So too are the television and film industries, which have done so much to sustain morale during the darkest days of lockdown. Many thousands of our finest creative talents work freelance. Getting much-needed help to them must also be an urgent, if challenging, priority.
Elsewhere in Europe, the arts are emerging from pandemic hibernation, combining live performance with social distancing. It is not ideal, but it keeps the flame alight. One obvious way for the performing arts to re-emerge with minimal risk during these clement summer months is by working outside. This Bill will allow pubs to expand into the great outdoors. Why are theatre companies not permitted to do the same? The Bill seems silent on the matter.
The man who led us through our last national crisis on this scale was, of course, Sir Winston Churchill—much admired by our current Prime Minister. In 1938, Churchill said:
“The arts are essential to any complete national life. The State owes it to itself to sustain and encourage them.”
It is also said that, when a cut in the arts budget was mooted to help the war effort, he refused and asked,
“What, then, are we fighting for?”
What we are fighting for today, once again, is not just our economy but our way of life—a way of life that must surely restore and retain the energy, inspiration and vivid diversity of the performing arts at its very heart.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it was at the beginning of March, in my capacity as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, that I spoke to your Lordships about our actions and responses to the Covid-19 plague as it was then affecting the county. I would like to touch on this again now. On that occasion, I said that the problem was simple: cash was running out and it was more cash that was needed—not next year, not next week, but now. It is as true today as it was three months ago. There is nothing remarkable about this view, but it is true, and it is to the Government’s credit, despite some mixed messaging on the way, that they have grasped that point, and hence we have this Bill. It is equally to all the opposition parties’ credit that they have also done so.
I believe it is a good metaphor for our national predicament to say that we are in a national shipwreck. The boat is badly damaged, but it is still afloat. We now have to get it to port, get it repaired and set sail again. This, of course, requires a different set of measures from those that, at the start of the year, were normal. We now have to crank up the economy and do it quickly, not least—as the Minister said in his opening remarks—in respect of hospitality, business and the visitor economy and associated activities, which are so important in Cumbria. If we can find a way of keeping the weather good, that would equally be a help. However, we are going to have to accept that in the next few months, it is not going to be business as usual, and we have to do our best to help those most affected survive the storm they are experiencing.
I have had an involvement with planning for much of my working life, and I believe we have to have a planning system, not because I believe in a command economy, but because, on a densely populated small island in a very complicated world, the rest of us are entitled to be protected from the excesses of selfishness, greed, thoughtlessness and philistinism. It is not the principle but the way the system has worked that has on occasions been problematic.
One aspect of the economy that this crisis has highlighted is the role of debt. Everything works well when things go well, but when things go wrong and start unravelling, as they sometimes do, it often happens very quickly. Those who lend money like to get it back. We must not, I believe, be too clever by half in our approach to bringing our economy back from this mess. Those businesses that survived the crisis must not be killed by the cure. Business—which, after all, is the source of jobs and prosperity—does all kinds of things, some of them a bit eccentric, many of them in a rather idiosyncratic way. However, commercial resilience and sustainability depend upon adequate levels of working capital and reserves. They need to be cherished.
Having said all that, there can be little doubt that this Bill, with its temporary measures, is something we should generally support at this point in our history. The immediate economic imperative must be to get our economy back working again.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by saying how strongly I support my noble friend Lord Cormack. Until we get back to a proper House, we are not going to be able to do a proper job. I want to speak about Part 1 of the Bill. It takes me back almost 20 years to the Bill introduced by Tessa Jowell and Tony Blair, who were going to build a café economy. Unfortunately, their idea of a café economy was based on having a kir royale in the south of France, whereas the reality was drunkenness in provincial towns in Britain. My wife spent four years as a local councillor trying to undo a lot of the damage of that Bill.
I am not sure whether or not I welcome the Bill, frankly. It assumes that people will go back in great numbers to restaurants. I do not think that is going to be the case; I think the drift back to restaurants will be quite gradual. I live in Cambridge; last Saturday the lockdown ended and I walked into the city, where there was no evidence that social distancing was being respected. The pubs were not absolutely crowded and there was no violence, but there was certainly no over- crowding in them either. They were pleasantly full—with people, as I say, ignoring social distancing. In short, I do not think that people will go back.
I would like to see—and I endorse what my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and others have said about—rules on pavements. Wheelchairs and buggies must be able to get past without impediment. It should not be the case that people have to carefully move aside. That is point one. I would like that to be a part of all the applications.
I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said. I think there should be a premium on there normally not being smoking outdoors, rather than the other way around. Otherwise, you will be saying to all the people who do not smoke, “If you choose to sit outside, you will be in a smoking zone.” I do not think they should be; it should be the other way around.
I have a small technical question for the Minister, which he may wish to return to next week or in writing. I live on the edge of a cumulative impact zone. We have a huge number of licensed premises and we also have a number of charity shops. Will the licensed premises —the cafés, restaurants and shops—be able to do a deal with the charity shop next door to extend over their pavement space? I can think of at least three charity shops on the main street near us that are next door to licensed premises. We need to be clear about that.
Secondly, I would like to see a deal with pubs on residential streets. Two of the streets running parallel to the road I live on have a pub on them. There are already problems with people spilling on to the pavements; what is going to be done about that?
Thirdly, I think that the whole legislation is in favour of the restaurants and the licensed premises. Local people need far more say, far more information and far greater opportunities to protest. I want to see what the powers will be, first, of the police to object and, secondly, of people to object. How are hearings going to be held? I fear that we are rushing to judgment, we are rushing into a new system, and we are going to legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I was drawn to this Bill when somebody pointed out there may be an error—or, rather, an omission—in the way the licensed premises are designed. If I read it correctly—the advantage of being elderly and long-sighted is that you actually can read when you are looking down at something—this is that premises licences are what we are talking about. Club premises licences, which most sports and social clubs have, do not seem to be in the mix. This means that a bar in a sports or social club, which is the main driver of this hub of social activity—or at least the financial driver that ensures what is going on—may well be excluded.
I ask—and we have two Ministers here, which is the advantage of being in the Chamber—if we have got this wrong, that is great, but could they let us know? If this is an error, can it be changed? We have the whole of Committee to go through and it is a small change. Can we make sure it is addressed? I see one Minister nodding and one looking concerned about looking at this to check it. I think we have all just scored a point in favour of having a physical House where you can interact, as opposed to having merely an exchange of monologues.
However, if we have that going, can we have a look at this? Sports clubs and so on are so important and are such an important deliverer, and this is how most of them are financed. It is an important factor. Can we check that and make sure that we get it right? If we do not, we will damage one of those bits of society which is already taking a pounding. Cricket has come back, but will we generate enough money for the juniors next year and for the season that is left? If there is ever a sport that is last back, it will be rugby union—why did I choose to play that sport all my life? Football, rugby league, hockey—anything that requires contact—will be slow to come back. If their bars are not working or not working at capacity, they will have another problem.
There are all sorts of schemes and you can bandy around the monetary figures, but if you have not made sure that they can sustain themselves in the way they did before, you will make a bigger problem for yourself, you will create holes in social provision, and you will miss out on something that is done by society for itself—the state has only to make sure that they can carry on functioning, not much more. I would have thought that the Liberal/Tory traditions could join in with that, and I am quite sure that the Labour Benches have no objection to it either. Can we make sure that that actually happens, have a look at this and make sure that it goes through?
Lastly, I do not know how many hours I have spent in this Chamber over the years talking about disability access. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, beat me to this. A buggy—it used to be called a pram—and a wheelchair usually require similar accessibility aspects. You will be making it easier for everyone if you make sure that the pavement is accessible for a person with either one of those two things, let alone luggage on wheels, which have now joined them. Make sure that the access is there, and you may well address many of the problems here. It is not the perfect solution, but it could be better by addressing and making sure that, if you have got it wrong, you change it, and if you have got it right, let people know.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Wei.
Lord Wei (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests on the register. Broadly, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who have spoken in support of these measures, which are necessary given the need to get the economy rolling in the coming months. There is an opportunity this summer, as more will be staycationing in the UK, to ensure that our local traders take back some of the losses that we have seen over the spring—I will focus more on the retail side of things in my speech. In fact, one of the projects that I am engaging with at the moment is with a town in the Midlands—I will not name it just yet. We are actively exploring some of the more innovative things we can do to help the high street rebound, helping shops, restaurants, pubs, and so forth. These measures are welcome in light of enabling our citizens to come back and consume, drink and, essentially, socialise once more.
At the moment, the measures are quite limited to the responsibility of each individual pub or establishment to set out, for example, tables and chairs outside their area, and generally it is where permission has already been given or there is some kind of precedent. Some of the more innovative things we could do could involve councils doing things such as shutting down entire streets to traffic and opening up sections in the middle of streets, as we have seen in Scandinavia and elsewhere in the world, so that multiple restaurants can serve customers, who then take their food from the restaurants and eat it in the town square. Can the Minister say whether these rules intend to cover and make provision for those kinds of situations—shared eating spaces, if you like, perhaps even cordoned off so that people can meet in their support hubs? What provision is there for that within this thinking, or is this merely just for the case where there is space available outside for that establishment, which it then looks to take control over and open out into?
Another area we are seeing innovation in is drive-throughs—we are seeing an explosion of drive-through cinema. What provision is being made in any of this to enable drive-through facilities to fit in and be fast-tracked?
Finally, I will touch on the beginning of an idea, which is possibly not appropriate for this legislation but may be. It could be that what we do today, even though it is emergency and temporary, can set the scene for longer-term changes. Given that the high street was struggling massively already before Covid, one thought to be potentially explored is whether you could give free empty shop space or space that had previously been restaurant space and so on, but on the basis that the council, the landlord or whoever is facilitating that could share royalties with the pub owner or the retailer, not just for any physical sales that happened there but for any online sales when they receive whatever support they get. They would therefore start to work in partnership with the business concerned to help it, not just to sell physically in the street but online as well. I know that this is very much about this physical streetscape, but moving forward we need to craft laws and measures that support the increasingly blended nature of businesses, whether they are pubs or other businesses, given that we will all have to check who is coming in and make appointments using apps and the internet. Can the Minister say whether any ideas around that are being explored or whether this is purely just to address the immediate, short-term nature of things?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I cautiously welcome much of what is in the Bill, which is a valid attempt to restore the economy in the most adverse of conditions. However, what I have to say today, which is genuinely supportive, should not be taken as support for the Government’s wider approach to handling the pandemic, which has been a disaster, with delayed decisions undoubtedly costing thousands of lives—although that is an argument for another day.
The Bill has been broadly welcomed in the Lake District, an area on which I will concentrate my remarks. A guest house owner in Keswick in the front line put it this way on the bounce-back loan scheme amendments:
“We have taken advantage of this and it was a relatively painless exercise. We also took the £10,000 grant, the SEISS grant, and a short mortgage holiday.”
On the exemption for public service vehicles, the owner stated:
“This helps us by ensuring availability of goods and services.”
They then went on to welcome the pavement licencing and outdoor seating arrangements. Generally, there has been a good welcome for this in the Lake District. Another Keswick businessman, local councillor Tony Lywood, put it this way:
“We are all over it. Many businesses in the town are now near the edge of bankruptcy, and this bill is very timely and welcome.”
However, concern was expressed by one Keswick hotelier, who referred to guidance notes being provided by UKHospitality. Its advice is therefore important. While I need to express a little concern about its absence of comment on the issue of voids and vending, and perhaps a little vagueness on cleaning product usage, conversely, I have to recognise that it does not have the power to instruct or enforce. I know that we cannot define all these matters in the law, but the work of government should go hand in hand with the recommendations of the trade associations, where the Government seek compliance with safety requirements in the public interest. It may well be that the Government should consider enshrining in the law some aspects of UKHospitality’s excellent guidance notes, if only to ensure a greater level of compliance, particularly in areas where slack trade practices could dilute government efforts in dealing with the pandemic.
UKHospitality should be asked for its legislative recommendations; then we can pursue them in Committee. For example, its document states that
“failing to put in place … measures to manage the risk of COVID-19, could constitute a breach of health and safety law.”
Why not remove the element of doubt enshrined in “could”? I am sure there are probably many areas in the hospitality code which, if enshrined in law, could make all the difference.
Finally, I am concerned that a second phase of the virus could completely undermine the sacrifices already made by UK business. The law should reflect such concerns. That is all I need to say at this stage.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. I welcome this Bill; I also welcome my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh to his first legislative responsibilities—I hope he enjoys them.
I will talk about the element of Part 3 relating to planning—not the very welcome ability to extend construction working hours; I think local authorities had the ability to do this, but the legislation will equip and encourage them to do so on a much more uniform basis for the benefit of the industry, to keep it moving. I will talk principally about Clauses 17 and 18. If you imagine development as a pipeline of activity, the industry has lost time in it; that time was not intended to be lost under the Government’s guidance, but in practice most businesses and developers were off-site by late March and back on-site only in late June. Clauses 17 and 18 are essentially constructed around the proposition that three months were lost and that, therefore, three months must be added to the pipeline, hence the end of the December has been replaced by 1 April.
Although there is a balance to be struck between keeping development moving and allowing for the delays experienced by the industry, I think three months is insufficient for two reasons. First, when the industry has got back to work, it has not been at 100% capacity. To start off with, it was at 50%; some housebuilders had supply-chain problems; even on Friday, a number with which I checked were operating, at best, at 80% capacity. Additional time will be lost between now and the end of the year. Secondly, the three months lost were April, May and June. The three months added are January, February and March. It is obvious that these are not the best months in which to undertake and commence activity on-site in the building industry. I will come back to this in Committee, but will the Government recognise at this stage that more than three months of additional time must be inserted into the Bill?
Also, why do we have such a wide-ranging requirement for “additional environmental approval”? As things stand, all planning permissions which have expired between 23 March and probably the end of August will require additional environmental approval from local authorities to be extended or revived. That is too much. The industry will feel that it has been promised an extension that turns out to be no more than the ability to apply through a new process with its local authority. More should be done. I will question that in Committee.
Finally, on Clause 20, I share my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s desire to reinvigorate the process of enacting the reforms in the Rosewell review and getting the Planning Inspectorate’s time for appeals down. It had come down to about 22 weeks; we need to get it down to that and below. We also have to look hard at what these delays are leading to for local plans. There are many reasons for the delays to local plans—it is not just the Covid-19 crisis—but having so many is not good enough in a plan-led system. It is progressively making development more and more difficult.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and will speak about pavement licences and bounce-back loans. I declare a non-financial interest: my brother owns a pub. Many in the pub trade are counting on the Bill to enable them to trade viably, and it is a pity that it did not come along faster. It will be mid-August, and a lot of summer gone, before pavement licences are issued. There are big differences between locations and what can and cannot work reasonably. There are more spaces than pavements that could adapt to temporary conversion for outside hospitality use, including areas within the boundaries of properties but not under the licence.
Last week, I did a pre-opening pub crawl, speaking to landlords and looking at the range of preparations. Surprisingly few in my area would benefit from a pavement licence. For some, there was no space on the pavement; for others, there was no need due to gardens; elsewhere it would be in the way for queuing and one-way access. What was clearly of more benefit was repurposing space, such as putting a few tables in part of the car park. It would surely make sense to accelerate licence variations on outside areas belonging to the property in the same way as for pavement licences, and I intend to table an amendment on that for Committee. Would the Minster also advise on the scope of wording in Clause 1(4)(b), which seems very wide:
“food or drink for consumption on or off the premises”?
That seems to cover any food selling, such as supermarkets. Is that intended and is it helping the hospitality industry?
Turning to the bounce-back loans and the disapplication of the CCA, I am concerned whether it is right to disapply all court interventions in Section 140B. I understand that banks have been asked not to apply the usual due diligence concerning affordability, but Section 140B covers more than affordability and relates generally to abuse of power. Why should that be disapplied? These loans last for six years and, during that time, it will be possible for the lender to engage in heavy tactics. Even though the loan is guaranteed by the Government, that does not prevent it being a pawn in other financial arrangements. I would be happier if the disapplication related only to refunds for unaffordability.
Neither should there be reach-across between the loan and other financial arrangements with the lender, such as including it in triggering events or the so-called normal approach to repayments that gave us GRG and other scandals. These are not normal loans; they are encouraged by Government and government guarantees to those struggling due to coronavirus and are to help both them and the wider economy bounce back. Stripping the full content of Section 140B and the related FCA rules is not appropriate and is likely to keep the APPG on Fair Business Banking busy for years. Are big lenders requiring the complete disapplication of Section 140B as their price to play ball?
I shall return to this in Committee but, meanwhile, what terms, other than interest, cover the loans? The agreements seem thin—answer 20 questions and get your money—which is all the more worrying when consumer protections have been removed and there does not seem to be anything else in the agreement literature.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in view of Covid-19, the Government need the powers to allow businesses to open with certain restrictions. These are unusual times. The Government are legislating to open up the economy, with powers to shut down businesses if there is a spike in a particular geographic area or sector of the economy. The Bill will allow many sectors of the economy to open up. We have travelled the ups and downs of the effects of Covid-19 since March 2020. The Government and opposition parties must work together at this time and stop blaming each other.
The Government are establishing a fast-track procedure by which cafes, pubs and restaurants in England may apply for temporary permission from local authorities to put tables and chairs outside their premises. The weather this week is bright and warm. Many millions who have been locked up in their homes will be able to come out with their children to enjoy a pleasant day out in cafes and restaurants. Many noble Lords have rightly questioned whether local authorities will consult local residents before they allow cafes and restaurants to put tables outside their premises. I hope the Government will make the appropriate changes in the Bill.
The Government are providing funding in a variety of ways to support small businesses, particularly in the leisure and hospitality sector. Similar support is also being made available to the construction industry so that more houses can be built and more jobs created. All these measures will put money in the hands of many families, who in turn will spend their wealth, creating jobs and prosperity for everyone.
The Secretary of State rightly said that the Bill would provide an adrenaline boost to sectors of the economy affected by the Covid-19 outbreak. With all these measures, the public must take responsibility and continue to observe social distancing, wear masks and wash their hands with soap. We should not create a position whereby we begin to forget these essential precautions and allow the virus to come back. The virus is still lurking around and is invisible. The Government have the powers to shut down a particular area or town if there is a spike. They have done so in Leicester, and rightly so.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill relating to the promotion of economic recovery and growth. It follows the imaginative package announced by the Chancellor in March—the furlough scheme, the VAT and rates holiday, various loans and grants and then, later, the addition of the bounce-back loans, which feature in the Bill, when a further boost was essential. I very much look forward to the Chancellor’s further package before we discuss the Bill in Committee next week. With the prospect of mass unemployment, we need some more imaginative thinking—for example, as I have been suggesting, a cut in employers’ national insurance.
Like others, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on his speech and indeed on all his interventions in the House so far. I very much look forward to engaging with my noble friend on the more wide-ranging planning changes, as those can play an important part in future growth. However, they are not the purpose of this Bill. Indeed, I worry that too many of today’s interventions have called for regulatory measures rather than for the opening up that we need to get the economy to perk up. The measures in the Bill are temporary, so we need positive suggestions to that end, as we have heard from my noble friends Lord Wei and Lord Lansley and, on some aspects, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
I turn to the Bill itself. It should be easier to deal with than the corporate insolvency Bill because it contains essentially temporary provisions. However, I want to understand the sunset provisions. For example, Clause 21 contains an end date of 31 December 2020 but also a provision for a Secretary of State to make regulations substituting a later date. Clause 25 allows him or her to
“make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act”.
This legislation is not being adequately costed or scrutinise for permanent effect, so I am not convinced that we should leave so much power with the Executive. The Bill should lapse automatically on a certain date or dates, with new primary legislation enacted as need be.
As the House knows, I take a particular interest in the prosperity of retail, where I worked for many years, as well as in smaller businesses, which have been a dynamic and economic success, much envied in Europe. Both sectors are having a torrid time, but they have also played a heroic part in this crisis; I would single out the food stores, the distribution drivers and the postal workers, all of whom have worked through the pandemic despite the obvious risks and pioneered safer ways of working.
As always, I am grateful to the FSB for its good briefing and to the British Retail Consortium. The latter has raised two concerns on which I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts. The first is the introduction, at least for the period of the crisis, of digital age estimation and verification. There is a separate telephone app for age verification that is well-established in other countries. It requires registration, but it means there is no need for the customer to show paper ID or to remove any mask, with all the risks those entail. It can be used in some shops already, but not for alcohol or in pubs, because the Home Office has, allegedly—although this surprises me—dragged its feet.
With cities opening up and city centre stores at risk of violence, the BRC is also concerned about the slow progress of a response to a call for evidence on violence against shop workers. I wonder whether my noble friend the Deputy Leader could use his charms to encourage progress on those two matters before we reach Committee.
Finally, I have a much wider concern: that in this crisis, we have given too much weight to medical matters relating to Covid and not quite enough to the negative impact of the measures taken. This extends from cancer treatment to the closure of swathes of the economy. On a normal economic analysis of the kind now being done at Imperial College, the balance in favour of Covid treatment and prevention away from future growth and recovery has gone too far. In due course, we will be criticised by our children for taking away their prosperity. Luckily, the Bill takes some small steps in exactly the right direction.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is another Bill which puts yet more pressure on local authorities. There is, however, no plan for how they will be reimbursed. The Government have said that they will stand behind councils and provide them with the funding they desperately need, but this has simply not happened. Less than a third of their costs have been met. The Bill makes only a modest contribution towards recovery. Even that contribution is not realistically supported. The Bill falls far short of what other countries are doing.
Local authorities have an essential role to play. The implementation of national policy requires local knowledge, flexibility and collaboration to ensure safety. A massive recovery in council house and affordable homebuilding must be a core element of a national economic and social recovery, with the right infrastructure and protecting the environment.
An upsurge in homelessness must be avoided. Indeed, existing homelessness must be reduced and the well-being of those in substandard and inadequate housing addressed as a priority.
Now more than ever, as we emerge from the current health crisis—but not, for some time, from its economic consequences—the theme must be to give local authorities the tools to enable them to spearhead economic, social and environmental recovery in the context of a green planning system not subject to delays.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support this Bill. It is right that we should ease lockdown, and it is critical that we push the economic accelerator. Jobs and livelihoods are at stake. I am particularly pleased to see the hospitality sector reopen and for people to be able to get together again in pubs and restaurants but, like other noble Lords, I have some concerns about the threat of anti-social behaviour, especially as a result of off-sales in open containers. I hope the noble Earl will provide some assurance in his response, and I have heard some interesting mitigations from other noble Lords.
Rather than dwell on that specific point, I want to use this opportunity to talk more broadly about personal responsibility as we begin once again to enjoy our liberties. The lifting of lockdown also presents an important opportunity to reinforce and, in some cases, reset, other essential elements to help us create a better future for everyone. I am talking about our common understanding of what we should be able to expect of each other when it comes to our conduct and behaviour in a public place, and our willingness to promote and uphold a common set of standards.
These are the hallmarks of a society that works for the benefit of everyone, because they show that we share something in common with each other, whatever our background, age or the position we hold in our work. Upholding them is an expression of mutual respect. Over the last few years, political events and this pandemic have exposed the divisions that exist in our society. In recent weeks, it has felt as though some have tried to deepen them further and create new divides, with unacceptable acts of thuggery, vandalism and violence.
There is a lot that needs sorting out if we are to address the inequalities behind some of these divisions, which is why I am so pleased that we are getting on with restarting the economy. However, we will not achieve all that we need to achieve unless and until we all feel that we belong to, and are part of, a shared endeavour. The Bill temporarily lifts some burdens on business—but with those freedoms comes greater responsibility. We should recognise that landlords, restaurateurs, shopkeepers, bus drivers and anyone else responsible for public spaces are important leaders in our local communities. They, alongside the police, deserve our respect when they help to set standards and seek to uphold them. If we are relying on them, they need to know in return that they can rely on us to back them, and we should all be clear about why this is so important.
Now, more than ever, we need to support each other actively, by sticking to the same standards or rules and challenging those who do not, especially when it comes to basic manifestations such as queuing, face-coverings or things that we know are unacceptable—but are scared, these days, to challenge—such as litter, feet on seats and loud music. These small things matter. They help to prevent worse things happening, and the sense of unity that upholding them creates is critical to our success in building a stronger economy.
I notice that Clause 5 refers to the possibility of the Secretary of State setting conditions and Clause 8 to the issuing of guidance in the context of licensing. While I am not suggesting specific legislation for the sorts of things that I have just been referring to, I would none the less be grateful if the Minister could tell the House whether the Government have any plans in this area.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to address the issue of support for SMEs—one of the four pillars mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks. There are alterations to the Bounce Back Loan Scheme in this Bill; some may be sensible changes to a much-needed scheme. However, research undertaken in mid-June by just one business organisation found that only 45% of eligible businesses had been able to apply for these loans, owing to overcomplicated application systems and busy phone lines. One recurring complaint was that many leading banks were saying to their customers, incorrectly, that they had filled in the application details wrongly, or that having two signatories on the business account created a problem.
I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the measures in this Bill will ensure that these problems are overcome. However, I ask the Government to consider how Parliament should scrutinise the impact of not just the bounce-back loans but the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme. The Government’s goal is to provide a bridge over what will be, in their words, a “sharp and significant crisis”, to keep people employed and businesses afloat. Parliament therefore has a duty to keep a watching eye on the impact of this support, making these schemes as effective as possible.
The Bill before us today is designed to stimulate the demand side of the economy, which could be loosely described as getting people to spend more again. There are, however, significant sectors, apart from the ones highlighted in this Bill, which will require extra help. Manufacturing SMEs can be far down the line of feeling the direct impact of the domestic consumer spending encouraged in the measures outlined. By way of example, those in the supply chain for motor vehicle manufacturing would need to see a big uptick in people buying cars before their output would reach pre-Covid-19 levels.
This is an even bigger challenge for those supplying to the aviation sector. It is estimated that 1,400 jobs to be laid off at the Airbus wing factory in Broughton will lead to six times as many job losses in companies in the supply chain—the suppliers to the suppliers, and the makers of the smallest widgets to the biggest widgets. Small companies are deeply affected by reduced order books and will need support during the time it takes for these order books to recover, and we know that this will not be as quick as in other sectors.
In its monitoring survey published last week, the manufacturers’ association found that just under half of UK manufacturers plan to make employees redundant in the next six months; as might be expected, that is a marked increase from quarter 1. More than six in every 10 companies are planning to make between 6% and 25% of their staff redundant. Even with access to the furloughing scheme until October, many employers feel that they cannot use the scheme to protect jobs that may no longer exist in the future. So there is a danger of a real cliff edge of job losses in this sector, either at the end of the furlough scheme or earlier. These jobs will be lost right across the country and across all manufacturing sectors.
The primary ask from the UK manufacturing sector, with its 2.7 million employees, is for business rate relief, as has been provided for the retail and hospitality sectors. Will the Government publish the granular data for the bounce-back and CBIL loans schemes, so that Parliament and the public can analyse the impact and ensure that everything possible is being done to support manufacturing and the skilled workforce who are employed within it?
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president and former chair of the Local Government Association. The Bill we are considering today is a positive step towards reopening our economy. It will help with the recovery and ensure that a consistent approach is taken across the country. I will focus my remarks on the important role that local government will play in helping reopen local economies.
During this pandemic, councils, as leaders of place, have supported businesses by, among many things, distributing hundreds of thousands in coronavirus business grant payments. They are now working hard to ensure that the hospitality sector, and other sectors, are able to reopen safely. It is essential that we begin to reopen our economy and get the country moving again. To do this, we need proper safeguards. Councils should receive powers so that they can feel confident that licensing applications that cannot be managed safely can be turned down, and that they will be able to act where issues arise following the reopening of premises.
While we need to support local pubs, restaurants and other entertainment venues, we also need to make sure that those living near to these premises are not faced with anti-social behaviour or noise pollution—a subject raised by many noble Lords today. I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on this point.
The full responsibility and cost for making this policy work successfully do not sit with local authorities alone. However, with the initial burden falling on them, it is crucial that councils are supported financially by central government to meet the cost of processing an expected large number of applications in a short period of time.
It is right that the licensing measures proposed in the Bill are temporary and designed to help and support councils during these extraordinary times. In the longer term, there is a need for a comprehensive review of our outdated licensing legislation to ensure that it is fit for the future. I know that the LGA has long been calling for this review and is ready to work with the Government on this vital programme, once the measures in this Bill have expired. I hope that the Minister will be able to make that commitment to the House today.
The Bill before us also makes it clear that an expedited review process may require a licensing hearing to be held to discuss an application. Since March 2020, licensing hearings, in common with other council meetings, have been held virtually. Last week, the Government published new public health regulations on public gatherings. I encourage the Government to continue to support councils with clear guidance around their meetings, so that we can ensure that local democracy is able to function effectively. This will be particularly key as new legislation and regulations are published over the coming months.
I would like to bring my remarks to a close by welcoming the Bill and giving it my full support. My suggestions are refinements and points of clarification that I believe it will be helpful to make. The principle and the general thrust of the Bill are of course very welcome, as it marks an important step in opening up our economy and rebuilding for the future, and I am pleased to support it.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and many others have pointed out the importance of the relationship between district and county authorities when it comes to the highway. In the district of Eastbourne where I live, it will be the district council that bears the responsibility for our economic recovery in a town which is based on the hospitality industry. As my noble friend Lord Wei said, innovation and experimentation ought to be the order of the day. However, this crucially involves roads. They permeate a town and you cannot talk about the experience of visitors, let alone residents, without really focusing on what is going on with the roadways. As others have pointed out, this Bill involves the interface between the pavement and the roadway. If we have a café that is spilling on to the pavement, with pedestrians spilling over into the roadway, the district authority absolutely must have the power to set the standards of safety that will make sure that that safety can be delivered by procuring changes to what is happening in the roadway. This cannot wait on the county; this has to be something that the district council can do by its own motion, or least get the county to do in an expedited way rather than to the county’s own timescales.
As has again been suggested by others, I too hope that we will look at expanding the Bill. Where neighbouring premises, open spaces or car parks might be thrown into service in the cause of this Bill, they should not be neglected. We should also look at encouraging, particularly in a seasonal town like Eastbourne, pop-up experiences—things that are not intended to last into the winter.
Lastly, in reply to my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe, I am enthusiastic about this way of conducting business. I think that we have seen some real improvements in the ways in which our colleagues are now better embedded in the communities they are a part of, both in working and in living, and I have seen that being reflected in the debate today. I understand that we need to see some improvements to the systems we have at the moment, but given a bit of determination and good will, they seem to be entirely without our capabilities. I for one am in no hurry to get back to the business of commuting to Westminster with all the disconnection that that generates.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has my complete support. The coronavirus pandemic started as a health crisis, but it is now primarily an economic one. Our GDP has contracted at an unprecedented rate this year, falling by over 20% in April alone. The policy priority has to be a return to economic growth. The furlough scheme, the guaranteed business loans and the other measures have been lifelines, but they were never going to completely offset the huge economic damage that has been inflicted by the lockdown. Indeed, as those schemes start to roll off, we can expect more business failures and higher unemployment that will in turn further impact GDP. The construction and hospitality sectors have been particularly hard hit, and this Bill, while it is no panacea, makes important contributions to their revival.
A number of noble Lords have expressed reservations about the licensing and planning relaxations in this Bill. I ask them to give these temporary measures the benefit of the doubt. We have to get our economy moving again. Once we have recouped this year’s loss of GDP, we can decide from a position of relative economic security what relaxations we can keep and what must be tightened or reversed.
It has been relatively easy to scare people into staying at home, and in broad terms the lockdown has been a great public policy success. The hard task now will be to get people out again, and attitude surveys still show considerable caution. The opening of shops last month and of pubs, restaurants and—praise be!—hairdressers last weekend shows that the public can be tempted out, but not yet in the kinds of numbers that will restore our economy. We need to go even further. We need people to return to normal life, and that means returning to work.
For an economy that has about two-thirds of GDP in household consumption and 80% in the service sector, extensive working from home as a norm will end up being an own goal. I believe your Lordships’ House has a role to play here. Our leaders have been frightened into a risk-averse form of upper Chamber that positively encourages noble Lords to take part from their armchairs at home. Sometimes noble Lords are even outside the UK. I believe we should set an example to the nation that life can and must return to as near normal as possible. The presumption should be that noble Lords are physically present in Parliament and vote in person; I stand with my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe on this. Alternative participation mechanisms should be available but only for those who cannot be present for medical reasons.
We can do two things today to help our country return to economic health and prosperity. First, we can support the proposals in this Bill and speed its passage through the House and on to the statute book. Secondly, we can be a living example that working life can be very much like before, albeit modified by informed risk management and sensible risk mitigation. Noble Lords should remember that the Writ of Summons that each of us received requires us, “waiving all excuses”, to be “personally present”. Let us return to that in September, if not before.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, Covid-19 has caused more disruption and damage to the world’s economies than any event in living memory. In the UK alone, millions could lose their jobs and hundreds of billions of pounds could be wiped from the economy. This pandemic is far from over. We face the risk of localised spikes and perhaps worse, causing further grief and economic instability. The future remains volatile and uncertain, so it is vital that the Government provide all possible support.
This Business and Planning Bill presents an opportunity to kick-start our economy as it emerges from lockdown. A huge amount is at stake, so it is imperative that we get the details of the legislation right. There is a lot we need to do. People want to socialise again, quite justifiably, but we need to encourage them to do so safely. This means the Bill must provide that flexibility for the licensing laws and the facilitation of fast-track planning permission for the pavement cafés. The Government’s bounce-back loans scheme is useful and has the potential to be of real help to business, but it should be more flexible and allow much easier access to funds.
There are other ways in which Ministers can provide hugely valuable support through this Bill. For instance, they are enabled to help ease the backlog in vehicle testing and driving licences for goods, passenger and public service vehicles. Steps such as providing an easement on construction working hours and on the expiry of planning approvals would also make a real difference.
Some of the provisions in this Bill extend to Northern Ireland, and in fact the Northern Ireland Assembly gives legislative consent to this Bill today.
There are certain areas, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that are vital to the economy and should be included. High streets have been decimated during lockdown. On one day alone last week, 6,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector. Sadly, there are many more closures to come; indeed, there is a real fear that we could return to the high levels of unemployment last seen in the 1980s. Therefore, will the Minister give us his view about including in the Bill, albeit as a temporary measure, the expansion of business improvement districts, extending the towns fund, which currently relates to 101 towns, and rethinking permitted development rights as well as commercial rates? Perhaps he will write to me if he cannot answer those points when he winds up.
I understand that the Chancellor will deliver a speech on the economy on Wednesday. I ask the Minister to press his colleagues in the Treasury for the inclusion of fixed fiscal flexibility measures and substantial job creation plans. In the medium term, we must also draw up detailed plans for the regeneration of our town centres, supported by the Government.
I support the provisions in the Bill, but feel that there are opportunities for other areas, including the retail sector, to be included, because they are a vital part of business, a vital part of planning and a vital part of the economy.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, gave a powerful speech on the implications of this Bill for sports clubs, so I will amend what I was going to say and focus on the detail behind his thesis, with which I fully agree. As many noble Lords have said, the purpose of the Bill is to introduce measures to help businesses adjust to new ways of working as the country recovers from the disruption caused by Covid-19. The measures support the transition from immediate crisis response and lockdown into recovery and getting the economy moving again. The measures support businesses to implement safer ways of working to manage the ongoing risks from Covid-19, particularly the need for social distancing. It is an approach which, conceptually, was supported by direct financial support for the arts this morning, which was welcomed by all. We desperately need the same for sport, especially clubs that do not benefit from the professionalism of the top level of sport.
Clause 11 is designed to amend the Licensing Act 2003 and associated regulations, to allow licensed premises to serve alcohol for takeaways while being open for on-site delivery at the same time. This is designed to allow pubs to make up revenue lost as a result of social distancing restrictions. However, the Act also applies to club premises certificates. These alcohol sales licences are slightly different; they apply largely to sports club bars and social clubs. The legislation before us explicitly excludes these venues and does not allow them to make the same changes as pubs. This can be seen in the table on page 16 of the Bill, which shows that club premises licences are specifically not included. This means that sports club bars and social clubs will not be allowed to sell takeaway alcohol, despite facing the very same revenue-losing restrictions as pubs.
The Royal Yachting Association predicts that 95% of its club bars have a club premises certificate, and as such, will lose revenue. The RFU, referred to by my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is also concerned that a great number of rugby clubs will face the same problems. Given the losses that grass roots sports clubs have been facing and the continued cessation of activity for many of those clubs, including cricket clubs, it seems wholly unfair to penalise them further when their bars are allowed to open.
I hope that this explanation is helpful to the Minister, to whom I gave advance notice. We are asking the Government to look again and include club premises certificates in the Bill. If not, we could see the loss of a number of sports clubs up and down the country, and in that context, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the clear, coherent manner in which he introduced this debate. The House has great fortune in having him on the Front Bench. I offer my support to the Bill. We need to get the economy moving and, although it is not a provision of the Bill, we need to get our young people back into education as soon as possible.
I shall cover two elements related to the Bill: inclusion and small breweries. I stand alongside the comments of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and my friend the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about pavements and public spaces. We must ensure that we build back together or we will not build back much that is worth while. The measures are temporary, but inclusion and accessibility are about every moment and they count just as much for temporary fixes as for anything else. It is vital that we get our economy moving again, but it should not come at the expense of the exclusion of disabled people from our high streets and local communities. That exclusion is utterly avoidable. It would be invidious if we took regulatory barriers away temporarily only to replace them for disabled people and those with young children in pushchairs with impassable physical barriers. Economic growth and equality are not mutually exclusive or, indeed, diametrically opposed. They walk hand in hand. This makes great moral, legal and business sense. In fact, the greater the level of inclusion, the greater the level of social and economic activity. There is only one economy, there is only one United Kingdom—it flourishes and we are all at our best when everything is underpinned by dignity, inclusion and respect. I thank all the organisations that do so much good work on accessibility and inclusion, not least the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB.
The changes to the licensing requirements are welcome, but hundreds of small independent breweries find themselves locked out and unable to take part in this unlocking of the economy. They find themselves having extremely tough times for want of small, doable legislative changes. It is imperative that they have a successful summer, otherwise they may have no autumn or winter. We could do such a service for these small independent breweries if we just make these small legislative changes to enable them to sell to the public, which they are currently unable to do. The innovation and ingenuity that we have seen from small independent breweries, particularly in the past decade, have brought vast sectors and areas of the public to not just the product but the approach and the methods of brewing, and often these breweries put themselves right in the heart of the community.
Small legislative changes will make such a big difference to our small independent breweries. We owe it to them to make those changes. Does the Minister agree, and does he agree that everything that we do not just in this Bill but across all our activities should be predicated on inclusion?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the Bill and to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden Second Reading speech, which he made so eloquently. I declare an interest as chairman of the board of PASS, the Proof of Age Standards Scheme. We are also looking at the possibility of proof of age going forward digitally, which I think will have great scope within this Bill. While we can look at the proposals in more detail in Committee, this is a question of reaching a balance between the rights of businesses to operate and to recover from what has been a very difficult period and the rights of residents, which I would like to consider under three different aspects. I also want to refer to the report of the ad-hoc licensing committee; we looked at the Licensing Act 2003 and made a number of recommendations which I would like to consider in Committee.
Looking at the fast-track approach for cafés and bars and the opportunity to place chairs and tables on the pavements outside, I know that the 90% fall in consumption of food and drink has been felt keenly, and the knock-on effect on farming is worthy of note as well. When looking at outside spaces, in addition to pavements, will the noble Earl consider car parks and parking spaces where practicable? In terms of serving off-licence, I echo the concerns raised by other noble Lords about plastic being used rather than glass. Also, would he look at the issue of serving people who are already intoxicated and the recommendation that we came up with of having young people acting as volunteers, trying to encourage those of their own age not to drink any more when perhaps they are already slightly tipsy?
I realise that this is a temporary measure, but will the noble Earl confirm that there will be consultation on the guidance going forward, particularly as relates to construction, and that regard will be given to residents, particularly those working at home at this time who might find longer hours to be just one step too far?
Local authorities have asked for a number of issues to be taken into consideration—for one, the extra burden that is going to be placed on them. They request that clear and comprehensive guidance will be given and ask what regard will be given to the fees levied. I have a concern that the fees be appropriate and not disproportionate. They also ask that when the committees meet, they can now start meeting in physical or at least hybrid form, recognising the social distance. I hope that the Government agree.
When it comes to the wider reforms on planning, I hope that the noble Earl will look at some of the recommendations that the ad-hoc committee made, such as licensing committees being merged with planning committees, which has a lot to commend itself. The planning going forward, particularly as regards construction sites where it should be flexible, should be done on a site-by-site basis. Many of my other comments will be for the wider reforms or for Committee.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the legislation with such clarity. I welcome it and I think it gives a much-needed adrenaline boost, as was noted by my right honourable friend Alok Sharma in the House of Commons. Principally, of course, it is helping the hospitality sector, which has suffered such a massive drop of some 90% in business because of the virus. It is right that we fast-track these pavement licences and that there is a reasonable fee but, like the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Low, and my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Holmes, I think we need to be very careful about access issues and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect access for the partially sighted, the blind, people in wheelchairs and so on. That is absolutely right.
Like others, I have some concerns relating to Clause 11 about off-sales, particularly late into the night. We know that drink and social distance do not mix. We should very much bear that in mind when we try to square the circle of opening up the economy while recognising the dangers that still exist from the virus; we ignore it at our peril. The British Beer and Pub Association has noted that 25% of pubs are still not able to reopen, even with one-metre social distancing, so encouraging the opening up of pavement licences is something I very much welcome.
The position on convenience stores appears a bit confused. The Association of Convenience Stores, which covers shops such as the Co-op, Nisa, Budgens, SPAR, petrol forecourts and lots of independent businesses, is not convinced that they are covered by this legislation. It seems to me that they are, in Clause 1(4)(b), but I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will confirm that when he sums up. We should ensure that that is the case, because we need to be innovative and broaden our approach. We need to open up the economy.
I share my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s welcome of today’s announcement of help for the arts, but note that we need a road map as well for continued regeneration of arts and culture venues, as we do for sports, as we just heard from my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I hope that is also something we can turn our attention to. I very much support what my noble friends Lord Wei and Lord Lucas said about the need for an innovative approach to try to regenerate and revitalise our town centres with drive-through cinemas and drive-through facilities, and to open up towns with more markets, food approaches and so on. We should look at that. We need to be innovative and to make sure that we really do get the economy humming again.
The legislation is welcome in many other ways: I very much welcome the flexibilities for the construction sector and for planning permission. They are very sensible, as is the flexibility for driving licences. We need to ensure that we fund our local authorities, considering the extra burden that they are taking on. We owe them that to ensure that we all go forward together. Subject to that, I very much welcome the legislation. It shows some imagination. We perhaps need to show even more imagination as we try to open up our economy and get it moving yet again.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Oh, could you unmute? I am afraid we cannot hear you.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn for five minutes to resolve the technical issue.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, now that the technical issues have been resolved, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his ever-helpful approach. We have had an excellent and well-informed debate on the proposals in the Bill and my hope is that he will be able to respond positively to the many concerns that have been raised.
Liberal Democrats on these Benches understand and support the general thrust of the Bill, which is to provide additional flexibility to some specified businesses that have been hit hard by lockdown in the early months of the pandemic. We also appreciate that the Government want to provide these new flexibilities as soon as possible. However, that should not result in the measures included in the Bill not being given the full level of scrutiny for which this House is responsible. My colleagues and other noble Lords from across the House have raised questions and concerns on a number of issues which require answers from the Government.
Part 1 enables pubs, bars, and cafés to apply for pavement licences to expand on the amount of seating available and provide some recompense for a reduction in the customers permitted within the premises. My noble friend Lady Thornhill has drawn attention to the confusion of responsibilities for licence applications in two-tier local authorities, which needs to be resolved. My noble friends Lady Randerson and Lady Bowles have spoken on this issue and suggested variations on the measures in the Bill. The RNIB and Guide Dogs have raised concerns, as have local councils and disability organisations. They are all concerned that people with visual impairments, in wheelchairs or pushing buggies will find that they are unable to pass safely on the pavement. Reassurances must be provided that the needs of businesses will not surmount the needs of pedestrians.
Part 1 also includes one of the more controversial proposals, which is to permit sales from pubs and bars of alcohol in “open containers”. My noble friend Lord Paddick has spoken eloquently, and from his vast experience, on the topic. This measure really does require modification to minimise the problems that could well follow in town and city centres, putting additional pressure on the police and councils. It is not right to pass the additional costs created by businesses on to these public services without providing appropriate financial compensation. Noble Lords from across the House have voiced anxieties on this provision. It requires changes in the Bill.
On Part 2, my noble friends Lady Kramer, Lady Bowles and Lord German have explained why they have concerns about the Bill regarding the loan scheme and highlighted issues about insurance and whistleblowing. We look forward to the Minister responding constructively to their expert comments. My noble friend Lady Randerson has also voiced concerns about the renewal of driving licences for bus drivers. I look forward to the response on this vital safety question.
Part 3 relates to changes to planning legislation. The elements that relate to extending permissions are welcome, both for planning authorities and for developers. However, one part of this provision, for automatic extension involving environmental conditions in a planning consent, has to be reconsidered, in order that vital environmental protections are not overridden in the name of construction for the short term, while enabling destruction of our natural environment in the long term. This is not in tune with the Government’s claims of “building green”.
Every planning consent includes conditions on hours of working. They are there for a purpose. They provide a safeguard for neighbours; extension of hours has to be with the consent of those it affects. The Bill fails to give enough emphasis to the views of neighbours and gives the impression that construction needs are more important, especially as it is possible for developers to apply for a construction period of 24 hours a day. My noble friend Lady Randerson rightly warned that one man’s bureaucracy is another man’s democratic right, and this applies particularly to planning.
My noble friend Lord Shipley asked whether a pre-consultation period can be included, so that the narrow windows for applications make for more transparency and inclusivity. He also asked the Government to disapply the current requirements on councils for the housing delivery test, for which there are draconian consequences where not met. Will the Minister give assurances on this issue? My noble friend Lady Doocey raised planning issues regarding tourism and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Planning appeals are a crucial part of the planning process and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, stated, these are already weighted heavily in favour of developers. It is to be regretted that this is the one change that is to be permanent. It should be a temporary change along with the other measures, with any permanent change being included in the next planning Bill.
My noble friend Lady Kramer also raised what must be a government oversight: TfL, and other London development agencies, are not included in the Covid legislation on virtual decision-making. I am confident that the Government will want to rectify this omission to enable those bodies to make decisions openly and transparently.
The majority of these changes affect local government, yet they incur additional costs without additional funding. It is already clear that many councils have huge financial pressures, even after the latest funding announcement from the Government. The extra costs for councils in the Bill need to be reimbursed.
In conclusion, there are important changes in this Bill, which are largely supported. However, the measures are piecemeal and apply to a narrow section of local businesses. The Bill cannot be seen as part of a more thought-through response. In that sense, it is very much a wasted opportunity for setting out a clear strategy that will provide some hope, both to communities and to businesses. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This has been an interesting debate on important issues contained in the Bill. The position of the official Opposition is that we support the Bill in general but have reservations on a number of issues, which we will raise during the Bill’s passage through the House. At the outset, I want to make it clear that if we fail in our endeavours to persuade the Government, we will seek to Divide the House at Report on our amendments that deal with issues that we think are important.
The balance to be struck here is one that supports businesses in the hospitality sector and elsewhere to get back on their feet but, at the same time, gives a voice to local residents and does not lead to a second spike in Covid-19 infections. That is very difficult to achieve, and the Government do not have a good record with regard to the pandemic: the worst death rate in the whole of Europe; the scandal of care home deaths; the testing shambles; the track and trace app that was to be world-beating by 1 June, but does not work; and the procurement offers that were turned down. The devastation caused to families by the loss of loved ones has been heartbreaking.
Moving on to specific areas of the Bill, Part 1 deals with the consumption of food and drink outdoors. The Bill introduces a new legal framework for issuing licences which will enable food and drink businesses to put removable furniture on the pavement adjacent to their premises in order to sell food and drink. What is important here is the ability to manage carefully a number of different and conflicting issues and objectives. These include the need for the business to reopen, the desire for customers to enjoy meeting friends and family in a local pub or restaurant in a socially distant and responsible manner, the need to maintain the accessibility of the public highway for all users, the concerns of local residents about excessive and unreasonable noise causing nuisance and annoyance, litter, poor behaviour in general, and the ability of the local authority enforcement teams and the police to take effective action.
There are resource implications for these changes, and the proposed £100 licence fee that local authorities can charge will of course not cover the costs that they will incur. In responding to the debate, can the noble Earl explain how local authorities will be reimbursed for the additional costs they incur? The Government have a track record of loading additional burdens on to local authorities and providing woefully inadequate resources. Local government finances are in a perilous state, and this is just not acceptable.
My noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara raised issues of concern about street vendors and small breweries, which have, in effect, been left out of the provisions of the Bill. I fully support the points he made.
My noble friends Lady Goudie, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Kennedy of Cradley highlighted the role that local authorities will play in delivering the vast majority of the proposals in the Bill and the need to properly support local authorities, and the police, in delivering the framework in order to get it right.
There are similar concerns about Clause 11 in Part 1, which many noble Lords have highlighted. It deals with alcohol licensing, off-sales and getting the balance right between supporting business and protecting residents from additional nuisance. What we have before us fails to do that at present. The problem is that, when you have a number of licensed premises together, as many noble Lords have mentioned, local residents already suffer that nuisance. In many ways they accept it, but the off-sale proposals could make it even worse. The issue is not confined to Soho—I know there was a lot of coverage there over the weekend—but applies to other parts of London and many other cities and towns, which all have their entertainment areas and high streets where people go to enjoy themselves.
We must be clear that the problem is not just noise; it is people urinating in the street, defecating in bushes and behaving disgustingly. The Government need to restrict off-sales to 11 pm. That is more than reasonable. I endorse the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Randall of Uxbridge; no matter how long the on-sale licence is for, 11 pm should be the end for off-sales. That is a reasonable, proportionate measure that I hope the Government will embrace.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, also has my full support. He referred to the unacceptable behaviour that has taken place in London Fields in the London Borough of Hackney. I endorse all his comments; we must ensure that people are not subjected to more disgusting behaviour. My noble friend Lord Whitty rightly raised the similar concern that we are encouraging more drinking on our streets but not dealing with its possible consequences.
In preparing for this debate, I talked to a number of organisations, including USDAW and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union. There are huge concerns about the safety of staff working in the sector, who risk dealing with people who have consumed too much alcohol and are incapable of socially distancing. Keeping staff safe from the risks to their health when at work, from the handling of cash to the role of door staff, needs to be dealt with by the Government. It is very difficult, as we all know, when someone has had too much to drink to get them to understand how they need to behave. My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to that in particular.
We need some clarity from the Government on the situation regarding toilets. The law is very limited here, with only four provisions in the Public Health Act on keeping toilets clean in establishments serving food to be consumed on the premises. Local authorities do the enforcement work through visits to premises, but we need a clear commitment from the Government to provide guidance on the cleaning and maintenance of toilets with sufficient frequency to ensure the protection of customers, and staff, who are always the ones doing the cleaning. This is not easy because, as I have said, people who are drinking will want to use the toilet more. We need to ensure we get this right.
There are also issues around public toilets, as considerable numbers of them have been closed in recent years and with this Bill we are encouraging more off-sales and off-the-premises drinking. We need to ensure that that there is clear guidance from the Government or other bodies, ensuring that we get this right. They should seek advice from organisations such as the British Toilet Association. I think it is very clear what can and cannot be done.
Regarding Part 2, my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara referred to the bounce-back loan scheme. I endorse his comments and will not speak further on that part of the Bill. Similarly, I endorse the comments of, and concerns raised by, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding Clauses 13, 14 and 15.
Part 3 deals with the planning system and puts in place temporary measures. I welcome most of the proposals before us—I actually had an Oral Question on planning issues a few weeks ago. I first want to raise an important omission also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about mayoral development corporations and bodies such as the London Legacy Development Corporation and TfL, which are planning authorities but have not been included under the definition of a local authority and so will have real difficulties moving forward. That is an unintentional omission by the Government; I hope the Minister can look at that before Committee. I hope we can get an amendment agreed which corrects that error.
I was pleased to learn that these measures are not a precursor to further changes to the planning system. Many in this House and elsewhere are of the view that certain parts of the Government are strangely obsessed with planning and reform, rather than dealing with the hundreds of thousands of planning permission applications that have been approved and are sitting there, with not a single brick being laid or a single shovel being put into the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, raised concerns that future reforms will include extensions to permitted development rights, which would not get more affordable or green homes built, or address the real problems. We have said we need to “build, build, build”, but we must also build well, build green and build with a long-term future in sight.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, that the environmental considerations of our planning system are vital and should not be lost in any future reviews. My noble friend Lady Andrews outlined the problems facing local authorities, businesses and the high street. I hope the noble Earl will address those points when he responds shortly. I agree with my noble friend Lord Blunkett that we need to strip away any plans to support entrepreneurs and innovation to the detriment of residents and communities. This false premise should be resisted and is no basis for achieving what the Government want to achieve.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and others raised the concerns of the RNIB and wheelchair users. It is important for the noble Earl to respond to those points in respect of how we move forward. We should also be aware of the blight that extended hours of construction could cause residents, the noise of construction sites working many more hours than normal and the problem of vehicle movements. Again, I hope the noble Earl assures the House about what the Government are doing.
In conclusion, we support the Bill but want to see movement from the Government on a number of issues highlighted by me and other noble Lords in this House today.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a constructive debate and I am grateful, as ever, for your Lordships’ detailed engagement with the measures in the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on making his first speech in this House in physical form. He set out succinctly the measures that the Bill seeks to introduce. I therefore intend to focus mainly on responding to questions and comments posed in the debate. Those that I do not have time to cover today—and there will be several, for which I apologise in advance—I will answer in writing.
Before I turn to those matters, it might help if I addressed some of the cross-cutting issues that your Lordships have highlighted. The first is the wider context. This is an important Bill, but I am the first to acknowledge that its scope is deliberately focused. It does not pretend to cover the whole waterfront of the UK economy. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor will make a summer economic update to the House of Commons on 8 July, outlining the next stage in our plan to secure Britain’s recovery, building on the Prime Minister’s speech. It is clear that the long-term plans and big decisions are for the Autumn Budget and spending review, but there are things we can and should do now to give the country the boost it needs.
The first phase has seen us help families and businesses through the crisis. As the economy opens up, we will move into a new phase. I cannot confirm the details in advance, but we have done the right thing by helping people through the crisis and we will do the same as we come out of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, indicated her view that support for the economy has been insufficient. I remind her that the Government have provided unprecedented support to help businesses through the lockdown. Over £350 billion of government-backed and guaranteed loans have been made available to businesses and individuals, as well as a range of support schemes, including business rate holidays, tax deferrals and the job retention scheme. Of course, we will continue to keep under review what further support should be provided to businesses.
I can say, particularly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that our recovery from Covid-19 should be clean and resilient, making our economy match fit for tomorrow’s challenges and not yesterday’s. This means reducing risk and increasing our resilience to the threat that climate change poses to the UK’s prosperity and security, as well as the linked challenges of biodiversity and public health. Action to support net zero can deliver jobs and opportunities across the country, as demonstrated by our success to date—with growth up by 75% and emissions down by 43% over the last three decades and more than 460,000 people employed in low-carbon businesses and their supply chains. This is a win-win area.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Andrews, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh, raised concerns about the impact of these measures on local authorities, taken in the round. First, I note that the Local Government Association has been consulted and has welcomed the proposals on pavement licensing and planning extensions. Licensing proposals have also been discussed with local government and the police. Secondly, I remind the House that the Government have provided £3.7 billion to local authorities through un-ring-fenced grants to address pressures they face in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This includes the extra £500 million announced on 2 July. This further funding provision demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to making sure that councils have the resources they need to continue to support their communities through this challenging time.
On pavement licences in particular, our measures will create a more streamlined process and may take away some of the current administrative costs associated with processing applications. For example—and in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—we have taken steps to ensure that local authorities can impose their own conditions up front across all licences, which should help mitigate concerns about automatic deeming of licences. However, we recognise that elements of the new fast-track process may have resourcing implications. We are undertaking a new burdens assessment to assess what support local authorities need to implement this new temporary process and whether any additional funding will be necessary.
As regards planning consents, let us bear in mind that the measures in the Bill are temporary and together do not amount to a significant new financial burden on local authorities this financial year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, expressed concern about the unclear situation, as she sees it, of councils returning to open public meetings. During the pandemic the Government have temporarily removed the legal requirement for local authorities to hold public meetings in person. While social distancing restrictions remain in place, we have provided councils with flexibility to hold meetings in a manner that ensures the decision-making process remains accessible to their residents. The local authority remote meetings regulations enable all meetings to be held remotely. They do not preclude either physical meetings or a hybrid form of meeting, where these can be held in accordance with public health regulations and guidance. The Government have amended the health protection regulations to allow indoor gatherings of more than 30 persons; these apply to meetings taking place in council buildings from 4 July.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, expressed concerns about the shortness of consultation, there being no legal requirement to post applications online and having only lamp-post notifications. She felt that was discriminatory against those with visual impairments. Local authorities are required to publish, in such a manner as they consider appropriate, applications, material accompanying them and the fact that representations may be made. The draft guidance makes it clear that authorities might consider using digital means of publicity, such as on their website or via an online portal, and that in deciding what action to take to publish, they should consider the needs of those who might find it more difficult to access online publications.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, called for a quarterly review, rather as is built into the Coronavirus Act. We recognise the importance of keeping the measures under review and will closely monitor their effects. However, we think that a rolling parliamentary review would compromise the stability we seek to provide to businesses and local authorities in the recovery stage of the pandemic. Almost all the measures in the Bill are temporary; they have temporary effect or apply to temporary schemes. The end dates we have set out in the Bill are designed to be restricted to what is proportionate and necessary, while giving businesses, local authorities and government agencies the certainty they need to plan their activities over the coming months. We think that subjecting the measures to an unpredictable cliff edge through parliamentary review will undermine this certainty.
On the Bill’s specific provisions, we are all aware of the serious effect coronavirus has had on the hospitality sector. Even as restaurants, bars, pubs and cafés open up again, social distancing requirements will significantly reduce their capacity, and we want to help these businesses recover quickly. Measures in the Bill will help by allowing easier use of outdoor space to accommodate more customers safely while summer weather allows. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Campbell-Savours, and my noble friends Lord Inglewood, Lord Bourne and Lady Noakes in this context.
The Local Government Association and several individual councils have been consulted on pavement licence proposals, as have the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Group, which—my noble friend Lord Sheikh in particular will be pleased to hear—recognised the importance of allowing businesses to open safely while ensuring highway accessibility. The proposals have been welcomed by the LGA, UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association. In addition, measures on alcohol licensing have been discussed with local government, trade, police and licensing experts.
Noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Holmes, Lord Blencathra and Lord Balfe, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett, Lord Low and Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, were understandably keen to know how our pavement licensing provisions might affect pedestrians and those with mobility impairments and visual impairments. I agree that this is an important point and that we should never lose sight of the inclusion agenda.
We are publishing a national condition which requires licence holders to maintain clear routes of access. This includes taking account of the needs of disabled people and, in particular, section 3.1 of the Department for Transport’s Inclusive Mobility guidance. This sets out the recommended minimum footway widths and distances required for access by mobility-impaired and visually impaired people. I say to my noble friends Lady Eaton and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that any licences granted will be subject to local and national conditions, and the legislation contains robust enforcement procedures. Local authorities can revoke licences where they give rise to matters of public safety, highways obstruction, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance, as well as on a number of other grounds.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Blunkett, Lord Carlile, Lord St John, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, understandably raised concerns about possible unwanted effects of the alcohol licensing provisions in terms of anti-social behaviour and disorder. We have established two main safeguards in designing these provisions, to ensure that any issues that arise can be dealt with swiftly and robustly. First, it is worth reiterating that the measures in the legislation will not apply to premises whose off-sales permissions have been removed, either voluntarily on a variation or on review, within the last three years.
Secondly, the Bill will introduce an expedited review process for automatically granted permissions. This can be used where there are problems of crime and disorder, public nuisance or public safety arising from how premises use the new permission. In this case, any responsible authority, including the police or environmental health, can apply for an off-sales expedited review. On receipt of this application, the relevant licensing authority must consider whether it is necessary to take interim steps within 48 hours, and must determine the review within 28 days. Interim steps can include: changing the hours in which off-sales are permitted; adding new conditions in relation to public nuisance, such as to prevent noise nuisance; and suspending the off-sales permission. As I have said, a review can result in the automatically granted off-sales permission being removed.
Beyond the provisions in the Bill, my noble friend Lord Balfe in particular may wish to note that the police also have the power, under Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to issue a closure notice if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the use of a premises has resulted, or is likely to result, in nuisance to members of the public or that there has been, or is likely to be, disorder near the premises that is associated with the use of the premises. Having mentioned that, I am sure we can all identify with the very good points made by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston regarding the relationship between the police and the public.
I shall sum up these protections with an example. If local residents complain to the police about disorder relating to a particular bar or restaurant, the police might first consider taking immediate steps to close the premises using their anti-social behaviour powers, but they could also request an expedited review, which could result in steps to prevent ongoing issues at the premises by toughening the terms of the premises licence.
My noble friend Lord Sheikh, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, all referred to the importance of keeping hospitality workers safe. The Government are clear that workers should not be forced into an unsafe workplace and that the health and safety of workers should not be put at risk. To this end, we have published Covid-19 secure guidance for keeping workers and customers safe in restaurants, pubs, bars and takeaway services. The guidance sets out how to open workplaces safely while minimising the risk of spreading Covid-19 and gives practical considerations for how that can be applied to hospitality businesses. The guidance is non-statutory and does not change legal obligations relating to health and safety, employment or equalities, but it will help businesses to manage the risks for their employees through social distancing, hygiene and fixed teams or partnering.
Businesses must also carry out an appropriate Covid-19 risk assessment in consultation with unions or employees. Employers should share the results of their risk assessment with their workforce and are encouraged to display a notification that they have complied with the Government’s guidance on managing the risks of Covid-19. Employees can raise any concerns by contacting their employer representative or trade union or by contacting the Health and Safety Executive by phone or online form.
I appreciate that noble Lords may be interested to know the specifics of the guidance and therefore encourage them to read the guidance in full on the GOV.UK website. Due to the comprehensive nature of the publication, I cannot relay all its recommendations to the House. However, I reassure noble Lords that a considerable range of practical steps are provided to help to keep workers safe. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will be pleased to hear that that includes setting clear use and cleaning guidance for toilets to ensure that they are kept clean and social distancing is achieved as much as possible. I should add that the Health and Safety Executive has been given an extra budget of £14 million for extra call centre employees, inspectors and equipment to help businesses to manage the necessary changes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised some very interesting points about second-hand smoke on pavements. With regard to pavement licensing, the local authority can impose locally-set conditions on licences. The draft guidance provides that, when authorities are determining applications and setting conditions, issues that they will want to consider include public health and safety, while the conditions can include restricting smoking in areas not designated for smokers.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, called for new ways of working following Covid-19 that are arrived at through robust dialogue with unions and employees. The Government have worked constructively with the unions throughout the pandemic. We recognise that responsible trade unions can play a constructive role in maintaining positive industrial relations and that collective bargaining remains an important form of negotiation in the workplace. However, we believe that where possible industrial relations should be undertaken on a voluntary basis, not mandated by the state. Collective bargaining is largely a matter for individual employers, their employees and their trade unions. If workers want a union to represent them, they have the means to secure that through the CAC statutory recognition procedure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, called for a revival of holidaymaking and tourism. I am sure she will agree that supporting hospitality is a key part of supporting tourism. The pavement and alcohol licensing measures in the Bill will help restaurants, bars and pubs to get ready for the summer. The more places where people can eat and drink, the better the local tourism offer and the more likely people are to take the brilliant staycations our tourism industry offers. She and other noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, will have seen yesterday’s announcement of more than £1.5 billion to support cultural assets of international, national and regional importance, and that money will directly help the tourism industry. The announcement has been widely welcomed, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, by the arts sector.
More widely, we announced the cultural renewal task force on 20 May. We have since published guidance on reopening holiday accommodation and the visitor economy to give businesses the ability to plan with confidence to reopen. On 3 June, we announced a £10 million kick-starting tourism package. This will give small businesses in tourist destinations grants of up to £5,000 to help them adapt their businesses following the pandemic. That is only one of a number of measures that we have taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan asked about the status of sports clubs and whether they can benefit from the alcohol licensing measure. The Licensing Act 2003 provides for club premises to sell alcohol by retail to club guests, but only for consumption on the premises. I am afraid that this is not changed by the Bill. The Bill is focused on the wider hospitality sector. However, all clubs can apply for a variation of their licence to serve alcohol off the premises if they wish. Sports and physical activity facilities play a crucial role in supporting adults and children to be active. The Government are in discussions with representatives from the sport and physical activities sector about the steps required to reopen sports venues and facilities, including swimming pools, as soon as it is safe to do so, and we will update the public when possible. As with all aspects of the Government’s response to Covid-19, we will be guided by the science to ensure that, as restrictions are eased, people can return to activity safely.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked whether temporary licences could be issued for small breweries to sell to the public. The provisions in the Bill do not grant any new licences. The proposal that a brewery should be given a premises licence without any scrutiny by the local licensing authority, the police or the public goes too far, I am afraid. It is vital that the conditions on which a permanent premises licence is granted receive careful consideration from agencies with a knowledge of local issues and the licensee. The suggestion that a premises licence could be granted through a purely administrative procedure or a minor variation would deprive the responsible authorities and the public of a voice.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked about age verification. I will write to her on that topic.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made some very powerful points, one of which was to question why schools should not be more fully open than they are when we are taking these measures in relation to pubs. While pubs reopened this weekend, he will know that schools are already open and more than 1.5 million pupils have been welcomed back. Since 1 June, primary schools have been welcoming back children in nursery, reception, year 1 and year 6, alongside priority groups. Since 15 June, secondary schools and colleges have been offering some face-to-face support for pupils in year 10 and year 12, who will sit key exams next year.
I will write to noble Lords who raised the issue of hospitality businesses that do not have premises and on any other topics in relation to that part of the Bill that I have not covered.
The Bounce Back Loan Scheme has, by common consent, been a lifeline to small businesses during the crisis. Over 900,000 have benefited to date, and I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others on this measure. The provisions in this Bill allow for the majority of bounce-back loans to be issued within just 24 hours, rather than the usual five to 10 days. They also help lenders to process applications at a much greater scale, and the measures have been welcomed by UK Finance.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked why the Government do not publish data on the number of applications to and rejections from the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. We have in fact been publishing relevant data on the Covid business lending schemes on a weekly basis since 12 May. This includes data on the number of applications received and the number and value of facilities approved to date for the Bounce Back Loan Scheme, CBILS and CLBILS. In publishing this data, we aim to support the information needs of society in general and of course the stakeholders. The Government are considering what further data may be available in the future while balancing the sensitive commercial nature of this information for lenders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, raised her concerns about protections for business. We need to remember that these are unprecedented times, which is reflected in the 100% guarantee that we are providing to lenders. Under the scheme, businesses cannot borrow more than 25% of their turnover, which should help to ensure that the loan is sustainable. In addition, to enable firms to get back on their feet, borrowers are not required to make any repayments for the first 12 months, and the Government will cover the first 12 months of interest payable. The scheme also has an affordable flat rate of interest and borrowers have six years to repay the loan.
However, businesses do need to take responsibility for what is in their interests. The terms of the loan are very clear in the application that businesses will fill in as part of securing a loan. Any business taking on a loan such as this should think carefully about whether debt is the right answer for them and about their ability over the long term to pay it back.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner of Margravine and Lady Bowles, spoke about the prospect of defaults. The scheme supports the smallest businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, as rightly emphasised by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. The Government said from the start that they would do “whatever it takes” to support business; this scheme delivers on that promise and is in addition to the support the Government offers through business grants, the corona- virus job retention scheme and tax deferrals.
However, we have also made clear that bounce-back loans are loans and not grants. Borrowers must make every reasonable effort to repay these on time. The scheme being 100% government-guaranteed means that, should some borrowers default, lenders will not be burdened with debts. However, the Government expect lenders to seek to recover the loans where feasible and we are convening workshops in the coming weeks to discuss this in more detail with the accredited lenders.
I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the issues he raised on HGV licensing and move to another topic raised by noble Lords, which is construction working hours and planning. I am grateful to those noble Lords, and especially my noble friend Lady Noakes, who expressed support for the measures designed to assist the construction industry. Like the hospitality industry, the construction sector has been hit hard by coronavirus: over 40% of the workforce has been furloughed. The Bill helps them to get back to work safely, and the measures have been extensively discussed with representatives of the development industry.
To the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who expressed concerns, I stress the point that these measures are temporary. The Bill will make it quicker to extend site opening hours, allowing for better social distancing and catching up on lost work time, and there is strong support across industry and local planning authorities for the provisions.
Having said that, I of course take on board the points powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on the wider context, especially the future of the high street. I agree that there is a balance to be struck between using up spare capacity for housing on the high street and motivating the retail sector, but I say to her and to my noble friend Lord Wei that we strongly support the revival of the high street so that it becomes a place where people want to go. We need to look constructively at flexibilities to further that aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, said that, in his view, the 14-day timescale was too short for consultation. He will recognise that, as so often, this measure has to strike a balance. We consider the timescale to strike a fair balance between allowing time for necessary engagement, for example with local councillors, and enabling developers to obtain a fast-tracked decision, particularly so that they can make use of the additional daylight hours available in the summer months. Local authorities know their areas well. We are confident that they will be able to judge the impact on local businesses and residents in the majority of cases, particularly since we have prepared guidance to support this decision. They retain the discretion to refuse where there would be an unacceptable impact.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Randall, expressed concerns about noise and nuisance during extended construction hours. I understand that concern. First, authorities will have discretion to refuse extensions to working hours where they consider that longer hours would have an unacceptable impact. They also have a range of enforcement powers available to them. Secondly, many sites will already have construction management plans, which will include mitigation measures against dust, vibration, noise and so forth. Thirdly, my noble friend Lady McIntosh will note that developers are, as ever, encouraged to work closely with the local community and their local authority and to undertake works which may be noisy and affect residents during normal working hours.
I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his proposal that the presumption in favour of sanctions in relation to the five-year housing land supply and the housing delivery test be suspended. I have an extensive note, but, unfortunately, there is not time for me to put it into Hansard. Equally, I will write to my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the potential for 24-hour construction and the need, as he saw it, to limit that facility.
I will cover a point raised by my noble friend Lord Randall, who was concerned about the environmental impact of extended construction hours. Local authorities will need to carefully consider applications where, for example, the development is subject to an environmental impact assessment or there are habitats issues. They will have discretion to refuse applications for extended construction hours where they believe that a development would have a significant environmental impact that has not previously been assessed.
I will write to my noble friend Lord Naseby on new towns and garden towns. I will also write to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who raised two very important points about local plans and hybrid appeals. I apologise that there is no time to cover the note I have now.
Equally, I shall write to my noble friend Lord Lansley on the point he made about a three-month extension to planning consents not being enough, and to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on cycle lanes and parking bays. I shall also write to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about caravan and self-catering accommodation being open for the winter, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the bodies with planning powers which are not covered in the Bill, such as mayoral development corporations, Transport for London and the London legacy corporations.
Once again, I am grateful for the excellent and constructive contributions from noble Lords who have spoken. In summary, the Government believe that this Bill is urgent and necessary. It will help businesses in hard-hit sectors get back to work safely and without delay. Almost all its provisions are temporary. They have been developed in consultation with businesses, local government and other interested parties. It is very important that these provisions come into force as soon as possible. If we are not able to make the changes before the summer, benefits for the hospitality sector will be greatly reduced and approval backlogs may again become an issue in construction and in vehicle licensing and testing.
We are entering a new phase in the response to coronavirus. The immediate crisis is abating; now we need to help businesses and the economy to rebound. This Bill will play an important role in achieving that aim. I beg to move.