House of Commons
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Her Majesty the Queen will, in less than one year from now, mark the 70th anniversary of her accession to the throne. The Queen’s platinum jubilee will be marked by national celebrations. As with previous jubilees, it is hoped that Her Majesty will visit Parliament next year to mark the occasion. As I announced in November, both Houses of Parliament intend to present a gift to Her Majesty to mark this historic occasion. In 1977, to mark Her Majesty’s silver jubilee, the fountain in New Palace Yard was built. In 2002, to mark the golden jubilee, the sundial in Old Palace Yard was installed, and in 2012, to mark Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee, the stained-glass window in Westminster Hall was commissioned. The House will therefore be pleased to hear that a gift has now been commissioned for Her Majesty from Parliament to mark her platinum jubilee in 2022. It is now open to all Members of both Houses to contribute towards this gift, and I invite hon. Members to do so. As was the case in 2012, when hundreds of parliamentarians contributed towards the diamond jubilee gift, this gift will also be funded by personal contributions from Members of both Houses, entirely at their own discretion. It is proposed that no public funds will be spent on the gift. I have written to all Members with details of the gift and how they may wish to contribute. I warmly encourage them to do so.
We now come to questions to the President of COP26, and I welcome the Minister to his new position.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The President of COP26 (Alok Sharma)
We are determined to build back better and greener as we recover from covid-19. The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution sets out the Government’s blueprint to grow the sunrise sector, support 250,000 green jobs and level up across the country.
Mark Menzies [V]
The north-west, as you are well aware, Mr Speaker, is the heart of the UK nuclear industry, including Westinghouse nuclear fuels in my constituency. With the world increasingly focused on utilising low carbon energy sources, what steps is my right hon. Friend the President taking ahead of COP26 to promote UK-based nuclear energy production satisfying our future energy needs and supporting countless high-skilled jobs across the north-west?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nuclear power clearly has a part to play in our clean energy mix, and he will know that in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan we have committed to backing large-scale nuclear advanced modular reactors and small modular reactors—AMRs and SMRs. Of course, the sites such as the ones in my hon. Friend’s constituency are vital in terms of creating jobs and investment in the north-west.
Mrs Drummond [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new appointment. Does he agree that the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan will not only help places such as Meon Valley to build back better and greener from covid but level up all regions across the country?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 10-point plan will be a catalyst to unleash innovation and jobs across the country. We are going to have a green industrial revolution, which is going to be powered by wind turbines in Scotland and the north-east, propelled by electric vehicles made in the midlands and, of course, supported by carbon capture clusters across our industrial heartlands.
Imran Hussain [V]
Public transport is one of the cleanest modes of transport we have, as it helps to get thousands of carbon-emitting vehicles off our roads, but our public transport infrastructure, particularly rail, is woefully outdated in the north of England and simply not fit for purpose. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore back my calls for the northern powerhouse rail scheme to be built in full, including a Bradford city centre station, to prove that we are taking this climate emergency seriously by getting more people on to public transport and more cars off our roads in the north and by providing good, green, sustainable jobs?
Alok Sharma
I certainly agree that we should be encouraging people to take public transport where that is possible. I come in from Reading to Paddington every day by train myself. The hon. Gentleman has raised a policy issue relating to the Department for Transport and I will ensure that I make representations on his behalf to the Secretary of State.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Next week, the Government will co-host a summit of the Powering Past Coal Alliance to boost international co-operation on the phasing out of coal, yet at the same time, Ministers are refusing to intervene here at home to prevent the opening of a new deep coal mine in Cumbria. The president knows full well that the proposed mine is not purely a local matter, that it will not help to secure the future of UK steel and that it will not provide the long-term secure jobs that Cumbrians need. However, it will increase emissions, undermine progress to our net zero target and damage our credibility as COP26 host. My question to him, therefore, is a simple one: in this critical year, why on earth are he and his Cabinet colleagues content to see this mine approved?
Alok Sharma
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Powering Past Coal Alliance, and I am very proud that the UK is part of leading it. Of course, we have made significant progress in reducing coal as part of our energy mix over the last decade. It has come down from 40% to just under 2%, and I set out my detailed views on this issue at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee hearing, as he will know. This is now a local matter; it is a local issue. Cumbria County Council is considering the application and, like him, I wait to see the outcome.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The President of COP26 (Alok Sharma)
Businesses have a vital role to play in tackling climate change through the COP26 business leaders group and, indeed, through other engagements in the UK and internationally. I have spoken directly with many hundreds of global businesses, and of course we are calling on businesses, investors and other non-state actors to sign up to the Race to Zero campaign and commit to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
Nicola Richards [V]
We are hugely proud of our diverse communities in West Bromwich East, and many of my constituents place great importance on the role of our allies across the world, especially in India, in working with the UK to tackle these global issues. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the success of his recent international engagement?
Alok Sharma
I can tell my hon. Friend and, indeed, the House that, over the past few weeks, I have had productive discussions with Government Ministers on visits to Ethiopia, Gabon, Egypt, Nigeria, Nepal and India. She mentions India, and I met Prime Minister Modi in Delhi. I have also spoken to a range of other Governments, including the US special envoy, John Kerry, and China’s special envoy for climate change, Minister Xie Zhenhua, and I stressed the importance of the three key pillars of the Paris agreement: mitigation, adaptation and finance.
Virginia Crosbie [V]
I am delighted that, on 1 July, the Minister responsible for science, research and innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), will be coming to Anglesey to open an innovation jobs fair I am organising alongside the Menai science park. This event will bring together innovative green businesses such as Moorlights and Beacon biocomposites to showcase their work. The event offers a perfect opportunity to put a spotlight on COP26 for the communities and businesses here in my Ynys Môn constituency. Will the COP President ensure that there will be resources available to help me do this?
Alok Sharma
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s excellent work in supporting green jobs in her constituency. Of course, as host of the G7 and COP26, we want to showcase innovative British green businesses, such as those housed by the Menai science park in her constituency. I am delighted that the science Minister is opening her innovation jobs fair, and I know they will work closely together to ensure it is a success.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
In those discussions with interested parties, did they ask why the UK’s objectives are so vague and so unambitious? Did they point out that the UK Government have missed a slew of targets on the climate change emergency and that there appears to be little to no effort being made to catch up? How can the UK Government pretend to any world leadership on this issue when they show such a marked reluctance to act at all?
Alok Sharma
I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she look at the record of this Government in cutting emissions. We were the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero and, of course, I hope she is pleased not just with the 10-point plan but with the very ambitious, nationally determined contribution that the Prime Minister set out last year.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK is leading from the front and has made significant commitments under all three pillars of the Paris agreement, which, as the President set out, are: mitigation, finance and adaptation and resilience. We are continuing to press for ambition internationally, and we are discussing climate action with world leaders. Our nationally determined contribution, of course, sets the highest level of emission reductions by 2030 of any major economy.
Alison Thewliss [V]
Angel Gurría, the outgoing secretary- general of the OECD, has urged countries to attach environmental conditions to bail-outs, to prioritise a green recovery with environmental jobs and to
“put a big fat price on carbon.”
So will the UK Government take his advice?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are leading the way in making sure that we do that as part of our building back better and greener. I am co-chairing, with the Department for Education, a green jobs taskforce, to make sure we are able both to upskill and to train all the new skills that are going to be needed for those new industries.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) [V]
Improving air quality is an essential part of our work to tackle the climate emergency, yet the Government refused to back Labour’s call to make sure that air quality targets meet World Health Organisation guidelines by 2030. What will the Minister do to ensure that we are truly world-leading in our efforts to reduce emissions?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As President Sharma has set out, we are absolutely world-leading in tackling our carbon dioxide emissions, and part of the work with our landmark Environment Bill will be in getting to grips with this and leading again worldwide, so that others can follow on air quality.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Ahead of COP26, the Government will publish a comprehensive net zero strategy, which will form the basis of our next long-term strategy. The UK’s NDC commits to an least 68% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, consistent with our legally binding commitment to net zero by 2050.
Sir Oliver Heald [V]
Nature can be a great ally in tackling climate change; as we restore salt marshes, peat bogs and other natural habitats, we can really make progress. However, at the moment only 3% of global climate finance is invested in nature-based solutions. So will the Minister try to establish, through COP26, a reliable market in carbon credits that have been generated by nature-based activity in restoring habitats?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are promoting the restoration and protection of natural ecosystems through several different elements of COP26. Facilitating agreement on article 6, which relates to carbon markets, at COP26 is one of our top negotiating priorities. It can provide a framework for finance to be invested in climate action, including nature-based solutions, through international carbon markets and co-operation. We are indeed world-leading, in the fact that the Prime Minister has set £3 billion to be allocated to nature-based solutions from the UK’s spending.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The President of COP26 (Alok Sharma)
We have made progress over the past year, with net zero commitments from countries collectively accounting for 70% of global GDP and 75 world leaders announcing climate commitments at the climate ambition summit that the UK hosted last December with the UN and France. However, as I said at the time, we still have some way to go and 2021 will need to be a critical year for climate action.
Neil Parish [V]
I congratulate the President of COP26 on his new role and wish him well.
Stopping deforestation in the tropics is crucial to reducing global carbon emissions, and to protecting biodiversity and the lands of local indigenous communities. However, UK firms, including several high street banks, have been found to be investing heavily in businesses directly causing deforestation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should seek to expose and prevent these funding streams, and encourage our COP26 partners to follow suit?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend knows a great deal about these matters, and he makes a vital point about the incredibly valuable role of tropical forests. He will be aware that the UK is championing a new global taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures to tackle nature-related risks in investments.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]
With many developing nations further behind in the roll-out of their covid vaccinations, what steps is the COP President taking to ensure that every nation on earth is able to fully participate at COP26 in November?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. We want this to be the most inclusive COP ever and, of course, we are planning for it to be an in-person COP, while taking into account contingencies. The point about vaccines is important, because access to vaccines is not consistent globally. We will work very hard to ensure that we have a safe and inclusive COP for all.
I should point out that, more generally, the UK is supporting the COVAX facility and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and the Prime Minister has recently made it clear that we will send the majority of any future surplus of vaccine doses that the UK has to the COVAX scheme to support developing countries.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The President of COP26 (Alok Sharma)
This is the first COP ever for which we have set up an international civil society and youth advisory council—indeed, the next meeting of the group is later today. It is co-chaired by two young climate activists, one from the global north and one from the global south. I have committed to meet civil society groups and youth groups in every country that I visit, because I really want their voices to be front and centre and at the heart of COP26.
Robert Largan [V]
I welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend to his role, which underlines how seriously the Government are taking their efforts to find international agreement on tackling climate change. The scale of the challenge ahead requires us to be innovative and to think outside the box. I pay tribute to the work done by local groups such as Hope Valley Climate Action, Transition Buxton, Sustainable Hayfield, Acclimatise Whaley and Transition New Mills. Is the President prepared to meet me and those groups to hear their ideas on how we can work together to tackle climate change?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point, because local groups are vital to the delivery of many initiatives, not just in the UK but around the world. I pay tribute to him for his work in promoting climate action in his constituency and more widely. I will of course ensure that either I or members from the COP unit for civil society and the youth team will meet the organisations in his constituency to which he referred, particularly to hear their views.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The President of COP26 (Alok Sharma)
Domestically, the Government have set out their 10-point plan, their energy White Paper and an ambitious nationally determined contribution. Over the past year, the Prime Minister and I, and other Ministers and officials, have regularly engaged with counterparts around the world to raise climate action ambition.
Cherilyn Mackrory [V]
I welcome the President of COP26 to his new position and wish him every success. This year, 2021, is a key year in our battle against climate change, as we host COP26 and the G7 in Cornwall. Climate change is such an important issue for constituents in Truro and Falmouth, so will my right hon. Friend assure me that all areas of the UK, including Cornwall, will benefit from the developments that come from these two significant events, as we recover from the covid shock in a green and sustainable way?
Alok Sharma
Absolutely. It is of course very good news that the G7 is to be held in Cornwall, which is, as we know, a powerhouse for green innovation. It is home to pioneering offshore renewables technology, as well as the first geothermal plant in the UK, and I am sure it will play an important role as we seek to build back better and greener throughout the whole of our country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The President of COP26 (Alok Sharma)
Climate change is the biggest challenge faced by humanity. The world is, on average, already 1.2° C warmer than pre-industrial levels, and if we are to deliver on limiting temperature rises to below 2°—indeed, closer to 1.5°—we must collectively act with the utmost urgency. Countries must commit to ambitious near-term emissions reductions and set net zero targets, and donor countries must fulfil their commitments to the most climate-vulnerable nations.
Next month, the UK will host a climate and development international ministerial meeting to make progress on key climate finance-related issues. We want to ensure that the green thread of climate action runs through every international event on the road to COP26.
Liz Saville Roberts [V]
I, too, welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position as President of COP26.
With Wales possessing the oldest housing stock in the UK, what lessons has the right hon. Gentleman learned from Welsh retrofitting schemes about the challenge of reducing residential emissions globally ahead of COP26?
Alok Sharma
Retrofitting will play an important role. The right hon. Lady will know that, as part of the 10-point plan, we have also set out plans for greening our buildings and making them more energy efficient. She has raised a very specific point, and I will ensure that the Secretaries of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and for Housing, Communities and Local Government are made aware of it.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]
The UK’s credibility as COP president rests on demonstratable climate action at home, yet much like the Government’s failed pandemic response, which has left 130,000 people dead, the Government are acting too slowly, prioritising profit over public wellbeing. The Government’s boasts of our road building, and their plans of cutting £1 billion from the public rail infrastructure budget and allowing the Cumbria coalmine to go ahead are simply not compatible with achieving net zero. Will the Minister therefore admit that the Government’s stated ideological beliefs are incompatible with even their own meagre climate goals?
Alok Sharma
I had always thought that climate action was an area that we could collectively coalesce around without the need for political name calling and fighting, but, unfortunately, that does not seem to be possible for the hon. Gentleman. I just point him to the record of this Government and say that, over the past 30 years across a range of Governments, the UK has managed to grow our economy by 75% and yet cut emissions by 43%. Green growth is possible, and that is what we are pursuing.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I have never been called that before.
I warmly welcome the President of COP26 to his full- time role. It is in all our interests that he should succeed, and we want to do everything that we can to help. The central judgment of COP26’s success is whether it keeps alive the Paris target of limiting global warming to 1.5°. To make that happen, the UN says that we need to more than halve global greenhouse gas emissions from 52 gigatonnes today to 25 gigatonnes by 2030. Will he assure us that he recognises the scale of this challenge and the need for maximum ambition, and tell the House how close to that target he thinks we can get at COP26?
Alok Sharma
The shadow President raises a vitally important point. We did make progress towards the end of last year—70% of global GDP is now covered by the net zero target—but he is absolutely right when he alludes to the fact that what we need is near-term targets to 2030 to cut emissions. We are working very hard on that, and I am very happy to hear his thoughts on how we may be able to go faster.
Edward Miliband
A crucial issue for the success of the COP is international finance for developing countries, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and they are facing poverty, the pandemic and climate change. Yet the Government have shamefully chosen this moment to cut £25 billion to £30 billion from overseas aid over the course of this Parliament. They say that they are protecting climate aid, but they have not set out what that means year on year, so will he guarantee today that, in the coming financial year when the COP takes place, there will be no cut to the level of the UK’s climate finance budget or to the climate programmes that we fund?
Alok Sharma
What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, like him, I am very proud of the work that successive Governments have done in supporting the most vulnerable around the world. At 0.5% of gross national income, the UK will still remain a leading international aid donor. On the issue of international climate finance, he will know that, over a five-year period, our commitment is £11.6 billion, which is indeed a doubling of the last figure.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I note and support my right hon. Friend’s concern and I will pass it on—particularly in terms of the UK leadership—to the Environment Minister. The work that we have done already in setting resources and waste strategy is leading the way and we as a country are looking to implement all avoidable waste by 2050. With so much of COP, it is about our leadership and proving that we are walking the walk by making these policy changes here at home. I will make sure that the Minister continues to work on that with him.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Alok Sharma
Of course, I am very positive about all these initiatives around the country, but the hon. Lady refers to a matter that I think sits under the Business Secretary. I am sure that when submissions come in they will be looked at very carefully.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Derek Twigg [V]
Halton Borough Council ran out of funding for discretionary covid isolation payments despite the strict criteria for eligibility. Just 171 constituents have been helped. The council has applied for further funding, but what the Government have offered will not be enough. Other constituents failed to qualify for help due to the criteria set by the Prime Minister’s Government. Will he look again at this and bring forward a properly funded scheme so that no constituent is in a position where they cannot afford to isolate? We need this to happen if we are to continue to drive down covid-19 infections.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to the work of everybody on Halton Council for everything that they have been doing throughout this pandemic. I know it has been very tough on council officials—and, indeed, on everybody else. Central Government have put in another £4.3 billion to help councils throughout the pandemic. We will continue to support our local authorities and he will be hearing more from the Chancellor next week.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign to make his constituency the Riyadh, or possibly the Jeddah, of offshore wind. I can tell him that we are certainly looking at the issue of the transmission network review and we are developing the necessary regulatory changes.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The principles behind the Prime Minister’s recovery plan—of caution and it must be irreversible—are plainly right, but one of the biggest threats to that is misinformation about the risks of the deadly virus. For example, there have been people saying that covid statistics
“appear to have been manipulated”
and that Monday’s road map is based on “dodgy assumptions” and “false modelling”. Does the Prime Minister agree that these kinds of comments are irresponsible and undermine our national recovery?
The Prime Minister
The road map that we have set out will, I believe, set us on a cautious but irreversible journey to freedom. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports the four steps of 8 March for schools, 12 April for shops, 17 May for hospitality and 21 June for everything. The data supporting all of that has been available to the House since I announced it on Monday.
Keir Starmer
I think the Prime Minister dodged that question, no doubt because all those comments came from his own MPs—some of the 60 or so members of the Covid Recovery Group. Perhaps the Prime Minister should have a word with them.
Another big threat to the recovery plan is that around three in 10 people who should be self-isolating are not doing so. That is a huge gap in our defences, and the small changes on Monday will not fix it. That is why Labour has called for the £500 self-isolation payment to be made available to everybody who needs it. Will the Prime Minister just fix this?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that those who are asked to self-isolate already have the £500 test and trace support payment, and I think he also knows, because he supported the road map on Monday, that the eligibility criteria are being extended to allow parents and guardians who are staying off work also to receive a payment, provided they meet the criteria. I think he is aware of that.
Keir Starmer
Three out of 10 people who should be self-isolating are not doing so. That matters to millions of people, and it matters if we are going to get the virus under control. The chair of Test and Trace said that people are “scared” to come forward for a covid test because they cannot afford to isolate. The chair of Test and Trace says they cannot afford it. The Government’s Joint Biosecurity Centre concluded that “unmet financial need” was why some lower-income areas are seeing “stubbornly high” infection rates. Why, after all the billions the Government have thrown around, is it still people in low-paid jobs who are at the bottom of this Government’s priorities?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think that most people looking at what we have done throughout the pandemic and looking at the £280 billion package of support can see that it is the poorest and neediest in society—those on the lowest incomes—who have been at the top of the Government’s priorities, and that is quite right. We will continue to act in that way, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be hearing more about that next week from the Chancellor. That is in addition to the discretionary funding we have given councils to support those who need it most, including those who have to self-isolate.
Keir Starmer
Here is the difference. If you need £500 to isolate, you are out of luck. If you have got the Health Secretary’s WhatsApp, you get a £1 million contract.
Turning to next week’s Budget, I do not expect the Prime Minister to pre-empt what is in the Budget—if I want that, I can read it on the front page of The Times —but will he at least agree with me today that now is not the time for tax rises for families and for businesses?
The Prime Minister
I don’t know about you, Mr Speaker, but the Budget is happening next week, and it is not a date that is concealed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He knows when it is happening and he knows what to expect, but it is preposterous for him to talk about tax rises when he stood on a manifesto only a little over a year ago to put up taxes by the biggest amount in the history of this country. It is the Labour party—including his Labour council in Camden—that puts up taxes across the country. That is the way Labour behaves, and it is thanks to prudent fiscal management by this Government that we have been able to fight this pandemic in the way that we have.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister wants to talk about tax rises, and he should, because it matters. Councils up and down the country are being forced to decide now whether to put council tax up. That is a £2 billion rise on families. I am not blaming councils. They have been starved of funding for a decade, and Labour and Conservative councils are in the same position. For example, the Prime Minister might want to concentrate on his own constituency. His own council, Conservative-run Hillingdon, is voting to increase council tax by 4.8%. Does the Prime Minister think that the council is right to do that?
The Prime Minister
Hillingdon Council, in common with most Conservative councils, has been running lower council taxes than Labour up and down the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is completely wrong, so I will correct him. The top 10 highest council taxing councils in this country are run by the Labour party, and they are all going to put their taxes up, except for one in the top 10, which is Burnley, which is currently in no overall control. He talks about London and my own record on taxes, but he should talk to the current Labour Mayor of London, who is putting up his council tax by 10%. I can tell him that the previous Conservative Mayor of London cut council tax by 20%. That is what Conservative councils do.
Keir Starmer
The fact is that £15 billion has been taken out of council budgets over the last 10 years. The Prime Minister should stop blaming others for the damage he has done. He quotes the Mayor. This is the former Mayor who bought water cannon that could not be used, spent millions on a garden bridge that never got built and then more recently gave a pay rise to Dominic Cummings.
This is yet another PMQs with no answers. The truth is this. The Government spent a decade weakening the foundations of our economy and our country. As a result, we have the highest death toll in Europe. We have the worst recession of any major economy. Families are facing council tax rises and millions cannot afford to self-isolate. And all the Prime Minister offers is a return to business as usual. Next week’s Budget is a chance to choose a different path, to build a stronger future, to protect families, to give our key workers the pay rise they deserve and to back British businesses by supporting 100,000 new start-ups. Will the Prime Minister do so?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will only wait until next week, I think he will find that we will do far more than that paltry agenda he has set out. It is quite mystifying to see the way that he weaves hither and yon like some sort of druidical rocking stone. One week he claims that he supports the vaccination roll-out. The next week, he attacks the vaccine taskforce, when it is spending money to try to reach hard-to-reach, vaccine-resistant groups, and says that that kind of spending cannot be justified. He calls for us to go faster with rolling out vaccines, when he would have stayed in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made that roll-out impossible. He vacillates. We vaccinate. We are going to get on with our agenda, cautiously but irreversibly taking this country forward on a one-way road to freedom, and I very much hope that his support, which has been so evanescent in the past, will genuinely prove irreversible this time.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of local outbreaks and how to tackle them, particularly with the threat of new variants, which she rightly raises. That is why we have a very tough border regime but also a programme as we go forward for surge testing—door-to-door testing—to ensure that, when there is a local outbreak, we keep it local and keep it under control, as we are trying to do at the moment with the South African variant.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
Next week’s Budget gives the opportunity to tackle the financial costs of this pandemic. The UK has suffered its worst recession in 300 years. We now need a Government who understand the scale of this crisis, yet at the very moment that we need maximum investment to recover, the Tories are threatening austerity cuts that will leave lasting scars on all our communities. Families have already seen their incomes slashed under this Government, and now the Tories want to impose a public sector pay freeze and cuts to universal credit. Will the Prime Minister rule out a return to Tory austerity cuts and commit to a major fiscal stimulus of at least 5% of GDP, or will he threaten the recovery and leave millions of people worse off?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of the massive investments that the UK Treasury has made throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, with £13 billion and more going to Scotland and huge sums going throughout the country. I wish that the Scottish nationalist Government would spend that money better, because it is very sad to see some of the failures in education policy in Scotland and the failures in their criminal justice policy and fighting crime. I think what the people of the whole UK and, I believe, the people of Scotland would like to see is less talk about a referendum, which is the right hon. Gentleman’s agenda, and more talk about the real issues facing our country.
Ian Blackford
The Prime Minister is boasting, but the cold, hard reality is that the United Kingdom has suffered the worst slump of any major economy and 120,000 people have lost their lives. That is under your guidance, Prime Minister. Coronavirus has exposed the deep inequalities under this broken Westminster system. After a decade of Tory cuts, millions of families are in poverty and UK unemployment is soaring.
In contrast, in the United States, President Biden understands what is needed. He has proposed a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to restart and renew the American economy. Prime Minister, will your Government follow the example of the US and boost the economy like Biden, or is the Tory plan to return to type and impose yet another decade of Tory austerity?
The Prime Minister
This Government are investing £640 billion in infrastructure alone throughout the UK—a massive programme to get our country rebuilt and restarted again. I think that is what people would like to focus on, rather than the right hon. Gentleman’s agenda. He has talked about our broken politics, our broken country. All they want to do is break up Britain with another referendum, and I think that is the last thing this country needs at the moment.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign for better local transport, and we are investing massively in rail connectivity in his area and in local bus routes. The particular line that he advocates is, I know, one of great interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I will make sure that he has a chance to discuss it personally with my hon. Friend.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
Can I start by thanking the Government for their change of policy, announced today, on the vaccination priority for people with learning disabilities, despite the Prime Minister’s rather more equivocal answer to me on this last Monday?
Today, millions of Uyghur people in China live in fear under a cruel regime. The BBC, international media and human rights non-governmental organisations are all reporting on forced labour camps, women being raped and sterilised, and families being separated. This is a genocide happening in front of our eyes. So does the Prime Minister agree with me that, unless China ends this genocide, Britain and Team GB should boycott the winter Olympics in Beijing next year?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the appalling campaign against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out the policies that he has—the package of measures to ensure that no British companies are complicit in or profiting from violations. We are leading international action in the UN to hold China to account, and we will continue to work with the US, friends and partners around the world to do just that.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a point about a sporting boycott. We are not normally in favour of sporting boycotts in this country, and that has been the long-standing position of this Government.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all he does to campaign for the hardest-to-reach areas in rural Cumbria. I know that we are doing all we can because I raise it virtually every day, and we are rolling it out as fast as we can. We have committed about £5 billion to connect those areas, £1 billion for the shared rural network agreement and a voucher scheme to target predominantly rural areas, but we are intending to get everything we can possibly done in the next five years.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
There has been no such cut, and we intend to invest massively in Northern Powerhouse Rail, and in railways in the north and across the entire country.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on what she is doing to champion takeaways in Stourbridge. I am not sure it would be environmentally friendly for me to order a takeaway from Stourbridge to Westminster, but I thank her very much for her initiative. I look forward to visiting the hospitality sector in her constituency as soon as possible.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I passionately disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the spending that was going on. Even before the pandemic we were increasing funding for primary schools—up to £4,000 per pupil, and £5,000 for secondary school pupils—and putting up starting salaries for teachers across the board to £30,000. That was a massive investment in education across the board, including in further education.
The catch-up funds now amount to £2 billion—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. They amount to £2 billion. Yes, we will have to do more, because this is the biggest challenge our country faces. We will get it done. We are able to do it because we have been running a strong economy. We had the resources to do it, because we had not followed the bankrupt policies of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The sympathies of the whole House will be with my hon. Friend’s constituents and their family and friends, and I agree very much about the importance of learning CPR. That is why we introduced it into the curriculum for all state funded schools in England. It is of course a devolved issue, but I share his urgency that the policy should be adopted in Wales as well.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I sympathise very much with the hon. Lady’s constituents and the pupils who have to put up with disruption caused by flooding. I know that the Environment Agency continues to work very actively with the county council to resolve the issues and that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister has written to her about what more can be done.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I am sure will be heard with great interest around the country. There is just such a review being carried out after consulting pub owners, brewers and others, and I know that the Chancellor is looking very closely at the findings.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I certainly am proud of what universal credit is doing. It is odd to be attacked by a Labour Member over universal credit when it is his party’s policy to abolish that benefit, but the best thing we can do for families in Billingham is to ensure that there are very good jobs there.
It was wonderful to see what is happening in Teesside under the leadership of Mayor Ben Houchen—the investment that is going in by Fujifilm and others, which will create long-term jobs. It is the belief of those on the Government side of the House that that is the route out of poverty—fantastic education and top-quality jobs—and that is what this Government aim to deliver.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says about home building and the need for housing across the country. We sometimes hear that this is a problem mainly in London and the south-east. It is not at all; it is everywhere in the country, as he rightly says. I thank Tim Bowles, the Mayor of the West of England, for everything that he has done as he stands down. We intend to help build on his legacy with a massive home building programme and home ownership programme across the country.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
We will continue to look after people throughout this pandemic and beyond, and the best thing we can do across the whole country is to bounce our economy back as fast as we can and get people into high-quality jobs. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), that is the agenda of this Government.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
First of all, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful campaign to get a new high school; it is absolutely vital. The best place for kids is in school, as I hope we will hear from the Labour party very shortly. We are investing in his area to the tune of £660 million and more through the local growth fund, and £54 million through the getting building fund —and, of course, we are also investing in the transport network. Next week, the whole House will hear even more about what we propose to do to steer a path, cautiously but irreversibly, out of this pandemic, allow this economy to recover, and build back better across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Covid Contracts: Judicial Review
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the recent judicial review ruling, which found the Government had acted unlawfully in respect of covid contracts.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Protecting those who protect us has been one of the Government’s most important goals in our fight against covid-19. To do that, we have had to expand our personal protective equipment supply chain—it has gone from supplying 226 NHS trusts in England to supplying more than 58,000 different settings—and we have had to create a whole new logistics network from scratch. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of so many people, we have delivered more than 8.6 billion items of PPE to the frontline so far, with billions more ordered and being supplied.
Our team worked night and day to procure PPE within very short timescales and against the background of unparalleled global demand. That often meant working at incredible speed, especially in the early months of the pandemic, to secure the vital supplies required to protect NHS workers and the public, which we did.
Let me turn specifically to the High Court judgment. There has been a lot of confusion about what the ruling said and did not say, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify that to the House today. The High Court case did not look at the awarding of the contracts; rather, it looked at the timing of the publication of the details of contracts awarded. The court ruled that at this time of unprecedented pressure, contract award notices were not all published in the timescales required by the regulations. However, it also found that there was no deprioritisation policy in that respect in the Department. As we set out to the court, the delays were caused by the workload involved in responding to one of the greatest threats to public health that this country has ever seen.
We take our transparency requirements very seriously, and it is important that I put on the record that we of course take the judgment of the court very seriously and respect it. We are working with colleagues across Government to implement the recommendations set out in the report published earlier this month by the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), but as we do that, we will keep acting quickly and decisively to respond to this deadly threat, and we continue to do all we can to help save lives.
Rachel Reeves
A stain has emerged on this Government’s response to the crisis. There has been an unedifying goldrush of chums and chancers; £2 billion-worth of contracts have been handed to those with close links to the Conservative party, from the Health Secretary’s pub landlord, to the donors, manifesto writers and the old boys’ club—they have all had a return on their investment at our expense.
The Government have been taken to court, and they lost, which cost taxpayers even more money. The Home Secretary once said that she wanted people
“to literally feel the terror at the thought of committing offences.”
She does not have to look to the streets to find law-breakers; she only has to look across the Cabinet table. This Government are not terrified of breaking the law, because they think they are above the law.
Now that the Government have lost in court, I ask the Minister: what was the cost to taxpayers of fighting this case? Will the Government agree today to publish the names of all businesses in their VIP fast lane and say how they got on that list? Will all overdue contracts be published by the end of this week? When will the management consultants hired locate the billions of pounds of PPE that the Government seem to have misplaced? When will clawback be used to get back taxpayers’ money for contracts that have failed to deliver? Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the doctors, nurses, care workers and other frontline workers who did not have the PPE that they needed, and who had to make makeshift PPE—because, contrary to what the Health Secretary said, there was a shortage of PPE and those working on the frontline were not protected?
While he is here, will the Minister, Serco’s former head of public affairs, reveal the mystery of why the Government created Serco Test and Trace, rather than a true NHS test and trace embedded in our communities? NHS workers, care workers and taxpayers deserve better. We deserve the end of crony contracts from this Government.
Edward Argar
Notwithstanding the circumstances and the approach adopted by the hon. Lady, it is a pleasure to appear opposite her at the Dispatch Box for the first time. She raised a number of specific points, but before I turn to them, I have to reiterate what the judgment did and did not do. The judgment focused on timely publication of contract notices; it did not make any judgment on, or consider in any way, the appropriateness of the contracting process or any of the individual processes.
The hon. Lady alleges impropriety and inappropriate behaviour—wrong. The National Audit Office report was absolutely clear that there was no evidence of any inappropriate behaviour, and indeed no court has found this. I highlight to her that the judgment was a declaratory judgment, and it stated that there had been a breach of the regulation 50 requirements. The judge subsequently highlighted, in paragraph 149:
“But the overall picture shows the Secretary of State moving close to complete compliance. The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”
I remind the House, and indeed the hon. Lady, of the situation we faced back in April. There were 3,301 people in mechanical ventilation beds, 21,307 people in hospital with covid, and at the beginning of April, according to our best understanding of positive cases at the time, the average number of positive cases and patients in hospital was doubling every seven days. In those circumstances, I make no apologies for the Government doing everything in our power to ensure that the NHS and frontline workers did not run out of PPE. As the National Audit Office has acknowledged, there was no national shortage of PPE at the time and throughout the pandemic.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. She talked about the current situation regarding publication, compliance and costs. As I have mentioned to her briefly before, there is an element of this case that is yet to be concluded, as some information is due to be provided to the judge on Friday. We will do exactly that, and the information will be made public when it goes to the court. We respect the court’s role in the process, but I expect the judge to have that published in a couple of days’ time.
On the priority route, if I recall correctly, many Members on both sides of the House requested expeditious consideration of offers of help, and I am grateful to all who made those offers. Every one of those went through an eight-stage process, run by civil servants, entirely appropriately. They checked the appropriateness of the PPE and the organisation supplying it, and conducted due diligence. Indeed, as I recall, the hon. Lady herself, on 22 April, published a letter that she had sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—it was helpfully analysed at the time by the Guido Fawkes website—sharing some of her suggestions of companies or individuals that should be put through rapid assessment. I acknowledge that she said that there should be assessment and due diligence, but she asked that they be assessed rapidly. I believe that many Members of the House took the same approach. In that letter, she concluded:
“We need Government to strain every sinew and utilise untapped resources in UK manufacturing, to deliver essential equipment to frontline workers. This must be a national effort which leaves no stone unturned.”
She was right. I agreed with her sentiment then, and I still do, but she no longer appears to agree with herself.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I think we understand the point that the judgment was about the timescale, and not all the contracts meeting the regulation. It would be good for the House to hear how much of the supply of PPE now comes from this country, rather than from abroad. If I was Minister at the time, and officials told me that we could either get more ventilators and PPE, or ensure that we did not fail to meet any of the regulation timescales, I would have said, “As Minister, I will take responsibility for the failure on the timescales; you can take responsibility for getting the equipment that people need.”
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In answer to his first question, at the start of the pandemic, roughly 1% of the PPE used in these settings was produced in this country. Due to the incredible efforts of businesses and individuals across the country—and, I must say, of civil servants and officials in Government, who are often the unsung heroes of the pandemic—up to 70% is now being supplied by this country. He is absolutely right that transparency is important. It is hugely important, and we respect it and take it very seriously, but I make no apologies for what I and the Secretary of State consider to be the most important thing, which is doing whatever is necessary to save lives in the course of this pandemic.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
I am glad the Minister mentioned transparency, because of the £15 billion PPE contracts awarded up until last October, barely £3 billion were properly published, and we had £252 million given to a finance company, £108 million to a confectionery supplier and £345 million to a pest control company—a catalogue of cronyism, described variously as a “wholesale failure”, a “dismal failure” and a “historic failure”. It was a process that deprioritised compliance and has ended up with the taxpayer, in some cases, buying expensive and unusable PPE. Ultimately, the Cabinet Office is responsible for the co-ordination of the cross-Government response to covid-19. So let me ask the Minister when the Minister for the Cabinet Office and, indeed, the Prime Minister were first made aware that failure to properly publish details of PPE contracts might be unlawful?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that some of the contracts which some colleagues have alluded to remain subject to separate litigation before the courts, including some by the Good Law Project, which I will refer to as the GLP as I suspect it may come up a number of times and it might save a few minutes in my answers. I hope he will understand that I will avoid straying into something that may still be before the courts, because I do not want to show any disrespect for the legal process. He talked about the number published and where we have got to now. That will be some of the information put before the judge on Friday as per his request, but for the latest figures that are in the public domain, which were covered in the judgment and indeed more broadly, I think 100% of the contract award notices have been published, and we are up to 99% under regulation 108 on the latest figures I have. As the judge said, the overall picture does show the Secretary of State
“moving close to complete compliance.”
In respect of the right hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I would expect that Ministers in my Department—which is why I am here—as well as Ministers in the Cabinet Office, will have followed the process very closely.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was not too indisposed cooking up plans for the domestic covid passports that he had previously ruled out to attend the House today. Most fair-minded people will look at this situation in the round and perhaps give the Government the benefit of the doubt, because the judgment found against the allegation of a secret deprioritisation policy to deliberately breach procurement rules.
Further to the question from the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), can my hon. Friend the Minister give greater detail of the extent of the increase in domestic production of PPE in this country so that we have security of supply?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that officials did do the right thing in prioritising getting the PPE that we needed for our frontline, and he is also right to highlight an aspect of Justice Chamberlain’s judgment, which found there was no policy of deprioritising the publication of contract notices and data. On his final point, I said to the Father of the House that we have moved from 1% domestically produced PPE to 70% now. To put that in context, we have supplied 8.6 billion items, and we have more than 30 billion on order or being supplied at present. I suspect that as my hon. Friend is a former teacher, albeit a history teacher, his mental arithmetic is probably more rapid than mine in calculating that proportion as an absolute number, but I hope it illustrates to him just how much we have moved in the past year to utilise the fantastic resource we have in manufacturing in this country.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
Covid contracts continue to be literally a matter of life and death, so the public are right to expect accountability and transparency. While nurses wore bin bags instead of proper PPE, contracts were handed out to Ministers’ mates. Will the Minister do the right thing and, at the very least, reveal the 29 businesses Serco outsourced operations to?
Edward Argar
We have been clear, and as I highlighted earlier, the NAO has been exceptionally clear, that there are no suggestions of Ministers behaving inappropriately in any way in the awarding of these contracts. The judge did not find that in this case; it was not a factor. On the hon. Lady’s broader point, we have been clear that we believe in and fully respect transparency requirements, and the Department is publishing—as I illustrated with those latest figures that I put out earlier—the contracts it has. I once again come back to the judge’s saying that the Secretary of State is
“moving close to complete compliance.”
That is exactly what we will continue to do.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) [V]
At the height of the pandemic last year, the priority for the whole country was getting PPE to where it was needed—on the frontline. I received offers of help from many businesses that I fed into the Department. Will the Minister confirm how many items of PPE have been delivered because of these contracts that came in over the course of last year?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, contracts secured by the Department since the start of the pandemic have delivered 8.6 billion items, and around three times that number have been ordered to ensure that we continue to have a robust supply, to ensure that our frontline health and social care and other workers have the PPE they need to protect them, which is the most important thing in this situation.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Both the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister have repeatedly claimed that all the information relating to PPE and other covid contracts is published online, so will the Minister tell us specifically where to find details about the VIP lane, including who the entrants were, what they were paid and who introduced them? On behalf of the Government, will he apologise to the numerous NHS and care staff who have been deeply upset by comments made by the Health Secretary yesterday—echoed by himself today—that there was not a shortage of PPE? Does he understand why that is so insulting to the doctors who were forced to wear bin bags in the absence of gowns and to the nurses who were wearing goggles from Screwfix?
Edward Argar
As I highlighted to the hon. Lady, we are at 100% compliance on contract award notices. The Prime Minister was referring to the obligation to publish, and that is what we have done. Although the judge ruled that the hon. Lady had no standing to bring this case, I appreciate her long-standing interest in this matter. In respect of her point about the supply of PPE, as the NAO report highlighted, we did not run out of PPE nationally. That is not to say that there were not significant challenges in some hospitals in some areas regarding the distribution of that PPE. That has been acknowledged throughout this pandemic. Our frontline health and social care workers did an amazing job in challenging circumstances, and civil servants across my Department and others worked flat out, day and night, doing an amazing job to get the PPE that was needed.
Finally, I know that transparency and the timely publication of the data are important to the hon. Lady. I highlight one of her own Green councillors in Brighton and Hove who, in a recent written answer on that council’s failure to publish its financial spending figures since, I think, last June, said that the council
“quite rightly, prioritised paying our suppliers and providers as quickly as possible”,
and that it was
“prioritising payment of suppliers and providers over production of this information.”
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we need to try to keep to the questions, not score points. Let us go to Aaron Bell, who will not want to score a point.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
As my hon. Friend just did, I note from the judgment that Mr Justice Chamberlain found that the three Members of Parliament who sought to join this case did not have standing. In paragraph 107, he stated:
“In a case where there is already a claimant with standing, the addition of politicians as claimants may leave the public with the impression that the proceedings are an attempt to advance a political cause”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this recent practice of trying to extend politics through court cases is becoming quite damaging to our democracy as a whole, particularly when technical judgments are then deliberately misrepresented, as seems to have happened in this case?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. As a former Justice Minister, I have huge respect for the legal process and, indeed, for the judgment of the courts, but he is right to highlight once again the point that the judge made in his finding that the Members of this House who sought to bring this case had no standing in doing so and that it was the GLP that did. Although I appreciate that Members of this House feel strongly on this issue, and understandably so, I echo his point that I hope they do not seek to use the courts to make political points but rather to use them for what they are there for, which is to highlight legal issues.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
The scandal surrounding covid contracts has not just been about the lack of transparency, but about the poor performance of these companies: £350 million to PestFix for PPE that did not meet the required standards; another £347 million to Randox, which had failed on its original £133 million contract by distributing test kits that were not sterile; and, of course, the millions to Serco and others that failed with the track and trace system. Does the Minister agree that all public sector contractors should be held to the highest standard, no matter who their friends are, and will he outline what plans the Government have to hold such contractors to account and recoup millions of pounds of public money, or will he uphold these standards depending on whether the contractors have links with the Conservative party?
Edward Argar
On the hon. Lady’s first point, a number of specific cases relating to specific contracts remain before the courts, so if I may I will address her broader point about pursuing the appropriateness of the contractors—whether they could deliver—where they failed to deliver to the appropriate standards, and what steps the Government will take. All contracts were assessed against the eight criteria for appropriateness, including due diligence, safety standards, and whether they meet the specifications and so on. If any contractor did not deliver against that, we will either refuse to pay or we will be seeking to recoup that money, and a number of investigations are already under way to fulfil that commitment.
The hon. Lady also touched on and made a very particular point about Serco—I should have answered this point when the shadow Minister mentioned it, so I hope she will forgive me for coming back to it now. Let me make one point, which I hope the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) will be aware of, and I am sure she was not suggesting anything to the contrary. As was made very clear on the “Today” programme last year, I had no involvement with those contracts in any way, shape or form. Although I left the company seven years ago, although I was never a director of that company, and although I have no ongoing links with it, so there would have been no conflict, I none the less had no involvement at any point or at any level with those contracts and I continue to adopt that position. I hope that that is helpful to her in clarifying that point.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
The British people want us to keep on fighting this virus, protecting our NHS as we roll out the vaccine and saving lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that sniping from the side lines, as the Labour party is doing, is the opposite of what the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to see right now in these unprecedented times?
Edward Argar
I recognise that all Members of this House and all members of the public in our constituencies want transparency, and quite rightly so, but what is most important to them in the midst of this pandemic and as we emerge from it, is to know that this Government and those who work for them have done everything they can to ensure that we procured the PPE that was necessary, when it was necessary, to protect the frontline and help save lives.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Whether I have standing or not, I am proud to have helped bring this case, alongside the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). We did it because we could not get the information through the normal channels in this place. It is also worth noting that, rather than simply admit the breach and then promptly publish all contracts at the beginning of the process, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care chose to push the case to court and then, when he lost, said that he would break the law again. At the heart of the case was always transparency and fairness. Many established businesses felt frozen out because they happened to not be chums with a parliamentarian or a Minister, so my question is this: can the Minister not see how this looks, and can he also not see how delays in publishing these contracts in good time further undermine trust in Government, at a time when trust, as much as PPE, is necessary for saving lives?
Edward Argar
Although I made the legal point about lack of standing, I hope that the hon. Lady heard me highlight and acknowledge the fact that she and two other hon. Members clearly have an interest in this, and that she has long-standing interest in this issue and this case. She is right to highlight trust; I think what is central to the trust of the British public is the Government doing everything they can to deliver for our frontline workers the protection they needed to make sure they could keep protecting us safely.
The Secretary of State highlighted at the weekend—I think this is the latest figure—that the publication of notices was, on average, 17 days over the 30 days required. I do believe it is important that transparency is adhered to, but I also remind the hon. Lady that it is extremely important to highlight why this happens. That is why we filed the court papers and defended the case as we did, because it is hugely important for the Court to see why this occurred. The Government continue to do what I believe the public expect us to do: focus on protecting the frontline.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Many excellent companies in the Calder Valley that would not normally bid for Government contracts have stood up for the national effort, and have been making PPE for the national cause even when this is not their core business. This has secured jobs, secured business, and ensured our NHS has had the PPE when it needed it. Can my hon. Friend confirm that all these, and other, Government contracts were awarded in a fair, open and transparent way, following due process, and that this Government have remained committed to publishing them as quickly as possible, even under the pressures of the pandemic?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and like him, I pay tribute to all those businesses and individuals who stepped up in this country’s moment of need, and were willing to put themselves forward and repurpose their factories to try to find ways to help that the national effort. All the contracts have been found so far to be awarded entirely appropriately; there has been no adverse judgment in respect of any of that. Indeed, regulation 32 highlights that in an emergency, contracts can be awarded without tender, and I certainly take the view that the situation we face with this pandemic constitutes a national emergency.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
Can the Minister tell me whether it is coincidence, incompetence, or just rank stupidity that his Government and Health Secretary awarded a £30 million contract for testing vials to the Health Secretary’s former neighbour, a former pub landlord who had no experience in this field and is now being investigated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency? Surely, the Minister agrees that these breaches mean the Health Secretary must resign.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that I completely and utterly disagree with her. I think my right hon. Friend has done, and continues to do, an extraordinary job under extraordinary pressure to help this country through this pandemic over the past year.
The hon. Lady raised a very specific issue. It has been made clear that neither the Health Secretary nor any other Minister had any involvement in the assessment, the due diligence, or any decisions in respect of that contract.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
The judge very clearly found that there was a breach in relation to one matter: the 17-day average delay. He rejected the suggestion that there was a systematic failure. He rejected the suggestion that there is any impropriety in the system for awarding the contracts and did not impugn any of the contracts themselves or the process by which they were awarded. Most lawyers would know that this was a technical breach, as it has been described, albeit a breach. Is not the real moral of this that when those of us in politics seek to comment upon judgments, it is a good idea to actually read the judgment first and understand the law on which it is based, rather than grandstanding inaccurately, as has too often been the case here?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right to highlight what this judgment actually said. It found, in what had to be a binary judgment—either it was complied with or it was not—that the Government failed to comply with the 30-day publication timing for all contracts. He is right: the judge rejected the suggestion of any policy of deprioritisation. I read the 40 pages of Justice Chamberlain’s judgment, including the setting out of the different cases put by the two parties, the discussion of it and then, crucially, his findings on it. I would advise all Members who take an interest in this issue to do exactly the same thing, because legal judgments are rarely as clearcut or as simple as some commentators and others might wish to suggest.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s infatuation with private sector delivery of pandemic public services has led them to ignore basic procurement best practice, replacing value for money with cronyism and due diligence with pub pals. Will the Government commit, as Labour has done, to a programme of insourcing and start by handing over the failing Serco test and trace to the public sector, which has made such a success of the vaccine delivery?
Edward Argar
On the hon. Lady’s main point about private and public and, I would add, voluntary sector organisations, every one of those has stepped up and made a hugely important contribution to our country’s response to this pandemic. I wish to pay tribute to public sector organisations. I spent 10 years as a councillor, and I entirely recognise the amazing work they do. I pay tribute to private sector organisations, which have also stepped up for our country, and to voluntary sector organisations. For me, it is not an either/or; it is both, and it is about what delivers the best outcome for the public. Anything less would be letting down our constituents and letting down our public services.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
At the height of the pandemic, the contracts we signed allowed us to stand side by side with the private sector, procuring enormous volumes of goods and expertise with extreme urgency. Does my hon. Friend agree that without these vital contracts, our covid response would have suffered as a result?
Edward Argar
I agree entirely. Some of the narrative around this reminds me slightly of my days back at school and “Animal Farm”—“Four legs good, two legs bad.” The reality is that both private sector and public sector have played an incredible role in tackling this pandemic, for which we should be extremely grateful. We need both, and we need both to continue delivering in the public interest, which is what we have secured.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
A couple of points seem to be coming up from this discussion. The first is that there were no shortages of PPE. That is patently not true. We have clear evidence that that was the case, not least from Exercise Cygnus back in 2016, but also from constituents working in the NHS who have reported this directly to me and to colleagues. The second is that the Government have published all the contracts, and the Minister has made reference to 100% of contract award notices being published. Unfortunately, we are not able to verify that. That is the key point made by the NAO, which said that there are still £4 billion-worth of contracts since November 2020 where we have no idea who they have gone to or how much for. Once again, will the Minister commit to publishing these VIP contracts, how much they were for, who they were awarded to and what for?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady and I have known each other for a long time and she made her point forcefully but, as ever, fairly. She raised a number of points. In respect of PPE supplies, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the NAO report—I believe from last November—said that supplies did not run out nationally, but as I have clarified that is not to say that there were not local shortages and challenges in individual trusts, as I acknowledged to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. That is why we procured as much as we could as quickly as we could.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) raised Exercise Cygnus, which has come up a number of times. It is important to remember that Exercise Cygnus did not look at tackling a novel pandemic; it looked at influenza specifically. The PPE required for dealing with a disease of covid’s nature is very different from that required for flu. That exercise had, as one of its predicated actions, the swift arrival of antivirals to be delivered to tackle the flu; such antivirals did not exist until much later in the case of covid. It is important that we learned from Exercise Cygnus, but we should be careful about reading it directly across as representing a blueprint for how to tackle a pandemic of this sort.
On the hon. Lady’s final point about transparency, as I have made clear, the Government remain committed to transparency and to the publication of contracts, as required under the regulations.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
At the height of the first wave of the pandemic, we looked to the Government to procure and distribute tens of thousands of critical items of PPE in Scunthorpe. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should of course remain committed to following all the detail of procurement rules, but that protecting our frontline health workers should always come first?
Edward Argar
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It should not have to be an either/or, but we all remember the conditions in which our amazing civil servants were working at pace back at the start of this pandemic. They were working flat out and they included, as was acknowledged in the Court papers, civil servants who were not Department of Health and Social Care civil servants but were seconded from other Departments to work on different systems just to get that PPE ordered and delivered to protect the frontline, which was the priority. It should not be an either/or, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that at the height of that first wave, it was absolutely right that the focus of those dedicated officials was on getting the PPE that we needed.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
I am not an expert in public procurement, but even in an emergency I would expect that diligent contracts would include full payment-on-delivery clauses or clawback measures for failure to supply. The Minister mentioned in an earlier reply that the British Government are pursuing contractors who have failed to meet their obligations. How much public money has been regained to date? Will he ensure that the House is updated on the Government’s efforts to recoup misspent public money?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the fact that if contracts do not deliver, either to standard or not at all, public money should either not be paid or be recouped. We are currently going through a number of investigations to deliver exactly that, and I am happy to commit that at the appropriate juncture we will of course update the House.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
Does the Minister accept that illegal acts are those that contravene the law and that unlawful acts are those that contravene the rules? A handball in soccer is unlawful, not illegal. Does he accept the point made by the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), that this was a technical breach that has been overcome, and that the Department is going out of its way to make sure that that happens quickly?
Edward Argar
I suspect I can do no better than to quote the judgment, which stated that in respect of regulation 50 the Government “acted unlawfully”, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that—again, as the judgment set out—the Secretary of State is almost at complete compliance, which is exactly what the Government are committed to.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
The Government claim that this is just a case of a few PPE contracts being published a couple of weeks late, but in fact we know that hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of contracts also went to management consultants. Will the Minister confirm whether all the contracts for which the publishing deadline was missed, from the start of the pandemic until now, were in fact for PPE, or did they also include contracts that have gone to private consultants? Will he explain why those contracts were not published on time?
Edward Argar
My understanding is that this data relates to all contracts by the Department. If I am inaccurate in that, I will of course correct the record for the House, but my understanding is that this data refers to all contracts by the Department itself.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
Can my hon. Friend confirm that all Government contracts are awarded in a fair, open and transparent way following correct due process, and that this Government remain committed to publishing them as quickly as possible, even under the pressure of this pandemic? Does he agree that the public are much keener that we address the real issues of the pandemic than engage in political point scoring?
Edward Argar
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, about both the Government’s commitment to transparency and to publishing contracts within the regulations, and in reminding everyone about where we were a little under a year ago, and the absolute focus by so many amazing and dedicated civil servants on getting the PPE we needed and getting it in quantity.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says in its “Recover with Integrity” campaign that emergency responses
“must be anchored in law and be implemented by strong public institutions, with the involvement and under the oversight of members of parliament, anti-corruption bodies, civil society and the private sector.”
It is clear that hon. Members have numerous questions on these contracts, so will the Minister now advocate such action as backing my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill to make sure that Parliament can scrutinise the Government’s actions and that Members of this House and the public can be confident that there is no suggestion of any corruption taking root?
Edward Argar
I would rebut any suggestion that there is any corruption taking root, to use the hon. Gentleman’s words. Members of this House have the ability to ask questions and the NAO has the ability to ask questions. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will, I suspect, ask me a question in a moment, but she also has the ability to ask questions in the Public Accounts Committee, which she chairs, which, I believe, took evidence for three and a half hours in December from various senior officials in the Department. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, which I am sure the Government will look at in the usual way.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
At the start of this pandemic the British people rightly expected the Government to leave no stone unturned in securing the vital supplies of PPE that were needed to fight the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that the findings from the National Audit Office make it clear that while we were in the grip of the global shortage of PPE, no health trust ran out of supplies at any point, and that that was thanks to the contracts that the Government managed to secure?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We did take every step we could to ensure that trusts had the PPE they needed. The NAO report said:
“The NHS provider organisations we spoke to told us that, while they were concerned about the low stocks of PPE, they were always able to get what they needed in time.”
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I will touch on that point first. Paragraph 18 of the summary says exactly what the Minister said, but it then goes on to say, however, that frontline workers reported shortages of PPE. It does not behove him well to come to this House clearly having had Back Benchers briefed about a partial element of the National Audit Office’s report that is inaccurate when taken in the round. He needs to deal with that point.
My bigger point is on the transparency of the contracts. The Minister has talked breathlessly about the urgency at the early stage of the pandemic. Let us be clear: by the end of the summer and the autumn, many of the contracts had still not been published. The civil service is usually good at record-keeping and transparency, but on this occasion there was a failure. He should have the guts to come to the House, apologise, and promise it will not happen again. More transparency, not less, is vital when billions of pounds are being spent, in haste in a pandemic.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who knows this issue exceptionally well and has investigated it over a number of months. Of course, as always, I listen to what she says carefully and with considerable respect. On her first point, she is right to say that the NAO reported that some frontline workers had told it that they had experienced shortages. We are reflecting what we were told by our trusts and by those running the delivery of PPE in those trusts, and what the NAO was told by them. She alluded to the key point—as I believe I said in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—that we did not run out of PPE nationally, but there were challenges, which I acknowledged and do acknowledge, at some individual trusts and in some localities. That is why we worked at pace to make sure that they got what they needed and did not run out of PPE. That is exactly why officials in the Department were working so hard and pulling out all the stops to make sure we ordered more PPE and got more of it delivered.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made a broader point about transparency, and of course it is a vital point. I believe it was the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who highlighted trust. Trust is always the currency of politics; it is always the one thing that everyone requires, in government and in this House. It is important that that is fostered by as much transparency as possible. The judgment found that in a number of cases the Government did not meet the 30-day deadline. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asks for an assurance now, and I can give her the assurance that the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that regulation 50 is complied with, and complied with fully.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
The British people want us to focus on fighting this virus, so that we can protect our NHS as we roll-out the vaccine and save lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the political sniping some of the Opposition are engaging in is the exact opposite of what people expect and want to see politicians doing?
Edward Argar
I think what my constituents and the British public want to see us all doing is working together to make sure we get through this pandemic and get those on our frontline what they need to keep them safe.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
There are 60,000 pub landlords in this country and many of them have lots to give in a time of crisis, but is it not a coincidence that the one who gets a massive contract happens to be the one who has the mobile phone number of the Health Secretary? There are hundreds of racehorse owners in this country. Is it not funny that it just so happens that the one who gets a top job, without the need for an interview, happens to be a mate of the Health Secretary? And on and on it goes. If this behaviour was going on in a country in the developing world, there would be howls of “Corruption!” from those on the Tory Benches and calls for the aid budget to be cut. Is it not true that, when it comes to jobs for friends, dodgy contracts and all the rest that has been going on which has been normalised by this Government, they and the Tory party have a blind spot?
Edward Argar
Again, I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, who is normally measured and tempered, but I fear on this occasion that he has not done himself justice in the points he makes. As I have made clear, and as has been made clear, all contracts that were awarded were assessed by an eight-stage process run by the civil service—checking due diligence, appropriateness, ability to deliver and price—and not by Ministers. On the specific contract he mentioned, it has been made clear that the Secretary of State had no involvement in the award of that contract or its assessment.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I think the whole tenor of the discussion today demonstrates a need for greater transparency, as the Minister has said. One way of doing that is by extending freedom of information to include all companies engaged in publicly funded contracts. I am concerned about the data contract with the US data company Palantir, which is notorious for its links with Trump and the white supremacist far right. Will the Minister confirm whether that contract has been the subject of a data protection impact assessment, including a public consultation, and whether Palantir will be able to sell on NHS data at a later stage, even, for example, to the Conservative party for electoral purposes?
Edward Argar
I will not stray near the wilder accusations made by the right hon. Gentleman. What I will say to him is that the data of NHS service users is always protected by this Government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I am a great believer in competitive tendering to gain the right value for money for the public sector. At the height of the first wave of the pandemic, my local hospital, Northwick Park, came perilously close to being overwhelmed by the number of patients and by having only one day’s supply of PPE within the hospital. Thanks to Government actions and the Department of Health and Social Care, that was remedied. What does my hon. Friend think would have happened if the Government had decided to competitively tender all those items and wait potentially three months before the supplies were available?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend highlights the work of his fantastic hospital at Northwick Park and the fact, which I alluded to in response to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that while we did not run out of PPE nationally, there were some real challenges at a number of sites. They did an amazing job to ensure that they had the PPE they needed. I believe the minimum time it can take to run a tender is around a month, and I certainly would not have wished to see us not utilising regulation 32 and waiting a month to order and secure the PPE that his hospital and those working in it needed.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
The people of Newport West have looked at the media reports, the court judgments and the answers given in this House on this matter with horror. There appears to be no respect for honest, law-abiding citizens who play by the rules, and that is unacceptable, so when will Ministers finally show their respect for the will of the people and the ruling of the court and stop this reckless behaviour?
Edward Argar
I have made it clear that I and Ministers always respect the courts and the judgments delivered in them. I also have great respect for, and recognise the importance of, transparency. I would say to the hon. Lady, however, that I also respect the need to rapidly deliver the PPE that was needed last year at the height of the pandemic, which is what our constituents would expect us to do. As we cast our minds back, I think that is what they would have wanted us to focus on at that time. On her final point, yes I am quite happy to restate the Government’s commitment to the importance of transparency.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Using the VIP lane, a PPE contract for £313 million was awarded to PestFix, a company that had never before supplied medical PPE. To put this fantastical sum into perspective, a free school meal every day for a year for every child in Wales in a family getting universal credit would cost £101 million —less than a third of the sum gifted to PestFix. Given the Minister’s unapologetic replies so far, does he even begin to understand why the perception of his Government’s default cronyism has angered so many people?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not comment on specific cases because, as I mentioned at the beginning, some are still subject to actions before the courts and I do not want to cut across those legal processes. The broader point I would make is that I think people will understand that this Government and the unsung heroes of the pandemic—the civil servants and officials who have worked throughout it—pulled out all the stops to do what was necessary and essential to procure the PPE. If we look back 10 months or so, it was the most pressing issue in this country to ensure that our frontline workers got the protection they needed.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
When I reflect on my inbox from nearly a year ago, I remember that my constituents were expressing huge anxiety about access to personal protective equipment in nursing homes and medical establishments, so will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituents for having acted so swiftly to ensure that the necessary essential equipment got where it needed to be? Does he share my frustration that that success is being overshadowed by the frankly dubious attempts to muck-rake in respect of the process that was undertaken?
Edward Argar
The equipment was procured, it was secured and it was delivered. It did what we would all have wished it to do: it went to the frontline to protect people and to ensure that hospitals and trusts did not run out of PPE at that crucial point in the first wave. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight what I believe the British public would have wished to see us doing, which was focusing on getting the PPE to those who needed it as fast as we could in that crisis.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Committee for Standards in Public Life is currently undertaking an inquiry focused on the upholding of the Nolan principles of public life, which include integrity, accountability and openness. Given that it has been reported that civil servants delayed publications at the behest of No. 10 special advisers, and given that we have ended up in a situation where this matter has been taken to court, does the Minister believe that the Government have met those standards?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but in answer I revert back to what the judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, said in his findings in this case: he found no evidence of a policy of deprioritisation of meeting transparency requirements on publication.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
My Dudley North constituents, like me, can see right through this urgent question for its petty political intent. For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm how many people came to harm because this paperwork was two weeks late, compared with the harm that would have arisen from PPE and medical equipment being received two weeks late?
Edward Argar
Transparency is important. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and others have rightly made that point, but saving lives is important and, I would argue, in the height of the pandemic, more important. It was right that civil servants and others focused entirely on that purpose of getting the PPE to reduce the risk of loss of life, and as the judge acknowledged, they have worked very hard subsequently to catch up with the transparency requirements to ensure that the information is published and is available for interrogation.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
As they say, if it smells of fish, it is fish, but in this case it is like Billingsgate market. When it comes to Government contracts, someone is 10 times more likely to get one if they have a Government contact. The protocols are clear, as the Supreme Court confirmed, and the Health Secretary acted unlawfully in not revealing the details of contracts with his pub landlord, a hedge fund in Mauritius or the jeweller in Florida, yet there was insufficient PPE available in our social care system. As the NAO said, it was 10% of what was required. For our frontline health workers, there was just not enough FFP3. The Minister says that trust is vital, but is it not the truth that Ministers’ mates and their suppliers in China have been favoured in supplying PPE over UK companies such as Tecman and Contechs in my constituency?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. That was a very long speech. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to create a precedent.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial analogy. He made a couple of points there. I believe—this is from memory, so forgive me if I am slightly out, and I will correct the record if I am—that around 90% of those bids that came through the high-priority lane were rejected. They were carefully assessed by civil servants against the eight stages of the procurement process set up to ensure that due diligence was followed.
The hon. Gentleman raised a very specific point, which I want to address, because he talked in his question not just about NHS trusts, but quite rightly about those working on the frontline in social care settings and the PPE they needed. He quotes accurately, if my recollection is correct, from the NAO report. One of the factors here was that traditionally, social care settings are private businesses in most cases and procured their PPE directly in private contracts with their suppliers. That is one of the reasons why, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, during the early phase of the pandemic we moved from supplying 226 trusts with PPE to making that service available to 58,000 or so settings to get PPE to social care. That was a reflection of the Government’s commitment and work to make sure that we could use centralised procurement and centralised supply to help support the social care sector get what it needed.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I commend the Government for their efforts to do whatever it took to protect the frontline during the height of the pandemic. Will the Minister join me in extending our thanks to the amazing NHS workforce and the armed forces personnel working at James Cook University Hospital and Redcar Primary Care Hospital, as well as our teams in primary care, without whom we would not have vaccinated 18 million people?
Edward Argar
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that. I suspect that, in what has been a contentious urgent question, that is a point on which there will be consensus between me and the shadow Minister. We pay tribute to those working on the frontline of our NHS and social care, and those helping with the vaccination programme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Minister share my view that, although transparency is important, saving lives is even more important, and that the public servants who have done much to secure the vital supplies of protective equipment that we need deserve our praise, not criticism? Will he clarify that the information required by the judicial review judgment will be revealed in a timely manner?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right to pay tribute to the officials and those who were working flat out at the height of the pandemic, often through the night and at weekends. Even when working from home, they did not see much of their families because they were working incredibly hard to procure the PPE we needed to keep people safe. I pay tribute to them. On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, my understanding is that the additional information required by the judgment must be supplied to the court by Friday, and I expect that the judge will make that public.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Speed is vital during a public health emergency, but transparency remains important. What assurances can my hon. Friend give us that, although paperwork can never come before delivering essential medical equipment and services to the frontline, the Government are committed to publishing contracts in a timely manner to ensure that my constituents in Dudley South can have confidence that the processes are fair, open and transparent?
Edward Argar
I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. Getting PPE to the frontline, procuring what we needed and getting it delivered was the absolute priority. As I have expressed throughout my remarks, I recognise that transparency is hugely important, and we will supply the court with the further information it needs. As the judge said, we are now virtually in complete compliance, and we will continue to work hard to ensure we comply with the requirements under regulation 50 and the other requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now briefly suspend for a few minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Uber: Supreme Court Ruling
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling on Uber.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Minister Paul Scully, who has three minutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I want to begin by making it absolutely clear that everyone deserves to be treated fairly at work and rewarded for their contribution to the economy with both fair pay and fair working conditions. This means that employers must take their responsibilities seriously, not simply opt out of them. If there is a dispute between the individual and an employer, as seen in the recent case involving Uber, the courts consider each case on an individual basis. The courts are independent and the Government do not intervene. As such, with the Supreme Court being the final stage of the appeal, its judgment is final and Uber will need to take action to align with the judgment.
The Government recognise concerns about employment status being unclear in some cases, and we are committed to making it easier for individuals and businesses to understand which rights and tax obligations apply to them. We have made good progress in bringing forward measures that add flexibility for workers while ensuring the protection of employment rights. For example, we have legislated to extend the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers, making access to a written statement a day one right and extending the contents of a written statement. We have also banned the use of exclusivity contracts and zero-hours contracts to give workers more flexibility. This means an employer cannot stop an individual on a zero-hours contract from looking for, or accepting work from, another employer. We will continue to explore options for employment status that protect rights while also maintaining flexibility in the labour market. This Government have a proud history of protecting and enhancing workers’ rights, and we are committed to making the UK the best place in the world to work.
Andy McDonald [V]
Last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on Uber was a landmark victory for working people, and testament to the hard work of the GMB union, the App Drivers and Couriers Union and the drivers who brought the action. It rejected Uber’s bogus claim that its drivers are self-employed, ruling instead that they are workers and therefore entitled to basic rights that they have so far been denied, such at the national minimum wage and holiday pay. The ruling has far-reaching consequences for tens of thousands of Uber drivers as well as all gig economy workers.
Yet Uber is attempting to dodge the Supreme Court’s ruling, just as it attempts to dodge its responsibilities to its drivers, by trying to interpret the ruling so that it applies to only a tiny minority of its workforce. If Uber ignores the ruling, tens of thousands of workers will be cheated out of their rights, forcing low-paid and precarious workers to spend time and money that they can ill afford in order to litigate to recover withheld wages, in cases that they will likely win but will take years to conclude. The Government should not abandon working people to fight for their rights in the courts, so will the Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that the judgment applies to all Uber drivers, and that the company cannot continue to cheat its drivers out of their basic rights?
Even before the pandemic, one in 10 working adults—around 5 million—were found to be working in the gig economy, in fragile and insecure work, and with one-sided flexibility. It is bad for those workers, bad for the economy and, as we have seen from the pandemic, a disaster for public health. Will the Minister confirm that the principles of the judgment in the Uber case must apply not only to all Uber drivers, but to all those on similar arrangements across the country?
Let me say again that the Government cannot abrogate their responsibility by telling workers to fight for their basic protection through an employment tribunal system that barely functions following a decade of neglect. Working people need a Government who will stand behind them, so will the Minister commit now to legislate to end bogus self-employment and provide security to all gig economy workers?
Paul Scully
As I have said, the Government are clear that everybody deserves to be treated fairly at work and rewarded for their contribution to the economy. The judgment has been laid down and there are no further avenues for appeal, so Uber must respond accordingly. The hon. Gentleman talked about clarifying employment status and rights. We are committed to continuing to look at workers’ rights, and to ensure that we consider carefully and in the round all the questions about the various workers’ rights, while keeping flexibility in our employment market.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I urge the Government not to take an Uber free market approach in these matters, and to recall that the Conservative party has a long history of defending workers from ruthless entrepreneurs? For instance, in the 19th century, Disraeli resisted attempts by the then Liberal Government to prevent workers from picketing when on strike. Can the Minister be absolutely robust today and say, following the question from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), that we believe this is a landmark judgment and that Uber must now accept that its hard-working drivers, many of whom have come from abroad and deserve protection, are employed and deserve all the rights of fully employed people?
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend talks about Uber in isolation, but clearly any number of other operators in the gig economy will be looking at the judgment, and it is important that they respond accordingly. The Government will also respond accordingly, because we always recognise the valuable contribution made by those working in the gig economy, and people do value the flexibility it offers, but we must also ensure that those workers are adequately protected.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
I commend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for securing this urgent question. In towns and cities across Scotland, the rise of the gig economy has been clear for all to see. Despite the flexibility that it offers some workers, it is nowhere near giving them the same rights and protections as others—there is no maternity leave, no holidays and no sick leave. This ruling by the Supreme Court should rightly change that, and I say “should” because, ultimately, employment law remains in the grip of the Tories at Westminster, rather than in the hands of Scotland’s Parliament.
We are all worried about a bonfire of workers’ rights in this post-Brexit world. We have all seen the Government refuse to support the Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to end the appalling practice of fire and rehire. I heard the Minister’s warm words, but this is an easy opportunity for him to take a small step in the right direction when it comes to workers’ rights. Will he confirm that his Government fully back the Supreme Court ruling and that they will make no attempt through legislation to overturn, undermine or circumvent it?
Paul Scully
The Supreme Court ruling is final. We recognise the concerns about employment status and the potential for exploitation. We want to make it easier for individuals and businesses to understand what rights and tax obligations apply to them, and we are currently considering options to improve clarity around employment status. I have previously talked about the fact that ACAS was charged with considering fire and rehire and gathering evidence, and it has done so. It reported back to BEIS, and we will consider what it found.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
This is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, but many people will be concerned that companies such as Uber should not be left to interpret what it means, because otherwise we will see a disparity between the different companies employing workers in the gig economy—for example, a deliverer for Just Eat is an employee, but one for Deliveroo is not. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to the Government legislating to create a level playing field and to stop these abuses?
Paul Scully
As I have said, we will look at employment conditions and ensure that employees can understand their status and tax payment conditions. There is a complication, in that the companies my hon. Friend mentioned each have different contracts, so it is important that we have something that looks at all those things in the round.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree with the GMB union, which fought this legal battle for four years, that now is the time for Uber to face up to its legal and moral responsibilities, pay decent wages and give decent holidays to its employees? It truly is time to legislate, legislate, legislate, rather than look again.
Paul Scully
Uber has to respond to the Supreme Court’s judgment, which is final. We have talked about the fact that the gig economy offers individuals flexibility and provides opportunities for those who may not be able to work in more conventional ways, but we must make sure that they are protected and that we have a balance between flexibility and protecting employment rights.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK has often led the way on workers’ rights internationally? What plans does he have to ensure that that continues?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in terms of what we have done on workers’ rights. We have talked about the fact that in no way will we be diluting workers’ rights. We want to make sure that employers, workers and the self-employed understand exactly what their status means and their tax protections, but we have a number of rights that stand up incredibly well in comparison with the EU and other countries around the world.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
The Court ruling has confirmed that taxis are a form of public transport, but they are the only ones to not receive coronavirus-specific funding. Will the Government urgently launch a sector-specific support package for taxis set at the same pro rata level as funding for the bus sector and applied retrospectively?
Paul Scully
Some taxi drivers will be able to access the self-employed income status and other protections, and discretionary grants are available, but any further support will be outlined in the Budget next Wednesday.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Supreme Court judgment. Companies such as Uber can provide well-regarded flexibility, but they can also have staff retention problems globally. Does my hon. Friend agree that companies such as Uber should look at this judgment and, rather than try to find ways around it, look at what they can change that will, among other things, likely help them keep their people for longer?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend raises a really good point. It is important that no employer seeks to wriggle out of its responsibilities, and retention is a sensible approach for any responsible employer.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I know that these issues are close to your heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a constituency neighbour of mine, so it is good to see you in the Chair.
Does not the Minister understand that these issues cannot just be left to the courts and that, in this David versus Goliath battle with big multinational companies that are exploiting workers, avoiding tax and flouting safety rules, people need to see the Government on their side? With that in mind, will the Government finally legislate to give gig economy workers the protection they deserve? Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), is not it finally time to give taxi drivers and private hire drivers the support they desperately need as a result of the impact that the pandemic has had on the pound in their pockets?
Paul Scully
On the coronavirus support, as I have said, any further support beyond the self-employment income schemes, the grant schemes and the discretionary grant schemes will be outlined in the Budget by the Chancellor. However, the Government have already taken a number of commitments through, including extending the right for a written statement of core terms of employment for all workers; quadrupling the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly; and closing a loophole that sees agency workers employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers. There are a number of areas—I will not go on, Madam Deputy Speaker—where we have progressed, but there is plenty more to do.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Does the Minister agree that encouraging people to be in an employment situation rather than a self-employment one wherever possible is the right thing to do? Will he work with the Treasury to finally amend the tax system so we do not give a perverse incentive for people to pretend that their staff are self-employed when they are really employed, so that people are in the right legal situation and two people doing the same job have the same legal and tax position?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, but it is a complex issue, and there is complexity to the background as well, so it is only right that we take the time to consider how best to achieve a change that works for everybody. We will certainly bring proposals forward in due course.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The Government have previously pledged that they will bring forward an employment Bill to make the UK
“the best place in the world to work.”
If that is true, can the Minister tell us why we are yet to see a Bill—or has it been kicked down the road indefinitely?
Paul Scully
No, it has not been kicked down the road. We are clear that any reforms we bring forward will be required to consider the needs of our labour market today. That is why we are continuing to work with stakeholders to understand the needs and challenges of modern workplaces, to ensure that our vision of the labour market is fit for purpose. We will bring forward the employment Bill in due course.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that Uber should pay its drivers more because that is good for those drivers but it is also good for the licensed taxi drivers who feel that they have been subjected to competition from Uber in recent years that is aggressive, unfair and predatory?
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend knows that I am also Minister for London, so I take a keen interest in these important issues. The people who drive black cabs —that premium product—do amazing work throughout; they are icons of London. However, we must get the balance right between having a free market and making sure that the flexibility of the labour market is not impeded by any encroachment on workers’ rights and what is due to them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
These contract conditions have been a feature of our economy for some time, which means that many thousands of workers have been illegally treated by companies such as Uber for years. Can the Minister tell me what the Government will be doing to ensure that those people are transferred to legal employment contracts and compensated for lost rights and benefits?
Paul Scully
As I say, it is now for Uber to respond to that judgment. It is there, and it is final: it was a Supreme Court judgment, so there is no further right of appeal for Uber. It must adhere to its legal responsibilities.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Flexible contracts can work well for some employees, but they must not be used by firms to avoid their responsibilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that all workers should have the right to request a more predictable contract, so that the balance of power does not lie exclusively with the employer?
Paul Scully
As I said, we have extended the right to a written statement of core terms of employment to all workers, to make sure they understand the conditions they have and their status. We need to do more work in that area, which I am looking forward to doing, as we speak to people to make sure our labour market is fit for purpose.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
It is a disgrace that people have had to fight court battles over four years to get basic employment rights, and the Minister must recognise that the only reason they have had to do so is that the Government have sat on their hands for too long. Will the Government finally recognise that the trade-off between flexibility and security is an illusion, and legislate so that everyone who is in work can get the basic protections they should be entitled to in a civilised society?
Paul Scully
The gig economy offers individuals flexibility, and countless surveys have shown that the majority of people do like that flexibility—especially younger people and women. However, there is always more we can do to make sure that people understand exactly what they are signing up to, and they definitely must not be exploited.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Having been to Dudley South, we now go to Dudley North.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
The many unsung heroes of the pandemic include bus drivers, delivery drivers and taxi drivers, with many of the latter often taking medical staff and patients to hospital and back. While the employment status of Uber drivers is a matter for the courts to determine, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank them—and, indeed, all taxi drivers in Dudley North and beyond—for their efforts during these difficult times and for the risks they take?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend, and join him in taking this opportunity to thank all the transport workers and taxi drivers—whether they are black cab drivers, private hire drivers, or indeed Uber drivers—who have been taking people around throughout all of this. I speak to them on a regular basis when, on occasion, I have required a cab to come back from work, and they are in a difficult position. I am wishing them well as we start to reopen the economy.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) introduced a Bill to give gig economy workers the rights they have just won in court. This was ignored, as has been my Bill banning the Dickensian practice of fire and rehire, which both the Minister and the Prime Minister have termed unacceptable. Can the Minister tell us when he will report to the House on ACAS’s work on fire and rehire? Does he not agree that the phrases “levelling up” and “one-nation Government” ring hollow when the Government keep blocking SNP-sponsored protections for workers?
Paul Scully
We will respond to the fire and rehire Bill when it actually comes through the parliamentary process, but ACAS has completed its work and shared its insights with officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It conducted an independent, impartial fact-finding exercise with stakeholders, making sure there was confidentiality so that we could have frank and honest discussions. We will communicate our response to those findings in due course.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
Following on from the previous question, I know that my hon. Friend shares the concerns felt across the House about the fire and rehire tactics some companies have pursued. While our flexible labour market is something to be cherished, does he agree that employers have a responsibility to do right by their workers, especially now?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is sensible business to do right by employees, as well as the moral thing to do.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about my membership of the GMB, which drove this historic victory, along with others. I work closely with drivers in my constituency, many of whom are GMB and Unite members, and I want to praise the Welsh Labour Government for the support that they have given drivers in grants, support and free personal protective equipment during the covid crisis.
However, many of the drivers tell me that although most taxi and private hire drivers charge on average £2.20 to £2.40 a mile, Uber pays only £1.10 to £1.25 a mile. Many drivers are getting into serious debt or even bankruptcy. What will the Minister do to ensure that drivers of Uber and beyond get a fair day’s pay from a fair day’s work?
Paul Scully
We will make sure, first, that Uber complies with this judgment. Secondly, we also want to ensure that all employees—all workers—exactly know their rights and status, so that they can look at a number of the other taxi and hire firms available, should they so require.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Ministers have been honest with the country that the Government cannot save every job as we emerge from the pandemic. We must ensure, however, that support is available for those who do find themselves out of work, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will prioritise making support and resources available to jobseekers as well as the provision of retraining for those who need it? How can we ensure that this is effective in very rural areas such as North Devon?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk a lot about reopening the economy, but the recovery of the economy is so important. That is why, although we have protected jobs, livelihoods and businesses, we must make sure that people coming back into work can flourish and have a course of self-development. That is why there are now a number of schemes available in Jobcentre Plus that are being rolled out to improve skills.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend will know that the private transport market is a market, and clearly the position of the iconic black taxi cabs in London and the rest of the private hire market have to be considered appropriately. I warmly welcome the decision on safeguarding Uber drivers’ rights, but will he look at doing a wholesale review of the market to ensure that Uber is not advantaged in it in an unfair manner that discriminates against black taxi drivers and the rest of the private hire market?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make sure that we continue to look at the number of private hire licences compared with black cab licences in London to ensure that there is no unfair advantage, but, ultimately, there is a market there, as he rightly says.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
We can judge this Government’s sincerity and their claims to care about workers’ rights by the fact that the Secretary of State is on record as saying that British workers are among the worst idlers in the world; of course, her own treatment of her staff would have got her sacked from almost any other job.
Given that in just over two months the Scottish people will, for the sixth time in succession, elect a Scottish Government who care about the rights of workers, is it not time that employment legislation was delegated to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government so that, at the very least, the workers of Scotland can get the government that they vote for?
Paul Scully
I am afraid that the question just goes to show that the hon. Member is more interested in votes than jobs and workers’ rights. That is why the employment rights Bill will come before this House in due course.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
In Teesside, one of the myths that the Labour party is spreading about our freeport policy is on workers’ rights. Our Teesside freeport bid will create 18,000 new jobs over the next five years. Will the Minister confirm that, if our freeport bid is successful, there will be no downgrades in workers’ rights?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is a real champion for the Teesside freeport, and he is absolutely right. We have talked a lot here about Uber and drivers, but our drive to ensure that we can have great workers’ rights in this country extends to all manner of employment, including the freeport that he describes and which I hope he gets.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
With taxi drivers facing mounting debt and, tragically, recent reports of at least five suicides in the sector, including three mentioning financial worries in their suicide notes, does the Minister agree that drivers and operators need urgent access to extra financial support—including small business grants of £10,000, in line with other small businesses?
Paul Scully
There is support for some drivers, although I appreciate that some people fall between the cracks. There is the self-employment scheme for some, discretionary grants are available, and each local authority has had to come up with a policy for how they used that money, which could include drivers. Any further support will be subject to the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget next Wednesday.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House so that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Points of Order
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The last year has been difficult for so many people at work, and as our constituents’ lives have been thrown into uncertainty by covid, our staff teams have been dealing with more cases than ever. In my office, our workload has increased by over 300%. That is why I was so frustrated, to put it mildly, to read about a study by King’s College London, which sent fake casework to MPs, including me, to test how efficiently our staff responded. Our small but wonderful teams are working all the hours they can to answer genuine constituents’ concerns. It is unacceptable that people faked being constituents, and took up time that could have been spent helping real people. Our time is paid for by the taxpayer, and this is a gross exploitation of that. It is unethical, it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, and it shows a complete lack of understanding of the pressures on our offices’ resources a year into a global pandemic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, could you please advise me on how I can put on record my thanks to MPs’ staff across the House at this busy, stressful time, including GMB and Unite staff branch members, and could you please advise the House on how we can ensure that our staff’s time and public funds are not wasted like this again?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this matter on the Floor of the House, and for giving notice of her intention to make this point of order, drawing to the attention of everyone this disgraceful situation.
Mr Speaker is aware that there is a great deal of concern about this among Members and, not surprisingly, their very hard-working and hard-pressed staff. I can see, and it may help the hon. Lady to know, that everyone present in the Chamber is in total agreement with what she has said. So am I, and so is Mr Speaker. As is apparent from our debates, covid-19 has resulted in a significant increase in constituency work, which is heavy at the best of times. As the hon. Lady said, Members and their staff are working flat out to help individuals and businesses in their constituencies who are facing very real and very serious problems. At such a time, it is hard to see how any responsible researcher could have thought that sending more than 1,000 spoof emails that added to this workload was a good idea; how any responsible ethics committee could have approved it; or how any responsible body could have decided to fund it.
Mr Speaker is extremely concerned about these matters, and he will be writing directly to those involved. I note also that it is possible for Members to withdraw their data from the study, and they may wish to do so. The hon. Lady asked me the simple question of how she could draw attention to this matter. She has done so, and her points, and those of every other hon. Member of this House, are taken into consideration by Mr Speaker —very seriously, in this matter.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, accused the Scottish Government of
“the complete breakdown of the necessary barriers which should exist between government, political party and indeed the prosecution authorities in any country which abides by the rule of law.”
That would be a damning indictment in a tinpot dictatorship, but this is happening in a part of the United Kingdom. Given that the Scottish Parliament derives its authority from legislation passed in this Parliament, what mechanisms do we have to ensure that the conduct of the Scottish Government does not bring politics in the whole of the United Kingdom into international disrepute?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given notice that he intended to raise this point of order. He has raised very significant issues concerning the relationship between the legislature, the Executive and the courts; that is the doctrine known as the separation of powers, which is the very bedrock of our constitutional settlement. It is not, of course, for the occupant of the Chair to make any judgment about what the right hon. Gentleman has specifically said, or the quotation that he used, but of course this House is always concerned with safeguarding democratic standards. I am sure that he will use his ingenuity to find a way of bringing this matter before the House once again, when it can be fully examined.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a previous urgent question, a Minister came to the House and cited the National Audit Office in support of arguments that he was making about the procurement of personal protective equipment in the middle of the pandemic. This is a growing trend. Ministers come to the House, or appear in the media, and cite the National Audit Office, as though comments in those report are a conclusion and a determination by the National Audit Office.
Will you help the House and Ministers, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling me and others how Mr Speaker can enforce the understanding that the National Audit Office is an independent body, headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an officer of this House, and whose integrity should never be questioned, and that reference to the NAO should never be used in an improper way in this House or in the media to back up arguments that it does not back up? I have the privilege of reading all the National Audit Office reports, and I see them in the round. We are all careful with this, but it would be very helpful if you could rule as Chair on what you think could be done to improve how these reports are used by Ministers in particular.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She seeks to draw the House’s attention to a point that she wishes to make; she has succeeded in so doing by raising the point of order. Of course, as Mr Speaker has said many times, it is not for the occupant of the Chair, or for the Speaker in any other capacity, to interfere in any way with what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box—that is up to Ministers—but the hon. Lady has drawn her concerns to the attention of those on the Treasury Bench, and I am quite sure that the points she has made will have been noted.
High Performance Vehicle Renting (Regulation)
Wednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate High Performance Vehicle Renting (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 View all High Performance Vehicle Renting (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the renting of high performance road vehicles; and for connected purposes.
Residents have for years been raising with me and fellow west Yorkshire MPs the issue of high-powered vehicles being driven recklessly in and around neighbourhoods. Various attempts have been made to combat the issue; communities have come together with and worked alongside authorities such as West Yorkshire police and the local council in the attempt to find solutions to the problem. This Bill is about recognising that such partnership initiatives can go only so far, and are too often reactive. Police efforts to keep the roads safe, such as Operation Hawmill in Calderdale, will not prevent a bad driver from getting behind the wheel of a supercar. The changes that I propose would go some way towards doing that.
More often than not, in the examples that I see, and the cases reported to me, of road traffic offences being committed in high-powered vehicles—supercars, prestige cars or whatever we want to call them—the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, but has hired it. In recent years, there has been a rise in people hiring cars such as Lamborghinis and Ferraris and passing the keys to someone else, if not several other people. The vehicles are then driven at dangerously high speeds, which puts other road users, pedestrians and the drivers themselves at risk.
Often, the driver will not have the appropriate insurance; they will argue that they believed they were somehow covered by the rental agreement, by their own insurance, or simply by the fact that the person who hired the car had given them consent to take it around the block— and they had not intended to crash, so did not need it. In a majority of cases, they will not have experience of handling a 300-plus-horsepower vehicle, which can be deadly in the wrong hands. One roads policing officer tells me that he stopped two high-performance vehicles, both of which were rented, within a week on the same 40-mph road in Halifax. One was going at 76 mph and the other at 86 mph.
Although many companies that hire out vehicles operate responsibly and with transparency, there are some much darker elements in the industry. The sliding scale of criminality ranges from drivers engaging in antisocial use of the roads in communities to dangerous and reckless driving, through to serious and organised crime. What can we do to ensure that all companies that rent performance vehicles act responsibly, and that drivers are accountable for their actions behind the wheel? I propose that all vehicles with more than 300 horsepower that are rented for use on public highways be fitted with a black box, which is typically the size of a matchbox and records information about how and when a car is driven. The information in the black box would have to be made available to the police on request.
The second, related change that I propose is that a person who hires a car must be insured as the named driver for that specific vehicle for the entire duration of the rental agreement, and must satisfy the hire-car company of that before being allowed to drive the vehicle away. This is incredibly basic, and we would hope that it already happens under the law, but as I have said, too often keys are swapped around among those who do not have the appropriate insurance, under a vague sense that the car came with a package that allows others to drive it, or that a driver’s existing insurance covers them to drive other vehicles, when that is just not the case.
I am sorry to say that companies plead ignorance, and too often do not do their due diligence to make sure that the hirer has the appropriate cover and understands their responsibilities. Inevitably, the police have to embark on a lengthy and opaque quest at the roadside to establish the insurance details. I am reliably informed that the difficulty of doing that has been exacerbated by the reduced operating hours of insurance companies during the pandemic.
When dealing with individuals from the young and irresponsible through to those involved in serious criminal enterprises, that leaves far too many loopholes in the law that allow for the abuse of our highways to the detriment of our community safety. I hear regular examples of the police having contacted hire car companies for details of the driver at the time an offence was committed, only for the companies then to fail to provide those details. Although that is already an offence in itself—I welcome cases where prosecutions have been secured against the owners of such companies—a black box and named driver vehicle insurance combination would significantly undermine someone’s ability to abuse the system.
In addition to the changes proposed in my Bill, I call on the Government to establish a taskforce to look at this issue holistically. Having spoken extensively to MPs and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, I know that this problem extends right across the country and cannot be addressed by any one agency alone. I was approached by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council, which has deployed acoustic cameras—such is the effect of the prevalence of engines revving on its local residents. It is faced with organised car meets and races, and super-rich visitors to the UK who hire supercars and leave before enforcement action can be taken. It would like to be able to increase the fines it can issue to ensure there are consequences for driving irresponsibly. The dynamics of the problem are different in different areas, but it is widespread.
With that in mind, I urge the Government to form a taskforce and consider going further by, for example, introducing minimum licensing requirements for those seeking to hire a performance vehicle, which could include things such as being over a certain age to hire a car over 300 hp, or a requirement to have a clean licence or a minimum number of years’ experience as a driver. It could include restrictions on how much noise a vehicle can make, to get to the bottom of whether the noise generated by a supercar is an unavoidable consequence of its enhanced engine, or whether it has in fact been engineered for effect.
There is a cost not only to the communities that face disruption and noise from these types of vehicles being driven antisocially, and the associated risk, but to all responsible road users, who are penalised through their own insurance to cover the risk of a minority of reckless road users when a vehicle without insurance is involved in a crash. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau has shared with me some troubling examples of questionable insurance policies being used by some companies. Agencies agree that costs are passed on to law-abiding road users for these abuses of the system. In the worst cases, the abuses are driving huge sums of money into the pockets of organised crime.
I have seen the police and various partnerships deploy several attempts to address this issue over the years, some more successful than others. This Bill says that Westminster must play its role in calling time on reckless drivers and irresponsible hire companies, and in standing with the communities blighted by this issue.
I want to thank local neighbourhoods inspector Ben Doughty, who has led Operation Hawmill in Calderdale, for his ongoing commitment to community safety and his assistance with this Bill. I also thank Chief Inspector Gary Panther and PC Richard Brimelow of West Yorkshire Police’s roads policing unit for their insight in shaping the detail of this Bill, and Paul Farley and Craig Conlon of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau for their assistance. I hope the Government have listened carefully to the points that I have made and will look favourably on the proposals I have outlined.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Holly Lynch, Lilian Greenwood, Tracy Brabin, Shabana Mahmood, Darren Jones, Dan Jarvis, Tonia Antoniazzi, Neil Coyle, Catherine McKinnell, Mr Barry Sheerman, Chris Bryant and Rushanara Ali present the Bill.
Holly Lynch accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 261).
Fire Safety Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Fire Safety Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 29 April 2020 (Fire Safety Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.
Fire Safety Bill
Wednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 24 February 2021 - (24 Feb 2021)
17:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 345 / Noes: 226 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 340 / Noes: 225 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 3. If Lords amendment 3 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
It may be helpful for Members who wish to take part in today’s debate to know that there will be an initial four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. That gives people the opportunity to tailor their remarks accordingly.
After Clause 2
Risk based guidance about the discharge of duties under the Fire Safety Order
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4, amendment (e) thereto, Government motion to disagree, and amendments (a) to (c) in lieu, amendments (f) and (g) in lieu, amendment (d) in lieu and amendment (i) in lieu.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to agree.
Kit Malthouse
It seems a long time since I spoke on this Bill in Committee in June last year. I am playing a small part in the Bill’s passage through both Houses, and I stand in today for the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who led on the Bill at Second Reading and on Report last year. I am sure everyone in this House wishes him a full recovery.
Lords amendments 1 and 5 were moved by the Government on Report following advice that the Home Office received from fire safety operational experts on how to commence the Fire Safety Bill. In Committee, I announced that the Home Office had established an independent task and finish group whose role was to provide a recommendation on the optimal way to commence this Bill. The group was chaired jointly by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, and it brought together experts from across the fire and housing sectors.
On 28 September, the task and finish group submitted its advice to the Home Office that the Bill should be commenced at once for all buildings in scope. The Government accepted this recommendation.
The group also recommended that responsible persons under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 should use a risk-based approach to carry out or review fire risk assessments, upon commencement, using a building prioritisation tool, and that the Government should issue statutory guidance to support this approach. The Government accepted this recommendation, which will support responsible persons. The Home Office, with support from the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, will host the model once it has been finalised.
Lords amendment 1 will allow us to take forward the provision of statutory guidance to support that approach. The amendment ensures that the risk-based guidance, which will be issued by the Secretary of State to support commencement of the Bill for all relevant buildings, will have the appropriate status to incentivise compliance. It does this by stating explicitly that a court can consider whether a responsible person has complied with their duties under the fire safety order by complying with the risk-based guidance. Equally, if a responsible person fails to provide evidence that they have complied, it may be relied upon by a court as tending to support non-compliance with their duties under the order.
The amendment also creates a provision to allow the Secretary of State to withdraw the risk-based guidance, but this can be done only after consultation with relevant stakeholders. Our rationale for inserting this provision is that we believe a point will eventually be reached where, having followed a risk-based approach to prioritisation, responsible persons will have assessed all the fire safety risks for the external walls of their buildings. At that stage, there may no longer be a need for the guidance to remain in place.
I assure Members that the Government will commence the Bill at the same time as issuing the guidance, and Lords amendment 5 ensures that will happen. This amendment gained the support of the Opposition in the other place when put to a vote on Report. I also recall the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) in Committee, when she said this Bill should be commenced at once for all buildings in scope and that a risk-based approach, like the one modelled in her home town of Croydon, should be adopted.
One of the recurring themes during the passage of this Bill has been concern over the number of fire risk assessors with the skills to undertake work on external wall systems. The task and finish group considered this issue as it looked at how responsible persons will be able to update their fire risk assessments, given there is limited capacity in the fire risk assessment sector—primarily of fire engineers working on complex buildings.
The group’s recommendation for a risk-based approach to an all-at-once commencement, on which we are acting, is the most practical way to deal with what is a complex issue. Our approach sends a signal to the fire risk assessor sector—mainly fire engineers—that their expertise should be directed where it is needed most, to the highest-risk buildings.
I thank all members of the task and finish group for their work in developing advice to the Home Office. The group has provided an optimal solution for commencing the Fire Safety Bill, allowing the Government to introduce the provisions at the earliest opportunity. It is important that we continue the good work undertaken with those relevant stakeholders on the task and finish group to regularly monitor the effectiveness of the risk-based guidance and the building prioritisation tool. These provisions will allow us to take forward the recommendations from operational experts in the field of fire safety. I hope that hon. Members will support Lords amendments 1 and 5, as agreed in the other place.
Lords amendment 3 seeks to introduce a power that the Secretary of State must use to make regulations to establish and keep up to date a public register of fire risk assessments. As you have confirmed, Madam Deputy Speaker, this amendment engages financial privilege and will not be debated. The amendment invokes significant financial concerns. To provide a sense of the scale of costs, we can point to two things. First, based on the number of buildings requiring a fire risk assessment, our initial estimate is that the cost to the public purse of a public register of fire risk assessment is above £2 million per annum.
Secondly, these costs would likely be broadly commensurate with the expenditure of maintaining a database of energy performance certificates. That system was mentioned by Opposition colleagues in the other place, who stated that something similar should be introduced for fire risk assessments. The current database of energy performance certificates is housed centrally in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The current costs for this are around £2 million per year, but under private contractual arrangements used previously, they were approximately £4 million a year. Notwithstanding the issue of financial privilege, I sympathise with the intent behind the amendment, and we will not rule out doing this in the future. However, there is a need for detailed policy consideration prior to implementation of such a database, which makes this the wrong time to impose this measure in primary legislation.
I raise just a couple of points to underline our view that the amendment is not appropriate. The amendment would, in effect, create a legal duty on responsible persons to make publicly available the full fire risk assessment for all buildings falling within the scope of regulation owing to the fire safety order. In its current form, the amendment would potentially mean that anyone would be able to access the fire risk assessments for a wide range of premises, including schools, hospitals, care homes and Government buildings. We would have concerns over the risk that posed to security, particularly if the information was accessed by somebody with malicious intent.
Linked to the security issue is the level of information that could and should be made available if a system of recording fire risk assessments is created. For example, a fire risk assessment can often be technical and is very different from an energy performance certificate. It may, for example, prove more effective and transparent to publish a summary of a fire risk assessment, rather than the full document. However, the Government agree with the principle of residents being able to access vital fire safety information for the building in which they live, and we propose introducing legislative provision to allow them to do so in our fire safety consultation. It is important to take a proportionate and appropriate approach to sharing information with residents. However, I hope that hon. Members will understand my concerns and the reason why the Government will resist the amendment.
Lords amendment 2 would place in primary legislation several specific requirements on the owner or manager of a building that contained two or more domestic premises. I recognise that many in this House and the other place wish to see legislative change on this as soon as possible. The Government share that objective, which is why we committed to implementing and legislating for the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations in our manifesto. The Fire Safety Bill is the first step towards this. It was always intended to be a short, technical piece of legislation designed to clarify that structure, external walls and flat entrance doors should be included within the fire safety order. We need to deliver on that as soon as possible, to ensure that fire risk assessments are updated to take account of the risks in those areas. We intend to implement the areas specified in Lords amendment 2 through regulations, and as such the amendment is unnecessary.
It is not helpful, I have to say, for the House to keep returning to this issue. It risks causing confusion, as we saw through misleading media coverage of Commons Report stage. It also raises doubts in relation to the Government’s commitment to implementation, when all along we have been crystal clear about our intentions. I reassure the Grenfell community, who I know were distressed by the publicity at Committee stage, and those in the House and the wider public that the Government remain absolutely steadfast in our commitment to implement the inquiry’s recommendations.
I am sure everyone across the House accepts the importance of consulting when proposing significant changes to legislation. The importance of that was underlined by the Grenfell inquiry chair, who said that it was important that his recommendations
“command the support of those who have experience of the matters to which they relate.”
Furthermore, the National Fire Chiefs Council’s published response to our fire safety consultation states:
“NFCC supports the Government’s approach to publicly consulting on how to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 recommendations. This consultation provides an opportunity to gather wider views on how to practically deliver the recommendations in a way that brings the maximum benefits to public safety.”
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that extra £3.5 billion, bringing the total to £5 billion. Will he confirm that this will fully cost the removal of the cladding, and that those leaseholders who live in high-rise buildings will not have to foot the bill?
Kit Malthouse
That is the case. I know that my MHCLG ministerial colleagues have been in this place and debated this extensively and, having made the case to the Treasury, it was gratifying to see this money come forward. It will assist those who are living in fear in high-rise buildings in particular, but also those in mid-rise buildings, who, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, will benefit from a financing scheme.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Unfortunately, leaseholders in my constituency have been left in the dark after the announcement the other day because, despite the co-operation between the Welsh Government and the UK Government on the details of this Bill, they have been unable to get answers on the crucial issues of the building development levy and the new tax and on whether there will be any new money for Wales in the proposals laid out by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister urgently respond to the letter from the Welsh Housing Minister, Julie James, which asks reasonable questions and sets out constructive solutions, and will he and his MHCLG colleagues meet me to discuss these issues and find a solution for leaseholders across the United Kingdom?
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s impatience, and it is shared by us all across the House. The scheme is in development, as I understand from MHCLG, and I know that Ministers are working hard to get the basis, the foundations and the system in place so that the money can be distributed as quickly as possible. Happily, in terms of high-rise buildings, I think we are well over 90% that are either remediated or in the process of being remediated, but I completely agree with him that we need to work with all urgency to bring as much possible relief from the stress of living with this cladding in the future. I will certainly ask my colleagues at MHCLG to consider his offer of a useful meeting. I know they will be responding to correspondence from the Welsh Government as quickly as possible.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I think we all recognise the frustration exhibited by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), which is shared across the House. Perhaps the Minister could explain what steps the Government are taking to make sure that the construction industry pays its fair share in the remediation and the future prevention of risk.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Members who have perhaps been in the House a little longer than he has will know, I was Housing Minister for a brief period of 12 months about 18 months ago, and the work started then of sitting alongside the construction industry to get it to stand up and fulfil its obligations to the people who were living in defective high-rise buildings in particular. A number of firms did and, from working with them through the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and MHCLG, I know that there is a new atmosphere abroad. That is certainly part of the challenge that we face: it is not just about the regulation we are putting in place today, but a cultural change in the industry towards building safety so that it is now a full partner in facing the challenge for the future.
Government funding does not absolve building owners of their responsibility to ensure their buildings are safe. We have been clear that building owners and the industry, as my hon. Friend has just said, should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. They should consider all routes to meet costs including, for example, through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.
We have always been clear that all residents deserve to be and feel safe in their homes. We are working at pace to ensure remediation of unsafe cladding is completed, and we have an ambitious timescale to do so. As I said earlier, about 95% of high-rise buildings with Grenfell-type ACM cladding identified at the start of 2020 have completed remediation or had works on site by the end of last year. However, I am afraid the Bill is not the correct place for remediation costs to be addressed. It is a short but critical Bill to clarify that the fire safety order applies to the external walls, including cladding, and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. That means the responsible person must include those parts of the building in their fire risk assessment. That does not include the remediation of historical defects. It does not have the necessary legislative detail that would be needed to underpin such amendments in regulations. The Building Safety Bill is the appropriate legislative mechanism for addressing these issues, and it will be introduced in the spring. It will contain the detailed and complex legislation that is needed to address remediation costs.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend believe that incorporating these amendments might delay the Bill and mean that we cannot execute these measures now?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that that is the fundamental risk we face at the moment. We want to get the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. It forms the starting block of a complex web of legislation and regulation that is required to bring about changes in building safety across the whole country. I hope that Members recognise that the potential delay that may be inserted by a back and forth between the Houses over this particular issue is not useful. As I say, this issue should be debated during consideration of the Building Safety Bill, which will be brought forward shortly, and I know that Members will embrace that particular piece of legislation.
Kit Malthouse
I will make a little progress, if I may, just to outline why that is. These amendments, I am afraid, are not sufficiently clear or detailed to deliver on what Members say they wish to achieve. They would require extensive drafting in primary legislation, thereby, as we have just discussed, delaying the implementation of the Fire Safety Bill and the crucial measures it puts forward to improve the fire safety regulatory system.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work he did as Housing Minister to resolve this issue; we met on many occasions to discuss it. Does he agree that this amendment is self-defeating in that it puts the onus for any fire safety work back on the owner, who, given debts or the cost of that work, will simply walk away? These owners have probably paid a few thousand pounds per flat to collect, rightly, ground rent. If we put a debt on them for £40,000 per flat, they will simply walk away, and who will then carry the can for the work?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend speaks with some expertise in this area and has been a constant presence in debates on this matter over the past few years. He is right. The amendment is self-defeating given the number of, for example, freeholds that are held in limited liability vehicles, which could, in the position he points out, simply put themselves into some kind of insolvency procedure. That is why any measure along these lines would need to be scrutinised carefully and thought about in a little more detail before we brought it in.
Alongside all that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has committed to taking decisive action to end the cladding scandal once and for all through the Government’s five-point plan to provide reassurance to homeowners and build confidence in the housing market. Funding will be targeted at the highest-risk buildings, in line with long-standing independent expert advice and evidence. Lower-rise buildings with a lower risk to safety will gain new protection from the costs of cladding removal through a long-term, low-interest Government-backed financing scheme. The Government are also committed to making sure that no leaseholder in these buildings will pay more than £50 per month towards this remediation. Let me be clear: it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the cost of fixing historical safety defects in their buildings.
I ask hon. Members to recognise that while these amendments are based on good intentions, they are not the appropriate means to solve these complex problems. By providing unprecedented funding and a generous financing scheme, we are ensuring that money is available for remediation, accelerating the process, and making homes safer as quickly as possible. I give my assurance that the Government schemes to address these issues will be launched as a matter of priority and that we will provide an update on the underpinning details, as Members have urged us, as soon as we are in a position to do so. For the reasons set out, I hope that the House will see fit to support me in my aspirations with regard to these and other amendments.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Policing Minister. I, too, put on record my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who cannot be here to lead for the Government today. We all wish him a speedy recovery
I thank our fire and rescue services, who are going above and beyond to keep us safe and have worked tirelessly to protect us throughout the covid pandemic. I am grateful to Ministers, to officials and to House staff who have worked with us on this Bill. I give particular thanks to Yohanna Sallberg and Kenneth Fox, who have supported me, in particular, throughout the Bill’s passage. I thank Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and all those Lords who have led this Bill through the House of Lords, and ensured that Labour’s key amendment on implementing the Grenfell phase 1 recommendations was accepted there.
Every time we debate and discuss the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire, we hold the memory of those who died in our hands. We must be gentle and respectful, but we must also see the injustice, and honour those who died by taking action, and by not resting until justice has been done and everybody has a safe home that they can afford. I pay tribute to the campaigners—Grenfell United, the families, survivors, and the entire community—for their tireless fight for justice. I also pay tribute to those campaigners who are fighting every day for the hundreds of thousands of people who are trapped in unsafe buildings, and who face extortionate bills and are unable to move. The drumbeat of their lives is fear and anxiety. No Parliament can ignore that.
Thousands of people are working on this, but I particularly thank Ritu and Will from the UK Cladding Action Group, for their assiduous efforts. I thank the 200 people who joined our roundtable this morning, so that we could hear at first hand the horrors that this Government are wilfully enabling. As Ritu said, “we are fellow human beings in these buildings—your family, your friends, your colleagues.” To everyone who is affected, and who is living in fear and anxiety, I say sorry—we must do better.
As we have said throughout the passage of the Bill, we support it, but it is small and the only piece of concrete legislation we have had since Grenfell. That is not an adequate response to the biggest housing safety crisis in a generation. It does not even scratch the surface of the work that must be done to fix the wild west of building control and fire safety that we have seen played out with such horror over the past few weeks during phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry. It has taken so long to get here, and at every stage we have had to drag the Government into action.
The Government promised to act swiftly after Grenfell, yet it took them almost three years to introduce this Bill. We waited 12 weeks just for them to bring the Bill back to consider Lords amendments. This is intended to be a foundational Bill. Its purpose is to provide clarity, and state what is covered by the fire safety order, which will inform other related and secondary legislation. In Committee the Minister said that the Government intend to legislate further, and he spoke many times of action still to come, as he did today. By this stage, however, we need more than vague commitments about secondary legislation. At the very least, we need a clear timetable from Government that sets out when further changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order will be delivered, when secondary legislation will be introduced, and when the Bill will be implemented.
In response to a deeply frustrated letter from Grenfell survivors in September, the Government said that the introduction of the Fire Safety Bill was a key priority, yet the Bill does not include provision for any of the measures called for by the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry. We would like many issues around improving fire safety to be included in the Bill, but many will now have to be introduced through the draft Building Safety Bill and by secondary legislation. We have no idea when any of those things will happen.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have been asked to speak by my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and by other Members who have relatives who own such flats on the mainland. They have extreme concerns, and the fears that the hon. Lady has referred to about their properties, and what that means for the future. Although the Government have good intentions, I believe —as I think does she—that the Bill does not go far enough. Is she convinced by what the Minister has said, and if not, will she push the amendment to a vote?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think the Government have gone far enough, and I do not accept the reasons why we are going at such a snail’s pace on something so important. I will come to what we think should be done about it.
The Government rejected many attempts to amend the Bill. The draft Building Safety Bill places various requirements on what is called the “responsible person” and refers to the fire safety order for the definition of that, but the fire safety order does not provide a definition of the responsible person. The draft Building Safety Bill even attempts to put into law a building safety charge. It is vital that the fire safety order makes it clear that there is no ambiguity around the definition of responsible person and that it does not mean leaseholders. However, the Government chose to reject that amendment.
The fire safety order requires regular fire risk assessments in buildings, but it includes no legal requirement for those conducting the assessment to have any form of training or accreditation. In Committee and on Report, we tabled amendments that would bring into force an accreditation system for fire risk assessors, rather than waiting for more secondary legislation. We also tabled an amendment to require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types and heights of building. On that point, I am glad that the Government have listened, having turned us down in the initial stages, and taken good practice from Croydon and other areas and introduced a risk-based approach to the Bill.
We tabled an amendment on waking watch to require the Government to specify when and for how long such measures should take place. Thanks to Lord Kennedy of Southwark, our amendment on implementing key measures from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry passed in the Lords, despite the Government’s attempts to block it. The Government have made so many promises to address the fire safety crisis but failed to keep them. The families and survivors are still waiting for justice, and hundreds of thousands of leaseholders and tenants are still trapped.
As we debate the Lords amendments this afternoon, the Government face a choice on what they include in the Bill. They could do the right thing and fulfil their promises, or they could push the can down the road again—“We do care, just not quite enough, not quite yet.” There are two answers that thousands of people across the country are watching and waiting for today: will the Government change their mind and back the Lords amendment to implement recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry, and will the Government legislate to ensure that leaseholders—blameless victims of this crisis—do not have to foot the bill for measures to make their buildings safe?
Kevin Hollinrake
Although I understand the point behind the hon. Member’s position—I assume she will vote for Lords amendment 4—can she answer the point I made to the Minister? What will she do when the building owners simply walk away? Where will the costs go? Does she have a solution for that? Does she not accept that this amendment is fundamentally flawed and is not the right way to achieve what she wants to achieve?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is an expert in this area, and I very much respect what he says. The answer is that it is for the Government to resolve this crisis. It is not for leaseholders to foot the bill. We suggested a national taskforce, whereby the Government could take responsibility for assessing the costs of the remediation work and then find out who is responsible, so that, as with the polluter pays principle, we could get to the point where the people who were responsible for the problem were paying the bill. That is fundamentally what we are trying to achieve, because in law at the moment, those who can least afford to pay are the only ones having to pay. The Minister says that there are flaws in the way the amendment is worded, but he could have amended it.
Lords amendment 2 would place robust requirements on building owners or managers and implement the key recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry. The Minister said that he had concerns with the way the amendment was worded. Again, the Government could have tried to amend it and to fix some of the problems along the way, but have chosen not to do so.
The Government said that they would implement the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry recommendations in full and without delay, and Lords amendment 2 would be a straightforward way for them to fulfil that promise. It seeks to require the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises to do four simple things: to share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; to complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; to complete regular inspections of lifts; and to share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents. Those measures are straightforward and supported by key stakeholders. Indeed, a common response is incredulity that these measures are not already in law.
The Government have even tried to water down proposals on the evacuation of disabled people, as has been reported today. They have proposed requiring personal evacuation plans for disabled people only in buildings with known safety issues and a waking watch. It is only after legal action by the families of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire that the Government have relaunched a consultation on this.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. I want to emphasise the importance of paragraph (a) of Lords amendment 2, on sharing information about the materials that a building is constructed of, because my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth have real difficulties getting hold of, for example, architectural drawings and original “as built” drawings. There is simply no consistency in this across the UK, which means that fire and rescue services, let alone anybody trying to undertake works, have a much harder job.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had many similar cases in my constituency, with people just trying to get to the bottom of what the issues are, and meanwhile they cannot sell their flat and are facing fire remediation and waking watch charges, their insurance is rocketing and their lives are on hold. We heard from many such people this morning, and it really was very sad.
It is hard to understand why the Government have put forward a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 2. I heard what the Minister said, but my challenge is that he could have tried to amend our amendments if he had a problem with them, to make them work. The answer, “We will do these things, but later” is simply inadequate.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I think that we all share the same objective across the House. I certainly want the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry to be implemented as quickly and robustly as possible. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Lady is trying to make a political point, because my has made it very clear that we have a robust system in place. We have the Fire Safety Bill. We have already done the consultation on the fire safety orders, which will be coming out in the spring. Our methodology has been backed by the National Fire Chiefs Council, and the step-by-step process has also been backed by Dame Judith Hackitt.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I do not doubt her sincerity or the work that she has done on this since becoming a Member of Parliament, but I fundamentally disagree. The step-by-step process might be the right process, but it is so slow. It is almost four years since the Grenfell fire, and it is a year since the recommendations were made. The consultation finished in October, and the Government are still considering the responses. It is painfully slow. Have we not seen with covid what is possible when we put our minds to something? Look at how tremendously quickly we have achieved amazing things through this year of trauma. I think that, with commitment, the Government could work faster on this.
Ben Everitt
We all share the frustration and want this to be done quickly, but it has to be done right. If it comes down to a choice between quick and right, we owe it to the leaseholders to do it right.
Sarah Jones
I hear what the hon. Member says, but whether we should have a system in law whereby we check that a lift is safe is really not that complicated. Of course there are experts, but throughout all stages of the Bill the Government and the Minister have referred to steering groups, taskforces and consultations, rather than actually implementing the recommendations. We could have gone much faster. The Government published the consultation on fire safety in July and it closed in October, but four months later they are still analysing the feedback. They cannot keep promising to act later; they need to act now. There really are no more excuses. There is no reason why this amendment could not be made. The Lords were right.
I will now move on to Lords amendment 4, to which many amendments have been tabled in an attempt to improve it and build on it. This morning I heard from many leaseholders in this very situation. They told me of their desperation, how their lives have been put on hold, how they face mental health issues, how their insurance has rocketed, how their waking watch costs are exorbitant, how they cannot get EWS forms and so cannot sell their homes, how they face costs of other fire remediation way beyond cladding, and how they live in blocks not covered by the Government schemes. Many of them face bankruptcy. They simply cannot understand the injustice of having to pay for things that were never their fault. They cannot understand how the Government do not get this and will not put it right.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
To echo the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), it is about getting this right, rather getting it done quickly. Does the hon. Lady not agree that a lot of these policies that we are bringing forward have been measured, have been accepted by experts and are tackling the issue? It is right that we tackle those at most concern of not being safe first, and then follow through afterwards, rather than trying to do all of them at the same time and getting it wrong.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I genuinely struggle to understand why the Government have not grasped the scale of this crisis and the quantity of people who cannot sell their flat, who cannot afford the costs that they are currently looking at, who cannot change jobs and who cannot get married or have children because their lives are on hold. Many are first-time buyers who have saved up, worked really hard and got their flat. If the Government would say today, “We will commit to legislate to say that lease- holders should not have to foot the bill”, we could accept that there was a commitment there, but there is not.
There is no commitment to say that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill. The words are said, but there is no action to put it into law. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that there is £5 billion, and that is true, but that does not cover the vast number of people who are still affected—the vast number of people whose lives are still on hold. One could say that some of them are perhaps traditional Conservative voters. We struggle on this side of the House to understand how the Treasury has not grasped the scale of this crisis and is not putting it right.
Stephen Doughty
I know for a fact that some of those affected are traditional Conservative voters. I have spoken to people from all walks of life, and they are in absolute anguish about this. They are being left in the dark. We had the announcement the other day—it was typical to announce a big sum of money and then not be clear about how much would come to Wales, how the system would work or when the money would come through. These people have been living in the dark and in anguish for months and for years, and it is completely unacceptable.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is completely right. There is the idea that someone would have a long-term loan where they pay £50 a month. If someone needs to pay off a £20,000 loan, and that loan stays with the building, they have no chance of selling their flat. Nobody is going to want to buy a flat with a bill that high.
Kevin Hollinrake
What evidence does the hon. Lady have for that claim? This is a maximum charge per unit per month of £50. If she understands how property transactions work, that is a maximum of £600 a year, which capitalises to about £12,000. I am not saying it would not affect the value of that property, but it does not make them unsaleable. It makes them far more saleable—I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—than they are today and actually affects the value by a relatively small amount.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Member said, “I am not saying it would not affect the value of that property”, and that is the key. This issue should not be affecting the value of the property when people have saved up for many years, worked hard, bought their flat and then through no fault of their own suddenly finds that the value of their property goes down because of the Government failure to deal with the problem.
Through successive lockdowns, the people in these blocks have gone to bed at night with the added pressure of sleeping in a building at risk of fire or being themselves at risk of bankruptcy and deep financial trouble. It is taking a heavy toll on people’s mental health and putting millions of lives on hold. Leaseholders have been trapped in this impossible position for far too long.
I hate that we are still having this conversation. I hate that I have stood here at this Dispatch Box time after time for years saying the same thing to Ministers, and I hate that good people on both sides of this House are saying the same things and it is still falling on deaf ears. The problem is not going to go away. The Government could legislate today to ensure that leaseholders do not pay by supporting the Lords amendment, the McPartland-Smith amendment or the Labour amendments. At this point, I do not mind which one they pick; I just want the job done.
Jim Shannon
One of the items that has been brought to my attention is that 57% of flats requiring remediation were purchased for under £250,000, which means that many of those people are living in negative equity in their properties. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not about cake tomorrow, but about what happens today, and unless the Government accept the amendments that have been tabled, those people will feel that they have no hope for the future?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We heard from a lady this morning that the cost of insurance for her small block had gone up from £30,000 a year to £500,000 a year. We heard from a lady who lives in a block in Kent—I know one Government Member has stood up for her in this place many times—where the residents have already spent £500,000 on a waking watch. It is quite extraordinary.
I was alarmed to see reports this afternoon that the Prime Minister’s press secretary, Allegra Stratton, has said:
“Our problem with McPartland’s amendment is that, far from speeding things up for constituents across the country who are worried about finding themselves in these properties, it would actually slow things down.”
That mirrors the intervention that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has made, and it is an absolute cop-out. We are four years on, and leaseholders are struggling. We think that 11 million people are affected by this—not necessarily those living in dangerous blocks, but those living in blocks where they do not know, because they have not got the forms sorted and they are paying more insurance. That is a huge crisis.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recall that in the Opposition day debate called by the Labour party just a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister, if our amendment is defective, why do the Government not take it, fix it, and make it work? They had the opportunity then. Does the hon. Lady think they should have done that?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: if there were any problems with these amendments, they could have been addressed by the Government through this process. They had 12 weeks between the Bill leaving the Lords and coming here to try to effect some of these things, but have chosen not to.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) are to prevent leaseholders from being billed for fire safety repairs. Labour’s amendments went further, because the McPartland-Smith amendments—supportive and good though they are—would not cover leaseholders in blocks where flammable cladding had been added at some stage following the building of the block. Labour’s amendments would have included, for example, Grenfell Tower, which was built in the ’70s but to which the flammable cladding was added later, in 2017.
In our amendments (f), (g), (h) and (i) to Lords amendment 4, we have sought to go even further, to make sure that the cost of fire safety problems from refurbishment jobs such as the cladding of Grenfell Tower cannot be passed on to leaseholders. Our amendments (f) and (g) would ensure that leaseholders cannot be passed on the cost of remediating problems issued under the fire safety order wherever the problem was created. Labour’s amendment (i) would ensure that the Bill protects leaseholders from the day it comes into law, instead of an unknown date in the future, and Labour’s amendment (h) would have ensured that if the fire safety order is extended in the future, the Secretary of State must publish an analysis of the financial implications for leaseholders—although that amendment was not selected today, as it was out of scope. [Interruption.] You are hurrying me along, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am turning pages so that I can speed up, which I will of course do.
To conclude, Labour’s amendments in lieu are straight- forward. They are based on issues that the Government need to address and have pledged to do so, but have not acted on. The risk of fire and looming bankruptcy will not wait while the Government dither and delay, with inaction or failed proposals that keep many lease- holders in debt. Each amendment I have spoken to today corresponds to a broken promise from the Government.
Today is another chance for the Government to finally put public safety first, and bring forward a set of legally binding commitments to deliver on the promises they made to leaseholders and implement the recommendations of the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry. Blameless victims of this crisis, who are in dangerous homes and facing financial ruin, expect nothing less. As debates over the past four years have repeatedly shown, solving this issue fairly would command cross-party support, and today should be a day to deliver justice. It is not too late for the Government to put the British public first and do the right thing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for concluding bang on time. As the House knows, this debate is limited to three hours, and one of those hours has now passed. I did say at the beginning of the debate that there would be a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I make no criticism of the Minister or the shadow Minister—if I were going to criticise, I would have stopped them long before now—and I appreciate that both hon. Members have taken a lot of interventions and dealt with a great many different matters, so it was necessary to spend the first hour in this way. But that does mean that, although there will be a limit of four minutes for the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), after that, the limit will be reduced to three minutes.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I would also like to send my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).
It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in his place and responding to this debate. I listened to him very carefully and I detect a hint that there could be a compromise, for which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) have been calling for many months now. We are very keen to work with the Government. We are very keen for the Government to table an amendment in lieu, to accept our amendment today or, if the Minister feels so inclined, even to move our amendment to a vote to test the will of the House, but I imagine that, sadly, we will not have the opportunity to vote on what is called the McPartland-Smith amendment today.
I would like to pick the Minister up on the point he made about this Bill not being the correct place for the amendment. I believe it is, which I will come on to in a moment. I would also like to put on record that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, those who have supported our amendment and the leaseholders themselves are all very clear that we have never asked the Government to pay for the full costs of remediation, or the taxpayer to bail people out. We just want the taxpayer to provide a safety net for leaseholders to ensure the fire safety works are actually undertaken; it has been nearly four years.
We want to be in a position whereby the Government provide the cash flow up front, and then they can levy those who have been responsible within the industry to recoup those funds over the next 10 years. That is our plan and objective. We would love to work with the Minister and the Government to get this resolved in the Lords. I say to the Minister today that their lordships have already agreed to re-table the amendment if it is not accepted. It will be tabled in the Lords on Friday. I am sure we will be back to discuss this later on—in a few months. So I hope that we can work in the in-between time to come to some solution together.
I am very proud to be the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee. The Fire Safety Bill does amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The reason why the Bill is so important is that it creates a financial obligation on leaseholders to pay freeholders for the costs of remedying any fire safety defects on external walls and doors, such as cladding, but not limited to cladding, so it can include fire safety breaks and a whole variety of other issues. I assume that this is an unintended consequence. The Government do not want leaseholders to pay—that is very clear from what the Minister said earlier—but they are not sure how they can resolve the problem and get the works fixed without leaseholders actually paying.
From my point of view, we are very keen to ensure that leaseholders are not responsible. In terms of dealing with that order, we have to amend the Fire Safety Bill, because we cannot wait for the Building Safety Bill. The Fire Safety Bill creates this legal obligation. It creates the position whereby a fire authority, which is a competent authority, can order a freeholder to do the works. They have 21 days to agree to do the works and provide a timescale, or that is a criminal offence. Once they have had this direction from a competent authority, the leaseholders are then required to refund the freeholder for the works that are done. Up and down the country we already have thousands of leaseholders who are on the verge of bankruptcy—some have already gone bankrupt—just waiting and, before they actually get to the costs of remediation, paying £15,000 a week for waking watch in blocks of flats and excessive insurance premiums. The costs are huge.
I urge the Government to accept our amendment, to let us vote on it, or to work with us to ensure that we resolve this issue in the Lords and that leaseholders do not have to pay.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
First, may I send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? When he was Secretary of State, he and I discussed our respective illnesses, and I really feel for him and his family at this very difficult time.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has discussed the issue of cladding remediation and fire safety works on many occasions. In June, we made it clear that
“residents are in no way to blame”
for defects from cladding
“and it is our view that they should bear none of the cost of remediation.”
We repeated those sentiments in our prelegislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill. Again, we said:
“The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects…for which they were not responsible.”
That is very clear.
The question is who should pay: the initial developer—the Government could help to co-ordinate action against them—the taxpayer, of course, or the industry as a whole? Unfortunately, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—I very much agreed with the sentiments of his comments—and by the Labour Front Benchers seek to place responsibility on the freeholder.
For reasons that the Minister gave, those amendments cut across the contractual relationship between freeholder and leaseholder. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who raised this issue a number of times in the Select Committee when he was a member, showed that freeholders are often quite small companies that, where they were not responsible for the initial development, simply collect ground rent. If faced with the cost of remediation, they would simply walk away. Those amendments will not get the work done. That is the fundamental issue. We want to see it done without leaseholders having to pay for it.
Turning to who should pay, certainly, the Government have put on the table £3.5 billion in addition to the £1.6 billion, but that does not include anything other than cladding remediation. All the other works, which for many leaseholders are as substantial in cost as cladding remediation, are not covered, and of course that funding does not cover buildings below 18 metres.
The Government have come up with a loan scheme for buildings below 18 metres, but that places the loan charge on the freeholder. Surely, we are back to the same problems: if we cannot interfere with the contractual relationship between the freeholder and the leaseholder—according to the Minister, with respect to the amendments before us from the Opposition and the hon. Member for Stevenage, we cannot—then surely that is a problem for the Government’s loan scheme too, and if freeholders are going to walk away from a direct charge on properties, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, they will walk away from a loan too. That is a real problem that the Government have to address.
I welcome that the Government are going to introduce a levy and a financial contribution from the industry, but we appear to be in a position where they cannot tell us whether the money raised from the levy will be in addition to the £3.5 billion or whether it will be taken from the £3.5 billion—in other words, that the Treasury will get some of that money back. That, to my view, would be wrong. The Minister is going to come to the Select Committee on 8 March; hopefully, we will be a bit wiser after that visit.
Finally, we have talked a lot about leaseholders, but what about social housing tenants? The National Housing Federation says that there is £10 billion of remedial work to be done in the social housing sector, and more for council housing properties, yet the only automatic right that social housing landlords have to any funding is for help with the removal of ACM cladding; everything else they are likely to have to pay for. Tenants are going to have to pay through rent increases, cuts to future maintenance or cuts to the house building programme, none of which is acceptable. So we have a perverse situation where the social housing landlord, as a freeholder, could be ensuring that tenants have to pay for the remediation of properties next door that have been subject to the right to buy. That cannot be right.
All these matters need resolving. We hope that the Minister does so on his visit to the Select Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now move to a three-minute limit. I call Royston Smith.
Royston Smith
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have no axe to grind with the Government. They are my friends and colleagues. I like them and I get on with them, but I am not going to blindly follow them when I can see that the treatment of leaseholders is wrong.
First, in tabling our amendment, we have never said that we would ask for taxpayers’ money. We made that fundamentally clear right at the beginning, and it is worth repeating that. I know that many of my colleagues would have supported our amendment, but they were told that it would be an open cheque book and therefore they chose not to. Secondly, our amendment will not wreck the Bill. It will make it fair for the innocent lease- holders caught up in this crisis.
There are three parts to this, in my opinion. There is the moral issue. Who, in good conscience, could leave these people to pay huge insurance premiums, sometimes increased by over 1,000%, huge waking watch charges and crippling costs of remediation if we could do something to help? Who would do that?
Then there is the economic issue. When someone owns just 10% of their home, but they are responsible for 100% of the remediation cost, what do we think people are going to do? They will be saddled with tens of thousands of pounds-worth of debt while their home is valued at nothing. This part of the housing market is heading for collapse and thousands of leaseholders are heading for bankruptcy. The Government could and should prevent this from happening.
Finally, there is a political dimension. Successive Governments have put home ownership at the centre of Government policy. They have encouraged people to get on the property ladder. We have incentivised them through schemes such as Help to Buy and shared ownership. Imagine the howls of derision when the first Government Minister stands up and claims that we are the party of home ownership.
The recent Government announcement is very welcome, and I know that many people are grateful, but what sort of solution says, “We concede that it is not your fault, but we are only going to help half of you?” For those buildings over 18 metres, cladding will be removed for free, but not in buildings below that height. Worse than that, those people living in buildings below 18 metres will be saddled with unaffordable debt to pay for cladding remediation. Even worse, they will know that their taxes will be paying for their neighbours’ remediation.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely understand the spirit behind my hon. Friend’s amendment. Will he answer the point that I made earlier? How would his amendment operate if the building owner walks away? Also, does he accept that his amendment would put somebody else on the hook for the costs of remediation, not just for historical defects, but for any defects in future?
Royston Smith
What I will do is refer my hon. Friend to two things that he has said. First, he said, “We will carry the can”, and he has now said, “Who is going to be on the hook?” It sounds to me like he is very happy for leaseholders to carry the can and be on the hook, but not to find a solution. The Government’s problem is to find the solution. Our problem is to say that leaseholders should never have to pay. That is not an unreasonable position for us to take.
In trying to help, the Government have satisfied no one and they have upset just about everyone. The leaseholders are not responsible for this. They know they are not. We know they are not. The Government know they are not and, therefore, the Government’s position is now untenable.
In conclusion, I appeal to the Government and to all my colleagues to think very carefully before they abandon thousands of their constituents, because I know this: they will not forget and they will not forgive.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I am speaking in support of all the amendments before us that seek to protect leaseholders from having to pay. First, on the Minister’s argument that this will delay matters, I think that leaseholders are left perplexed by the Government’s position. One day Ministers say that the cost of fixing historical defects should not fall on leaseholders—the Minister said it again today—but on another day, they say that it should. The £50 a month towards the loans that the Government propose to give to buildings below 18 metres shows that that is their policy. I do not think that Ministers can criticise others who are trying to address the problem—I support the speeches we have heard from supporters of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—because the Government are completely unclear about what their policy is on who should bear the cost. It is clear to me that it should be the people who built the blocks.
On the argument that leaseholders who are also part-owners of the freehold may walk away from their flats, that is a very fair point, but exactly the same argument applies to loads of leaseholders who will not be able to afford to meet these costs. What this tells us is that if we are to solve this we must deal with the whole problem, not just part of it.
Secondly, to argue that this is the wrong Bill misses the urgency of the situation. Leaseholders are facing bills that they cannot afford now—waking watch bills now, insurance bills now—and they still face the prospect of being asked to pay to make safe homes that they bought in good faith. That is why we should take the first available opportunity to protect them from this great injustice.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
This Bill is very important to me and my constituents, and I want to pay tribute to the Grenfell community—the bereaved and the survivors. I want the Bill to be implemented as quickly and as robustly as possible so that it is not subject to any future uncertainty or challenge.
We need to get on with this. We need to stop all the ping-ponging between this place and the other place. It is very clear that there is a systematic scheme here. There is this Bill, which is very simple. We have had the consultation on the fire safety orders and the regulation. We need to get on with that. We need to implement that work and then get on with it. We then need the Building Safety Bill. That needs to come to this House and, again, we need to get on with it. We owe that to my constituents.
The first phase of the Grenfell inquiry report came out in October 2019, 16 months ago. We, collectively—both in this place and the other place—need to get this legislation implemented and make sure that these dangerous buildings are remediated. The more we talk, the more we argue, nothing gets done—and there are dangerous buildings out there.
We have a simple piece of legislation that we can get enacted. We have a big pot of money. The totality of the pot could be as high as £10 billion. Let us implement this legislation, let us start assessing and prioritising the buildings, and let us start spending this Government money. We have time to review the details of the financing scheme. I just want to make the point that, yes, the Government are taking responsibility for buildings over 18 metres, but there is a reason for that: buildings over 18 metres, according to all the independent risk assessors, are way more dangerous. They are four times more likely to have fatalities.
I empathise hugely with leaseholders, but there is still a subsidy in there for leaseholders of buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres. So let us just get on with this today. After that, we can review the details of the financing package and amend the Building Safety Bill, but this Bill is the first step and we need to get on with it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
It is shameful that this modest Bill is the Government’s legislative response thus far to Grenfell, almost four years after that tragedy took place. We might expect, therefore, that it would at least address the most significant and urgent wrongs that the Grenfell fire brought to the Government’s attention. The purpose of the Bill is to update the fire safety order and better manage and reduce the risk of fire. What better and more straightforward way of achieving that than to implement the recommendations of part 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, which deals with issues such as the inspection and maintenance of lifts and doors, and having proper systems of evacuation in place and communicated to residents? It is impossible to imagine those steps, backed by the moral and legal authority of the inquiry, not becoming law. That is the purpose of Lords amendment 2.
Although safety is the paramount concern, the treatment of leaseholders and tenants living in unsafe blocks is a wholly new scandal that this Bill will fail to address unless Lords amendment 4 is agreed today. Those tenants should not bear the cost of remedial work to their flats where they did not and could not have known the risks posed by their construction. The Government do not seek to deny that, but instead make a series of partial concessions. That is the wrong approach. We should start, as amendment 4 does, with the presumption that remedial costs attributable to the Bill should not be borne by leaseholders. They should not be borne by tenants or social landlords either, or by the rents of the least well off or the limited funds set aside for the provision and repairing of social homes.
The cynical disregard for the lives of our fellow citizens that Grenfell exposed will take years, billions of pounds and the concentrated efforts of the Government and industry to address. Building design, materials, construction, maintenance and inspection are all in the dock. Height is a factor, but so is who the occupants and users are and how they are taught to behave, especially in an emergency.
For the Government constantly to adopt a reductive approach to the crisis is irresponsible. This is not just about one or two types of cladding, buildings over 18 metres or residential buildings. Today is an opportunity not to address all those issues, important as they are, but to show a serious intent to act now on the most obvious faults and injustices. The Government should take it by accepting all the amendments before the House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). This is a horrendously complicated issue involving cladding—ACM, high-pressure laminate and other forms of inflammable cladding—fire safety measures and the height of buildings. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have come up with the money to remedy the most unsafe buildings—tall buildings—and the cladding that was put on them, which fails to provide safe accommodation to residents.
The reality is that the £5.1 billion will remediate only the unsafe cladding and will not do the comprehensive work. The issue then becomes one of the fire safety work that has to be carried out as well. There is no funding to provide for that, so it has to be paid for by someone.
I have a series of suggested tests that could apply. The first is that, emerging from the Grenfell inquiry, it is quite clear that the ACM cladding was illegal, so those responsible for developing the cladding and putting it on the building must pay for the remediation in all other buildings where that is the case. Similarly, for other forms of unsafe cladding, if those people fail to accord with the building regulations that exist at the time, they should pay the cost of removing and correcting it.
Leaseholders could not reasonably have been expected to foresee the fire safety issues when they bought the leases on their flats, so the fundamental issue is that they should not have to pay the cost of remediation, either of cladding or of fire safety defects. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he finds the amendments defective. My challenge to him, when he responds to this debate, is to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government will bring forward proposals in the Lords to amend the Bill to make sure leaseholders do not pay.
The defence seems to be that the Building Safety Bill will eventually come through and be implemented. The problem is that we have sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill and recommended at least 40 changes to it. It will take probably 18 months for it to reach the statute book, and then we have the secondary legislation. Leaseholders do not have the time: this work needs to be carried out now. The industry estimates that it will take some four years to implement all the safety works required. It must be made clear that the leaseholders are not the ones to pay.
Currently, leaseholders cannot insure or sell their properties and no one wants to buy them. We are in danger of freezing the housing market because of this problem. I urge the Minister, when he responds, to—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I, too, send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and wish him a speedy recovery.
I have been listening to the debate and the various interventions. A question asked consistently in interventions from Conservative Members has been whether it is not best to put things right rather than act quickly. I remind those Members, as others have, that it is now four years on from Grenfell. Four years is a timescale in which we should have been able to address this issue and given people security and some form of confidence.
Confidence has been shattered by the failure to include in the legislation the recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry. I share the view of the Fire Brigades Union that the Government seem to be doing the bare minimum to fend off bad headlines. I have not the eloquence to speak on behalf of my constituents and portray just how strongly they feel about this matter. They are really very angry—and, I have to say, distressed. They feel not only at risk but that their lives have been put on hold by their inability to sell their properties and move from them.
We have heard today about the £5 billion that the Government have allocated; my constituents, like those of other Members, are asking what happens if the money runs out—the costs so far have been estimated to be nearer £15 billion. In addition to that, just as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, the money will not cover many of the defects that have now been found and the additional measures that have been demanded and required. My constituents are now being hit with potential bills from the developers—including the worst, Ballymore—for things such as rectifying wooden balconies and other defects that were not of their making. The idea of waiting for the Building Safety Bill is like “Waiting for Godot”, what with the time it takes to get the right type of Bill and then get the legislation through and implemented.
My constituents in lower-rise blocks do not see why they are being discriminated against. My constituents were blameless. They were failed by developers, regulators, suppliers of materials, inspectors—all of them. Many of those developers made fortunes out of developments in my constituency; it is they who should pay the cost of their own failures. I urge urgency, which is why I will support all the amendments that would protect leaseholders from being burdened with the debt caused by others who have failed us all.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to correct the historic wrongs, and I especially welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment to fundamentally change the culture in the building sector and to take a more robust, risk-based approach. Leaseholders are the innocent parties in this matter and rightly expect that the developers, builders and current landlords—some of whom were developers—along with the local building controllers, national regulators and component manufacturers, should be the ones to bear the costs.
My constituents have raised a range of their outstanding concerns that they feel still need to be addressed. They are concerned, first, that those responsible should take far more of the financial burden; secondly, that they have the unfair burden of massively increased insurance costs and waking watches; and thirdly, about the distinction between buildings above and below 18 metres and why they should be treated so differently.
To many people, a monthly cost of £50 may not be a great deal, but for many others who are already at their financial limit, the equivalent of a 13th month of mortgage payments is a huge burden that they can barely afford—if they can afford it. They want to be able to move on with their life—they may want to have a family, or move for work or for a whole range of other reasons—but they cannot. They feel trapped.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
I too send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). I have told the Government repeatedly that many residents in Salford face exorbitant fire and safety remediation costs—up to £100,000 per flat in some cases. I told them that even buildings under 18 metres were failing EWS1, and that many residents were being forced to pay thousands for measures such as waking watch, and increased insurance premiums.
On 10 February, I hoped against hope that the Government had listened—that they had heeded the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, a range of sector bodies and MPs from across the political spectrum, and had decided finally to address this great moral injustice, to ensure an urgent national effort to make buildings safe, and to guarantee that no resident or leaseholder would ever have to pay for a crisis that they did not cause. Sadly, the Government did not listen. The extra £3.5 billion of funding announced was only for cladding removal, not for remediating fire safety defects, which usually accounts for the majority of remediation costs. Only buildings over 18 metres are eligible. Residents in all other buildings, including those even one metre under, will need to apply for a loan, and buildings under 11 metres will receive nothing at all.
My constituents are devastated. Every day, bills for interim fire safety measures and increased insurance premiums rack up. They cannot move or sell; they struggle to get credit; and, worse, some may face bankruptcy or homelessness. It is so bad that the UK Cladding Action Group reports suicides nationally, and 23% of those surveyed by the group had considered suicide or self-harm. My constituents are victims of systemic regulatory failure or, worse, corporate malfeasance, but the Government are making the victims take responsibility. This has to end today. I say to the Minister that his Government have a moral duty to agree to legislate for the principle that residents and leaseholders should not pay for historical fire safety defects. I urge him to support amendments to that effect today; to ensure that the Government lead an urgent national effort to carry out fire safety remediation by June 2022; to forward-fund that work; and to reclaim the costs from those responsible and via a levy on new development.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]
I, too, thank the Government for the £5 billion that they have committed to targeting and helping to make safe these high-risk buildings. May we remember the lives lost in the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for all she has done to fight for justice for the Grenfell Tower survivors. I volunteered to help; I first went there two days after the fire. The tales of the fires that consumed the outward escape mechanisms because of the cladding, and of the way the building was encased with flames, are not something I have wanted to speak about, but I feel that it is appropriate to do so today, because I see that the Government are trying to bring some justice to the victims and to future-proof the safety of social tenants in tower blocks, and I thank them for that.
My concern is the long-term unintended consequences of the high levels of fire safety regulations for private leaseholders. They are often young men and women who have saved their whole life to buy their first home. Oftentimes the flat is in London, and as leaseholders, they are now unable to leave that flat. Many of my constituents have written to me about their children in London who have purchased a flat and are now trapped. They can no longer afford the soaring costs of their debts, and some have even moved home to their parents in Beaconsfield because they cannot afford the financial burdens they are now under as leaseholders. I hope that we can continue to address this issue long term, but I want to see this legislation passed and this first stage accomplished. I appreciate and sympathise with many of the amendments, but I would ask that we just move forward and support the Government to ensure that this first level of safety is on offer for residents across the UK.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. We are in the middle of a building safety crisis, and post Grenfell, we must all play our part in ensuring that no one is ever unsafe in their home again. The amendments we are discussing are a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support those that enhance protections for leaseholders, but the Bill is a missed opportunity to enshrine in law further amendments to protect leaseholders.
The issue I want to draw the House’s attention to is interim costs of temporary fire safety measures that leaseholders have to put in place while they wait for the start of long-term remedial work, such as the replacement of dangerous cladding. They have to put those measures in place, because they have been told by the fire authorities that their buildings are too unsafe to live in without them. The vast majority of these interim costs are not covered by any Government assistance, and hundreds of my leaseholder constituents in Vauxhall are already paying out, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
The amendment that I tabled to the Bill would have ensured that building owners could not pass these interim safety costs on to leaseholders. These costs are extortionate, involving eye-watering sums of money. Thousands of pounds are being paid by ordinary, working people, and it is money that they just do not have. How can that be right or fair? I am sure that my honourable colleagues do not need reminding that this building safety crisis was not caused by leaseholders. They are the innocent victims, caught between an industry that has failed them and a Government who are unwilling to go the full distance. Ensuring that leaseholders do not pay these interim costs is not only morally right, but essential if they are not to face financial hardship or ruin. The building industry and the Government must take full responsibility for protecting leaseholders from these interim costs. No leaseholder should have to pay a penny for making their home safe.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
It is with deep sadness, but also with optimism, that I speak today—sadness because I recall only too clearly the shock of hearing about Grenfell Tower. That shock turned to horror when I went to pay my respects in person. I stood by those charred remains, the dense and acrid smoke heavy in the air, with an inescapable horror at the awareness of what was mingled in the smoke and the dust, at the horrendous loss of life, and at the harm to so many who still carry the terror and fear of that night.
Housing has been my lifelong passion and was my career before I came into Parliament. My interest in and deep commitment to it continues, as shown in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I chair the New Homes Quality Board, which is bringing in a new code of practice and a new homes ombudsman. It complements the serious and vital work of Dame Judith Hackitt on the building safety regulator, as well as the essential remit of the Fire Safety Bill.
This Bill is not the whole solution to the Grenfell tragedy, but it is an essential and important technical Bill that needs to be brought in as a matter of urgency. That is why today we must not confuse the purpose of this Bill and the immediate necessity of bringing in laws to protect every person in every constituency, whether they live in a terraced home, a bungalow, or a low, medium or high-rise building. Back in 2017, I called for leaseholders to be protected against remediation costs in high-rise buildings where cladding such as Grenfell’s had to be removed. I therefore welcome the Government making that happen through a £5 billion investment for that activity and for building safety; it is the right thing to do.
I called for changes in obligations, and for the ability of fire services, councils and Government to intervene in fire safety matters, so that where there were known problems—for example, with doors or common areas—they could be corrected. The Bill will put that right, and it will give authorities the power to intervene and protect lives. That is what the Bill is all about. I commend the actions of the Housing Secretary and the Government in recent months, and encourage them to look at a broader review of the rights of leaseholders and renters alike, but I welcome the Bill. It is the right thing to do, and it needs to be urgently concluded.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
I have spoken previously on the nightmare facing residents in the Wicker Riverside complex in my constituency, who were evacuated before Christmas with no notice because of multiple fire safety failings. We got them back, and I thank Lord Greenhalgh for his assistance with that, but their problems remain. They face waking watch costs of up to £600 a month, which for some is almost twice their mortgage payments, and they are still waiting for huge bills for works that they anticipate will be needed to make their homes safe. Nearby leaseholders in Daisy Spring Works received a bill this week for £7,000 to cover compartmentation works, to be paid within 28 days, on top of £10,000 of previous costs, with bigger bills yet to come. In the Metis building, the removal of ACM cladding will be covered by Government funding, but leaseholders still face bills of up to £50,000 to make good other faults.
Of course, there are others across my constituency and the country who are in the same situation. In all these cases, they are expected to pay simply to make their homes safe by putting right the mistakes of others. That is the central wrong that we have an opportunity to remedy today by supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the amendments tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that the Government will not try to prevent a vote, because Ministers know that there is a grave injustice here that must be remedied. They must know, too, in their hearts that the action they have taken so far falls well short of what is needed.
This is a huge problem. We should start from the basic principle that those who are responsible for the failings should be responsible for putting them right. In any other consumer purchase, a dangerous item would be recalled by the company that made it and repaired or replaced at no cost to the person who bought it. The same principle should apply here. Leaseholders in these buildings have not just been let down by developers; they were people who exercised due diligence, undertaking all the checks that were needed before they bought their flats, but they were let down by comprehensive regulatory failure, which was the responsibility of successive Governments. That is why we must step in and ensure that their homes are made safe as a matter of urgency. Of course we should seek to recover as much of the cost as possible from the developers and others responsible, but the principle must be that leaseholders pay nothing, either now or in the future, through any loan scheme. Many leaseholders have stretched their finances to the limits to buy these homes. Some have become bankrupt already, and others are facing ruin and unimaginable mental strain. This is wrong and we can begin to put it right today.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The cladding issue is of great importance to many of my constituents, particularly in Portishead. They understand that a balance must be struck between the problems of leaseholders caught in the cladding trap and the interests of taxpayers at a difficult time for the public finances. We know that the Government will publish more details of the financing scheme when further discussions with the Treasury are completed, so we still have time to make changes. Although it would be completely improper to ask the taxpayer to, in effect, sign a blank cheque, it has to be a basic principle that those who have to undertake changes purely as a result of change in government regulation should have any remediation underwritten. As these changes will affect dwellings irrespective of their height, such support should be available to all. Where changes are required not as a result of change in government regulation but because of faulty workmanship or frank dishonesty in the declaration of materials used, all costs should fall directly on developers, builders and insurers—indeed, there may be occasions when criminal sanctions are required. Although it is generally unacceptable for taxpayers to pay in these circumstances, there will have to be exceptions, particularly when the developers in question have gone out of business and leaseholders have no other options from which to seek redress.
We must also see a number of practical issues resolved, including through urgent Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors guidance on EWS1 certification and the speeding up of the training of qualified staff able to conduct EWS1 assessments. We need building societies and banks to take a realistic and constructive attitude to the buying and selling of these properties, especially when a taxpayer safety net is being deployed to provide greater certainty. We also need the Association of British Insurers to provide realistic guidance to its members, so that on top of the financial worries they already have leaseholders are not subjected to the added anxiety about the failure to insure their properties. As I have said in the House before, we have to ensure that surveys are factually accurate, as we have seen too many examples of shoddy practice that adds both financial cost and unnecessary worry for w the leaseholders concerned.
We all understand the problems facing the public finances and we all welcome the £5 billion of taxpayers’ money that the Government have already put forward. What we need to see as soon as possible are fair and equitable solutions for all those caught in a trap not of their own making.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
Lords amendment 4 is about protecting blameless leaseholders from the extortionate costs of fire safety remediation. I tabled it initially in Committee and it has been re-tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Pinnock in the other place. I thank the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and their colleagues, who have improved upon it, and I support all these amendments. Hundreds of thousands of people affected by this fire safety scandal are counting on us to put our party political differences to one side and work across party lines to protect them. The Government have made three claims today. They say that this Lords amendment should not be dealt with now, that it is defective and that it will delay this Bill. Let us address those in turn.
First, the Government say this Bill is not the time and place to protect leaseholders, and that they should wait until the Building Safety Bill. The Government are wrong. From the date this Bill comes into force, leaseholders will be required to pay for any costs incurred consequent to a notice by a competent authority. If they receive a notice from a fire service or a local council in relation to the external wall of a building of two or more dwellings, those leaseholders will be liable to pay from day one of the Bill taking effect. Leaseholders cannot afford to be hit with huge costs, and that is why this Bill is exactly the right Bill to address the issue, and it is why leaseholders cannot wait any longer.
Secondly, the Government say that the various amendments under consideration today are defective. Well, why have they not proposed their own amendments to solve any defects? I first tabled this amendment on 25 June last year, which is eight months ago, and I note that the Government have failed to bring anything forward in all that time.
Thirdly, the Government say this amendment could delay the Bill. With respect, that is a bit flippin’ rich, given that it has taken three and a half years to bring forward a Bill that extends to a whole two pages.
We cannot end the whole fire safety scandal today, but we can protect leaseholders from having to pay for it. I call on the Government to put all the amendments to a vote, and I call on all Members of this House to put our party differences to one side and to vote for them all.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
I start by sending my very best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). We want to see him back soon, but it is good to see this Minister, my Hampshire neighbour, leading the debate today.
Owning your own home is a very British dream, but it has turned into a nightmare for thousands in the aftermath of Grenfell. That is why there is such strength of feeling across the House today. Our thoughts will always be with those lost in the Grenfell tragedy, with those who are grieving and with those who survived, but there are now thousands more who are dealing with the building safety consequences of those events.
In the UK it should not be high risk to buy a home in a block of flats built and marketed by a reputable house builder under strict building control regimes, only to find that the professional and regulatory checks have been a fiction. That is a situation in which hundreds of my constituents find themselves.
It is clear from today’s debate that no one wants residents to pay for this disgraceful behaviour, that there cannot be a blank cheque from Government, and that those who caused the problem have to pay for the works that are needed. The only question is how we achieve all that, so I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement of an additional £3.5 billion to fund remedial work, a grant scheme for low-rise buildings, a builders levy and a property developer tax. This will be of some reassurance to leaseholders, and a start to making sure that those responsible for the failings are made to pay for what they did wrong.
I accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Minister that this may not be the right place for further assurances on remediation costs and, given his undertaking to look at this further in the Building Safety Bill, I will pause my support for the amendments today. He has been constructive and helpful in his contribution.
In the meantime, the Government have to show how funding promises will work in practice. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for working with me to identify how funds will flow for the waking watch relief fund and remedial works. Making this work in practice has to be a ministerial priority in the coming weeks.
There also needs to be complete transparency from Homes England on which buildings have been accepted into the scheme, and that if eligible costs legitimately increase from the initial assessment, applicants can claim from the fund for a cost variation. Above all, these plans need to be in place as quickly as possible, and the Government need to tackle the insurance problems that many leaseholders now face.
Remediation works will not happen overnight, but it is in no one’s interest to delay this Bill, which includes provisions from my 2018 fire safety ten-minute rule Bill. If there is not clear progress, more action will be needed in the Building Safety Bill when it is considered later this year.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 4 and the amendments tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench. I also express my support for what is colloquially coined the McPartland-Smith amendment. The common thread is to urge the Government to ensure that freeholders do not unjustly pass fire safety remediation costs on to leaseholders and residents. Too many of my constituents are living in dangerous homes, facing huge financial and legal liabilities for remediation of building safety defects not of their making. Too many are suffering anxiety and stress from living in blocks with ACM and other types of cladding, whether in New Providence Wharf, New Festival Quarter or Indescon Square, to name just a few. Residents have contacted me in despair, devastated that they have been hit with huge bills for work to make their buildings fire safe. They have described the nightmarish situation they are in, living in unsafe homes that they cannot sell, with no idea when they will be made safe. Meanwhile, developers such as Bellway and Ballymore have continued to make huge profits, thanks to Government inaction, privatisation, and deregulation of the housing sector.
The cladding scandal must end. How is it possible that so many residents are still living in blocks that are unsafe? This is the reality of what so many people are enduring on a day-to-day basis, trapped in a never-ending game of buck-passing between the Government and the developers. No one wants to take responsibility; no one wants to pay to resolve the situation; and each looks to the other to step up. However, what is clear and indisputable is that people in my constituency and all over the country bought homes in good faith to build their lives in. I urge the Government today to rethink their approach and finally do the right thing by people who are having a really difficult time, and support amendments to the Bill.
I also express support for Lords amendment 2, which would place robust requirements on building owners or managers, and implement recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. We need to be sure that the Grenfell Tower fire never, ever happens again. Years have passed since the catastrophe, and still no one has been called to account. When will we ever get answers? When will victims ever get justice? The truth is that decisions stretching back years have led to the gutting of the UK’s fire safety regime, and the failure to regulate high-rise residential buildings properly for fire safety.
I conclude with this: our constituents and our communities need much more decisive action than we are getting from this Government. It is absolutely not fair that leaseholders or residents are left to pay for building safety works that have not arisen because of any fault on their part, and it is unacceptable that people continue to live in their current state of limbo in unsafe buildings. I plead with the Minister today to end this impasse, and finally do the right thing.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to make a small, short contribution to this afternoon’s debate and, like so many others, wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) all the best.
For many in Wimbledon, the dream of home ownership —the aspiration to have a home—has gone from a dream to a nightmare because of these cladding and safety problems. I listened carefully to the Minister, and he is right: it is our duty to protect and provide legal certainty to leaseholders who are facing these issues through no fault of their own. As such, I warmly recognise and welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister, who have provided an extra £3.5 billion to make a total of £5 billion. I also recognise that this is for cladding, and that a number of other remedies will be required. On that basis, the principle must be that the defector must pay.
The Government have rightly said on a number of occasions that the costs must not fall on the leaseholder, and, in making the extra contribution to the fund, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was taking a risk-based approach. The approach for people living in buildings under 18 metres is supposedly similar. We are told there is going to be new guidance that will ensure that risk-based approach will happen, so that many buildings under 18 metres will not necessarily be within the scope of remediation, and that no one will pay more than £50 even if they are. However, we have no details. We have no guarantees that the banks and the insurers will respect these new assessments, and provide mortgages and decrease insurance costs. We have no guarantee that when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors produces this guidance it will take precedence, and that the EWS1 forms will be produced.
The Government have said that the details of these schemes will be available shortly. However, until they are available, there is no certainty for leaseholders in blocks under 18 metres, and, as has already been said, they may become liable for costs earlier than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) has already pointed out that this is not an unlimited ask of the Government; it is a specific ask, saying that those who caused the defects should pay.
I listened carefully to the Minister, and I will listen again, but I say to him that the Government could have provided some certainty today by agreeing to bring forward an amendment in the Building Safety Bill, or indeed an amendment that would have given a clear hint in this Bill. Until that happens, unfortunately, lease- holders in buildings under 18 metres will have no certainty, and they deserve it.
Stephen Doughty
May I add my warm words to those of other Members in wishing the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), a full and swift recovery?
I think that many constituents, from constituencies across the country, will struggle to understand some of the arguments and excuses that the Government have put forward today. I support the amendments tabled by hon. Friends on the Opposition side, and also those tabled by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who made powerful speeches. To emphasise that, I have received an email during the course of the debate, from a leaseholder from a Conservative English constituency, in support of those amendments. He says, “I am a Conservative, and the Housing Department is a disaster in this regard.” That is the message that I am getting from people. Regardless of their political affiliation or where they live in the country, they want this resolved. They are living in anguish and uncertainty, and it is affecting their mental health. It is affecting key workers in our covid response. It is affecting people who are trying to support young families. It is just a completely untenable situation for them to find themselves in. I think they will find some of the excuses we have heard today very difficult to hear.
This is a national scandal that has been brewing for decades, and it needs urgent action to resolve it. It needs action across the United Kingdom, so it needs the UK Government to work constructively with the Welsh Government. They have worked constructively in preparing this Fire Safety Bill, so it was really disappointing the other day when the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government brushed off any questions about Wales, saying, “I don’t know what’s going on there”—or something to that effect—at the end of the debate. He simply has not answered any of the questions, or responded to a very reasonable letter from our Housing Minister in Wales, Julie James.
I have submitted a series of parliamentary questions over the past few weeks to try to get some clarity on the gateway 2 builder levy, the proposed new tax, and on related matters, and I have received completely opaque answers. That is simply not good enough for leaseholders who want those answers and want to know what support is coming from the UK Government to ensure that their concerns are dealt with, not least because many of these pre-date devolution. I hope that the Minister will be able to look constructively on my request for those meetings, and will be able to arrange urgent briefings on these matters between officials in the Welsh Government and the UK Government.
I must go back to one of the biggest problems, which is the developers. I have called them out before and will do it again. Companies such as Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Whimpey need to be held accountable for this. They have been raking in billions in profits while building shoddy buildings, in relation to fire safety and building safety, and it is simply unacceptable that leaseholders might then be expected to pick up part of the cost. I am very pleased that the Welsh Government have confirmed unequivocally that they should not have to do that, but that requires working together across the UK—across the Union that the Minister and I support—to ensure that we deliver for them.
Lastly, we urgently need clarity on the EWSI issue, because it is still affecting lots of people and it is not getting through to the ground, and on insurance, working with the Association of British Insurers and others.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The comms with Tom Randall are a bit unstable, and we want to be absolutely certain that they are perfect, so we will go to Meg Hillier next.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was tempted for a moment to think that you were saying that I am just perfect.
I must first declare an interest, as I am a leaseholder in a building with dangerous cladding, but happily for me and my neighbours, our developer stood up and is paying for every aspect of the costs, which is what every developer should do, although clearly that is not the case. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and commend him for his decisive action at the early stages of this challenge, when he issued a ministerial direction to ensure that ACM cladding was removed from blocks. He recognised that it would take too long legally to chase down who should pay, and in the meantime the urgency of the issue was so great that it needed to be done. I feel that sets the tone for what the Government should be doing.
I commend the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) for their work to try to maintain the profile of this issue, which is particularly difficult to do as a Back Bencher. I also align myself completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on the impact on residents. I am are not going to go into that, because I have repeated that many times and my constituents know that I understand their challenges.
This is the biggest consumer and fire safety failure in a generation. Both the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee have said that we need to make sure this is dealt with, and that we need to deal with the many challenges. I refer hon. Members to those reports. The housing association sector alone estimates £10 billion costs, so although I welcome the Government’s recent £3.6 billion injection, we know it is not going to be enough, and we are concerned about the £50 a month loan fee, on which I hope the Minister will come back to us at the end with a bit more information.
While ideally the taxpayer should not pay, the fact that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup recognised that that direction had to be made and that the Government needed to step in with taxpayers’ money sends, to me, a very clear signal that that is the very best way of approaching this. Yes, we should be recovering money from the developers, ultimately, but we need to get the Government to do that. The Government are not always very good at getting money back from the private sector, but I am sure we can work together, across parties, to support the Government in that endeavour.
I do welcome the Bill. It is right that it should be introduced, and I hear the heartfelt plea from the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). It is the right thing to do, but it contains an inherent contradiction: to implement it, work needs to be funded, because without that funding the Bill cannot be implemented. That is the problem, and that is why I support the amendments. I hope the Minister will come back, in his closing remarks, to explain what evaluation will be made about the £50 a month loan scheme. I refer him to the not great success of the green deal, which also put a charge on homes and failed badly. I would also like more detail and clarity on the timing of the building safety Bill, because all our constituents need that clarity.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The video link appears to be working. I call Tom Randall.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
The Fire Safety Bill is a short Bill of seven clauses that amends the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That order consolidated different pieces of fire safety legislation, and this Bill clarifies that the order applies to a building’s structure, external walls and any common parts. I am sympathetic to the aims of Lords amendment 4, but I am concerned that the fire safety order, or any Bill concerned with amendments to it, is not the appropriate legislative device to resolve the problem of remediation costs. The fire safety order is designed to place duties on the person who has some level of control in a premises to ensure that they identify the fire safety risks for the building for which they are responsible and, if necessary, put the relevant precautions in place.
I understand the Government are looking to the building safety Bill to address the issues raised in this amendment, and I agree that that would be a more relevant place to consider them. I also understand that the clauses, as drafted, would stop all remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders, including those that one might expect to be covered by service and maintenance charges, such as safety work required as a result of routine wear and tear. There is a further concern that the amendment, as drafted, could delay the implementation of the Bill itself and crucial measures to improve the fire safety regulatory system, including delaying recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry.
I am, however, pleased that the Government are paying for the removal of unsafe cladding for leaseholders in all residential buildings of over 18 metres in England. As Dame Judith Hackitt, the independent adviser to the Government on building safety, has said:
“Statistics show…that buildings above 18 metres have a four times greater risk of fatality in the event of a serious fire than lower rise buildings”,
and these buildings are rightly being prioritised for funding. For lower-rise buildings of between four to six storeys, there is a lower risk to safety, and leaseholders will gain the new protection of having cladding removed with a generous scheme to pay for it through a long-term, low-interest, Government-backed finance arrangement, where leaseholders never pay more than £50 a month for cladding removal.
I appreciate that nothing can compensate for the horror of the prospect of being liable for the costs of remedial work following the joy of moving into one’s home, bought on the entirely reasonable assumption that the block it is in would have been built correctly. However, given the complexity of this issue and the fact that leaseholders face paralysis, this does offer a route forward. I believe that these measures will help provide some certainty and confidence in this part of the housing market so that the affected flats can be bought and sold again, which would be a significant step forward from where we are at the moment.
For these reasons, I hope that the Fire Safety Bill can reach the statute book quickly, together with the building safety Bill, so that we will have a comprehensive set of measures in place to correct past wrongs and also to move forward safely.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
I welcome the steps the Government are taking to improve fire safety, including through this important Bill, which is critical in clarifying that fire risk assessments are updated to take account of external walls and flat entrance doors. The Bill provides clarity as to what needs to be covered in fire risk assessments and empowers fire and rescue services to confidently take enforcement action and hold building owners or managers to account if they have not complied with their duties in respect of these parts of the building.
The Bill is an important first legislative step in implementing the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations and one part of the Government’s major building and fire safety reform programme, which I warmly welcome. Building safety is the Government’s priority, and I am pleased that there is now an independent expert panel convened after Grenfell to consult on fire safety issues.
My concern over the amendments is that they would not be cost-free and would render the Bill legally unsound, so the Government would be unable to proceed. We would not be able to give fire and rescue services the powers they need to keep people safe. These powers have been needed for some time, as Grenfell has shown us, without any doubt. We would also not be able to proceed to implement the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations, and that would be a travesty. For the bereaved or for those who have worked closely with the survivors, to say that delaying this Bill would not be a welcome move is an understatement. There is clearly a lot at stake in not implementing this Bill. The Grenfell enquiry reinforced the fact that the Government needed to do more, and so to stall on this Bill would not reflect the Government’s own commitment to never see such a tragedy again.
On whether leaseholders should have to pay for defects, it is clear that there has been a lot of substandard work that should never have been passed and had circumnavigated fire safety standards. We need to recognise this by holding those responsible to account. None of us wants to see leaseholders foot the bill. We need to see the sector step up and foot the cost of the remediation. We should not forget that the Government stepped in and put £5 billion against these issues, not forgetting the extra £3.5 billion. This is £8.5 billion to support leaseholders in a very difficult situation. Leaseholders in buildings over 18 metres will not have to pay for the cost of remediation, and those in buildings between 11 and 18 metres no more than £50 per month, compared with what could have been thousands of pounds.
I wanted to speak in this debate as I strongly echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who spoke so passionately earlier. We need to just get on with this Bill; surely we owe that to her constituents.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
Any debate about fire safety should not just be about cladding, nor just about buildings over 18 metres high, as residents of the four-storey block, Richmond House, which burned down in just 11 minutes in 2019, would testify. Nor is just about leaseholders, as the students and tenants, as well as leaseholders, in the Paragon building in my constituency found when they were evicted last October with one week’s notice as their blocks were found to be too dangerous to live in. Both blocks were built by Berkeley Homes. Nor is it just about residential housing, as those in student flats in Bolton found when fire crawled up the sides of their building.
The fire safety crisis did not just start with the tragedy at Grenfell Tower; it has been growing for years. As a result, hundreds of thousands of residents and users of thousands of buildings live in fear of being caught in a fire, and leaseholders face bankruptcy in having to fund the costs. In her report on building regulations, Judith Hackitt summed up a
“mindset of doing things as cheaply as possible and passing on responsibility for problems and shortcomings”.
One could start with the deregulation of the building and fire safety standards that began in the ’80s, when building control services were opened up to the private sector so that building inspectors now price for work on the number of visits, so fewer visits mean a cheaper bid. Developers have been cutting costs for years, going for the cheapest materials and corner-cutting again and again on site. Then we have had the growing skills crisis in the construction industry. The Government ignored the recommendations of the inquiries into the Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fatal fires almost 10 years ago. Even now, there is the inability to train and accredit qualified fire safety inspectors who are needed to inspect the properties that in fact should never have been signed off as safe to occupy in the first place.
As I said, the scope of this Bill is far too limited. It is fiddling while too many of our constituents and their homes are at risk of burning, and leaseholders face unaffordable costs. Responsibility for sorting this should lie with those who are responsible—the Government and their friends in the construction sector. As other speakers have said, the Bill hardly scratches the surface of the crisis. It does not even implement the recommendations of phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry.
Ben Everitt
The tragedy of Grenfell should never have happened, and the lessons we have learned are not ones we can ignore. I am glad that, today and over the past few years, we have found consensus in the House that fire safety and the regulatory system should be improved, even if not about the pace of implementing those reforms. I welcome the clear commitment from my Treasury colleagues in putting together a comprehensive solution to make homes safe, while protecting leaseholders from unaffordable costs.
Christian Wakeford
As has been highlighted, more than £5 billion has been put into remediation. Does my hon. Friend agree that taxpayer contributions are finite, and that we cannot at this time be giving a tax bombshell to everyone across the country?
Ben Everitt
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is right. We are operating within a financial envelope, and one of the most pleasing things about the intervention from the Treasury announced last week is that it is what we would probably call an “elegant” financial solution. The transfer of risk away from the leaseholder to the building, combined with capping repayments at £50 a month, is possibly the most generous and neatest way that the Treasury could do that, and in effect it has gone a long way to protecting leaseholders from those unaffordable costs.
We have all been working towards a comprehensive solution for redressing those defects and reforming safety practices in the industry, in order to ensure that the heart-breaking events of Grenfell never happen again. The Bill is a key part of that, and significant progress has been made across the board, with ACM cladding either removed or in the process of being removed from every building in the social sector, and work on private sector buildings taking place at pace.
I also welcome the agreement on EWS1 forms, which will provide much-needed reassurance to leaseholders. We need such reassurance so that leaseholders face fewer burdens when they are trying to get on with their lives. We sometimes forget that we are here for people who have lives and worries, and we need to get out of their way and let them get on with their lives. These measures go a long way to addressing leaseholders’ largest concerns. This Bill and the draft Building Safety Bill are big bits of government, and more bits of government will be added. However, it is all necessary. Reference has already been made to the pre-legislative scrutiny carried out by the Select Committee, of which I was part. It was a big bit of government, but it is all necessary.
This scandal has highlighted the security of everyone living in buildings, and that must be the principal concern of this Bill and the draft Building Safety Bill. We must protect people’s lives where they are most at risk. There are some well-meaning amendments to the Bill but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) noted, they would slow down the pace of the Bill’s implementation. I do not want to see the Bill frustrated. It is crucial to building safety that we get it up and running. We have heard in this debate about the difference between pace and speed, and about getting it right. We need to get this right.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
I support Lords amendment 2, and I hope we will be able to vote on the amendments that Members have tabled. I also hope the Government will finally honour the promises to leaseholders that they have been making for the past three years, and this Bill is an opportunity to do that.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a problem facing hundreds of my constituents living in flats recently built by Barratt at Waterside Park alongside the Thames and Upton Gardens on the site of the Boleyn Ground, where West Ham used to play. Freeholds have since been bought from Barratt by Aviva. The landlord agent is Mainstay, and the property manager is FirstPort. The buildings in both developments have a B1 EWS1 certificate. There is combustible material in the walling, but the risk is not sufficient to warrant requiring its replacement. The combustible material is in a vapour layer within the structure. That material is still being used in buildings being built now, and there has been no suggestion that builders should stop using it. Leaseholders in the development have had no problems in obtaining a mortgage, given the B1 certification.
These buildings clearly do not meet the criteria for the Government’s cladding fund. Nevertheless, the property managers made an application for funding to replace this combustible vapour layer. In the case of Upton Gardens, the application has been refused. In the case of Waterside Park, the decision is still awaited, but presumably that will be refused as well. However, the property managers appear poised to embark on replacing this combustible material at an estimated cost of £30,000 per flat, which they will charge to the leaseholders. They have appointed contractors and paid for preliminary work already, although work has not yet begun in earnest. The material to be replaced is being used in buildings being built at the moment. There is no requirement to replace it, and the residents do not want to fund its replacement, so why is replacement poised to go ahead? The only motivation the leaseholders have been able to identify is to provide fee income for the managers.
Will the Minister state clearly today that buildings with B1 certification should not be remediated without agreement of the leaseholders? At the start of the debate, he said that 95% of high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have either been remediated or have workers on site doing the job. Can he tell us the actual figures? How many buildings have been remediated? How many buildings have workers on site? My constituents would be very interested to hear those numbers.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
This is a short but critical Bill. The Lords amendments, while well-intended, are inappropriate for the Bill and would require the drafting of primary legislation to make them legally workable. To make things worse, if these amendments were added to the Bill, both the Government and the taxpayer could be exposed to action by the owners of these buildings. That must be avoided, and therefore the Bill must be watertight. It would be quite wrong if we had to withdraw the Bill because of this.
Those undertaking inspections and assessments need clarity, and the key to that is to keep the Bill short. It would also be wrong to delay the implementation of the judge’s recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry, which the amendments would potentially cause. Legal advice must be accepted and forms the basis for making good on our promises, as does the input of independent experts.
Decisive action must be taken. The extra £3.5 billion committed by the Government, bringing total funding to £5 billion, is to be welcomed. This has culminated in a commitment to fully fund the replacement of unsafe cladding for all leaseholders in residential buildings of 18 metres and higher. While that is not the case for buildings between 11 and 18 metres, the new scheme will protect against unaffordable costs and limit them to £50 per month towards remediations. That also gives reassurance to banks and mortgage lenders. The new developer levy will ensure that developers make a contribution, and Gateway 2 should raise an extra £2 billion towards this.
As has been stated before, the Building Safety Bill will provide a new era of accountability for managing risk with the construction of these buildings. There will be tougher sanctions for those who fail to meet their obligations and a guarantee that it is they, not the taxpayer or leaseholders, who will remedy that. The Bill will also ensure that there is more transparency about the cost of maintaining a safe building, such as in the annual service charge. It is right that reasonable limits are placed on those charges and that leaseholders are protected from large-scale remediation costs. The Association of British Insurers has also backed the Government’s stance, as has Dame Judith Hackitt, the Government’s independent adviser on building safety.
The replacement of unsafe cladding and other remedial works must be taken seriously. The Fire Safety Bill alone cannot remedy that. Therefore, although these well-intentioned amendments are not appropriate, the wider approach must be considered and, indeed, welcomed.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Nearly four years after the terrible Grenfell disaster, it is shameful that people are still living in unsafe buildings. More than 50% of blocks identified as having unsafe cladding have either not started or not completed remediation. That is causing sleepless nights for many across the country and deep anxiety about the threat of huge financial costs. The Government have failed to step in to protect leaseholders. The Minister said that these issues should be dealt with in another piece of legislation, but that comes across to the public as simply an excuse to kick these issues further down the road. As other Members have said, they are affecting our constituents now and should be tackled now.
I speak in support of the amendments in the names of the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). Although the Government announced additional funding for cladding remediation on 10 February, leaseholders living in buildings under 18 metres will still have to cover some cladding-related costs. The fund fails to cover the huge cost of rectifying other fire safety defects and the necessary interim safety measures. According to the UK Cladding Action Group, the average total cost of building remediation for cladding and other fire safety defects is £49,000. The group states that 33% of affected flat owners earn £35,000 or less a year. Those people cannot afford to cover the cost of high interim safety measures, excessive insurance premiums, the Government’s piecemeal loan scheme for buildings under 18 metres with cladding or the huge cost of remediating other fire safety defects.
Luton South constituents have told me that living with the threat to their safety and facing exorbitant remediation costs has severely impacted their mental health. Some are on the brink of bankruptcy as they are unable to cover the cost or sell their homes. That is an issue across the country. Seventeen per cent. of respondents to an Inside Housing survey said that they are exploring bankrupts.
Let us be clear who we are talking about. The people affected are social workers, teachers, nurses and other key workers in our communities. Many are first-time buyers. It is unjust to leave leaseholders to bear the costs. Leaseholders bought their properties in good faith, and were unaware of the failures of the regulatory system. The Government must deliver on their promise to keep the public safe by urgently remediating the remaining unsafe buildings, ensuring that leaseholders do not have to foot the bill and implementing the recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell tower inquiry.
Christian Wakeford
All that many people seek is certainty, an assurance that they will not face unaffordable costs and the confidence that they are not trapped in a home they cannot sell. The Government have worked hard to deliver that. There has been clear action to make the most unsafe buildings secure, and they are fully funding the replacement of cladding from buildings deemed by independent expert assessment as the highest risk, ultimately with no cost to the leaseholders. That is what we are discussing today.
Ben Everitt
We have talked a lot about taxpayers’ money in this debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also right that the Government work with the industry, the construction sector, financial services providers and the insurance industry to find ways of making sure those parts of the private sector can also contribute?
Christian Wakeford
Before coming to this place, I worked as an insurance broker, so I do know a thing or two about the insurance industry. One of the things that came up for those properties most likely to flood was the Flood Re scheme. I urge Ministers in the Treasury and on the Front Bench today to see what they can do with the insurance sector to bring in a similar scheme for the affected properties.
Royston Smith
I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and he has mentioned the taxpayer several times. I said in my opening remarks, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), that our amendment would not put any burden on the taxpayer. If my hon. Friend is worried about the taxpayer, as I am, and we are saying that the taxpayer will not be responsible, will he therefore say that we should protect all the leaseholders?
Christian Wakeford
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a guarantee. A lot of the developers may no longer exist and insurance schemes may no longer be applicable. There will be gaps, and we do have to be responsible. Although his amendment is very well intentioned, and I am incredibly sympathetic towards it, there are gaps in it, and that is why, unfortunately, I will not be able to join him in the Lobby today, although I very much applaud the sentiment of it and the work he has put into it.
Leaseholders, building owners and taxpayers deserve a solid legislative base. That is what we are trying to do today by making sure that our properties and our leaseholders are safe. That is why we need to focus on those who are most likely to be affected. I do not want to see the Bill’s implementation frustrated. It has already taken far too long to get to this point, and we need to ensure that we can proceed.
As has been said many times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and the Minister, we have a duty: do we get this right, or do we do it quick? From my perspective, we need to get it right. Far too many people have fallen through the gaps, are struggling and are unable to afford this, so it is right that we take a fully reasoned approach, speaking to experts and to all trade bodies to ensure that we get it right. That is what I urge Ministers, the Treasury and everyone else to continue to do. I finish by thanking all Members for bringing forward some of these amendments. They do not quite deal with the Bill at hand. That is why I will not be able to support them and will be backing the Government today.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I am speaking in utter frustration, having heard many of the comments so far in the debate today, I am speaking in support of the amendments tabled by the Opposition and by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), and I am speaking on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders, including in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, who are staring down the barrel of this scandal. And I thank the cladding action campaigners across the country.
I welcome the Bill, but it is too small and too slow. There is frustration across the House of Commons today. We can do this right and do it faster, and we must. Today, we had another statement of support for leaseholders from the Minister, who said that he agrees with the intent to give leaseholders peace of mind and financial certainty, yet the Government did not write that into the Bill and are not supporting the amendments. No leaseholders of buildings of any height should be made to foot a bill of thousands of pounds that they cannot afford.
At the sharp end of the failings of this Bill are millions of leaseholders trapped in unsafe homes who are suffering enormous stress, anxiety and emotional anguish, and who feel totally abandoned. I have met many of them in my constituency. Their lives are on pause and might be for years. This is what some have told me. One said:
“As every day, week or month goes by, our financial liability and stability become ever more disturbing and deeply troubling. When will it end?
Another resident, who bought her flat using money inherited from her mother’s passing, said to me:
“Despite my emotional attachment to my flat, current circumstances make me almost wish that I had never bought it. It is a burden and a hindrance to me moving forward with the next stage of my life, at a prime time when I want to start a family.”
Another resident, a victim of domestic violence, has been trying to sell her property to raise money for legal fees. She has had to receive food parcels due to lost income during the pandemic. Her insurance premiums have now increased by 500%. Under no circumstances should leaseholders, regardless of the height of their building, have to pay for cladding remediation costs that are the fault of developers and a failed regulatory system. Funding should be based on fire risk, not on height. It should include upfront costs—it should not be loans—for all leaseholders and it should include other fire safety issues. Some Putney leaseholders face up to £100,000 in charges.
At the current pace of spend, the building safety fund, which has only approved 12 applications, will only approve all the applications—the 532 applications—by 2031. The pace of change is far too slow, so I urge colleagues on both sides of the House: please do the right thing today, back the British people and make sure that lease- holders do not pay.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
One of the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy was that a number of companies in the construction sector had been recklessly gaming the system, resulting in unsafe materials being used. But crucially, construction and post-occupancy inspections did not pick up those risks.
As someone who worked in oil and gas and then in construction over several years, I can see the very different approach taken by the two sectors. Many of our constituents who live in leasehold flats face significant costs, such as waking watch costs and several other fire risk liabilities not related to cladding. The new £30 million waking watch relief fund, the £1.6 billion remediation funding and the commitment to recruit hundreds of specialist risk assessors and specialist workers show that this Government are committed to resolving the problem and to supporting people stranded in their property through no fault of their own.
I wish to raise issues brought to me by a constituent. At present, buildings over 18 metres will have all cladding remedial work paid for by the Government. Those in buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres will be offered a loan, with residents in buildings lower than 11 metres receiving no financial support at all, the latter being the situation my constituent’s daughter finds herself in. Although it is right to target remediation first at highest-risk buildings, there is a question of fairness as to who pays if a person happens to have purchased a building that is not as tall.
In addition to the removal of cladding, inspections have highlighted further building faults, such as missing firebreaks, wooden balconies and combustible insulation. The repair costs alone could be in excess of £25,000 per flat. There is no provision for support with these repairs, which will be required before a fire safety certificate can be issued, allowing the resident to eventually sell their home. They would not have been privy to these liabilities as the conveyancing process would not have highlighted the possibility of these risks existing at point of purchase. Risk awareness at the conveyancing stage is something that I raised in my ten-minute rule Bill.
Fire safety officers should not only be competent by the certifications that they hold; they should be present and responsible for sign-off on site at all key stages. While the amendments before us were tabled with good intentions, we cannot delay the Bill any longer. I hope that Ministers will consider a post-construction and occupancy model for fire safety, much as gas and electrical checks are carried out, to pick up on changes to the fabric of a building that could be made over time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Marco. We lost your video early on, but we could hear you perfectly.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Bill but, nearly four years after the Grenfell disaster and despite assurances by the Government, hundreds of thousands of people are still living with the fear that they could be next. It is a scandal that this is the first and only piece of primary legislation on fire safety that this Tory Government have brought forward to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again.
In Liverpool, 10% of buildings are still covered in highly flammable cladding, with a further 5% covered in fire-retardant cladding. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service has suffered a 35% cut to its funding and lost one third of its firefighters since 2010. Austerity has combined with roll-backs and safety regulations to make a perfect storm.
Time and again, we have heard promise after promise that the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry will be fully implemented, yet the Bill does not include a single recommendation from the inquiry’s first phase. Does the Minister agree that his Government have fundamentally failed to take the necessary steps to keep people safe in their own homes?
Today, and for months now, we have heard from Members across the House about the nightmare situations faced by many leaseholders across the country who have been left physically, mentally and financially trapped in dangerous housing. Many of my constituents have contacted me for support. They are worried sick about being trapped in unsafe housing, crippled by costs they did not incur and with no end in sight.
One pensioner wrote to tell me that he had just been sent a bill for £20,000. He has no savings and no possibility of paying the bill. Two young NHS doctors want to sell up and take positions in hospitals in the north-east, but they cannot; they are trapped in a flat they cannot sell, faced with the possibility of mounting debts due to flammable cladding that they did not install.
I ask the Minister how he sleeps at night, knowing that his Government’s move to cut red tape has left hundreds of thousands at risk in their own homes, and how he can justify asking the leaseholders of those unsafe homes to foot the bill. It is the responsibility of this Government to identify the buildings covered in dangerous cladding and make them safe before another disaster occurs, and to bring the companies that profited from cutting corners and compromising the safety of residents to justice.
Enough is enough. We are now at a crisis point. Instead of further delays and prevarication, I call on Members across the House to do the right thing today and back Lords amendments 2 and 4 so that we can get a grip of this crisis before it is too late.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The first surgery I ever had as a Member of Parliament was about the issue of cladding. It was with residents of St Francis Tower in Ipswich. They were being chased for bills of thousands of pounds for unsafe cladding that they had nothing to do with; it was not their fault. Since that first meeting, there has been case after case after case after case. It is a huge issue in Ipswich, a huge issue in my constituency, and it is destroying the lives of many of my constituents. That is why I am speaking here today.
There has been a significant move forward since that first meeting; since that first surgery appointment, we have moved forward. The £5 billion support has helped many of my constituents. The waking watch fund, although I do not think it will be enough, is a step in the right direction—we are getting there—and the Building Safety Bill is itself 100% necessary and welcome. However, I am still at a point right now where there are a significant number of my constituents who are leaseholders, often living in buildings over 18 metres, where there are significant issues to do with fire safety that will cost thousands of pounds to remedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) has just touched on, and the support announced recently does not cover them. So they continue to have this uncertainty hanging over them, not just at a regular time but during a pandemic, when, more often than not, they have a million and one other concerns and anxieties influencing their lives. Ultimately, that is why I believe that we have moved significantly forward. I am very interested in the possibility that a Building Safety Bill will pick up on the issue and make sure that we address those leaseholders who are living in buildings that are unsafe and where there are significant issues and significant costs are currently being placed on them. It is not specifically about cladding; there are other issues and other factors that make these properties unsafe.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
The subject of the debate we are having today—worries about fire safety—has, I am afraid, blighted far too many lives for far too long. That is why this is a particularly important Bill. It is short, it has a very clear purpose, and we need to implement it as quickly as possible. Why? It is 16 months since the first report from the Grenfell Tower inquiry was published, and we need to get a robust piece of legislation on to the statute book to deal with the fire safety issues identified. We owe it to that community to address these issues in a way that will not be open to legal challenge and that brings to a halt the to-ing and fro-ing between this place and the other, which will delay the changes that are needed.
With this Fire Safety Bill, we have rightly had the consultation on fire safety orders, and that now needs to be enacted. At the same time, we have the Building Safety Bill. That needs to come to this House so that many of the issues that are understandably being debated today can be resolved in that legislation. This is about doing things in the right way, so that they are not able to be challenged in the courts in future.
I am not taking away anything at all from the many leaseholders who bought their homes in good faith, trusting developers to build a safe home and purchasing with what they believed to be confidence that all had been done in accordance with the law. My constituency does not have any buildings over the height of 18 metres that require remediation, and we are not hit by the same issues as, say, cities such as Manchester or Liverpool. However, I have constituents with families and friends who are desperately worried about their loved ones’ safety and the costs of potential remediation, because they have used some of their savings to invest in a property to give them a future income.
I welcome the £5 billion already put forward by the Government to begin to allow some of the issues to be addressed, with a commitment to funding all buildings over 18 metres high. I welcome the clear indication today from the Minister that Government will work with hon. Members to address the many concerns being raised through the forthcoming Building Safety Bill. We must also recognise the daily worries and distress among people who have been caught in this nightmare situation. The Government now have an opportunity to show how funding promises will work in practice. In fact, it should be a ministerial priority.
To conclude, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan): this Bill is the first step, and we need to get on with it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
To follow on from the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I cannot believe the Government think that this is the end of the matter, and I do not understand why they will not commit now to meeting the needs of all of those whose lives have been blighted through no fault of their own. This is a colossal injustice and a very simple one to solve: the Government just need to make sure that it is not those blameless people who bear the burden.
People bought their leasehold properties in good faith. They are in the situation that they are in—those properties are unsafe—through no fault of the owners and entirely through the fault of the developers, the regulatory framework and the Governments of various colours over the years who permitted unsafe buildings to be built. How outrageous would it be if the blameless and the poorest were left to pay the burden and the bill? The reality is that so many leaseholders in my constituency and elsewhere throughout the country are in no position to move and cannot sell. They are at their wits’ end and they are facing the end of their financial resources, too.
The Government say they will fund the making safe of blocks that are higher than 18 metres, but actually that funding relates only to the cladding of those buildings; it does not cover other things that may make those buildings unsafe. What about wooden balconies or cement particle board behind the cladding? That also needs to be covered. Those in buildings that are higher than 11 metres but lower than 18 metres will potentially have to take out colossal debts to pay privately for the work required to make their properties safe. Those who own flats in buildings that are smaller than 11 metres get no support whatsoever. The vast majority, if not all, of the relevant properties in constituencies like ours, Mr Deputy Speaker—I bet it is similar in your constituency—are much smaller than 11 metres. The provisions in the Bill ignore in particular those in rural communities who are in need.
It is a massive injustice that we should be forcing people to be fretting, worrying and facing bankruptcy and all sorts of other challenges to their lives because of a burden that is not their fault, that they cannot afford and for which the Government are refusing to pay. As things stand, the Government will meet the costs of the removal and making safe of cladding on properties that account for only 13% of those affected and less than a third of the costs, and leave the massive majority of the burden on people who are blameless and the poorest. That is unjust, and that is why the Bill needs amending.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Like many other Members, I extend my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). We all hope to see him back in his place as soon as possible.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this extremely important Bill, and naturally my thoughts turn to the unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell Tower, which none of us will forget—it shocked and horrified us all throughout the country. I know that the Government are gripped by a determination to right the wrongs of the past and to bring about the biggest improvement to building safety in a generation, to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.
While I am speaking about Grenfell, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) and her speech earlier. She is right that we need to get on with it rather than muck about with parliamentary procedure. That brings me to the reason why I support the Government’s positions today. The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to introducing two Bills on fire and building safety. This Bill, the first, is straightforward but is nevertheless an important step. I very much await the second Bill, the Building Safety Bill. We have to get things right in the right order, and we have to proceed as quickly as possible.
On the substance of this Bill, I certainly welcome the policy intention. It is a profoundly important step towards remedying the flaws in the building safety regime that were identified in the Hackitt report. It is a narrowly drafted Bill, but it enables legal certainty. When the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, we heard a lot of evidence suggesting that it was a compelling vision for the future of the industry. The Fire Action Safety Group called it “a positive first step”—I recognise that the group said “first step”—and the London Fire Brigade said it went
“a long way towards meeting the policy objective of a robust regime.”
On that, I think we can all agree.
There are, though, other issues in respect of the remediation of safety problems. I am sure I am not alone in having received emails from a number of leaseholders worried about the unaffordable costs of remediation. They are uncertain and worried, and some face negative equity. I agree with those who have said today that nobody should be in such a position. I can only imagine how I would have felt in my 20s or 30s if I had received a letter suggesting that I had a liability of tens of thousands of pounds. I do not minimise those concerns. However, I do take the Government at face value when they say that the Bill, as drafted, does not have the necessary legislative detail to underpin the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith)—a problem my hon. Friend the Minister referred to in his opening speech. Accepting these amendments would require extensive drafting of primary legislation to make them legally workable. That would significantly delay the implementation of the Bill, and I am concerned about the consequences of that.
It is clear that high-rise buildings in this country should never have been fitted with this dangerous, unsafe cladding. It is vital that we take the steps to make this right once and for all—making those buildings safer and protecting residents from crippling costs—and at a pace that the severity of the situation demands. We must ensure that Grenfell can never, ever happen again.
Kit Malthouse
I thank the many Members who contributed to this at times impassioned debate about a matter that is of interest to all of us. I know that my fellow Ministers at the Home Office and, indeed, at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will take on board the many points raised. Given the time available to me, I apologise that I am not able to address all the questions put forward. However, I will turn to some of the main themes that have dominated the debate, not least the remediation issue, about which there has been such natural and understandable focus.
It might be worth restating at the beginning the broad task that lies ahead of us as a House and, indeed, as a Government. It falls in three areas. First, we have to deal with remediation as quickly as possible. We talked a lot about that today, and about how we can perhaps increase the pace. Obviously there have been significant steps recently, not least the money that has been put forward. Secondly, we have to restore a proper appreciation of risk and value to affected properties, so that the finance industry and insurance industry can do their work in enabling the transfer of those properties and their protection correctly, rather than the current “computer says no” system.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister mentions the time that this will take. Whatever money is put forward, it will take five or 10 years to remediate many buildings. Insurance costs have quadrupled for many residents. There is a solution on the table, provided by the Association of Residential Managing Agents, in which the Government take a top-sliced risk, which would put those premiums back down. Will he look at that proposal and see whether that could be put in place to ease the burden on many leaseholders?
Kit Malthouse
Secretary of State—sorry; Mr Deputy Speaker. You never know. My hon. Friend raises, as usual, a constructive point. I know that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and, indeed, the Chancellor are meeting with banks and the insurance industry to see what solutions may come forward. The third strand of work is obviously to build a system of building safety and regulation for the future, so that the terrible tragedy of Grenfell can never happen again.
I turn to some of the questions asked. First, I was asked, not least by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), why we cannot give a firm timetable for the building safety legislation programme. I recognise that there is an intent and a desire for certainty, and we want to legislate at the earliest possible opportunity. However, Members should also be aware that making these fundamental reforms to building safety is incredibly complex, so it is important that we get this right, as a number of Members raised, by ensuring that our measures are properly scrutinised by experts and Parliament before we legislate.
The Building Safety Bill has more than 140 clauses, and I cannot prejudge the time that Parliament will need to properly scrutinise this important piece of legislation before it is put on the statute book. It is for that reason that I cannot provide specific dates for when legislation will come into force, but I emphasise again that the Government are as committed as ever to delivering the inquiry’s recommendations. We will bring the Fire Safety Bill into force as early as possible after Royal Assent. The regulations will follow as early as practicable, and we expect the Building Safety Bill to be introduced after the Government have considered the recommendations from the HCLG Committee, and when parliamentary time allows. We are therefore resisting the Labour amendment, for the extensive reasons that I mentioned in my opening speech. We think it is unnecessary and inflexible. I restated various points as to why we think that is the case earlier.
I turn to remediation, and particularly the amendments laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my good and hon. friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). We recognise that they care deeply about this issue, as do many Members from across the House, and they have obviously worked hard to represent their constituencies with dedication and passion. Having sat with leaseholders, in my role as Housing Minister, and with the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell community, I am aware, as of course we all are, of the terrible anguish and worry that this has caused to many. We agree with the intent to give leaseholders the peace of mind and financial certainty they crave.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
Wednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 View all Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 168-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reasons and amendment - (5 Feb 2021)
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 3B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 4B to 4J.
The Solicitor General
I am very pleased to be here today for the final debate on this important Bill before it receives Royal Assent and becomes law.
The Government introduced the Bill in order to provide a clear and consistent legal basis for the rare occasions when, in the course of their important work keeping us safe, it is necessary and proportionate for undercover agents to themselves participate in criminal conduct. That is a long-standing practice that has proved critical, frankly, in identifying and disrupting terrorist plots, drugs and firearms offences, and child sexual exploitation and abuse. For the first time, the Bill places that covert human intelligence source activity on an expressly statutory basis, providing our operational partners with the certainty that they can continue to utilise this tactic as we continue to respond to the evolving threat picture we face as a nation.
The Bill also resolves the tension that has previously existed where the state is asking an individual to engage in the difficult and dangerous work of frustrating crime without providing those self-same individuals with protection from prosecution for doing so. It will therefore benefit our ability henceforth to recruit and retain covert human intelligence sources.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all colleagues, in this House and in the other place, who have contributed to the thoughtful and detailed debates that we have had on the Bill. It is right that the important issues that it raises are subject to scrutiny, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government have demonstrated a willingness to engage and provide reassurance where possible, including through private briefings with operational partners such as MI5 and others.
I believe that we have a good piece of legislation, which will now move on to the statute book. It strikes an important balance by providing for clear safeguards and independent oversight without jeopardising the operational workability of the regime.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Solicitor General. Given the seriousness and sensitivity of these matters, it is right to recognise the challenging but constructive engagement that we have had with the Government throughout the passage of this Bill. I again pay tribute to colleagues in the other place. The experience and expertise that so well informs their scrutiny has, without a shadow of a doubt, strengthened this legislation and the protections and safeguards in it. I think the whole House can agree that the Bill before us is in much better shape. We welcome the Government concessions that the shadow Home Secretary and Labour Members, as well as other colleagues, have secured during the Bill’s parliamentary passage.
Turning to the amendments in lieu, Lords amendment 3B relates to the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the vital matter of redress for innocent victims. It would properly ensure that victims were protected and unimpeded in obtaining justice if harm came to them during authorised conduct. Throughout this process, we and colleagues across both Houses have stressed the importance of a viable route to redress for innocent victims if boundaries are broken, and we have tabled and supported amendments to that effect. It is an important principle in law that victims of crime can seek recompense, and these circumstances should be no exception. We therefore welcome the amendment and the Government’s change of heart on the need to make it explicit in the Bill that individuals can access criminal injuries compensation whenever appropriate. I pay tribute to colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the work that they have carried out on this alongside Lord Anderson and his colleagues in the other place.
Lords amendments 4B to 4J relate to safeguards for juveniles and vulnerable adults. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), noble lords in the other place and many civic society groups, charities and experts who have worked tirelessly on this issue. We maintain that the protections could go further, but none the less welcome movement on this issue. It was very important to Labour Members and colleagues across the House that the heightened protections for children and vulnerable adults outlined in these amendments should make it clear that criminal conduct authorisations can be granted to minors only in exceptional circumstances, and should take into account any potential physical or psychological harm and wider safeguarding issues, as well as the results of an appropriate risk assessment. The amendments also provide that an appropriate adult must be present at meetings with individuals under 16 years old; most 16 and 17-year-olds will have this right, too. I echo Lord Rosser, who said:
“On this issue, we have not achieved everything that was asked for”,—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2021; Vol. 810, c. 201.]
but we are pleased to see the Government have listened to our and others’ concerns, and gone beyond prior commitments.
Labour Members will continue to monitor these matters and work to assess their impact. In addition, following the Bill’s passage, we will keep a close eye on the upcoming consultation on the CHIS code of practice to ensure and, if necessary, enhance safeguards in this arena and make them as effective as possible.
As I have said in this House previously, this is not the Bill that we would have proposed or passed. It is far from perfect, but it has been vastly improved during its passage. The amendments in lieu being considered—and, I hope, accepted—today are proof of that. I reiterate that Labour Members recognise the importance and significance of putting CHIS activities on a statutory footing for the first time through this Bill, while ensuring vital safeguards, accountability and protections.
We are eternally grateful to those in the police, the security services, the National Crime Agency and wider law enforcement who put their safety and life at risk to protect ours—as indeed do covert human intelligence sources. Through this Bill, we have sought to meet our duty to support them. The resolute focus on national security, on tackling serious and organised crime, on human rights and on supporting victims that has guided us throughout this Bill’s passage will continue to be a central tenet of our approach as we seek to keep this country, its citizens and our communities safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We have until 6.56 pm to conclude proceedings on the Bill, so if Back-Bench contributions were less than five minutes long, that would enable us to get as many Members in as possible. I do not want to impose a time limit, but I hope that colleagues will be considerate of one another. I call Dr Julian Lewis, Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Right from the outset, the Intelligence and Security Committee has supported the principle behind the Bill, although we have also welcomed attempts by Members in both Houses to improve it. It is a very important Bill. Covert human intelligence sources or agents provide vital information to assist the security and intelligence agencies in their investigations. They save lives. As the head of MI5 recently said, without them, many of the attacks foiled in recent years
“would not have been prevented.”
In working undercover, CHIS need to be trusted by those they are reporting on, so that they can gain the information that the authorities need. CHIS may therefore need to carry out criminal activity to maintain their cover. Their handlers must be able to authorise them to do so, in certain circumstances and subject to specific safeguards. The Bill places the powers that certain organisations have to authorise such activity on an explicit statutory basis—something that we should all welcome.
The Bill before us has been improved since it was introduced in September, and that is a measure of the effective scrutiny of national security legislation by Parliament, including by the ISC. These are very serious powers for the state to exercise, and it is right that they be properly scrutinised. In particular, the ISC welcomes the provisions brought forward in the other place by Lord Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, requiring all criminal conduct authorisations to be notified to judicial commissioners as soon as possible and within seven days. Judicial oversight is a vital safeguard, and this measure should give the public confidence that these powers will be used only when proportionate, necessary, and in accordance with the law.
The final amendments to the Bill that the House is being asked to approve today are sensible provisions that the House should welcome. The additional safeguards for children and vulnerable people are particularly welcome, and it is clear that the Government have listened to the strength of feeling in both Houses on this matter. Many of the changes made to the Bill will be reflected in an updated CHIS code of conduct, which I understand will be drafted over the coming months. This revised code of conduct will include new language emphasising the important oversight role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the use of these powers by the intelligence agencies. The Committee welcomes that, and I can assure the House that the ISC fully intends to exercise its oversight powers to ensure that criminal conduct authorisations are used appropriately.
I thank Ministers and those who support them for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Committee on the Bill. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, who unfortunately cannot be with us today. I wish him the very best for his recovery, and I look forward to working with him in future. Finally, I pay tribute to the men and women of our security and intelligence agencies and, most importantly on this occasion, to their covert human intelligence sources—individuals whom few of us will ever know, but whose bravery saves lives. We all owe them a great debt of gratitude for their courageous service.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I join him in sending my party’s best wishes to the Minister for Security.
There is absolutely no disagreement about the need for a Bill. These are self-evidently significant, extraordinary and important powers being put on the statute book, and not before time. However, it is precisely because of the significance and importance of these powers that, although we acknowledge the need for a Bill, we could not support one that did not provide proper safeguards, oversight and limitations on these powers. Those points were made at earlier stages by my hon. Friends, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), and that is why we ultimately voted against the Bill on Third Reading.
As the Solicitor General set out, the latest round of ping-pong has produced additional protections in cases where authorisations are being considered for covert sources who are children or vulnerable people. It has also ensured that some access to criminal injuries compensation will continue when a person is a victim of the criminal conduct of a covert source. The Bill is certainly better with these changes. In particular, we welcome the work undertaken by Just For Kids Law, and others, in advocating for safeguards for children and vulnerable adults. They could, and probably should have been even stronger, but even speaking about authorising criminal conduct by a child operating covertly feels very troubling. Hopefully those limits will make such occurrences very rare, as they should be, and we must and will monitor risk closely.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Bill and the approach that the Government have adopted. I thank the Solicitor General for his willingness to listen to arguments regarding the amendments, and I join others in paying tribute to my right hon Friend, and good personal friend, the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). I wish him well in his recovery.
The Bill is important because legal certainty in such sensitive and delicate matters is crucial for upholding the rule of law. That is why the Bill was necessary. There can be arguments about where the balance should be, but I believe a fair balance has now been struck, and it enhances the rule of law and accountability. I also pay tribute to those men and women who operate in extremely dangerous, sensitive and difficult circumstances, and who put their lives on the line for our safety. They deserve a proper legal framework to safeguard their activities. Equally, those who in certain rare circumstances might be the innocent victims of collateral damage caused by such activities ought to have proper redress and compensation. I therefore welcome the Government’s acceptance of the amendment that would make that explicit in the Bill. I understand the points that have been raised, but as the Solicitor General will know, criminal compensation law and procedure can seem quite arcane to the lay person, and it was a sensible and helpful move to put that measure in the Bill.
I also welcome the strengthening of provisions for protection for juveniles. For example, the use of appropriate adults more closely mirrors the protections that we recognise for juveniles elsewhere in elements of the justice system. That is a welcome improvement, and I am confident that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the judicial commissioners will give full and proper weight to those important safeguards.
I pay tribute to the work of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the judicial commissioners who work with him. Many of us know Sir Brian Leveson, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, as a judge of the very highest integrity, and the same is true of some of those judicial commissioners who work with him and the staff who support that office. That system of checks and balances is critical to ensuring the rule of law, and it is important that such oversight exists.
On balance, the Bill has been improved by the amendments and by the co-operative approach adopted by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and in both Houses. I hope that we can leave those who operate on our behalf in this critical manner not only with a greater measure of legal certainty, but with a proper balance to ensure that both access to justice and the rule of law itself are properly preserved in a workable and modernised framework.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) when he said that this Bill has been improved by the work that has been done across the two Houses of Parliament and across the Benches. With that in mind, I will start by acknowledging the work that has been done on the issue around the use of children—the concept of juvenile CHIS. I acknowledge the work of Baroness Kidron, Lord Russell, Lord Young and Lord Kennedy who led the debates and discussions on these issues in the other place, and they have brought us to a much better place as a result. If we are honest, when this Bill first came to us, there was no discussion about children and what might happen if children were used as covert intelligence sources, so it is important that we recognise the work that they did to get us to this place, with the amendments before us.
I also put on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I do not know whether that is helpful to him, but I know that he is speaking after me. Certainly, it might be of concern to our Whips that I agree with much of what he has said with regard to this Bill. We share the concern that it is important to have the right legislation in place for these issues, because we know that covert intelligence sources are already being used. In that sense, I also want to thank the Minister for Security for listening to our concerns and I wish him well in his recovery.
I also pay tribute to the work of Just for Kids Law and JUSTICE, which have been phenomenal champions of the young people we are talking about today. I also thank the Minister in the other place, Baroness Williams, for her work and the Solicitor General before us today, who has had to step into this debate. I hope that now that he has had time to look at this issue, he will reconsider what he said a couple of weeks ago when he suggested that some of our concerns and examples were not valid and could not have happened, not least because his colleague, Baroness Williams, has acknowledged that those very cases about vulnerable children aged 16 and 17 being exploited and then put at risk and used as covert intelligence sources were in fact real.
With that in mind, I agree very much with the shadow Minister that the Bill is much improved and that the Government have moved on this issue. We now have in the Bill the exceptional circumstances principle—that we should only ever ask children to put themselves in harm’s way and to commit criminal acts in very exceptional circumstances. Indeed, our argument that there should always be an appropriate adult as part of those conversations has certainly moved forward, as has our suggestion that IPCO should be overseeing this. Those are very welcome developments and it is important that we recognise that.
There is an understanding that we need to go further in recognising that appropriate adults are not always part of these conversations and the discrepancies that that creates. If a child is arrested for shoplifting at the age of 16 or 17, there will always be an appropriate adult involved in their conversations with the police, but if a child is asked at the age of 16 or 17 to spy on their parents or to commit a criminal act as part of an investigation there might not always be an appropriate adult. That reflects a bigger challenge that I hope the Minister will take up: that this legislation is obviously looking only at the use of criminal conduct authorisations, and yet what this debate has shown is that across the House and across the different sections of Parliament there is a concern about the use of children at all as covert intelligence sources. I make a plea to him today that the long-awaited code of practice be published—we were promised it during the passage of the Bill, but we have not yet seen it—and that we look at that much bigger concern about ensuring that there is always appropriate welfare and safeguarding protection for children of all ages, recognising that the United Nations and, indeed, this country have signed up to recognising children under the age of 18—so 16 and 17-year-olds—as children who require our protection. We need to extend the principles that we have put in this Bill regarding criminal activities to all their engagement.
I think that everyone recognises that our security services and the police do a phenomenal job and work in some very difficult circumstances. We also recognise our responsibility in this place to those young people that we ask, in these exceptional circumstances, to put themselves in the way of harm. The Bill certainly takes us much further towards having the protections in place that we would all wish, but we know that there is more work to do. I appeal to Ministers to continue to work with organisations such as Just for Kids Law, to listen to the concerns of not just the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden but Members across the House about where we might cut across international standards and welfare protections, and to recognise that the best states are those that protect everyone, including those people that we put in harm’s way, whether they are in our secret services or they are young people.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate and support the hard work of our Members of Parliament on this issue.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I start by sending my wishes, with everyone else’s, to the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). The House would perhaps like to know that I spoke to him this afternoon and he is making very good progress. We are all happy about that.
I also commend, in the strongest possible terms, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for the campaign that she has put together, particularly with respect to the Bill as it applies to children. She has proved yet again a formidable campaigner, for which we should all be grateful.
I am still completely against the division between children above and below the age of 16 on whether there is an absolute requirement for an appropriate adult in meetings with the child. Of course, we all know 17-year-olds who are very mature, but we also all know 17-year-olds who are very immature, and in the context of being involved in a criminal investigation, I suspect the latter are far more common than the former. For that reason, I think it entirely wrong that a police officer or officers, no matter how responsible, should be allowed, even in exceptional circumstances, to make judgments about whether an appropriate adult should be present. That being said, the Bill has made significant movements in the right direction—just, I think, not far enough.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), raised the more general question of the extent of the sort of crime that CHISs could be approved to authorise. Since the Lords dropped the amendments that related to that, that ambiguity—namely, the sheer scope of crimes and whether they could include torture, murder and the like—still applies to the Bill.
That ambiguity arises because of the following. On the one hand, the Government have said that the Human Rights Act intervenes to limit what can be done. I quote Baroness Williams who said that the Human Rights Act provides
“limits to the conduct that can be authorised. An authorisation that is not compatible with the Human Rights Act will not be lawful”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2021; Vol. 810, c. 181.]
However, in the court case that precipitated the Bill, that of Privacy International v. the Home Secretary, on 7 May 2019 Mr James Eadie, the Government’s QC, said that
“the state, in tasking the CHIS…is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it…it would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”
I have always viewed that as a rather Pontius Pilate statement on this matter by the Government’s lawyer.
That introduces an ambiguity. The Minister, who is an old friend of mine, will understand better than most the standing of what he says since the Pepper v. Hart case of some years ago—namely, that the courts will interpret ambiguous legislation in the light of the way the Minister describes it. I therefore ask him to confirm, in unequivocal terms, for Pepper v. Hart purposes, that authorisation of acts that would breach the Human Rights Act would always be unlawful. I will give way to him now or he can answer when he winds up; I really do not mind.
Mr Davis
That is fine. I will say one last thing with respect to that. If the Government do not make it clear and that still hangs as an ambiguity around the Bill, then the Bill, along with the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, could well end up with this country being in the International Criminal Court for reasons that the House did not intend. It is that important that the Minister makes that clear.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
I rise to speak on Lords amendments 3B and 4B to 4J. While there are improvements to the legislation, I would like to reaffirm on record that I continue to be utterly astounded at the chilling gravity and significance of this piece of legislation, which seeks to decriminalise criminal conduct by intelligence and undercover agents, representing another departure from the recognised rules of domestic and international law.
Amendments 4B to 4J provide safeguards where children and vulnerable individuals who are involved in criminality become covert human intelligence sources. However, I would have liked this to go much further and, in particular, include safeguards for ethnic minorities, protest movements and trade unions in particular. The amendments outline that no criminal conduct authorisation can be made for a source who is under the age of 18 or is a vulnerable individual unless in exceptional circumstances, yet human rights and the rights of children are absolute in my mind, and I am not sure what circumstance could possibly render this fundamental principle secondary.
As a Muslim growing up in east London, I have experienced the well documented rise in Islamophobia and the steady erosion of civil rights, including the installation of cameras on street corners and increased surveillance. Our communities are too often seen not as citizens worthy of equality and respect, but as a threat viewed with hostility and suspicion. Indeed, Prevent has been widely criticised for fostering discrimination against people of Muslim faith or background. It was developed without firm evidence, and is rooted in a vague and expansive definition of extremism, including overt targeting of Muslim children in schools, which has meant that our Muslim young people in particular are being increasingly viewed through the lens of security. I fear that, as currently drafted, amendments 4B to 4J, while a moderate improvement, do not provide the safeguards for ethnic minority children. They will not protect my constituents from what they increasingly feel to be the lawlessness of undercover agents, which makes our communities feel less safe.
The use of undercover police posing as protesters, committing crimes and provoking violence, including violent responses from the authorities, has been discussed in the public domain in recent years in relation to Black Lives Matter protests, actions on climate change and G20 demonstrations. Lords amendment 3B seeks to ensure that innocent victims are able to seek compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Throughout its passage, this Bill has triggered alarm bells for trade unions and justice campaigns such as the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which fear that these latest draconian powers could be used to interfere with the legitimate activities of trade unions. The deployment of agents provocateurs to commit and incite criminal activity, misconduct, malpractice and corruption during the miners’ strike has been well documented—the idea being to sabotage and destroy from within. Lords amendment 3B, while an improvement, falls far short of providing innocent victims with the right to seek justice.
To conclude, it is because I believe in a free and democratic society that I have opposed this Government’s authoritarianism with all my might. Our police and security services should exist to uphold the rule of law, not to break it. Human rights are absolute. The amendments today, despite their relative merit, are unable to counter- balance this legislation’s unprecedented breach of this essential principle.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
This legislation is first and foremost about taking risks to save lives. The information acquired by covert human intelligence sources, often requiring great personal sacrifice at the cutting edge of terror, disrupts plots, secures prosecutions and prevents death and destruction, all of which takes courage and skill; sharp minds and brave hearts. As the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said, reiterating the advice from MI5, if it was not for the covert intelligence sources, many of the attacks foiled in recent years would not have been prevented, and dozens of individuals presently alive would have been killed and, with them, loves lost and lives blighted.
The Bill before us is timely and necessary. It is right that the Government have engaged with those in the other place and elsewhere to improve safeguards, but in the end, for all the talk of rights, it is wrongs that ruin lives. The people whom we mission to keep us safe expect of us the legal means and mechanisms that are necessary for them to succeed, and by definition, those tasked with infiltration of organisations intent on wickedness are fraternising with individuals and groups capable of ruthlessness, often rationalised as a means to a desirable end. Not only would abject and inflexible refusal to engage in any and all criminal activity by covert human intelligence sources render it impossible to gain or retain trust, it would place those who are defending our interests in direct danger.
I am grateful, therefore, that this Bill provides our brave operatives with legal protection. While carefully authorised participation in criminality has been, for some time, accepted in the UK courts as a necessary and proportionate means to safeguard the public, there remains at present no formal, single, statutory basis for that. This Bill alters that by providing legal clarity, as previous contributors have made clear. It means that the current authorisation to engage in monitored criminal activity, which confers no immunity from prosecution, will be put to an end. By amending the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, we can correct what has, up until now, been an uncertain situation by ensuring that those engaged in preserving and protecting our freedoms and liberties are not themselves treated as common criminals.
Of course, all criminal authorisations by the security and intelligence agencies must be properly circumscribed, absolutely necessary, proportionate, compatible with law, and—most importantly—subject to proper scrutiny, which is what this Bill also does. I am pleased that the Government have added to that scrutiny during the course of the Bill’s consideration and through the amendments they have accepted. Along with other members of the ISC, I have made clear that any and all authorisations must be specifically limited, and any criminal activity outside that expressly approved can, of course, be prosecuted. Moreover, authorisation must be reasonable, and positive and potential outcomes should outweigh criminal conduct. I think all Members of the House will agree that it is essential that criminal conduct authorisations must only be granted by highly trained and experienced authorising officers.
Finally and most importantly, effective scrutiny must underpin the entirety of this legislation. Authorisations must be overseen by the independent investigatory powers commissioner; the ISC should be kept informed of the use of CCAs; and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal will investigate any complaints about public authorities using this power. Lord Anderson’s amendment, accepted by the Government, on the timely referral of these matters to a judicial commissioner is helpful and valuable.
It is the very nature of law enforcement that risks and rewards must be balanced and considered. Few would doubt that access to unique information is essential to the prevention of horrors beyond our dreams but, tragically, not beyond our lived experience. Certain controlled criminal conduct, subject to specific safeguards, is necessary for our protection. This is the pragmatic principle on which the Bill is based, and I am pleased to support it.
This Bill does strike a balance between powers and scrutiny. It strikes a balance between giving those whom we have missioned to defend us what they need, and ensuring that in doing so, they act properly. It clarifies the law protecting operatives, and makes clear the circumstances in which those powers should be used. Its provisions are specific and limited; its purpose is right; and its time is due. It should be supported by all Members across the House.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
First, on behalf of my party, I welcome the amendments that have come from the other place that the Government are accepting. These are important concessions, which certainly improve the Bill. It has be said, however, that the Bill as a whole remains inadequate in the protections that it puts in place, and it bears the hallmarks of its history. Let us not forget that the Government did not bring in this Bill because they had a sudden damascene conversion to the need for scrutiny of this particular area of security and intelligence. They brought it in because they thought that they were at risk of losing a case in the Court of Appeal, having had a very close judgment in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
Essentially, in bringing in the Bill in this way, the Government have tried to recreate in statute the very loose and uncontrolled system that they have had prior to this. I suggest to the House that that will not stand the test of time. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is absolutely right when he says that we need to hear from the Solicitor General at the Dispatch Box tonight clear undertakings in regard to the operation of the Human Rights Act as it applies to this Bill—soon to be an Act, no doubt.
The ambiguity is not just inherent in the Bill, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden correctly said. Actually, that ambiguity can be seen between the way in which the Government have sought to argue their case in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the way in which they have presented their case in relation to this Bill. The Government have sought to claim that acts of torture by covert agents could be justified
“where the intention is to disrupt and prevent that conduct, or more serious conduct…or where the conduct would take place in any event.”
That, in itself, is not consistent with the Human Rights Act. It is clearly wrong and has been described as such by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill. The Committee found that covert agents could not be authorised to get involved in abuses such as torture and that
“the intention behind that conduct cannot justify the violation.”
It has also been said, I think by the Intelligence and Security Committee, that the Bill is effectively about the Government outsourcing decisions that they could not take for themselves. That approach should provide us with concern and does worry us, because we know that these provisions will not then stand the test of time, and we will be back in the same territory that we have seen in recent years with other legislation, where the Government have to come back with legislation that is retrospective or seeks to amend the law to catch up with the courts.
I fear that we have a Bill that is not the last word on this matter. The Houses have made significant improvements to it, but it remains some distance from what the country needs and what those who do this very dangerous work on our behalf deserve to have.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
This Bill is vital and goes to the heart of keeping communities safe from those seeking to do us harm. Covert human intelligence has been essential in disrupting many of the terrorist plots stopped by our agencies, and I was happy to vote the Bill through on Second Reading, the simple reason being that defence of the realm is the primary objective of any Government.
As we know, a criminal conduct authorisation may be granted where it is necessary for one of three purposes: national security, the prevention or detection of crime, or the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. From the relative comfort of this place, it is perhaps not for us to reason why, nor should we dare to understand the pressures that our security services are under, but it is for us to give them the tools that they need to do their job and to allow them the freedom of action that they need to keep us safe. There is a clear distinction, for clipping the wings of the Bill could be, and will be, counter- productive.
Lords amendment 3 allows anyone who has been the victim of a crime under a CCA to remain able to claim compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme or Northern Ireland’s CICS. That is fine, but as the Minister has outlined, the Government are listening to ways of providing additional resources to Parliament and the public on what safeguards may be possible and operationally workable. That would be achieved by an amendment in lieu that makes it clear that a person can access the compensation scheme where appropriate, so I am sympathetic to Lords amendment 3B on criminal justice compensation and urge the Government to consider it as a concession, as they now are.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members so far? I put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Government for their efforts in bringing forward this legislation. In particular, I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his knowledgeable contribution to the formation of the Bill.
It is right and proper that a Bill to provide legislation of this magnitude and importance has had the scrutiny that it deserves. The Government’s proposed alternative to Lords amendment 3, providing for access to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, seeks to add a further layer of scrutiny and protection to ensure that there is no exception to the effect of a criminal conduct authorisation. Lords amendment 3B purports to provide for access to the scheme where appropriate.
It is clear from the to-ing and fro-ing that good legislation takes time, and it is my hope that that is what we have achieved today. The Government have set in place a Bill to defeat and disadvantage, internally, criminal and terrorist gangs—as the Minister said, those involved in drugs, guns and weapons and trafficking. I also welcome the direct focus on human rights, to which the Minister and other Members referred. I am greatly reassured that that is in the Bill.
Lords amendment 4 provides for safeguards for children and vulnerable adults—a matter that I have previously raised, along with others. I absolutely agree with and support the Government’s attempt to bring in the desire behind the amendment and, as the Minister said, include significant additional safeguards for authorisation in respect of the relevant groups. The Government have addressed that and brought forward the refinements necessary to safeguard children and vulnerable adults. They have done that in an operationally workable form and I fully support the amendment.
The Government and the Minister have stepped up, and I am very pleased. I put on record my thanks to the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the Police Service of Northern Ireland—the British Army and MI5 for protecting us. Many of us are here today, alive and breathing, because of their work, and we thank them for it.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The legislation that we are debating today is an act of avowal that ensures legitimacy, responsibility and co-ordination. Human agents—CHISs —remain a vital source of intelligence gathering, despite the rise of electronic surveillance. Human eyes and ears will always be critical in complementing other intelligence-gathering methods. Sometimes, only a CHIS on the inside can reveal the aims, intentions and actions of groups and individuals who seek to harm society. That view is widely accepted by experts.
Open and clear legislation in this matter will establish a more effective framework and reduce the collusion activities previously seen in locations such as Northern Ireland. Avoiding such situations requires an objective understanding of what went wrong in the past.
Given the importance of this legislation in allowing open and honest debate, it is important to take on board the points raised about safeguarding children. It is therefore vital that training and implementation are taken just as seriously as the legislation itself. Human error is an ever-present reality. We must ensure that systems are established that ensure that people are properly trained, equipped and supported in making difficult decisions and that a continuous improvement system is in place to investigate and learn from mistakes made, so that they are not repeated.
By way of example, let me point to the 2019 annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The report highlights some good levels of conformity, including with juvenile CHIS handling. It also highlights good examples of training, as well as areas where training needs to be improved. I recommend that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office adds to its already good work by attempting to identify the reasons behind errors, including the human factors involved, so that corrective action can be more accurately identified.
This legislation goes to the heart of efforts to safeguard our communities. The Bill will set out a framework to help reduce collusion activities, such as those that happened in Northern Ireland, in which agents ended up complicit in murder. It is important to remember that oversight, training and improvement programmes help protect the safety and wellbeing of CHIS agents, especially those classified as juvenile or vulnerable.
Without these agents, we would all be far less safe. I wholeheartedly support them and thank them for their invaluable work, and I thank the Ministry of Justice for its work. I urge all Members to support this necessary Bill.
The Solicitor General
I thank Members for their contributions to this debate this afternoon. I will be brief in my response, as there has been extensive discussion on these issues during the Bill’s passage. First, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I am happy to confirm that an authorisation of conduct that would breach the Human Rights Act would always be unlawful. All authorisations issued under the Bill must comply with the Human Rights Act or they will be unlawful. I can therefore confirm and place on record that the Human Rights Act binds all the authorised activity of undercover agents, alongside the state itself.
The Government have taken a collaborative approach to the passage of the Bill, as the House knows, recognising the seriousness of national security issues, and I thank Her Majesty’s Opposition for their similar approach. Where we have been able to provide greater reassurance in response to concerns raised by Parliament—for example, on oversight—we have done so, either through briefings, amendments to the code of practice or amendments to the Bill itself.
The Bill provides for a substantive oversight role for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is independent, giving him real-time sight of every authorisation. It sets out detailed additional safeguards for the authorisation of juveniles or vulnerable adults, which will all be subject to oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The code of practice that underpins the legislation, which will be subject to debate and vote by Parliament, then sets out the detailed processes that support the Bill and this activity.
Our approach to the Bill has been led by the advice and expertise of our operational partners, who will now implement it. We have sought to ensure that, in seeking to provide greater clarity and reassurance on the safeguards and processes, the Bill is both operationally workable and avoids any unintended consequences for the safety of a covert human intelligence source or, indeed, the wider public. I believe, and operational partners agree, that the Bill does that, and it will now move to Royal Assent.
I close by sending my best wishes to the Minister for Security, as many in the House have done, and expressing my gratitude and abiding respect for our security services and covert human intelligence sources in their work to protect the safety of this realm.
Lords amendment 3B agreed to.
Lords amendments 4B to 4J agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will suspend the House for two minutes, to enable arrangements to be made for the next business.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill
Wednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 24 February 2021 - (24 Feb 2021)
19:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 365 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Matt Warman
At the time of the Bill’s Second Reading in the House in early January 2020, it would have been impossible for any of us to foresee the challenges that this country would endure over the following 12 months.
Throughout the pandemic and the lockdowns, this nation’s telecommunications network has provided information and enabled education; it has allowed businesses to operate, children to continue to learn and those in isolation to continue to speak with their families. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the UK’s digital infrastructure providers, our internet service providers and our mobile network operators. They have stepped up and worked with us to bridge gaps in provision, be that through whitelisting websites, providing data to struggling families or connecting the Nightingale hospitals. They have done Herculean work, and we should all be grateful.
Matt Warman
Members will be aware, none the less, that despite the importance of that connectivity, there are barriers facing infrastructure deployment, and there is no panacea. But there are steps and then strides and then leaps in the right direction, and this Bill is an important one of those steps.
We expect these provisions, which will affect some 10 million people in the UK who live in flats and apartments, to make a real difference to the vital roll-out of better broadband to which the Government remain totally committed. I trust that Members will have seen that a consultation on further potential changes to the electronic communications code has now been published. We will carefully consider whether further legislative changes are necessary as a result of what we learn from that consultation. Crucially, these measures will take into account the interests of those needing greater connectivity, balancing the interests of landowners as well. Just as with the Bill, that balance is crucial to ensuring that we continue to bridge the digital divide.
The House is here to debate three Lords amendments. I will deal with Lords amendment 1 first. The purpose of Lord Clement-Jones’s amendment on Report in the other place was to clarify that people who rent their flat can make use of the policy in the Bill. Earlier this year, when the Bill made its way through this House, hon. Members felt similarly to Lord Clement-Jones, and that sentiment was subsequently shared in the other place. It remains the case that the Bill has always applied to people living in a flat under the terms of any lease. The most common form of tenancy in the UK, assured shorthold, is a lease, and it has never been our intention to provide otherwise. However, we are aware of the strength of feeling, and while, as drafted, Lords amendment 1 would create an inconsistency with the rest of the electronic communications code, the amendment I am moving clarifies that people who occupy a property under a lease are able to make use of this policy, and it does so in a way that avoids legal ambiguity by clarifying the definition of the lease in the electronic communications code to ensure that that definition includes, for example, any tenancy.
I also encourage the House to agree with Lords amendment 2, tabled in the name of the Minister, Baroness Barran, on Third Reading in the other place in the light of concerns that have been raised there—and, indeed, here—regarding anti-competitive behaviour. It protects competition in the market and ensures that those installing infrastructure do not do so in a way that would prevent a subsequent operator from installing their own apparatus.
I now turn to the main business, which is really in Lords amendment 3. This amendment would add a new clause to the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to commission a review of the impact of the Bill on the electronic communications code, including an assessment of whether the code is sufficient to support 1 gigabit broadband roll-out to every premises by 2025, and further requiring that separate assessments be made of whether the code should be amended to introduce a number of rights, which I will come on to in a minute.
I am grateful to members of the other place for bringing forward the amendment, which the Government understand aims to provide transparency, but those good intentions would none the less introduce some impractical and unnecessary measures to the code that fall outside the purpose of the Bill and, indeed, the code itself. The code is a framework for regulating agreements between landowners and telecoms operators for the installation and maintenance of communications equipment on public and private land. The code is technology-neutral. It is simply not possible to judge whether the code supports access to 1 gigabit broadband because it is not designed to facilitate solely gigabit-capable connections; it is about access to land to facilitate installation, maintenance and upgrading.
That said, while it is logical to assume that, with the market currently deploying those connections, the provisions in this Bill will be used for deployments of those connections, they may equally be used for superfast, ultrafast or other services. The only basis on which to judge the code is to examine the availability of all types of connections. That is why Ofcom, the independent regulator, publishes its annual “Connected Nations” report, which provides a wealth of information on fixed and mobile connections. Should Ofcom raise questions, the Government continue to provide answers in the House and the other place. The report shows progress in 4G and 5G.
Furthermore, there are also other established means of scrutiny through Select Committees. In the past three months, there have been a number of reports from various Select Committees. Hon. Members can rest assured that the Department’s feet are being firmly and regularly held to the fire. Ministers, of course, always relish that process.
The amendment moves on to matters relating to the powers of gas, water and electricity suppliers. The Government recognise that further changes to the code may be required if it is to support the achievement of our coverage and connectivity targets effectively. Shortly before the Bill’s Third Reading in the other place, the Government published a further consultation on possible changes. I encourage Members to respond to that consultation. I am sure they will appreciate and understand the importance of respecting a person’s right to enjoy their property peacefully, so any intervention that seeks to interfere with property rights must be proportionate and justified. The new consultation seeks those reports until 24 March.
Additional permitted development rights are a planning matter and an issue not for this Bill or the electronic communications code. I am sure that many Members know that telecoms operators are afforded significantly more flexibility in how they install their infrastructure. That includes, for example, permitted development rights and exemptions from a number of requirements to request planning permission. That is why my Department continues to work very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In August 2019, we launched a joint consultation with MHCLG regarding potential reform of permitted development rights. The Government published our response in July 2020, and, subject to a technical consultation, we will take forward proposed reforms. We expect to publish that consultation in spring this year.
Encouraging telecommunications operators to undertake infrastructure works alongside other works was another issue raised. It relates to the co-ordination of streetworks to promote greater collaboration between telecoms providers, local authorities and the suppliers of gas, water and electricity. My Department has worked closely with the Department for Transport on a number of areas of mutual interest, and it will continue to do so.
In 2020, the Government released a new street manager digital service—the largest update to streetworks in a generation—that has already helped to simplify and improve the planning and co-ordination of works throughout England. That is vital for the deployment of broadband. I hope that hon. Members recognise that streetworks are a transport issue, and not a matter for this Bill or the electronic communications code. It should be noted, furthermore, that roads are a devolved matter and therefore should not be considered in legislation that relates to the reserved matter of telecoms, as this Bill does.
Although we absolutely appreciate and understand that this is a well-intentioned amendment, it is, as I have outlined, none the less impractical. It seeks details on matters outside the code’s competence to provide, such as gigabit connections, and improved planning and streetworks. I hope hon. Members are none the less reassured by the recent publication of the Government consultation, which seeks responses on whether further changes are required to the electronic communications code. I also hope they trust that the Government stand ready to look at the evidence that is made available and act where the need to act is demonstrated. We are hopeful that, once the responses are received and considered, we will have an even more informed idea about the way forward to support the delivery of connectivity and the role that the Government should play in relation to that. I ask the House to disagree with amendment 3.
I thank all hon. Members who are down to contribute for taking an interest in this vital issue. Parliamentary scrutiny is an important part of our commitment to rolling out the broadband that all our constituents deserve across the country. I look forward to hearing the subsequent debate.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
I begin by thanking colleagues in the other place who have worked so hard to improve the Bill—and for longer than many would have expected, as the Government delayed the Bill until they thought they could resolve their Back Benchers’ concerns on the human rights amendment. That continues to ping-pong as part of the Trade Bill, but I hope we can now move quickly and decisively to resolve the matters of telecoms infrastructure.
The pandemic has shown us how important good fast stable broadband is, with so many people currently depending on it to work from home and stay in contact with friends and family. It is just over a year since I stood at the Dispatch Box for the Second Reading of the Bill and argued that broadband was a vital utility. The pandemic has proved that beyond doubt. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the infrastructure providers who have supported our connectivity at this difficult time, while recognising how much still needs to be done to close the digital divide. I am pleased that the Lords amendments we will be discussing today reflect the issues that Labour has been raising consistently at every stage of the Bill.
The first amendment removes ambiguity over the definition of a lessee and expands the scope of the Bill to be more inclusive with regard to tenants. The amendment would ensure that introductory or probationary tenancies in local authority housing, flexible or joint tenancies and demoted tenancies were all covered. Labour first raised this as amendment 2 on Report, and the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment in the Lords. This has been replaced by the Government amendment in lieu, with parts (a) and (b) making technical changes to avoid contradictions between this Bill and the Communications Act 2003. We welcome that, but we are concerned that the Government missed this issue, leaving it for others to raise. The interests of tenants as well as those of leaseholders must be kept in mind.
The Government’s amendment, Lords amendment 2, is based on Labour’s amendment 3 on Report. Labour is the party of business, and we are keen to remove barriers to competition and interoperability, and to encourage a competitive market. However, we feel that the Government’s changes to this amendment mean that it does not go far enough.
As the Bill stands, one operator can technically “capture” a building, locking the residents into its service. The Government amendment seeks to ensure that this cannot happen, and the option for diversification is left open. However, it does not encourage deployment and inter- operability. Labour is pleased that the Government have offered concessions on competitiveness and inter- operability, so we will not oppose this amendment as we consider it a gesture in the right direction. However, UK businesses and consumers deserve more than gestures. They need real action to promote competition, and the Bill was a chance for the Government to do that.
Finally, Lords amendment 3 is Labour’s new clause. This has been designed to provide accountability and transparency via a review of the impact of the Bill and the sufficiency of the electronic communications code to support gigabit roll-out. Labour believes that this is vital to ensure that the mechanisms in the Bill are robust and well resourced enough to ensure that legislation does not fail when it makes contact with reality. We do not want to be back here with further legislation after more wasted years for our telecoms infrastructure. This amendment provides the mechanisms to empower the Government to meet and assess their roll-out targets. The Government tell us that the Bill is just about freeholders, but it is clearly part of a larger puzzle. Indeed, the noble Lord Parkinson confirmed that, stating that the Bill was
“one discrete instrument in the Government’s overall strategy”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2020; Vol. 803, c. 1331.]
We must know, first, what that strategy is and, secondly, how this Bill is contributing positively or negatively to the telecoms landscape. The Minister said that this would undermine technology neutrality, which is somewhat rich, given that the gigabit ambition was a technologically neutral downgrading of the Prime Minister’s original fibre ambitions.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), in his place, discussing telecommunication matters again—it does not seem a long time ago that we were debating the whys and wherefores of Huawei. I am pleased to support him in encouraging us to ensure the completion of this Bill, albeit of course with due scrutiny, because it is well overdue. It seeks to establish a new security framework for the UK telecoms sector, and to ensure that telecommunications providers operate secure and resilient networks and services and manage their supply chains.
The Minister mentioned just how fundamentally this will change all our lives—how we live, work, socialise, travel and manufacture things. He is right to focus on how these difficult times of the pandemic have illustrated the importance of connectivity. It is all the more important that we are able to get Britain connected.
The Bretton Woods agreement after the second world war saw trading links—roads, ports and airports—deemed a priority so that we could get trade and the economy moving. As we come out of this pandemic and endure the recession, our digital economy will mean so much to our ability to advance and get back on our feet. I very much welcome the energy the Government are putting in here today.
I mentioned Huawei, but there is a wider dimension to this. Britain is in competition with other parts of the world, not least China, in making sure we have the high-tech digital capabilities to meet our future needs. The Bill is about not only putting in place protections against a country we are obviously in challenge with—China—but making sure we protect ourselves. The digital sphere provides not just opportunities but vulnerability to cyber-attacks; disinformation campaigns; interference, even in elections; manipulations on social media; data theft; and so on. The importance of security in communication links is paramount, and the longer we delay the Government’s being able to get on with this, the longer we have to lean on the older systems, which are very vulnerable indeed.
The Government’s target is to deliver nationwide gigabit-capable broadband by 2025. When he winds up the debate, will the Minister update the House on the ambitions for gaining full access to dwellings? I note with interest that gigabit availability is at only 16% in Bournemouth, so we would be delighted if the south-west, which, at 18.6%, is again below the national average, could receive support.
With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will digress from the main theme of the amendments and pose what I call the Rockefeller question, which is related to data. Rockefeller, of course, was the multibillionaire who formed Standard Oil. It took a US President, more powerful than Rockefeller, to stand up and break that monopoly. Arguably, today’s tech giants are replacing those monopolies of the 1900s, and that poses some awkward questions for all of us—for Government and society. The likes of Google and Facebook dominate the digital world. They now own 80% of the advertising market alone here in the UK. That poses big questions about how data is harvested, about the levels of tax paid, and about the stifling of fair competition. Those difficult questions must be answered. I appreciate that they are beyond the scope of the Bill, but it is important to get them on the record.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
It is always a pleasure to speak in the House on behalf of the Scottish National party. Telecommunications is a reserved matter, and we have continued to engage constructively in refining the Bill from our part of the Opposition Benches. As I have previously highlighted in the Chamber, it is for the UK Government to ensure that our digital infrastructure is appropriately protected and managed as a key component of Scotland’s future economic success and of our position as a global leader in technology. Never has the importance of digital connectivity been more sharply brought into relief than during the ongoing pandemic. The fact that I am delivering a parliamentary speech from my home is evidence of this necessity.
On that note, I reiterate that the SNP supports the general aims of the Bill and wants to see it successfully implemented, with the appropriate amendments. I read with interest the recent debates on amendments proposed to the Bill in the Lords. Although the first amendment, in the name of Lord Alton, was withdrawn, I do not want to pass over it without making a quick comment. The purpose of the amendment was to prevent companies using UK telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuses. The amendment was obviously not an accusation against Virgin Media, BT or others of having nefarious motives in allowing us to watch Netflix at home. Rather, it touched on a recurring theme in the Bill: our concern about the expanding tech influence of the Chinese Government.
I will not go over the debate on that amendment in detail, as Members can read it in Hansard. However, although the amendment was withdrawn, let us keep the spirit of it in mind. As the world becomes interconnected to an unprecedented degree, we must be vigilant about how our technology can inadvertently support abuses taking place elsewhere. Let us also take Lord Alton’s amendment as a worthy attempt to draw more attention to the increasingly disturbing evidence emerging from China regarding human rights abuses.
Not wishing to digress too far, I turn my attention to Baroness Barran’s amendment, relating to uncompetitive behaviour and a review of the Bill’s impact on the electronic communications code. The Scottish National party broadly welcomes this principled amendment, which would introduce sufficient measures to ensure that residents in multi-dwelling accommodation could access connectivity from the provider of their choice. Infrastructure provided by one supplier should not prevent a subsequent provider from installing their own service within the same building. Concerns were raised in the Lords about whether the amendment was necessary. Given that 10 million people could be affected by this legislation, there is no harm in taking a comprehensive approach. Some 76% of multi-dwelling units missed out on the initial efforts to deploy fibre because of problems in gaining access, so it should be self-evident to everyone in the Chamber that we must improve access and consumer choice.
Let us not pretend that previous amendments have created a perfect Bill. Industry experts have raised concerns that the legislation does not go far enough in providing flexibility for network operators. BT in particular is concerned that the bar set for a landlord to be classified as engaging with the network builder, and therefore not be subject to the Bill’s provisions, is far too low. Likewise, Virgin Media is seeking further clarity on the definition of “meaningful response” in relation to landlords’ communications with operators.
Questions have also been raised by operators on the balance the Government are seeking to create between the rights of landowners and the rights of telecoms operators. What does this mean in practice? Why would affording an operator the right to ask a court to grant access, independent of a tenant request, be against the public interest, especially if it ensures that tenants are given access to digital connectivity that may not have existed previously?
As the Minister will be aware, many utilities already have the right, with appropriate safeguards, to enter a property in order to maintain infrastructure. Do the Government agree with the future telecoms infrastructure review’s recommendation that telecoms operators’ right of entry should be brought in line with that of other utilities?
Of course, the process should be reviewed as per Lords amendment 3. If we are to achieve continual, irreversible improvement, the process must remain open to review. The Bill is now at such a late stage that I suspect some operators have effectively given up on seeing it reformed further, and they are merely accepting legislation that does not meet its full potential. Clearly, operators welcome this progress, but the industry is asking for greater clarity and engagement. It is unfortunate that the operators are still asking the Government to confirm basic definitions in legislation that is on the brink of becoming law.
Looking ahead, undoubtedly the consultation on changes to the electronic communications code is a primary way to build on the improvements that will come from this Bill. As the Government move ahead with the legislation and the review, it is vital that they consult more closely with relevant actors in the sector. After all, the telecoms operators are the only ones with the practical knowledge to make a success of the Government’s long-term ambitions for digital connectivity.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Greetings from the far north of Scotland. I would like to put on record my thanks to my excellent Speaker’s intern, Mohamed; without his patience in explaining to me exactly what “gigabit-capable” means, I probably would not be quite as knowledgeable as I hope I am on these matters.
Clearly, my party and I welcome the Government’s commitment to speeding up gigabit-capable by 2025, but of course that takes us to 85% coverage. What we really need is 100% coverage, so I still await something better than 85% coverage.
Secondly, the involvement of private companies is noted, but of course there are areas of Scotland that—how shall I put it?—are less commercially viable for such firms. My constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in the far north, and perhaps the highlands and islands in general, might be rather lacking when it comes to what private companies can do.
I also note that the Government are saying that they will commit real money, as opposed to there being private investment. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have heard me talk many times about connectivity in my consistency, and I make no apologies for saying that I will keep a very close eye on what actually happens in terms of Government money, as opposed to private investment, to make sure that the highlands are not disadvantaged.
Of course, we have a mixture at the moment. I have previously made jokes in the House about our having zero G in some parts of my constituency. We have 4G and 3G, but it needs to be improved right now, because what we have is not adequate. Such regional disparity is unfair on my constituents.
I welcome Lords amendment 1, which was tabled by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones. It is hugely important that tenants and other legal occupants in exclusive possession be within scope of the Bill. We wait to see what happens on that one.
Lords amendment 3 is fully supported by my party. Of course, a review is vital in assessing the impact of the legislation, but I understand that the Government will not be supporting the amendment, which I regret.
My maiden speech in this place three and a half years ago was about connectivity, which is a subject, as I said, that I return to again and again. As the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) said, the very nature of my speaking to the Chamber via Zoom right now demonstrates the fact that connectivity and the ability to do this has been crucially important during the pandemic. Thinking of the future, if we are to punch to the best of our ability in challenging circumstances post Brexit and post the pandemic, mobilising our resources and our abilities will be absolutely crucial, and connectivity will be part and parcel of that. At the end of the day, my plea is that nobody in the United Kingdom should be disadvantaged in this regard because of where they live.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The last time I spoke on this Bill, I was waxing lyrical about Radcliffe, Whitefield, Prestwich, Ainsworth and Simister in my constituency, because it was my maiden speech. Unfortunately the Minister was rather confused as to whether I was supporting the Bill because of the number of times I had to namecheck which Bill I was speaking on.
I will be extremely brief because there seems to be a level of consensus and the Bill is extremely narrow in what it seeks to address. While I fully understand the premise behind it, Lords amendment 1 is not necessarily needed, so I would not be in a position to support it. As for Lords amendment 3, the Bill is so narrow that it does not need it. As regards the technology being put in by suppliers, that is not often done anyway. As far as I am aware, the Kingston area of Hull, where there is a monopoly in the market because of the local exchange, is the only area where there is that level of in-built monopoly. However, with the expansion of boundless and satellite broadband, this is progressing. Gigabit connectivity, which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, was important when we were discussing this just over a year ago, and it is even more important now in terms of our access to being able to work from home and learn from home—in fact, being able to do almost anything from home. The past year has shown the importance of that.
Agreeing to any of these amendments would prolong the Bill’s journey through both Houses, and we cannot afford for that to be the case for such a narrow Bill. I will support amendment 2 but hopefully we will not divide on amendments 1 and 3.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I, too, will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who led for my party, made several astute points on the Bill.
The pandemic has shone a light on how essential good broadband is for so many people’s lives. Businesses are often the focus, but we should not forget the role that a steady wi-fi connection can play for residential communities in preventing loneliness through, for example, the ability to attend online classes, watch online events, or video chat with loved ones. In my own constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire, the number of people unable to access decent broadband is nearly three times as high as the UK average, and constituents frequently write to me saying that they cannot make a living during the pandemic because of the poor connection. For example, one constituent now forced to teach the violin over Zoom often cannot do so because his connection is too poor. Living in rural areas should no longer be an excuse for inadequate connection.
This Bill is essential. It will lead not only to gigabit-capable broadband roll-out but to Scotland’s R100 programme. I note that the UK Government have retreated from their full-fibre manifesto commitment. Industry and consumers will be disappointed, but at least they now have clarity. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) [V]
In line with the sentiment across the House today, I will attempt to keep my comments as brief as possible, and I will confine them to Lords amendments 2 and 3. However, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment about the broader point of the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, and as many other hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out in this debate, access to fast broadband and a stable internet connection is vital. I want to talk about my community, because we have seen during this pandemic the need for a stable internet connection. I know from the correspondence I have received from teachers and parents who have not had that, where children have had to access the internet via a parent’s mobile phone to do their work, that the Bill is necessary.
I want to pay tribute in particular at this time to my schools, which have met the challenge of the digital divide—particularly the amazing team at Summerhill Primary Academy in Tipton, who have gone above and beyond to ensure that our most vulnerable students can still access education. That absolutely demonstrates why the Bill is necessary.
Lords amendment 2 is simple: it is about ensuring that someone’s access to the market should not depend on where they live. A competitive and open marketplace and the ability to access various providers is essential to ensuring access to a decent internet connection. It is right that where someone lives or where they are residing should not influence their access to a competitive internet supply. In my region of the Black Country alone, there are roughly 174 properties that will be impacted by the Bill, and more than 3,000 people more widely. Lords amendment 2 is welcome and I most certainly support it; I think it is the right one.
However, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the substantive amendment here is Lords amendment 3, which provides some food for thought. The sentiment behind the amendment, which requires the Secretary of State to provide a review of the Bill’s impact on the telecommunications code, in terms of whether the code is sufficient to support access to 1 gigabit per second broadband, is interesting.
The Government have been clear that the Bill is not a panacea; it addresses a very specific issue. The wider gigabit connectivity agenda needs its own legislative framework and its own level of scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that the House has many mechanisms by which we are able to scrutinise the roll-out of that agenda, so I question whether Lords amendment 3 is necessary, given the various mechanisms that we have to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.
However, I am interested in some of the principles in the amendment, in particular the idea of rights of access for operators, akin to what we see for water, gas and electricity. The amendment recognises—I think this is a point that we all agree on across the House—that broadband connectivity and an internet connection will be just as vital as we come into this new economy as water, gas and electricity. It triggers an interesting debate and, I believe, a conversation that we are going to have for years to come as this develops.
I am conscious of time and my promise to keep my contribution brief; I would never wish to mislead you, Madam Deputy Speaker. At its heart, the Bill is about communities. Communities such as mine, which wish to aspire and achieve, need access to a basic, stable internet connection. Considering that 90% of job applications are based online and that the internet economy in the UK is worth around £180 billion, for me this issue is simple. It is vital for my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton that they have access to the opportunities that they have missed out on for far too long, and I believe that the Bill, and particularly the Government amendment, Lords amendment 2, allows that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
I too wish to support the Bill and the amendments made in the other place. I am deeply concerned, though, about the practice of the Government’s moves to meet their own self-imposed universal service obligation.
In my constituency, we are looking at around 1,000 properties—domestic properties, never mind businesses—that will not meet the USO. Indeed, even when we factor in those properties that can be supported via 4G to receive that kind of basic broadband connectivity, hundreds of properties in places such as Coniston, the Langdales, north Windermere, Ambleside, Hawkshead and Cartmel Fell are left still unable to access the Government’s targets or avail themselves of them, and have no source of appeal and no form of redress. The only thing they can do about it is to shell out tens of thousands of pounds of their own money, if they are able and willing. It turns out that the Government’s universal service obligation is not universal, and is not an obligation. That is going to, and does, hit rural communities such as ours all the more.
I am also concerned that, as has been mentioned by others in this debate, the Government’s commitment to full fibre roll-out has fallen by the wayside to a significant degree, and a breaking of manifesto promises is now clearly taking place. The commitment to £5 billion being spent in this Parliament has dropped to less than a quarter of that amount—less backhaul, more backsliding. That is deeply concerning for rural communities such as ours that thought they could rely on the promise that was made to them. The Government’s reappraising of its targets—that is, the breaking of its promises—will mean that rural communities such as mine miss out the most, which is deeply regrettable. Through conversations with BT and others, we now calculate that nearly half of my constituents will not get ultrafast full fibre broadband for at least another decade. That is not acceptable, and not in keeping with the spirit of this Bill.
I will focus on two final points. The first is that our experience during this pandemic tells us something very important about the nature of work. Here I am, speaking to Members from Milnthorpe in Cumbria while simultaneously being in the House of Commons. People working at home and making use of broadband connectivity has been transformative, and in one sense we are very grateful to be in this situation at this time, when we have this technology available to us. Imagine what it might have been like 20 or so years ago, when this technology was not available!
However, with so many more people working from home, we begin to realise that the Government’s fixation and focus on download speeds is somewhat misleading—maybe not intentionally, but it is misleading. For so many people in business working from home, it is upload speeds that matter. They are the benchmark of whether or not we are genuinely, properly connected. I can think of people in our big town of Kendal with upload speeds of less than one megabit per second, who are meant to be working from home, running companies of many dozens of people with large turnovers. That is not conducive to communities like ours. I have one of the most entrepreneurial communities in the country, with one of the highest numbers of people working for themselves when compared with any other community elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We are really proud of that, yet the Government hobble us by not having ambitions that are ambitious enough to allow people to work from home and within their communities, and to enable them to contribute to our economy. Let us focus on the reality of connectivity and realise that the Government’s own ambitions are still very unambitious, given the new world that we find ourselves in.
My final point is this: we are very proud of, and very grateful to, our mountain rescue services, and indeed all our emergency services here in the lakes and the dales. Only recently, a leading member of our mountain rescue teams here in the Lake district suffered very serious injuries rescuing a member of the public, and we remember how vital their service is, both the service given voluntarily by the mountain rescue services and that given by the professional emergency services. We owe them so much, and one of the things we owe them is decent connectivity. In three parts of my constituency, and in many other parts of the country, we have promises from the Home Office for new emergency service masts. In my community, that means the Langdales, Longsleddale, and Kentmere. Those Home Office masts are vital to the safety of people in those communities, and to the emergency services that often operate in those communities. They are also vital because they then provide a platform for commercial delivery for mobile telecommunications in vast, underpopulated—but not unpopulated—areas.
The Home Office continuously puts off the erection and bringing into operation of the Longsleddale, Kentmere and Langdale masts. At the moment, we understand that the Home Office has no plan to activate those masts for another three or four years. Will the Minister put strong pressure on the Home Secretary to act swiftly to make sure that our emergency services, the people they come to aid and the wider community in the lakes have the benefit of those masts and have them quickly?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. The Bill is very important, and I welcome it. The Bill and the Minister’s direction of it have given us a chance to tidy up the process, and it does just that. I support the aim of the Bill to tackle absent landlords impacting on broadband, to ensure that they face a greater obligation to facilitate the deployment of digital infrastructure when they receive a request from their tenants. That is in-built, and I support ensuring that tenants are not waiting months to get a simple permission or access.
Matt Warman
I will address the number of interesting points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) raised a number of interesting points. She talked about satellite broadband and a broader strategy for this Government’s vital gigabit ambitions. The Opposition are right to raise those issues, but I humbly suggest that they also know that this Bill is not the place to put a wide-ranging review of the Government’s gigabit strategy. They will get that strategy in short order, but I think they know that this is not the place to insert that review. I hope that they will not seek to turn the Bill into a Christmas tree, as has previously happened, but I have huge sympathy with the hon. Lady and look forward to providing her with the detail that she craves.
A number of Members made points on broader connectivity. Whether it is the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) raised in his maiden speech or the communities that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) mentioned, people have been held together in a way that we had not envisaged before the pandemic, and now we realise that connectivity is essential for that sense of community.
The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) raised issues around definitions. The drafting of the Bill and our consultation on the electronic communications code are specifically to address those legitimate issues he raises, but we do not envisage them arising in practice. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is absolutely right that the USO does not function perfectly; Ofcom is investigating it. He is absolutely right that the emergency services network is a core part of the ambitions of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to deliver a shared rural network, and we are engaging intensively with the Home Office on that. I remember being involved in an incident myself at the top of Scafell Pike, where we had to descend the mountain in order to get mobile phone signal to call a helicopter, which thankfully came rather quickly, but would have come earlier had we had a signal on the top of that mountain.
Finally, let me address the international issues that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). The global role of the UK’s potential as a leading digital economy is well documented, and Bills such as this are part of our ability to make the very most of those ambitions. We will use this as a small piece in the puzzle, and it is a part of that broader strategy that we will be delivering to the House as soon as we can. He also tempted me to talk about broader tech monopolies, but because this is a small and tightly drawn Bill, I will resist that temptation.
I thank the Bill team and all the officials across many Departments who have worked so hard over the past year to reach this stage. It will help people up and down the country to access the digital services that they need, and I commend it to the House.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 2 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3 .
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of the Motion in the name of Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, relating to the nomination of Members to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(David T C Davies.)
Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see the Chamber so busy tonight and, in particular, to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on the Bench tonight; I know that he will be taking a very keen interest in how Select Committees are operating in the House.
I know that the sight of a Member rising with “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders with the ability to speak for up to an hour might be something that would concern Members of the House. I do not intend to take the full hour tonight, but I want to make some comments about the conduct of Select Committees. People outside the Chamber will be aware of the reasons why I am doing so.
I have no objection to the principle of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill being set up; I wish it well. Indeed, I understand that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is perhaps the Chair-designate, and I wish him well for that. An interesting point on that subject is that the right hon. Gentleman is also a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, so he has obligations to other Committees in this House as well. Like many of us, he serves on a Select Committee but also fulfils other roles.
I ask the Government to reflect on the fact that we in this House have conventions that dictate how we conduct our business. They are documented in “Erskine May” and it is important to make sure that we adhere to those conventions. If we are to pass this motion, which suggests that the right hon. Member for North Durham can serve as the Chair of Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and on the Intelligence and Security Committee—something we would agree with—we would not want to see double standards in respect of how the Government and their Members conduct the business of other Select Committees.
I know that the Government Chief Whip will be listening closely, and on that basis I very much hope that some of the issues he is aware of can be resolved as timeously as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oxford West and Abingdon: Flooding
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
I am ever so grateful that the House has allowed me to raise the vital issue of flooding in my constituency. This is the second debate on this issue that I have had in two years, which I hope shows just how important an issue it is to my constituents. Our area has historically flooded, in most recent times devastatingly so in 2007 and again, notably, in 2014. Literally every year some portion of my constituency has an event, most recently over Christmas.
As a community we of course understand that we cannot prevent floods, only reduce their risk, and I give credit to all the community for their resilience and fortitude. However, despite the prevalence and severity of floods in our area, I have asked for this second debate because we have seen precious little progress from the Government since the first. I was promised a meeting with the Minister’s predecessor that never took place, despite my best efforts. There is much to discuss, including the delays in the Oxford flood alleviation scheme, funding for the Abingdon scheme and much more. As a result of the lack of progress, my constituents feel that their concerns have not been taken seriously by the Government.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the incredibly hard-working staff at the Environment Agency for everything they have done and continue to do in our community. They do what they can with the funding and resourcing that they have been given. We do not need to hear from the Minister how much money is being spent nationally and how with limited budgets we have to prioritise certain places, because, bluntly, that is not going to help my community. I want to hear from the Minister how the Government plan to help the people of Abingdon, Yarnton, Begbroke and South Hinksey. Climate change means that flooding events are going to become only more frequent and more extreme, and every time they come, anxiety rises. What can we do to give people a sense of relief?
Let me talk about the scheme for which we do have funding: the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. We found out late last year that the scheme may be delayed by up to five years because of necessary bridge works that need to be completed in Kennington. For the villagers of South Hinksey, every month of delay is another month of anxiety. During the recent floods, which frankly ruined people’s Christmases, I inspected the temporary flood barriers that were brought into the village from Osney. The floodwater was literally just 5 cm from coming over the top. Temporary barriers are obviously gratefully received, but they are no substitute for the real deal. Let us take David and Claire: their garden backs on to the floodplain. When floods hit, they are on the frontline. Part of the Oxford scheme is a permanent flood barrier that will be built just behind their home and around the edge of the village. Can the Minister tell us why the South Hinksey permanent flood barrier cannot go ahead sooner as a stand-alone project while the wider scheme is delayed? Will she ask the Environment Agency and the county council to press on with it?
The village remains vulnerable until the new scheme is in place. In the more immediate term, I have asked the Environment Agency to store full-sized temporary barriers at South Hinksey. At the moment, the large temporary barriers need to be collected from Northampton. That is a four-hour round trip, and this time that was just too slow, so smaller barriers had to be brought in from closer by in Osney. However, as I just described, those barriers were literally just centimetres away from failing. Can the Minister help me to relay that ask to the Environment Agency? The villagers will provide the storage, and given the delay, I do not think it is too big of an ask.
Notwithstanding those issues, the village remains concerned about the impact of the Oxford scheme on the A34 and local roads. Once it starts, the current plan is for there to be pollution and traffic for four years. The residents have ideas about how to make that better, and it is after all in their interests that the scheme is done as quickly as possible, but with minimal impact. They feel that often they have not been heard by the Highways Agency or the Environment Agency on these matters. Can the Minister help me to bring together the Environment Agency, Highways England, local councils, local councillors and the community to ensure that we solve this problem together?
Finally on this issue, is the Minister aware of the environmental concerns that have come up with the scheme, such as the damage that will be done to Hinksey meadows and the loss of hundreds of trees and much habitat in the medium term? I think the scheme should go ahead—do not get me wrong—and in the very long term, there is a great opportunity to increase biodiversity, but it should not be a matter of taking with one hand and giving with the other. We need to do much more to help protect precious habitat and wildlife now.
Moving on to the Abingdon scheme, in recent weeks and months my constituents have seen floodwater rise, and they worry about a repeat of 2007. It is, of course, only a matter of time. Councillor Samantha Bowring received an award from the Prime Minister for the work she did to support flood victims after the 2007 floods, despite having had to move out of her own flooded home. Speaking at the Vale of White Horse District Council meeting two weeks ago, she reminded us that once someone has been flooded, they worry every single time there is heavy rain and the rivers start to rise.
The crude cost-benefit ratio system used to decide whether schemes get funding found that the Abingdon scheme—already designed and ready to go—does not score highly enough. The original scheme was estimated to cost £5.2 million, but after the costs doubled for several reasons, including the drop in the value of the pound post the Brexit referendum, the scheme was not deemed to be viable. However, the need for the scheme, if we look at it from the point of view of residents, has only become even more urgent. They are frustrated and feel left behind. They went from having a scheme to suddenly not having one at all, and that is simply not good enough. We are not spending enough on communities like Abingdon.
Equally, we cannot say with any confidence that what is being spent elsewhere is being used effectively. In its annual report on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was published yesterday, the National Audit Office made that very clear. Abingdon is a large town—indeed, it is the oldest continuously inhabited town in the country—and it is getting larger, with big housing developments on the horizon. Can the Minister tell us whether the cost-benefit calculation for the alleviation scheme took the new housing into account?
We know that the 2007 floods left emotional scars for hundreds of families to endure. Will the Government ensure that the Environment Agency is adequately funded, so that it can afford to fund prevention schemes such as this one? Surely the real test of value for money is whether people’s lives and the economy in towns such as Abingdon benefit.
The Environment Agency is clear that it believes a scheme in the town is necessary and would make a huge difference, but funding is the issue. I thank the Minister for her letter to me yesterday, in which she reiterated what her predecessor said, but I wonder how many other towns stand to receive no help from the Government because of crude calculations like this. If the Minister stands by the calculations, will she at the very least ask the Environment Agency to help draw up new plans for what can be done in Abingdon that it can afford?
That brings me to the village of Yarnton and the problems it is facing. In Yarnton, we have a whole different problem: there are no schemes at all in place and no plans for them, even in theory. When flooding hits, we see what that means for residents: agencies pass the buck to one another reactively, and Yarnton’s residents buy their own pumps to stop foul, stinking sewage water flowing through their homes. Michael, a constituent in Yarnton, told me:
“whenever rain is forecast we are on edge. It is hugely stressful for me and my family.”
They and their neighbours, rather than spending their time preparing for Christmas, spent 14 hours the day before Christmas eve pumping that water away from their homes. If the Minister were in their shoes, would she not want that addressed urgently? Michael and his neighbours are calling for a multi-agency approach with our local councils to fix it.
To add insult to injury, the Cherwell local plan was recently approved and will lead to developments around Yarnton and Begbroke. In a very small area that we know floods, more than 2,000 homes are due to be built, with the groundwater runoff associated with that. I think it is fair that residents are concerned that their existing problems are likely to be made even worse.
We have seen a similar issue in Radley in recent weeks. Years of underfunding in infrastructure have taken their toll, and new housing is coming without any more drainage investment from Thames Water. Our parish councils need help. There are problems with things as basic as broken underground pipes and blocked ditches. Parish councils and residents cannot do that on their own. They need help from Thames Water, landowners and upper-tier councils to resolve these problems. Will the Minister speak to Thames Water about its response times? We need the agencies to work together, not pass residents between them. Will the Minister agree to meet me, agency representatives and local councillors to try to resolve these issues?
Meanwhile, residents are very keen, in the absence of bigger schemes, to protect themselves. Recently a local campaigner called Mary phoned into my virtual surgery on BBC Radio Oxford and asked whether we could extend the green homes grant to allow homeowners to make their homes more flood resilient. I think that is a fantastically simple idea, and I have already tabled a motion in the House to do that.
However, it seems that the Chancellor is thinking of cutting the green homes grant in next week’s Budget, to the dismay of environmental and business groups alike. What does the Minister think of that? I cannot imagine she is a fan. Does she agree with me that extending the grants to cover home improvements that help residents to future-proof houses from flooding is a quick, easy way of helping them right now to protect their homes from damage? Can she tell us whether the property flood resilience grants scheme will be extended so that my constituents, who have already been flooded in recent weeks, will be able to continue to apply for those grants?
Thames valley is the largest unprotected floodplain in England. Just last week, the Government announced ambitious new plans for the Oxford-to-Cambridge arc. It is an area the Government are relying on to drive the post-covid recovery. Does the Minister agree with me that investment in protecting our area from flooding is, bluntly, a no-brainer? It makes a huge amount of sense with the arc in mind. Investment in flood protection for our area is insurance for Government investment from other Departments. Have the plans for the arc been taken into account in her Department’s thinking and cost-benefit ratios?
To conclude, the coronavirus pandemic has been awful. We have all had to make incredible sacrifices, but that will be just a dress rehearsal for the ongoing climate emergency. We can either act proactively and future-proof our communities against flood devastation, by doing what we can sooner in Oxford, funding the Abingdon scheme, and fixing the agency’s approach in Yarnton and other villages, or we can wait until it is too late, react desperately after the fact, and see more and more homes damaged and people’s lives ruined.
As I am sure the Minister knows, I will keep campaigning on this issue, so to make things easier for everyone, will she commit to meeting me—as her predecessor promised to do but never did—to discuss each of the issues that I have touched on, so that we can continue this discussion as we go along? I appreciate that it has been an incredibly tough time for the Government in many ways, but on this we do not have time to wait. Let us get ahead of the game and finally give the residents of Oxford West and Abingdon the peace of mind they deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
As ever, it is a pleasure to have you with us tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a small group of people here, but thank you none the less. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this debate. As she says, it is her second debate on flooding in her constituency, and she is raising awareness of the risks of flooding. She has also written to me recently, which she referred to, and I am happy for the contents of that letter to be shared with interested parties if that is helpful, as it covers a number of issues.
Flooding is a real and increasing risk for many people across the country. The Government take it extremely seriously—I am sure you have heard me say that many times, Madam Deputy Speaker—and recognise the devastating impact and harm that flooding can cause, affecting people’s livelihoods, lives, businesses and communities. The Government are doubling the amount that they invest in flooding and coastal defence in England to £5.2 billion between 2021 and 2027.
The hon. Lady stated clearly that she did not want the Minister to mention how much the Government have committed or want to spend on flooding, but I think that is incredibly important, particularly as we have doubled the funding, which shows the Government’s commitment. That funding will provide around 2,000 new defence schemes better to protect a further 336,000 properties in every region of the country. That includes better protection for homes and non-residential properties such as schools, hospitals, transport links and utility sites.
The investment programme aims to reduce the national flood risk by up to 11% by 2027, and it will help to avoid £32 billion in future economic damages, providing economic benefits across the nation and supporting job creation; although this debate is about Abingdon, I thought we had to note that. The hon. Lady will recognise that it is important to invest money fairly and well throughout England, ensuring that we secure value for money as we aim to protect those most at risk.
Let us now turn to the hon. Lady’s constituency of Abingdon. I am mindful of the challenges that the town has faced, and faces, and particularly the flooding experience of 2007, when more than 400 homes were flooded by the River Ock, and water levels exceeded the 1947 flood, which I am sure people in her constituency still talk about. Over recent years, the Environment Agency has taken action to reduce flooding in Abingdon, including increased levels of river maintenance, the provision of a flood wall along St Helen’s Mill, and a robust deployment plan for temporary defences, should they be needed.
Thankfully, this winter, these temporary defences were not needed. The Environment Agency responded to the high river levels in the Abingdon area during Storm Christoph, from 19 to 22 January, including by issuing flood alerts and warnings. During the peak water levels, the Environment Agency field team were up 24 hours a day clearing trash screens and bridges to allow the water to move more freely. I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady acknowledged the hard work that those from the EA certainly do. It really is thanks to this work that there were no reports of property flooding this time.
Of course, that is a reminder that there is always a flood risk—it is still there. The Environment Agency’s modelling recognises that some 561 properties in Abingdon are at risk from fluvial and surface water flooding, which is flooding that that has a one in 1,000 chance of occurring in any given year. That is why the agency continues to work in partnership with the Vale of White Horse District Council, Oxfordshire County Council and the Thames regional flood and coastal committee to find ways to further reduce flood risk in Abingdon. The hon. Lady mentioned working with all these different groups, and that indeed is what the Environment Agency is doing.
Back in 2018, the Environment Agency investigated the development of a flood storage area upstream of Abingdon on the River Ock. The investigations found that while a flood storage area was technically feasible, the benefits it would provide would not be much greater than those delivered by the Environment Agency’s routine river maintenance. The flood storage area would have provided better protection from flooding to 30 houses initially; when climate change is taken into account, that drops to just three properties at the end of the scheme’s lifetime. That means that the flood storage area would deliver additional benefits worth only £2 million to homes and businesses, but they would come at an estimated cost of £10 million. Quite clearly, it did not represent value for money to the taxpayer, and that is why this option could not be progressed. I asked particular questions about that to check up on the detail of it.
It is of course always disappointing when a flood scheme cannot be taken forward, especially for local residents who feel that it would have provided better protection for them and their neighbours. However, our funding policy is designed to be fair and equitable, and it remains people-centred: it focuses the case for Government support more on households, and so on people, than on gaining other economic benefits.
DEFRA’s partnership funding approach helps to make the grant in aid funding go further. The partnership funding policy clarifies the level of Government investment a scheme will secure, so that it is clear what funding communities need from other sources to allow projects to go ahead. Partnership funding can be secured from a range of sources, including local beneficiaries, partners and growth funds. However, it is worth noting that the local council was engaged in this bid, and it itself concluded that it was not value for money, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows.
However, we do not rest on our laurels when it comes to the funding framework; we consider how it might be improved to reflect our changing climate—and it is changing. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned this. We are getting more frequent extremes of weather. Last year, the Government announced amendments to the partnership funding rules to ensure we better recognise the full range of benefits that flood schemes can bring.
The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, on 1 February, we launched a call for evidence to explore whether any specific changes should be made to strengthen the assessment of local circumstances in the new 2021 to 2027 investment programme. This includes looking at the funding formula to see if we can provide further benefit to frequently flooded communities. That was something I specifically made a point of highlighting, as did the Secretary of State, because there are lots of communities that are frequently flooded, but perhaps do not have the big numbers of homes needed to attract funding under a particular funding formula. The call for evidence is also further exploring ways of increasing the uptake of property flood resilience measures that enable householders and businesses to better prepare for flooding.
While the flood storage area is one proposal for alleviating the problem in Abingdon, there are alternative ways to further reduce the risks and impacts, including the flood wall at St Helen’s Mill, which I have mentioned, and the temporary defences. The Environment Agency is reviewing further suggestions from the local community flood group, and I know that a very active local community is working on this. I believe it is called the Ock Valley Flood Group, and its input is much valued. It is looking at whether there is scope for the temporary flood barrier alignment to be made into a permanent defence, and the agency is gathering evidence on whether this would be technically and economically viable.
The Environment Agency is also investigating whether natural flood management options would be effective in contributing to reduced flood risk in Abingdon. It is working in partnership with the Freshwater Habitats Trust, and they are engaging with landowners who have expressed an interest in introducing measures such as tree planting to hold back the flow. These investigations will be concluded later in the year, but obviously this has to work all the way round for everyone. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned farmers, whose crops also have to be protected from flooding, so there needs to be a balanced approach. Should natural flood management be included, the landowners would have to be fully involved, and would have to engage on the question of whether that scheme would work for them.
Before I wind up, I want to touch on a couple of points raised. The hon. Lady mentioned the South Hinksey area, and yes, there were high river levels this winter on the Thames through South Hinksey. The Environment Agency used temporary barriers on Christmas day and again at the end of January, and successfully prevented flooding to properties. The agency received very positive feedback from local residents, but this seems contrary to what the hon. Lady has told me today. I think she mentioned that people were not happy, so that needs a bit of clarification. Anyway, the South Hinksey temporary defences are due to be replaced by a permanent flood bund as part of the Oxford flood alleviation scheme, so I hope that gives her some assurance.
The hon. Lady also mentioned Yarnton and Begbroke. They were affected by surface water flooding, and three properties were flooded recently in Yarnton. No properties were flooded in Begbroke. The risk to those communities is, as I said, from surface water flooding, which is the responsibility of the lead local flood authority. The EA therefore does not have plans for permanent or temporary flood defences at those locations, but it is ready to work with the lead local flood authority and other partners to help with possible mitigations for those communities, and I urge them all to get together and do that.
On the question of funding, Oxford is receiving a large amount of money, and where costs do stack up, of course schemes are going ahead. The Oxford flood alleviation scheme will cost around £150 million and is one of the biggest flood schemes in the country. Construction on the scheme was expected to start in 2020, subject to a compulsory purchase order. However, Oxfordshire County Council found that a bridge was in need of replacement, so that has to be sorted out before progress can be made, but surely it will be made. The benefits of this programme to the huge wider area of the community will be really significant. Similarly, the EA is working with partners on the Thames Valley flood scheme, which involves a wide catchment approach to mitigating the increasing flood risk resulting from climate change.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues, and I hope I have given her some assurances tonight and also in her letter. If she wants to follow up with me on any of these issues, I am of course happy to discuss them, because we want people to be assured that the Government are taking flooding seriously. Indeed, I hope I have conveyed that I believe we are taking it seriously. Not every flood mitigation proposal will go ahead, but I think I have highlighted that there are many ways of skinning a cat, and many approaches to flood mitigation, all of which need to be taken into consideration with all the different partners brought to the table, including our MPs who are standing up for their constituents. I believe that that is the way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (Con) | Jim Shannon |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Draft Judicial Pensions (Fee-paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Fee-paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
This is very straightforward and fairly technical statutory instrument to amend the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme. The draft instrument has three purposes: mainly, it adds a few fee-paid judicial officers to the regulations—fee-paid judges who had previously been omitted from the screen and are now being added—it makes some consequential amendments and it makes some other relatively technical amendments to the regulations.
The main purpose is to add some further eligible judicial officers to the regulations. Part 2 adds, for example, the office of the “Legal Chair Competition Appeal Tribunal” to the schedule to the regulations. In essence, some office holders who were omitted previously are now added, so that is good news for the relatively small number of judges concerned. Previously, when the judges in question retired, they were made an interim payment in lieu of their pension. Now they are being added to the scheme formally, they can be paid their pension properly via the scheme.
As I mentioned, there are also consequential amendments to tidy up some other loose ends. For example, the statutory instrument will ensure that eligible service before 1 April, when the SI comes into force, will count towards pensionable service. It would be unfair to exclude such service otherwise. It will also make sure that the new members may complete certain actions in the scheme, such as purchasing additional benefits from their date of admission to the scheme.
There are also technical amendments to the scheme which, for example, tidy up some of the service limitation dates, to ensure that the full range of service may be included in the scope of the scheme. Therefore, all people’s relevant service will be considered when setting their pension eligibility. Those are important changes.
Finally, consultation was conducted fairly extensively in 2016. Further consultation happened in 2018 and there was even more consultation last year between June and October. These technical changes have been consulted on extensively, to ensure that every member of the judiciary who should be getting a judicial pension gets it. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship.
This is a non-contentious statutory instrument, which Labour is happy to support. As set out by the Minister, the main purpose of the draft instrument is to amend the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017. We welcome the addition of the new members to the scheme and the other measures proposed.
The judicial pensions regulations were enacted to remedy a defect in law identified by the European Court of Justice in the case of O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice. In that case, Mr O’Brien had been appointed as a part-time judge on the western circuit, where he sat between March 1978 and March 2005. The litigation came about after Mr O’Brien established that, as a part-time judge, he could not access the judicial pension scheme in the same way that a full-time judge could. Mr O’Brien successfully argued that that amounted to part-time judges unlawfully receiving less favourable treatment than their salaried counterparts, simply on the grounds of their working patterns.
In response to the judgment, the Government introduced the judicial pensions regulations, which in turn established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme. Under the scheme, all eligible current and former judicial office holders, regardless of whether they sat part-time or full-time, would be able to access a judicial pension scheme. Simply put, the fee-paid pension scheme placed part-time judges on an equal footing with their full-time judicial colleagues for the first time.
The draft SI seeks to amend the judicial regulations to do two things. First, it will add certain judicial offices to the list of those eligible under the fee-paid pension scheme. Secondly, it will clarify the date on which pension entitlements begin to accrue. It is somewhat regrettable that we are debating the SI today, given that it had previously been laid before Parliament on 29 November 2017, but was withdrawn due to numerous errors in drafting. None the less, it is an important SI that must be welcomed, and it is deeply unfair that any part-time judge should be told that they have no right to a pension simply because such pensions are reserved for their full-time colleagues. As the European Court of Justice made clear when it considered Mr O’Brien’s case, the work of part-time and full-time judges is identical. They carry out their functions in the same courts, in the same way and at the same time. The former practice was clearly discriminatory, and it is regrettable that the Government have chosen to put this injustice right only after losing litigation.
On the matter of costly litigation, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm exactly how much public money has been spent on legal costs in challenging the claim made by Mr O’Brien. I would also be grateful if he confirmed how much the Ministry of Justice has paid so far to part-time judges who were wrongly denied pensions, and how much he expects to be paid in total. I appreciate that the Minister’s civil servants are not present, so I would be happy to receive a written response. None the less, as I said previously, although it is well overdue, this is an important measure that Labour will support today.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive and helpful comments, and I am happy to write to him with the information that he requests.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Infrastructure: Levelling-up Fund
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government will deliver the levelling-up fund UK-wide using the financial assistance powers in the UK Internal Market Act. This will extend the benefits of funding for priority local infrastructure to local areas in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The £4 billion announced at the spending review will now make available £4.8 billion UK-wide between 2021-22 and 2024-25.
It will be allocated competitively and be open to all local areas across the UK to boost growth and spread opportunity.
Making the fund UK-wide ensures that UK Government can target funding more efficiently and responsibly between different parts of the country. It will enable the Government to take a strategic approach across the UK, allocating funding in all parts of the country, irrespective of administrative borders.
Further details on how the fund will operate will be published at Budget.
[HCWS795]
Support for Education Recovery
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The pandemic and associated restrictions have had a substantial impact on children and young people’s learning. To address this challenge, the Government have committed to work with parents, teachers and education providers to develop a long-term plan to make sure pupils have the chance to make up their learning over the course of this Parliament. We have also appointed Sir Kevan Collins as education recovery commissioner to advise on this work and review how evidence-based interventions can be used to address the impact the pandemic has had on learning.
More immediately, we are putting in place a range of additional measures to help children and young people across England. The package of measures gives early years settings, schools and providers of 16-19 education the tools they need to target support to their students, tailored to the differing impact the pandemic has had on each individual.
New measures include:
A new, one-off £302 million recovery premium for state primary and secondary schools, building on the pupil premium, to further support pupils who need it most. The average primary school will receive around £6,000 extra, and the average secondary school around £22,000 extra. This will help schools to bolster summer provision for their students, for example laying on additional clubs and activities, or for evidence-based approaches for supporting the most disadvantaged pupils from September.
£200 million will fund:
- An expansion of the national tutoring programme for primary and secondary schools, to allow more pupils to benefit from the power of regular tutoring, which has been shown to boost catch up learning by much as 3-5 months at a time.
- An extension of the 16-19 tuition fund for a further year to support more students in English, maths and other vocational and academic subjects.
- Support for early language development in the early years, supporting a critical stage of child development.
£200 million will be available to secondary schools to deliver face-to-face summer schools. Schools will be able to target provision based on pupils’ needs but as evidence suggests that incoming year 7 pupils may be in particular need of support, schools will want to consider their needs in particular. These schools will operate alongside wider summer support funded across the country through our holiday activities and food programme.
A range of high-quality online resources will be available for all teachers and pupils, starting from the summer term and throughout summer holidays, provided by Oak National Academy, to help give pupils the confidence they are ready for the next academic year.
This £700 million package incorporates the £300 million announced by the Prime Minister on 27 January and will build on the £1 billion support package that was announced in June 2020. This forms part of the wider response to help pupils make up their learning over the course of this Parliament.
[HCWS794]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Services Bill
Wednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 162-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (24 Feb 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content” an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make that clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 2: Prudential regulation of certain investment firms by FCA rules
Amendment 10
Baroness Noakes
“(2) Schedule 2 does not come into effect until each House of Parliament has approved accountability arrangements for the powers conferred on the FCA in that Schedule.(3) Accountability arrangements under subsection (2) include arrangements for—(a) draft rules to be laid before each House of Parliament;(b) final rules to be laid before each House of Parliament;(c) opportunities for each House of Parliament to take evidence on the draft or final rules and to express an opinion on them;(d) the consequences of an expression of opinion by either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the rule making powers given to the FCA in Schedule 2 can be exercised only when Parliament has agreed how accountability for those powers will be exercised by Parliament.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this is my first day in Committee and I place on record my interests as declared in the register, particularly my shareholdings in financial services companies.
I am very grateful to the Committee for going so slowly on Monday and not reaching Amendment 10. As I think noble Lords are aware, I was in the Chamber and could not have moved it myself. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond; not only have they added their names to my amendments in this group but they were standing by to deal with them without me on Monday. Normal service is resumed and I can move my amendment myself. I shall also speak to Amendment 26 in this group.
This is a fairly large group of amendments but its underlying theme is a search for the right balance between letting the specialist regulators get on with the job of regulatory rule-making and the role of Parliament in overseeing those regulators. My Amendment 10 to Clause 2 says that Schedule 2 to the Bill, which amends FiSMA to create rule-making powers for the FCA to undertake prudential regulation of investment firms, will not come into effect until each House of Parliament has approved accountability arrangements for those powers.
Amendment 26 is drafted in identical terms but relates to the rule-making powers conferred on the PRA by Schedule 3, which deals with the capital requirements regulation rules.
I make no attempt in these amendments to say what form of parliamentary accountability arrangements should be put in place, although the second part of my amendment says that accountability arrangements should include a number of things: arrangements for drafting the final rules being laid before Parliament; taking evidence on a draft of final rules and, importantly, Parliament expressing an opinion on them; and the consequences of any expression of opinion. On reflection, the drafting of my amendment is perhaps not clear enough as I was not intending to suggest that Parliament had to, for example, have the laying of draft rules as part of the accountability arrangements. I merely intended to indicate that it could have that as part of the arrangements.
My amendments are predicated on a belief that we should not grant significant new rule-making powers to the regulators without sufficient checks and balances in the system. Had the Government retained the rule-making powers repatriated from the EU, it would have been pretty clear that Parliament would have had an involvement. I am clear that passing these powers to the regulators should not allow the Government to write Parliament out of the picture. I am not, however, of a settled view as to what Parliament should do, which is why my amendment says that these new rule-making powers can go to the FCA and the PRA only when Parliament’s involvement is settled by Parliament itself. I am very conscious that it is not correct—or at least not normal—for legislation to cover the precise arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny. Those arrangements are for Parliament itself to determine, and I have tried to respect that.
Other amendments in this group seek to fill the void of what Parliament should do in practice, and I shall comment briefly on some of them. The noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, in their Amendments 20, 21, 40 and 41, have set out involvement, with time limits, for each House of Parliament reporting on draft rules, with the ability to report on them but no power of veto. I can certainly see the merits of these amendments, as they strike a balance, giving Parliament an opportunity to give its views on new regulations but without allowing it to overrule our independent regulators. They should allow Parliament to take evidence on the impact of proposed new regulations, for example, on different parts of the financial services sector. This could deal well with concerns about, for example, the impact of regulations on both small and large players in parts of the financial services sector, and whether regulations create new barriers to entry. I am not sure, however, that the amendments sit easily with a need to make new regulations rapidly, which I believe is necessary from time to time.
On the other hand, many in the financial services sector are fearful of regulators gold-plating regulations and imposing unnecessary costs on whole sectors. At the end of the day, costs get passed on to consumers, even though there is often no direct correlation between a rule or regulation and any particular increase in consumer costs. That would not necessarily be well dealt with by the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell.
Some elements of Amendment 27 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Kramer, would allow more thematic or cumulative reviews. I particularly like the elevation of the statutory panels of the FCA and the PRA, though I do not believe that those panels should include Members of either House of Parliament. I know that these panels could be more effective voices for industry concerns. I have in mind, in particular, the PRA’s practitioner panel, which the PRA certainly did not want when it was set up by the Financial Services Act 2012, and has had no discernible impact since then. On the other hand, other elements of Amendment 27, for example Parliament’s involvement in the regulators’ meetings with the Basel Committee or IOSCO, seem to me to go beyond what it would be reasonable for Parliament to do.
My noble friend Lord Blackwell has an amendment with yet another variant with scrutiny of rules by parliamentary committees, but with any results being passed to the Secretary of State for action. My concern with that is that the only action that could in practice be taken, once the power to make rules has been passed to the FCA and the PRA, would be more primary legislation. That seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut and would, in practice, not really act as a restraint, a check or a balance on the undesirable use by the regulators of their powers.
The issue of the nature of parliamentary involvement is discussed in the Treasury’s future regulatory framework review. The consultation on part 2 of that process, started last October, has just closed—my noble friend the Minister may want to say something about where we are with that process. I thought the section on accountability in that consultation was not strong and that reliance on the existing committee structures of both Houses was the wrong direction of travel. Whatever our views on that, a longer-term overhaul of accountability structures will not help us; we will have to find a solution that works for this Bill and until any changes emerge from the framework review. That is the challenge before us. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, my name is on eight amendments in this enlarged group. They cover different aspects of parliamentary accountability, although a common thread is Parliament’s right to information. Whether Parliament chooses a regime that scrutinises everything in detail or one which picks points of contention, and however it may develop over time, timely access to background and information is relevant.
My Amendment 18 and its counterpart, Amendment 38, relate to keeping Parliament informed about the discussions between the Treasury and the regulator concerning equivalence. In Schedules 2 and 3 this Bill establishes that, when making rules, the FCA or PRA may consult the Treasury about the likely effect of the rules on relevant equivalence decisions.
Parliament should be sighted of these considerations because they may affect the content and strength of rules and, as explained in the Government’s consultation, equivalence decisions may result in requirements being embedded in statutory instruments. Just as we used to have EU requirements in regulations, we may end up having equivalence requirements. There is nothing complicated about my amendment; it just says, “keep Parliament informed”. Unless Parliament establishes that right now, it will not exist.
To illustrate this, I quote from the recent FCA consultation on investment firms which, like this Bill, front-runs the Treasury consultation. Paragraph 9.68 states:
“we have discussed with HM Treasury the rules’ likely effect on relevant equivalence decisions. We are not expected under our new public accountability requirements to provide further detail on this.”
I think we need to know something, and I hope the Minister will appreciate that too.
I turn to my Amendments 19 and 39, which specify the level of detail that regulators’ explanations concerning compliance with statutory requirements should contain. I was provoked into tabling these amendments on reading the FCA’s explanations in its consultation. Although they gave a reasonable but qualitative explanation of its general approach to the Financial Services Bill, the statutory accountability statements were poor, containing nothing quantitative or illustrative. They consisted of “trust and believe me” statements littered with phrases such as “proportionality”, “business specific”, “bespoke” and “flexible”; no attempt was made to identify or quantify how that was done. Information would have to be extracted from the rest of the consultation and rules, if it were there at all; or—and this is the nub—we have to swallow that, as paragraph 9.71 states, it is left up to the
“investment firms and supervisors to focus on the core business model indicators of financial resilience relevant to each firm”.
There are no examples given.
The statutory explanations are an important part of accountability. They should be elaborated on as a stand-alone justification, perhaps to spoon-feed the non-skilled reader, but not just through assertions. We need more than assertions that supervisors cosying up with firms can decide how to get it right. That is not accountability. These statements should be written more like justifying a case in court and less like how to pander to industry. They should inform on the toughness of the regime and capital calculations.
My amendment proposes that the explanations
“must include specific, detailed and quantitative elaboration, with worked examples”,
and that Parliament may reject rules that are accompanied by inadequate explanation. By way of comparison, when I checked the PRA’s front-running consultation which came out on 12 February, it seems to have done a rather better job and included examples.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before getting to the substance of the debate, I must express some puzzlement; obviously, I have much to learn about this House’s mysterious ways. The specific issue that concerns me is the grouping of amendments. We are sternly told that groupings are not to be changed, but here we have a significant change: what was two groups on Monday is now a single group. The issues are not that disparate, but it makes a big difference to the time we have available.
The main point I wish to make relates particularly to Amendments 10 and 71. The latter was tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka. If I had been a bit more alert, I would have added my name.
The issue here is to whom the FCA should be accountable, given the well-established phenomenon of regulatory capture, as the previous speaker mentioned. It is worth emphasising the point that regulatory capture is where an industry regulator such as the FCA comes to be dominated by the industry it is charged with regulating. The result is that the agency that is meant to be acting in the public interest instead works in ways that benefit the industry. The important point to understand is that this does not happen because inadequate or ineffective people are running the regulator. It is certainly not about corruption. It is an institutional, not individual, problem.
It is important to understand why it happens. The reasons are manifold but I will emphasise three. First, the regulated industry has a keen and immediate interest in influencing the regulator, whereas the customers are less motivated; they have their lives to live and are engaged only for relatively brief periods anyway. Secondly, we know that industries are prepared to devote substantial resources to influencing the regulator. Thirdly, there is the inevitable commonality of work and social life for the individuals on both sides of the process.
Given that the phenomenon of regulatory capture is acknowledged and widely understood, what do we do about it? The first step is acknowledging the issue and recognising and addressing the challenge. The next step is making the regulator as accountable as possible. There are many ways of doing this, but we can leave those for another day. What we have here are Amendments 10 and 71. Under Amendment 10, the involvement of both Houses in considering draft and final rules would be valuable in itself, given the expertise available. However, it is also valuable because of the additional exposure that it brings to the workings of the regulator, which will have to make its case. In the same way, Amendment 71 would bring greater exposure to the work of the FCA, forcing it to expound on its performance and its objectives in public and in an expert forum.
There is much more to do on making the FCA fully accountable, but these amendments are a start and have my support.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. He addressed in useful detail the risks of industry capture of regulators, to which the financial sector is particularly prone and which is addressed by Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I have attached my name to that amendment. I associate myself particularly with the remarks of the noble Baroness, who stressed that these amendments are about the rights of Parliament and access to data and detailed information—necessary for the kind of expert work at which your Lordships’ House excels.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, covered the need for Amendment 71 in some depth and its author—the noble Lord, Lord Sikka—is yet to speak, I will confine myself to general remarks about how all the amendments in this large group reflect the great degree of concern on all sides of the House about, given how the Bill is currently constituted, the lack of parliamentary oversight of the actions of both the regulators and the Treasury. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained this point in her highly informative introduction to the group.
This morning, thanks to their kind indulgence, I was able to join Cross-Benchers in a briefing on the Bill, where we heard how the formalisation of the relationship between regulators, Parliament and the Treasury is “on the way”. The future regulatory framework consultation closed on Friday. We heard that the Bill is not the final word on that, and that the responses to the consultation will not be ready in time for the Bill. So, yet again, we hear that democratic controls and the details of government plans will be included in future legislation and regulation. Your Lordships’ House has heard this so often on so many subjects; perhaps we could enlist the Lords spiritual in assisting us in putting it in some kind of musical form. It simply is not good enough.
We know that, despite the long run-in time, the Government were not ready for Brexit at the end of the transition period and that civil servants, through no fault of their own, are trapped in a huge scramble to catch up with the massive backlog of government inaction and indecision—the tsunami to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, referred. But what we have here are sensible proposals from experienced, expert Members of your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Government will acknowledge the urgency and importance of ensuring democratic oversight and that they will take at least some of these amendments on board at the next stage of the Bill, particularly, given the arguments already made, Amendment 71. There is no need to wait. Democratic oversight should be a given, not an extra, later addition.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day two in Committee on the Financial Services Bill. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I speak on this group to support my noble friend Lady Noakes’s Amendments 10 and 26. I shall not detain the Grand Committee too long. I have written an extensive article on this subject—if anyone is interested, it is at lordchrisholmes.com. All the amendments in this group seek to answer a straightforward question: who watches the financial watchdogs? If I had had a more expensive education, I could do the Latin for that, but fortunately I simply had an expansive education.
It seems to me that the start point is not whether we need more or less scrutiny and accountability but what the right level of accountability is. What are we seeking to achieve? In the EU/UK process, the debate has been characterised as being between principles and prescription. That seems a somewhat false characterisation. For me, the start point of purpose would make a lot more sense. What are we trying to achieve via our regulatory approach—to the FCA and the PRA—to enable it to be to that extent and no more? We also hear of proportionality. I support the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes because they are elegant and leave space for detailed thinking to be done rather than for it needing to be rushed through in the Bill.
Some of that thinking needs to rest around the three Cs of capacity, consistency and co-ordination. Does any potential scrutiny have the right people, the right skills, the right experience and the right amount of time to undertake the task? On consistency, are the scrutinisers and the regulators there all the time, day in, day out, not merely when there is a significant regulatory failure or something that seems of particular political significance? Co-ordination speaks for itself, each regulator being a constituent part of a greater sector in terms of financial services and beyond that across the whole family of regulators, inspectors and ombudsmen.
In any solution that may come out of this, the greatest amount of energy seems to be around the Treasury Select Committee and a potential sub-committee. This has a great deal to recommend it, but even if we consider the first C of capacity, there would seem to be at least a challenge on this.
A similar argument, but with the addition of the right level of expertise, in my view, has been put forward in an excellent report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Markets and Services, which was published on 18 February. It argues that a sub-committee of the Treasury Select Committee, supported by an expert panel, could be effective in this space. As has been said, it is not for the Government to prescribe what approach Parliament takes but, in this Financial Services Bill, the opportunity should be taken to provide that space and those options for such a scrutinising body to be constructed.
We have the opportunity to move a million miles away from part of the parliamentary scrutiny that we currently have—the annual report to Parliament via the Minister. We can move towards doing effective scrutiny in the 21st century in real time, rather than via the rear-view mirror: Parliament partnering with academia, the private sector and all the relevant expertise, deploying all the necessary elements of technology to enable effective and efficient scrutiny of our financial regulators for the benefit of us all.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, many of the amendments in this group share the aim of increasing or providing for the first time proper parliamentary scrutiny of some financial services regulatory regimes and of those who enforce them. Some amendments deal with the problem of absent or insufficient scrutiny on a grand scale and I strongly support their intent. This Government often seem to think that parliamentary scrutiny is best avoided or diluted. Our DPRRC, SLSC and Constitution Committee have regularly warned the Government against using skeleton Bills, against behaving as though consultation is a substitute for real parliamentary scrutiny and against using rule-making as camouflage legislation.
This Bill contains a particularly alarming example of the evasion of scrutiny in allowing the Treasury to revoke rules by SI by giving the regulator the power to make legally binding rules without any parliamentary involvement. That is completely unacceptable, as the Government must know. I strongly support Amendments 10 and 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as a means of restoring some proper scrutiny. As the noble Baroness clearly explained, these amendments are not prescriptive as to the form of parliamentary scrutiny needed; they simply set out the principles that must guide construction of the scrutiny mechanisms. This is the equivalent of making an invitation to the Government that they should not refuse. It is an invitation to serious and substantive discussion about the way forward and it rightly, given the serious and far-reaching consequences, gives an appropriate incentive to resolve the issue quickly and collectively. I urge the Government to begin immediate cross-party talks on the issue.
By contrast with some of the amendments in this group, our Amendment 22 has modest and narrowly defined ambitions. As the Bill stands, Clause 3 lists the provisions of the CRR that the Treasury may revoke by regulation. There are 42 of these categories of provisions, all of them significant. Clause 3(4) makes these revocations conditional on their being or having been adequately replaced by general rules made, or to be made, by the PRA, or to be replaced by nothing at all if the Treasury thinks that that is okay. The Treasury appears to be the sole judge of what may or may not be an adequate replacement. In any event, Parliament is completely bypassed in this system. But all this means is that the Treasury can revoke provisions by SI before it has published the replacement rules or even decided what they will be. This sounds like a perfect recipe for disorderliness and uncertainty and it means that Parliament will have no opportunity to consider these new rules in a legislative setting. We get to see what has been dropped, but not necessarily what the replacement rules may be. This is another example of making law by making rules that Parliament has not been able to scrutinise.
Our amendment proposes a simple way round this. It would require any revoking SI to carry not only full details of what was being revoked but the full text of the replacing rules, except, of course, where no replacement was envisaged. These new rules can and will reshape important parts of our financial services regulatory regimes, and it is quite wrong that Parliament should be unable to scrutinise them.
I hope the Minister will be able to accept our amendment or to give us an assurance that revoking SIs will contain the full text of any replacement rules.
Lord Blackwell (Con) [V]
My Lords, in addressing this group of amendments, I want to speak also to Amendment 85 in my name. As I set out at Second Reading, I should draw attention to the fact that I was chairman of a regulated bank until the beginning of the year, although my interests now are solely as a shareholder.
I agree with other speakers that parliamentary accountability for the regulators is important now that the UK has its own regulatory agenda outside the European Union, and it is missing from this Bill. However, the regulators have been established by Parliament to enable independent expert bodies to exercise delegated powers, and we need to be careful that in providing for the necessary parliamentary oversight we do not create structures that impinge on the political independence of the regulators and their ability to take a considered, apolitical view, undermine their expertise or turn Parliament effectively into the day-to-day regulatory body if it is required to approve every rule in advance. That would make the regulators simply a working body for Parliament rather than independent regulators in their own right.
A number of speakers have talked about regulatory capture. From my experience over many years, it has not felt like the regulators have been captured by the industry, but neither have they always been right, so scrutiny is important. My amendment seeks to strike the right balance of delegation and oversight by suggesting parliamentary scrutiny of rules after the event—ex post—rather than it trying to second-guess the regulator ex ante by approving rules in advance. I therefore take a different view from my noble friend Lady Noakes on Amendment 10 and some of the other amendments. If Parliament sought to approve every rule in advance, the regulators would lose their independence, and we would lose the benefits of speed and expertise. We need to recognise that, often, rules need to be made to fix a problem, and if that problem needs fixing, the regulators need to act rapidly. They obviously need to consult as far as is possible, but to set in process a whole session of approvals by Parliament would handicap them in taking action when they needed to, and it would jeopardise their political independence.
Under my amendment, if a parliamentary committee felt that the rules were inappropriate or not working properly, it could make its views known to the regulator, and I suspect that in many cases the regulator would sensibly take note of that. Ultimately, it would be up to the Secretary of State to propose changes to regulations if the regulator was not acting in accordance with the framework that Parliament set out and intended. The point was made that that might need primary legislation; my understanding is that, under this Bill, Her Majesty’s Treasury can enact a lot of changes in regulations through secondary legislation, which can be done much more rapidly.
As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, what the amendment cannot signify is exactly what the form of parliamentary scrutiny will be and therefore that cannot be written into the Bill, but, since we are having this debate, I would advocate that the scrutiny function when Parliament comes to that is best carried out by a Joint Committee of both Houses, with appropriate technical support.
Experience suggests that a Joint Committee is the best way to avoid politicising the debate. It can draw on the experience in this House while enabling the elected Members in the other place to have their legitimate role in parliamentary oversight. As and when it is appropriate to decide on the form of parliamentary scrutiny, I hope that this can be taken into account.
I know that these matters are still under consultation. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response, but I support the weight of the speakers so far that this is a matter that needs to be dealt with, if at all possible, during the course of this Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. I support both Amendments 10 and 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. They do not mean that Parliament would be seeking to usurp the role of the regulators, or to attempt to rewrite MiFID II which, according to Forbes Magazine, has required 30,000 pages to explain its regulations.
It is right that the Bill enables our regulators to act quickly and flexibly to respond to changes in the markets or the introduction of new financial products. However, without the scrutiny formerly carried out by the European Parliament of each and every detail of regulations and directives, it is necessary that Parliament should have oversight of the regulators’ work. My noble friend is right that we need to agree the optimum balance and how this will be done before the powers conferred upon the PRA and FCA are made available for them to use.
Amendments 18 and 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, are motivated by a desire to continue to align to EU regulation, even though there are no expectations that the EU will make any further significant equivalence declarations in the short term. Amendment 19 places a large, poorly defined burden on the FCA to show where and how its draft rules have been influenced. It is clear that the FCA will consider many external factors in drafting its rules. As your Lordships know, it is intended to agree a basis on which both regulators will be made accountable to your Lordships’ House and another place for the way in which they carry out their work. Accordingly, I think it would be too restrictive on the FCA if this amendment were supported. It would also create uncertainty over the Bank of England’s ability to act quickly as necessary in exercising its macroprudential responsibilities.
Similarly, Amendment 20 seeks to allow committees of your Lordships’ House and another place to publish a report on proposed Part 9C rules. It is not clear which committees these will be in the future. It would slow down changes that the FCA will want to make quickly, which could be damaging to the standing and competitiveness of the City. Perhaps my noble friend can tell the House how the Government intend to amend the Bill in order to provide for the necessary scrutiny of acts of the regulators. I am not sure that that would be the effect of Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. The Government’s intention, which I support, is that we should move away from the cumbersome, codified nature of rules. I would expect the PRA to try to make rules that are shorter and clearer than the regulations they replace. It would not always be appropriate for them to include the full text of the general rules to be replaced.
Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seems to place a very heavy demand on Parliament to become closely involved in what our regulators do at international conferences, in a way that might be too restrictive on their freedom to participate fully at those conferences. This would be likely to weaken British influence on the outcomes of discussions and decisions made at such conferences.
In Amendment 38, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seeks to duplicate other arrangements which will be made to institute the necessary parliamentary accountability and again appears motivated by a desire to continue to align to EU rules. If the Government can bring forward an amendment to increase the attention that the PRA is required to give to the competitiveness of the markets, as strongly proposed by several noble Lords on Monday, I would suggest that Amendment 38 might be unnecessary.
While considering this matter, can the Minister confirm that it remains the Treasury’s intention to advise the Bank of England not to adopt a similar measure to the EBA to permit banks to capitalise software investments for the purpose of stress testing? This is one example of where, instead of equivalence, we will have higher standards than the EU, although regulatory standards are often not two-dimensional, high or low.
The effect of Amendment 39 is surely to transfer back to Parliament the detailed rule-making powers. Quite apart from the fact that neither your Lordships’ House nor another place is equipped to carry out such detailed, line-by-line scrutiny, the amendment would seriously slow down rule-changing, removing agility and flexibility from the regulators.
Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, does not remove the ultimate power to change rules from the regulator but introduces a cumbersome process involving the issuance of reports by committees of both Houses. Does the noble Lord intend these committees to be new standing committees, and how will they be resourced? I also note that in the case of a draft being laid, say, a week before Parliament rises in July, it might be three months before 20 sitting days of either House have elapsed.
I do not understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, in introducing Amendment 71—a requirement separately for the Treasury Committee in another place to assess the FCA’s conduct prior to the appointment of a new chief executive.
My noble friend Lord Blackwell’s Amendment 85 makes an interesting proposal as to how the regulators should be made accountable to Parliament. Does my noble friend Lord Howe think that, as far as your Lordships’ House is concerned, scrutiny would come from an existing or soon to be established Select Committee, such as the strangely named Industry and Regulators Committee, or whether a new standing committee should be set up to exercise these functions?
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, in his Amendment 137 seeks to place a statutory duty to consult the devolved Administrations over a reserved matter. We await with bated breath the publication of the Dunlop review, which should inform us of how the Government intend to manage relations with the devolved Administrations in the future, including on reserved matters. However, I cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment, which is unnecessary and provocative to certain elements within the devolved authorities.
I look forward to other noble Lords’ contributions and the Minister’s reply.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 71, which is in my name and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
The amendment seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of financial regulation and calls for scrutiny of the FCA’s conduct by the Treasury Committee prior to the appointment or reappointment of its chief executive. It effectively calls on the committee to act as a guide dog to the watchdog. We all know that effective regulation is a necessary condition for protecting people from malpractices, holding miscreants to account and promoting confidence in the finance industry.
The FCA has failed to deliver robust and effective enforcement and it needs to be helped. Its failures are documented everywhere. The recent report by Dame Elizabeth Gloster on the collapse of London Capital & Finance noted that the FCA did not discharge its functions in respect of LCF in a manner that enabled it to effectively fulfil its statutory objectives and that there were significant gaps and weaknesses in its practices. From my perspective, even more damning was the revelation that FCA staff were not even trained to read financial information to recognise unusual or suspicious transactions.
Another report on the scandal-ridden Connaught Income Fund concluded that the FCA’s regulation of the entities and individuals was not appropriate or effective. We are still awaiting the report on the Woodford Equity Income Fund, when thousands of investors are trapped. Regrettably that is not an independent investigation, but we await the outcome with considerable interest.
The FCA failed to act in the case of Carillion, a company that collapsed in January 2018. Carillion inflated its balance sheet and profits through aggressive accounting practices. These included the use of mark-to-market accounting, enabling the company to leave at least £1.1 billion-worth of worthless contracts on its balance sheet. It failed to amortise £1.57 billion of good will, which was effectively worthless. The company was disseminating that misleading information to the markets but the FCA took no action whatever. Curiously, on 18 September 2020, nearly 21 months after Carillion’s collapse, the FCA issued a warning notice saying that the company and some of its directors had recklessly misled markets and investors over the deteriorating state of its finances before the company collapsed. Where was the FCA for all the earlier years while Carillion was publishing that misleading information? It was nowhere to be seen.
There is now considerable public evidence that the banks have been forging customers’ signatures to alter key documents and repossess customers’ businesses and homes, and that evidence has been published in the mainstream media. I understand that there are over 500 documented cases and the FCA has not even started any investigation. A senior Metropolitan Police fraud officer wrote to the Treasury Select Committee in 2017, stating that the executive boards of some of the most prominent banks were “serious organised crime syndicates”, yet that has not resulted in any action by the FCA.
The bank RBS has systematically defrauded its customers but the FCA has been dragging its feet, often pushed by parliamentary committees and others to do its job. In November 2013 a 20-page report prepared by Lawrence Tomlinson summarised this abuse of bank customers and small businesses at RBS’s global restructuring group, or GRG. The Tomlinson report stated that rather than nurturing small businesses, the bank actually pulled the financial rug and sent them to premature bankruptcy. GRG operated from 2005 to 2013, and at its peak handled 16,000 companies with total assets of around £65 billion. A proportion of those companies were not viable but a great number were and had never defaulted on loans. The FCA’s approach was to bury its own Section 166 report on the RBS frauds. In February 2018, the Treasury Committee ignored the FCA’s reluctance and published the report. The committee said:
“The treatment of vast numbers of SME customers placed in RBS’s Global Restructuring Group was nothing short of scandalous.”
In June 2019 the FCA published what it described as its final report on the investigation into RBS’s treatment of small and medium-sized businesses. The co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking and Finance said:
“This report is another complete whitewash and another demonstrable failure of the regulator to perform its role.”
The timidity of the FCA is also evident from the long-running HBOS frauds, which show no sign of resolution. In 2013, a report codenamed “Project Lord Turnbull” was published by Sally Masterton, Lloyds senior manager in credit risk oversight in the regulation and governance section of its risk division. It was prepared in response to inquiries made during Thames Valley Police’s investigation into the frauds at the Reading branch of HBOS, and also covered the period before the 2007-08 banking crash and bailouts and the subsequent takeover of HBOS by Lloyds Banking Group. The report noted that HBOS executives had “concealed” asset-stripping frauds at its Reading branch ahead of the bank’s takeover by Lloyds in 2008. The FCA did nothing to bring fraudsters to book.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, that was a powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and clearly, a lot must be addressed. I served on the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee and the Treasury Select Committee, and currently serve on the EU Services Sub-Committee. Therefore, I am well aware of the contribution the sector makes across the UK.
The UK helped to shape the regulations and rules for the EU, but we have now left. The sector has consistently argued that a reputation for high standards and effective regulation is important to the confidence the world expresses in the UK’s financial institutions—notwithstanding the failures that have occurred. The combination of the European Parliament and the UK Parliament ensured that regulators have been accountable. I do not claim to be a technical expert on what is a complicated sector, but I recognise the dangers of regulation becoming an unaccountable closed book.
I support the case for a properly resourced specialist joint committee to ensure that regulators are held accountable, not so much on technical detail but in terms of a prudential framework and overall direction. That would be in the interests of the regulators and government Ministers as well as those who depend on a well-regulated and reliable sector. I share the concern that what the Government are trying to do will ultimately bite back if there has been no proper parliamentary oversight in a future scandal. The Government and the regulators will have nowhere to hide, but that will be very little comfort to people who may suffer from regulation failures.
Financial services are distributed throughout the economy. People often refer to the City of London, but we know that jobs and activities are distributed throughout the UK and have been growing in all the devolved Administrations. Edinburgh is the UK’s most important financial centre and one of the most important in Europe. According to TheCityUK, financial services contribute £13 billion, or 9.4% of GVA, to the Scottish economy. More than 160,000 people are employed in financial and related professional services, which is nearly 6% of Scotland’s national employment. The sector includes banking, fund management, insurance, life assurance and pensions, asset servicing and professional services.
Interestingly, Scotland accounts for 24% of all UK employment in life assurance and 13% of all banking employment. Given that Scotland has 8.5% of the population of the UK, this is clearly disproportionately important. According to Scottish Development International, there are more than 2,000 financial services businesses, supported by 3,650 professional services firms. Scotland’s financial and professional services exports account for 40% of all Scottish services exports.
Having said that about Scotland, tens of thousands are employed in the sector in Wales and thousands in Northern Ireland, and the number is growing in all the devolved areas. My Amendment 137 takes this into account and seeks to ensure that the devolved Administrations are consulted about any proposed changes in financial services regulations. It is clearly in the interest of the sector to have clear and common regulations across the United Kingdom, which is why this amendment looks for consultation only. It merely seeks to ensure that any factors of particular importance to a devolved Administration are, as far as possible, accommodated. I can see no conceivable advantage to financial services companies to diverge from UK regulation. After all, as the figures I cited show, a significant part of the financial services sector in Scotland is serving the whole UK market. The last thing it needs is a distracting push separating it from its customers, either by erecting barriers at the border or by promoting an alternative Scottish currency, which would undermine the raison d’être of serving the UK from Scotland, or a “sterlingisation” agenda that would put huge pressure on the public finances in Scotland.
My amendment seeks to avoid any unintended negative consequences. It is not intended to cause delay or to encourage special pleading. Given the particular importance of Scotland’s role in delivering life assurance and banking, it is surely right that any changes being considered to regulations affecting these sectors are not proceeded with until appropriate consultation has taken place.
That said, it is also important to recognise the role of professional support services, given Scotland’s distinctive legal system and, for example, accounting qualifications. The expertise that exists in Scotland should in any case surely be drawn on to inform regulations if and when changes are being considered. I share concerns that the Government are proceeding to build an architecture that lacks an adequate parliamentary dimension. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the legislatures of the devolved Administrations to be involved in contributing to the shaping of regulations, at least in their broad prudential thrust.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope he will recognise the force of the arguments put by noble Lords about the need for a significant and effective parliamentary dimension and a recognition that the devolved Administrations, especially Scotland, should be able to contribute constructively and positively to that outcome.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab) [V]
My Lords, one of the joys of being at the end of such a large group of amendments and a long speakers’ list is that very much of what needs to be said has already been said, so I will be brief.
The contributions from across your Lordships’ Committee, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lord Davies, outlined the importance of parliamentary and democratic oversight and the different levels and ways of delivering it. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the right levels of oversight also helped move the debate on.
The balance between regulatory authorities’ powers and those of Parliament is critical. My noble friend Lord Sikka clearly outlined in detail many of the failures of the regulators and of the FCA, so getting the levels right is critical. I add my support for those amendments that I am pushing forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to how we move this forward to Report and Third Reading.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we have, sadly, become used to skeleton primary legislation, with policy embedded in statutory instruments that cannot be amended and cannot be voted down without threats of a constitutional crisis. But at least statutory instruments can be brought before Parliament, and Ministers must then make the case.
This Bill is a new low—skeleton primary legislation, elimination of secondary legislation and policy set in regulators’ rules with no meaningful accountability to Parliament. The accountability set out in the Bill, which largely mirrors proposals in the future regulatory framework review, provides, in essence, just for a bit more explanation by the regulator, the existing right of a parliamentarian to submit evidence to any consultation, and the existing right for committees such as the Treasury Select Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee to question the regulator from time to time. This will be the policy framework shaping a sector of the economy that will fundamentally impact our national prosperity, jobs and public spending.
The Minister was kind enough to meet us, so I can perhaps anticipate some of the arguments that the Government are likely to make. They will argue that the Bill is just a stopgap while consultation takes place, but the consultation under way has multiple stages and will stretch the whole process out for 18 months or two years. By then the horse will have long bolted and procedures will largely have been set in stone. Perhaps the Minister would spell out the timetable—because the Bill looks to me like a template, not a stopgap.
Secondly, the Minister will say that only part of financial regulation is covered by the Bill. But, since it includes all of Basel III, the Bill actually covers almost everything that matters in prudential regulation. I have also heard from parts of industry that a second financial services Bill is on its way. I do not know that; I have not heard it from the Government—but if so, it will have come and gone before the new framework legislation is finalised. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that. It is absolutely clear that what happens with this Bill genuinely matters.
I value consultation—real consultation—but I am saddened because consultation has become a cynical tool to sideline Parliament. “Just give us a free hand now, because we’re doing a consultation.” Colleagues who cover other areas of policy tell me that this is a pattern, and are now concluding that it is cynically being used with a wide range of legislation, to make sure that Parliament is sidestepped.
I suspect that the Minister will argue that the powers being given to the regulators in this Bill, with minimal accountability, are necessary so that the UK can respond to changing events. After all, we have left the European Union and times are going to change. I regard that as nonsense. We are in changing times, but we have proved in the last year that fast-track procedures exist when they are genuinely needed.
I very much welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also signed by my noble friend Lady Bowles, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They are tough: they would prevent Schedules 2 and 3 coming into effect before the accountability deficit is sorted. That, I suggest, is what the circumstance warrants.
This group of amendments was revised from Monday, so it now includes proposals detailing how accountability can be structured. We have heard a whole series of brilliant speeches in this debate, so I want to make only some limited comments.
The noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, have tabled a number of amendments laying out process and timetable. I find that extremely constructive. By contrast, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has tabled an amendment that covers similar territory, but with such a light touch that—I hope he does not take this wrongly—I think it will be read as cosmetic. The industry needs to recognise the importance of proper scrutiny and understand that scrutiny in name only will, in the end, do the industry itself no long-term good.
In addition to the procedural amendments, my noble friend Lady Bowles has tackled an equally crucial but often overlooked element of oversight—one that goes to the heart of the matter. It is the need for the regulator to provide the detailed information to Parliament to fully understand and evaluate the evidence, reasoning and consequences of changes to rules. For years this has been done for us within the oversight process of the European Parliament, which has expert resources in depth. My noble friend, in her role in that Parliament, was able to use the information to improve proposals for rules and make them more effective. We have now lost that capacity, and nothing in the Bill or the framework consultation replaces it.
My noble friend Lady Bowles has also proposed amendments that would put this oversight on a regular basis, not just an ad hoc one, and would bring in an independent expert panel to do some of the heavy lifting. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, referred to, recently the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Markets and Services addressed similar concerns. I quote from its February report, The Role of Parliament in the Future Regulatory Framework for Financial Services:
“Regardless of the format, the level of technical support available to Parliamentarians in this policy area will be key.”
The APPG goes on to propose secondments from the Treasury to the relevant parliamentary committees to bolster institutional capacity. I personally regard that as the wrong approach—that would be letting foxes into the henhouse—but it makes the point that proper parliamentary oversight requires new expert capability to replace that lost with Brexit. We have expertise within the regulator but we must have it for oversight of the regulator.
Before I finish, I want to refer to Amendment 137, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bruce, which would require the Government to consult on rule changes with the devolved Administrations. It is quite shocking to me that the devolved Administrations are overlooked in the Bill. Scotland is a major player in financial services and that needs to be recognised.
I will listen to the Minister’s response. I hope he will not repeat the airy dismissal that the Economic Secretary in the Commons deigned to give as his response. Voices on all Benches in this House are capable of coalescing around a set of viable amendments on Report that would at least remedy the worst in the Bill. The Government ought to be coming forward with the best.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, in due course I will speak to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and myself, which, as many noble Lords have commented, would introduce operational proposals that would address the problem of adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
Before I turn to those practicalities, though, I wish to speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which deal with the principles at stake. As we might expect from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, her amendments are precise and direct and go to the heart of the matter: the inadequacy of parliamentary scrutiny.
I regret that I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate on the Bill. On reading the report of that debate, it is evident that an overwhelming sentiment in your Lordships’ House was that the procedures suggested by Her Majesty’s Government for the future development of the regulatory powers display a serious lack of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The fears expressed at Second Reading can only have been further reinforced by the note entitled “Meeting between the Economic Secretary, Peers, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority: Background Briefing for Peers”, and by the document Financial Services Future Regulatory Framework Review Phase II Consultation, published by Her Majesty’s Treasury in October last year. Both documents advocate a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that may at very best be described as minimalist. Seldom can two documents have made the case so eloquently for the adoption of a policy entirely at odds with that which they propose.
The central thrust of government thinking is spelt out in the phase 2 consultation document to which I have just referred. It may help if I quote the relevant passage:
“The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), and the model of regulation introduced by that Act, continue to sit at the centre of the UK’s regulatory framework. The government believes that this model, which delegates the setting of regulatory standards to expert, independent regulators that work within an overall policy framework set by government and Parliament, continues to be the most effective way of delivering a stable, fair and prosperous financial services sector. The model maximises the use of expertise in the policy-making process by allowing regulators with day-to-day experience of supervising financial services firms to bring that real-world experience into the design of regulatory standards. It also allows regulators to flex and update those standards efficiently in order to respond quickly to changing market conditions and emerging risks. The FSMA model was readily adapted to address the regulatory failings of the 2007-08 financial crisis.”
Commenting further on the manner in which this model was readily adapted to address the regulatory failings of the 2007-08 financial crisis, the authors of this document declare:
“The financial crisis of 2007-08 revealed serious flaws in the UK’s system of regulation, particularly in the allocation and co-ordination of responsibilities across the ‘tripartite’ institutions – HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA … The post-crisis framework reforms were therefore focused primarily on institutional design and allocation of responsibilities.”
So the problem that led to massive regulatory failure and to a regulatory system that failed to protect UK citizens and firms from a near-existential breakdown in the financial system, that heralded a sharp downturn in real income and higher unemployment, and that led inexorably to the disastrous austerity policy was a problem of
“institutional design and allocation of responsibilities”.
There is no mention of the failed analysis, no mention of the pernicious groupthink that infected the analysis of the FCA and the Bank of England, no mention of the fact that warnings from distinguished commentators in academia and in the financial services industry were airily dismissed, and no acknowledgement that our regulators participated in the creation of a procyclical regulatory model that actually made the crisis worse than it otherwise might have been.
If anyone has any doubt that allowing regulators to bring that real-world experience into design of regulatory standards was the foundation of that massive failure, they should consider the words of Alan Greenspan, then head of the US Federal Reserve system—essentially, the western world’s senior regulator—speaking to the banking committee of the US House of Representatives in October 2008. He said:
“This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades. The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”
Where in this document is the recognition that the intellectual edifice collapsed? Where is the acknowledgement that those with real-world expertise did not understand the systemic risks in the industry that they were supposed to be regulating?
All this was clearly set out in the Turner review, published by the FSA in 2009 and seemingly unread by the authors of this document. The review advocated a shift from microprudential regulation that focuses attention on the risks facing individual firms to macroprudential regulation focusing on the risks inherent in the operation of the system as a whole. It is entirely true that implementing that change has proved more difficult than the noble Lord, Lord Turner, could have anticipated. Basel III, the regulatory system lauded in this Bill, was supposed to do the job, but as Professor Hyun Shin, chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements, the home of Basel III, has commented:
“Under its current … form, Basel III is almost exclusively micro-prudential in its focus, concerned with the solvency of individual banks, rather than being macro-prudential, concerned with the resilience of the financial system as a whole. The language of Basel III is revealing in this regard, with repeated references to greater ‘loss absorbency’ of bank capital.”
When we turn to the impact assessment published by Her Majesty’s Treasury to accompany the Bill, we again find many references to the virtues of bank capital, its loss absorbency and the resilience of individual firms. There is, however, absolutely nothing about the attempt to deal with systemic risk using liquidity rules, resolution regimes and comprehensive supervisions. The authors of this document have been rewriting history. They have also failed to learn from history.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, parliamentary accountability is a subject that has clearly brought out considerable strength of feeling across the Committee; the Government agree that it is vital.
Parliament, particularly this House, has had a central role in shaping critical financial services legislation over recent decades. In many cases, that legislation has served as a blueprint for global reforms. First and most fundamentally, there was the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or FiSMA, which endures as the framework around which all other financial services legislation is based. Following the financial crisis, Parliament led a number of important reforms to make our regulatory framework stronger and, of course, there is the important work of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which spearheaded important reforms such as the creation of the senior managers and certification regime.
I assure noble Lords that this Government recognise the important role that Parliament must continue to have in shaping the financial services regulatory landscape. I say that because I cannot agree with the suggestions I have heard of late that there is simply no parliamentary accountability for the UK regulators and that the Bill somehow seeks to sidestep Parliament.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said about the order-making powers contained in the Bill. I refer her to the report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which, perhaps unusually for the committee, raised no concerns about the inclusion of those powers.
The FCA, as I shall go on to explain, is accountable to the Treasury, to Parliament and to the public, including for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which it uses resources. There are a number of features in the legislation which support this accountability, as I shall explain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, argued that the Bill’s scope is too wide. I say to her that the Bill is designed to resolve immediate outstanding policy issues resulting from our exit from the European Union and to meet the UK’s international obligations in the short term. Its scope is limited to ensuring that we uphold our international commitments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked me whether there will be another financial services Bill before the FRF is complete. The Government have not made decisions about legislation in future Sessions. The FRF review is a high priority and essential for establishing the model for all future legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked me where in the Bill is there any focus on macroprudential issues. The Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England is, as he knows, the UK body responsible for identifying and managing systemic risks to financial stability. Its remit is not affected by the Bill. It publishes a Financial Stability Report twice a year. This work compliments the Basel reforms and neither, clearly, is a replacement for the other.
I will set out where the Government stand on this important issue. I begin by focusing on the prudential measures: the investment firms prudential regime and the Basel framework. Implementing these rules in a timely manner is critical to the UK’s reputation as a responsible and responsive global financial centre. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is the primary global standard setter for the prudential regulation of banks. In response to the financial crisis the Basel committee significantly overhauled and strengthened its standards, in a package now known as Basel III. Since that time, the Basel committee has continued to refine that framework to ensure that it is robust and to guard against the serious failures that led to the financial crisis.
Due to the interconnectedness of the global financial system and the fact that large financial institutions operate across the globe, the UK Government remain committed to the development and implementation of a common set of standards on prudential regulation and supervision. With regard to Basel III, the UK is committed to implementing those standards for 1 January 2022, and firms have been planning on this basis.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked whether I could confirm the treatment of software assets in the implementation of Basel by the PRA. The PRA is currently consulting on a proposal to disallow software assets from counting as regulatory capital, which is contrary to the approach being taken in the EU.
For the investment firms prudential regime, any delay would put the UK at a significant disadvantage compared to the EU. Investment firms in the EU will be subject to a more proportionate prudential regime from the end of June 2021.
I will set out the accountability arrangements relating to these measures. The first thing to remember is that these measures in the Bill sit within the existing framework of FiSMA. As my noble friend Lord Agnew stated at Second Reading, the FiSMA model as updated after the financial crisis is considered world leading. Through it, Parliament has established the appropriate split of responsibilities between the different regulators and has ensured that those regulators have the appropriate statutory objectives to guide their work. It also ensures that Parliament and other interested parties have the information needed to scrutinise the work of the regulators and hold them to account.
FiSMA confers broad rule-making powers on the regulators to ensure that they are able to fulfil their statutory objectives, recognising that it is appropriate for expert and independent regulators to make the detailed technical judgments about how financial services firms should be regulated in a way that delivers the outcomes that Parliament wants. I appreciate this is different from the European model we have been operating under, but it is a return to the UK model. It is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It brings us more into line with other key international peers whose regulators take the lead in the detailed firm requirements.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received a single request to speak after the Minister; I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear and thoughtful response. I have three brief questions for clarification. First, what plans, if any, are there for a Financial Services (No. 2) Bill? Any information on that would be helpful to the deliberations of the Committee today, and to the approaches noble Lords may choose to take as we move through further stages of the Bill.
Secondly, will he say what the Government’s position is on the timeliness of such scrutiny? Does it err more towards rear-view rather than real-time? Thirdly, in the light of the debate that we have just had, will he consider discussions potentially to lead to government amendments coming forward on Report? I think that noble Lords would agree that, on scrutiny and accountability, if the Bill is passed as currently drafted that would be at least somewhat unfortunate.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I intended the Committee to take some reassurance from the final sentences in my winding up when I said that I was very happy to continue the conversation with noble Lords on this theme between now and Report. I hope that noble Lords will take that as a signal that the door is not closed as regards a potential tweak to this part of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and those who have supported my amendments. It has been a very thoughtful debate with contributions from all parts of the Committee, which sees this as a real issue that needs to be solved. On a personal basis, I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to our consideration of financial services matters. We should remember that he has unique experience among noble Lords, having been a financial services regulator, so we must listen very carefully to what he has to say on many of these things.
One overriding theme has come out of our debate this afternoon. There is unanimity on the need for good parliamentary involvement in financial services. My noble friend Lord Howe affirmed the Government’s commitment to parliamentary accountability. The difference comes in how we define what form that accountability could take. The Minister made a case for going back to the FiSMA model, which he seemed to forget was brought in in the context of the existing EU arrangements for scrutiny and did not exist pre-EU scrutiny, so going back to that is not saying anything at all. Now that we are out of the EU, we are trying to see what can be done to deal with the changes that we need to accommodate within our system and to ensure that there is proper accountability for that. FiSMA may, or may not, provide an adequate basis for that, and I suspect not.
My noble friend also talked about the need for timeliness. I am sure that the Basel III implementation needs to be done on a timely basis, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we could get that right with parliamentary scrutiny in this Bill. However, the implementation of Basel III does not need to be done by the PRA; it could as easily be done by a statutory instrument introducing it. I am not afraid of 300 pages of detail. I have seen the formulae on risk rating. I do not relish the opportunity to do it again, but one could do so if one needed to, so it is not necessary for us.
I get the impression that this is a rubber-stamp Bill. The Government have made up their mind. The PRA and the FCA will be roaring ahead as if they have all the powers and we are now just being invited to rubber -stamp it. I think we are saying back to the Government that we do not find that a satisfactory state of affairs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly said that this is not a party-political issue, and there is a commonality of views across the Committee on this. The fact that there is different detail in our amendments today does not rule out the possibility that we can coalesce around a good solution to this. I was pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say that he was keen to maintain a dialogue with noble Lords after Committee. That would be extremely helpful; obviously, we would prefer to move in step with the Government and not against them.
I think the Minister needs to recognise that we do not find convincing the narrative that the existing framework with a few tweaks in the Bill gives an adequate accountability framework for the additional powers that are being transferred to the regulators under the Bill. I look forward to continuing the dialogue outside Committee and I hope that that will be fruitful before we get to Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Oates
“(ca) the climate-related financial risks to which FCA investment firms are exposed,”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to require the FCA, in exercising its power to make general rules, to have specific regard to the climate related financial risks to which FCA investment firms are exposed.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the advisory committee of Weber Shandwick UK, as set out in the register. In moving Amendment 11 in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Before doing so, I put on record my thanks to a number of organisations for their briefing and patient answers to the many and often ignorant questions that I have posed to them in preparing for the Bill, particularly Finance Watch, Positive Money and Carbon Tracker.
I am also grateful to the City Corporation and the APPG for Financial Markets and Services for the helpful information they provided, and, of course, to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his ministerial colleagues for meeting to discuss the Bill and, if not immediately signing up to all our climate amendments, at least recognising the seriousness of the issues that they raise. I hope that over the course of Committee we will be able to convince the noble Earl and his colleagues of the urgency of acting through this legislation.
There are essentially three categories of amendment in this group. The first addresses the rule-making powers of the regulators, requiring them when making the rules to take account of the climate-related financial risks to which the entities they regulate are exposed. This issue is dealt with in Amendments 11 and 12.
The second category requires regulators when making rules to have regard to the UK’s national and international climate change objectives and obligations. Amendments 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 34, 35, 36 and 37 address this issue in a number of different ways.
Finally, Amendments 48, 75, 76, 89 and 98 fall into a third category, which tackles disclosure and governance issues as they relate to climate change.
Turning to the first category, the objective of Amendments 11 and 12 is simply to ensure that the prudential regulation of FCA investment firms under Schedule 2 is fit for purpose; that is, that it properly takes account of and seeks to manage and control the risk exposure of the firms it regulates. It is hard to understand on any accepted definition of prudential regulation how it can be regarded as such if it fails to take account of exposure to climate risks, given the potential threat they pose, not only to individual firms but to the financial system as a whole.
There are those who argue that it is premature to take this approach, because the sector is in the process of working out how to measure climate risk, which is undoubtedly a complex matter, given the myriad interrelationships that exist and the fact that there is no precedent for measuring such dynamic risks. While I acknowledge that we do not have a perfect understanding of climate risk, we cannot wait for a perfect solution. We cannot accept that a potentially enormous risk exists for FCA investment firms, but, because it is difficult to measure its exact scale, we are going to act as if it does not exist at all. That is not prudential regulation; it is wantonly reckless negligence.
I hope that the Government will look at this matter very carefully and that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort that, if they will not accept our amendments, they will at least bring forward proposals to ensure that prudential regulation of FCA investment firms does not continue to ignore what is likely to be the most significant risk to which they are exposed over the coming decades.
The second set of amendments seek in different ways to ensure that the FCA and the PRA must have regard in rule-making to our net-zero target and our wider international obligations on climate change and biodiversity. Amendment 23 in my name, with the support of my noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would prevent the Treasury from using its power under Clause 3 to evoke capital requirement regulations unless the effect of the new regulation was compliant with the UK’s net-zero target.
Amendment 13 to Schedule 2 and Amendment 34 to Schedule 3 require the FCA and PRA, when making rules, to have regard to the
“the likely effect of the rules on the relative standing of the United Kingdom as an international leader in combatting climate change”.
Amendments 16 and 37 to Schedules 2 and 3 respectively require that, in considering that likely effect on the UK’s standing, the FCA and PRA have regard to our commitments under the Paris Agreement. This includes our nationally determined contribution of a 68% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and the UK’s net-zero target under the Climate Change Act 2008, as amended in 2019. Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, adds the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to that list of “have regards”.
In these amendments, I have deliberately replicated existing language in the Bill’s rule-making clauses, which require the FCA and PRA to have regard to
“the likely effect of the rules on the relative standing of the United Kingdom as a place for internationally active investment firms to be based”.
That is an undoubtedly an important consideration, but it needs to be specifically supplemented by a requirement that takes into account the UK’s standing as a leader on climate change. This will force the regulators to raise their sights and ensure that we have the rules in place to cement the UK’s position as the leading financial centre in tackling climate change and providing green finance.
On an earlier group on Monday, my noble friend Lord Sharkey quoted the Barclays CEO Jes Staley, who said when asked which amendment he would like to burn now we had left the EU:
“I wouldn’t burn one piece of regulation.”
He went on to say:
“I would continue pushing the climate agenda, trying to make London a centre of innovation around financing climate and transitioning to a net zero economy by 2050”.
That might be a pretty brilliant idea and we agree with him, but we need an adequate system in place to allow it to happen. In the last 15 years, Governments in which all the main parties have been represented have ensured that the UK has established and retained international standing as a leader on climate issues. We need to ensure that leadership is reflected not just in our politics and Government, but across industry and society as a whole. Nowhere will this be more important than in the most significant sector of our economy.
If our financial services industry and its regulators show leadership on climate, the industry will not only have the opportunity to gain a clear market advantage in the years ahead but will help to address the current climate emergency. If they do not, instead of playing a key role in averting climate catastrophe, that same industry will be a key contributor to it. That is what is at stake here.
Amendments 14 and 35 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, have a similar objective although I must admit that they are a little more concise than my version. They would require the FCA and PRA, in making rules, to have regard to
“the likely effect of the rules on the United Kingdom meeting its international and domestic commitments on tackling climate change”.
Amendments 15 and 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, have a similar objective again but focus specifically on the net-zero target under the Climate Change Act, as amended. I put my name to both these sets of amendments because the purpose of all our amendments is a common one: the essential task of ensuring that our regulators take account of the most significant threat that faces the financial services industry, and indeed every one of us on this planet—the climate emergency. The intent of these amendments has support across the Committee, so I hope that the Minister will recognise the need to act and the Government will either accept a version of these amendments or bring forward one of their own. If they are unwilling to do so, I think the spirit of the House will be to come together on a joint amendment on these matters on Report.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who, both at Second Reading and today, has argued passionately and cogently about the need to remedy the absence from the Bill of any reference to the risks and opportunities that climate change presents to the financial services industry. I have tabled Amendments 14, 35, 75, 76 and 98 and added my name to Amendments 11, 12, 23, 48 and 89 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, all the amendments in this group seek to put a climate change lens on the provisions of the Bill. There are various approaches, but the amendments focus, as he said, on ensuring that the regulators take into account climate-related risks when they are making the new rules and regulations proposed in the Bill. They seek to address the remit of the regulators and thus ensure that climate risk is considered at a systemic level.
The increase in firms reporting on such risks at an individual level is both necessary and welcome; however, there is a widely recognised and existential threat to our entire financial system from climate change. Last year, the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, said:
“Compared to the financial crisis and the pandemic, the risks from climate change are even bigger and more complex to manage.”
We need to ensure that those with the responsibility for financial stability at a macro level are assessing and reporting systemic climate risk as a core function.
On numerous occasions, the Government have recognised the integral role of our financial services industry in driving the change to a green economy, with an urgent focus on aligning investment with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act. Our amendments would put that into reality. The Chancellor spoke on 9 November about
“putting the full weight of private sector innovation, expertise and capital behind the critical global effort to tackle climate change and protect the environment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 621.]
Yet, as has been said, this crucial piece of financial industry legislation remains totally silent, hence the importance of our debate on this group of amendments and the urgency, in this year of COP26 when our own domestic performance will be integral to the success of our global leadership, of making progress before the Bill leaves this House.
Turning to individual amendments, I have tabled Amendment 14, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, says, addresses the same issues as his Amendments 11 and 12, but in a slightly less detailed way. The intention of Amendments 14 and 35 is to ensure that the FCA makes new prudential regulations for investment firms and that, before the PRA makes any new rules in relation to the capital requirements regulations, these regulators must have regard to the likely effect of those rules on the UK meeting its net-zero commitments. “Having regard” is an important issue and one to which, when this was debated in the other place, I sensed that the Government were not completely antagonistic, but took rather a St Augustine view—being happy to be made green, “but not yet”.
I see no reason whatever for awaiting the consultation on this issue, especially because when one reads the consultation document, apart from a few words in the foreword by the Minister, there is no reference to climate change and no request for views on it. Given the importance of the issue, this is something on which we should be making progress straightaway.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bennett, for Amendment 75, which focuses on the current remit and governance provisions of the regulator. It proposes amending Schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which deals with the constitution of the governing body of the FCA, and provides for the appointment of a board member with direct responsibility for climate change issues. This would enable a focused and strategic approach to be taken to climate change across the sector at the highest level of the regulator.
Essentially, the amendment requires the regulators to do what they have asked of the sector itself, because those are the same provisions that they now require financial institutions to comply with, and they replicate the senior management regime, which requires those institutions to appoint a board member responsible for identifying and managing financial risk from climate change, and reporting on it.
As part of the process to embed climate risk and the net-zero transition into investment and supervisory decisions, institutions are asked to
“embed the consideration of the financial risks from climate change in their governance arrangements”
and
“demonstrate an understanding of the distinctive elements of the financial risk from climate change and a sufficiently long-term view of the financial risks that can arise, beyond standard business planning horizons.”
That long-term view is particularly important, and there is no reason for the FCA not to take on this responsibility. The Bank of England itself has appointed an executive sponsor for climate-related risks, who is responsible for recommending to the governors the Bank’s strategy for addressing the risks that climate change poses to its objectives, and overseeing the implementation of that strategy. So I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister will be able to respond positively to this very limited but still important amendment.
Amendment 76 deals with the need to ensure that the regular mandatory reporting mechanisms for a sector-wide climate risk assessment provide for FSMA to be amended; the need for the PRA to provide a regular report on how it has evaluated exposure to climate risk; and the impacts that it would have on the stability of the United Kingdom financial system. That could form part of the annual reporting that the regulators are required to provide to the Treasury, and to Parliament via the Treasury Select Committee.
The amendment also provides that, as part of the reporting process, the PRA must seek advice from the climate change committee. It is important that we join the dots between the different bits of government, and ensure that a statutory body such as the climate change committee is integrated into the advice received by regulators and those responsible for economic stability.
My final amendment in this group is Amendment 98, which seeks to amend the Financial Services and Markets Act to insert a new FCA climate-related financial risk objective. While the regulators are moving forward with approaches necessary to address climate-related financial risks, such as through the UK Climate Financial Risk Forum, their statutory remit does not currently include a duty to consider the impact of climate change on the stability of the financial sector overall.
The theme running through this group of amendments is to seek to embed climate risk and the net-zero obligation into the financial system. This is one critical step towards doing that, by ensuring that they are embedded within the scope and remit of the regulators at every level.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is such a champion of climate and other environmental issues in your Lordships’ House. As she said, it is astonishing that the Bill, in the year 2021, presented by the Government with the responsibility of chairing COP 26, who talk so often about being “world-leading” on climate, could have got so far without any mention of the climate emergency.
The noble Baroness and, in introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, have set out extensively the detail of the range of climate amendments and the need for their incorporation in the Bill, so I shall focus the bulk of my words on Amendment 17 in my name. It is distinct in that, while all the others address the climate emergency, this is the only amendment that also brings in the crucial issue of our nature crisis, and the collapse in biodiversity and bio-abundance that is obviously of concern to the Treasury given its commissioning of the recently-released Dasgupta Review.
I doubt that many noble Lords taking part in the debate on this group need an outline of it, but it is important to highlight that the Dasgupta Review identifies nature as “our most precious asset”. It says that we need vastly more protection for our scant remaining natural world—on this, one of the planet’s most nature-depleted lands—which means making sure that money is not going into destructive actions. That should be of concern to the Financial Conduct Authority. It says too that we should begin to implement large-scale and widespread investments that address biodiversity loss—again, a matter for the Financial Conduct Authority.
While it is great to see in the Dasgupta Review these critical issues to all of our futures expressed in terms that even mainstream economics can understand, being comfortable for those whose philosophy is embedded in growth-orientated, 19th-century politics, it falls down in trying to apply the same unrealistic, abstract mathematical models, driven by financial calculations, to provide tools to guide what to do. We have so little left of biodiversity and bio-abundance, with 50% of our species in decline and 15% at imminent risk of extinction, that we cannot be calculating what we can afford to destroy or write off in this land. We have to preserve everything that is left, while acknowledging that the destruction that we have wrought has given us an insecure, poverty-stricken society that is frighteningly short on resilience, as the Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated and, as we have just seen on the global scale in Texas, precious little ability to endure the climate shocks inevitably coming our way.
I point noble Lords and the Government to the recent, crucial United Nations Environment Programme report, Making Peace with Nature. In his foreword to it, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, says that
“our war on nature has left the planet broken”.
That is where we are. The often piecemeal response to the climate crisis, biodiversity loss and pollution is
“not going to get us to where we want”,
according to Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
Just considering the remit of our international climate obligations as a central part of the FCA’s responsibilities is not nearly enough, as crucial as that is. Adding our equally binding and important obligations through the Convention on Biological Diversity is a significant improvement, and I give notice to your Lordships’ House that this is an issue that I intend to pursue strongly at the next stage of the Bill. I will listen carefully to today’s debate, and any responses we get from the Government, and consider where best to place this amendment among the range of amendments, although I hope that the Government will pre-empt any need for me to do that.
Yet this is still not nearly enough, as the UNEP is highlighting. We also need to consider pollution as a key concern, and a circular economy, on which the European Union is leading. We need a systems thinking approach—a complete view of how we stop treating this planet as a mine and a dumping ground and treasure its immensely complex systems of life, of which we still have so little understanding. Of course, we also have to consider the billions of people—millions in the UK alone—whose basic needs are not being met while we trash our planet. As a species we are using the resources of 1.6 planets every year; in the UK, our share is three planets.
This morning I was present at a briefing about New Zealand’s modern, 21st-century living standards framework, on which there has been wide public and expert consultation. It provides a guide for Treasury decision-making on all government spending. That is truly world-leading, and I hope that the UK Treasury is looking urgently at developing a similar system. In the meantime, however, the inclusion in this Bill of our climate emergency and nature crisis—the understanding that our financial sector is 100% contained within it—is at least progress.
The other place has before it the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, which could help to create a framework for such a structure. Given that it is “oven-ready”—to quote a once-familiar phrase—and the continuing delays to the Environment Bill, the Government should be looking at a rapid delivery of whatever emergency steps could be taken—as many as have been taken over Covid.
I revert to the Bill before us. I was told that the 2020 Pension Schemes Bill was the first financial legislation in British history to contain a reference to climate change—no doubt the first to refer to the natural world. Listening closely to the briefing that I referred to earlier, I sense that the Government are at least prepared not to step backwards in this 2021 Bill, and to include some reference to climate change. But if it is to progress it also needs to include biodiversity.
In concluding this section of my comments, I ask the Committee to listen to a short quote:
“Obviously it is right to focus on climate change, obviously it is right to cut CO2 emissions, but we will not achieve a real balance with our planet unless we protect nature as well”.
That was a quote from Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s speech of 11 January as he announced that £3 billion of UK climate finance was to be spent on supporting nature. I ask the Minister how, given the Prime Minister’s words, he could not have included an amendment such as Amendment 17, in addition to one or more climate change amendments.
Allowing money to pump the systems that are wrecking the natural world is, to put it mildly, not a good idea. It is something that should be considered in every action and every regulation of every government body, particularly the Financial Conduct Authority, given the extreme financialisation of our economy, whereby almost every element is now regarded as a potential profit source. Those profits, which go to the few, must not be at the expense of the living future of all of us.
I turn briefly to the other amendments to which I have attached my name, the first of which is Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, also signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Hayman. This amendment simply ensures that regulation is compliant with the amended Climate Change Act and the Government’s much-trumpeted 2050 net-zero target. That is a bare, indeed inadequate, minimum, because it fails to acknowledge the need for urgent action now to achieve major cuts in emissions in the 2020s. Not waiting but acting now should be at the forefront of every government action.
I backed Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, because of the need for expertise in these issues within the FCA. Its many failings in traditional areas were powerfully outlined earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. It certainly needs a specialist, expert voice at its heart to address environmental issues.
I also attached my name to Amendment 98, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which focuses particularly on climate risk. I would suggest that this falls, in the terms of the Paris climate agreement, in the areas of both climate mitigation and adaptation. The need for mitigation is a risk in itself. We heard the astonishing news this week that local government pension funds still hold £10 billion in fossil fuel investments, despite large numbers of local councils having declared climate emergencies. That is astonishing in terms of money being invested in trashing the climate in ways already hitting close to home—flooding, heatwaves and biodiversity damage—but it is also as though the term “carbon bubble” had never been invented. Perhaps we cannot blame local government for the oversight when our current Government have continued to put money into fossil fuel assets and to subsidise the operation of existing ones to the tune of billions. These are issues that certainly need to be considered.
However, there is also adaptation. I do not feel like I need to stress so much—as the Green Party has for years—that the climate emergency is a current reality, not a problem for future generations. I think, finally, the Government and even parts of industry and finance have got that fact. I note that, today, Fitch Ratings warned that the rising cost of natural catastrophes arising from climate change could mean that insurers withdraw from the market, leaving it to Governments to pick up the pieces. Amendment 98 would be a modest step towards ensuring that the FCA has rules fit for operating in such an environment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and pay tribute to her green credentials and the work that she and her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—both my friends—have done, as have so many others who have contributed to this debate so far today. I look forward to the other contributions.
This group of amendments has much to commend itself, as do many of the individual amendments. It helps to green-proof, if I may say that, the provisions of the Bill. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Howe will tell me if I am wrong when he comes to reply, but I cannot find anything else in the Bill that covers the provisions set out in these amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oates—I celebrate, again, the fact that we joined the House together; I always look forward to debates in which he and I contribute—and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett. My slight concern with this group is that while the focus and main thrust of their amendments is on climate change I am slightly confused that they have chosen that form of words—as they also have in other amendments—because so much progress has been made in investment generally. I personally believe that that should extend to banking and financial services as well as other investments, but there is general recognition now of ESG investments. The Wikipedia encyclopaedia tells us that:
“Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance”
are generally recognised as measuring
“the sustainability and societal impact of an investment in a company or business.”
It goes on to say that:
“Threat of climate change and the depletion of resources has grown, so investors may choose to factor sustainability issues into their investment choices.”
We are increasingly seeing a move in general investments towards individual small shareholders buying very small, limited shareholdings in a company precisely for the purpose of raising these issues at the AGM. I think we will see this trend continue. This must extend, as I said earlier, to banking and financial services as well. I believe that there should be a place for ESG provisions and regulation by the FSA in the Bill, and these amendments identify where they should go.
However, I am mindful of the fact that ESG covers all sorts of possibilities, such as climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, waste management and water management, so I put to the authors and to my noble friend the Minister that ESG provisions would encapsulate this and would perhaps be a neater—and recognised—way of introducing this into the Bill.
In many instances, particularly in all the work that we have done on rural affairs, we rural-proof legislation as it goes through and I am very keen that we green-proof new legislation as it comes online. I therefore welcome the main thrust of these amendments. I repeat to my noble friend the Minister that if this is an omission, these amendments, or something along the lines of ESG terminology, should find a place in the Bill and a role for the regulators specified in it to follow. If these amendments do not fit the Government’s thinking or should we follow more of an ESG terminology, will he consider coming forward with amendments of his own at the next stage?
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. We are often in agreement. The point that she raises about ESG is pertinent and, sadly, it is not mandatory. We are seeing a continued increase in the billions of pounds and dollars being spent on fossil fuel infrastructure.
The young people whose futures will be mostly affected by what we do today are increasingly calling for action across all sectors, as demonstrated by the worldwide UNDP poll of 1.2 million people that I cited at Second Reading. I should also put on record that the poll carried out by YouGov last October at the behest of Global Witness showed that two-thirds of the British public want the UK to be a world leader on climate change. In fact, the highest percentage of those was recorded in Scotland at 69%.
The Bill depicts the landscape that will drive the investment of billions of pounds at a crucial juncture in our country’s history to reshape our future financial services post Brexit. The legislation will form the basis of how investment decisions will be regulated as we spend massive amounts of taxpayer money to build back better post Covid. Serendipitously, the Bill also comes at a time when we will be in pole position to provide global leadership through COP 26 and the G7. Italy, our co-host for COP 26, will then host the G20. We have an opportunity to showcase the route map presented to us by the Climate Change Committee’s recent report to get us to net zero by 2050, while steering a course to meeting the Paris goals. What an opportunity.
The Covid-19 pandemic has focused minds on what can happen when we push natural ecosystems too far, and I agree with every word of the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, the timeframes to get innovative technological solutions engineered to scale to tackle climate change are substantially longer than those needed for vaccines—and they were long enough and overturned by human endeavour, hopefully just in time. Decisions have to be taken now if we are to reach net zero by 2050, and we have to get it right because we are in the last chance saloon.
Governments do not have the sums that will be needed, so we need private sector money too, and pots of it. However, business needs certainty and absolute clarity about which way the wind is blowing politically.
It is getting clarity from one quarter. Here is an extract from the letter sent by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink in 2021 to client CEOs. I remind the Committee that BlackRock’s assets under management come to, give or take, $7 trillion. This is what he said:
“BlackRock is a fiduciary to our clients … This is why I write to you each year, seeking to highlight issues that are pivotal to creating durable value—issues such as capital management, long-term strategy, purpose, and climate change.”
He went on to remind client CEOs:
“In January of last year, I wrote that climate risk is investment risk.”
I repeat: climate risk is investment risk, says the CEO of BlackRock. He went on to issue what can only amount to a stark warning: if you risk saddling your investors with stranded assets, with no demonstration of how you are moving to de-climate risk your operations, there will be consequences.
The writing is on the wall. The Prime Minister knows this. Here are his words from last November:
“This 10-point plan will turn the UK into the world’s number one centre for green technology and finance, creating the foundations for decades of economic growth.”
He went on to describe his 10-point plan as
“a global template for delivering net zero emissions”,
ahead of the UK hosting the COP 26 climate summit in Glasgow this year. Someone should tell the Prime Minister that his Government are attempting to put through a Financial Services Bill, in 2021, which is devoid of the words “green”, “net zero” or “climate”.
I was delighted last December when the Prime Minister announced that the UK will end all support to overseas fossil fuels projects. How could I not be, when it is one of the asks in my Private Member’s Bill, the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill? The Prime Minister should know that then to allow 17 fossil fuel projects to be railroaded through to beat an arbitrary deadline before COP 26 is not really showing that he gets it. For example, there was a headline in the Telegraph on 6 February this year:
“Major Brazilian oil and gas project could get UK backing despite promised end to fossil fuel funding”.
Are we really going to allow UK Export Finance support for the east Africa crude oil pipeline? These investments, using UK taxpayers’ money today to fund what will amount to stranded assets tomorrow, are nothing short of immoral.
As if those examples of the abuse of UK taxpayers’ money on fossil fuel projects abroad were not bad enough, we still have the threat of the go-ahead for the first deep coal mine in the UK for 30 years, in Cumbria. How is that “powering past coal”? These examples alone, if they are allowed to go ahead, show a deplorable lack of fiduciary duty on the part of our Government. These amendments, which refer to climate risk, are sorely needed.
A good number of them are about mandating the FCA and the PRA, and strengthening their structures to ensure that all investment organisations that fall under their jurisdiction have regard to climate-related financial risk and protect Britain’s international reputation by having regard to her international and domestic commitments. I support the intent behind them and look forward to the movers bringing them back on Report, in amalgamated form. There is cross-party support for many of these amendments.
I single out Amendment 48, in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Altmann, as important. Bringing forward by two years the date by when the recommendations of the final report of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures come into force, to 2023, will send the right signals.
Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, amends Amendment 16 to include the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. I have every sympathy with the intent behind the amendment, especially in light of the recent excellent Dasgupta review, The Economics of Biodiversity, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is such an important issue that it might be better tabled as a stand-alone amendment.
In conclusion, if one looks at the first page of NASA’s “Vital Signs of the Planet” fact page—and I urge noble Lords to have a look at it—it tells us that we are hurtling towards disaster unless we transition away from burning fossil fuels to power our way of life. Vulnerable communities and developing nations, many of them already exposed to the worst physical impacts of climate change, can least afford the economic shocks of a poorly implemented transition. We must implement the changes we need in a way that delivers the urgent change that these communities need without worsening their dual burden. We have alternatives proven to deliver at scale, so let us use the opportunity presented by the Bill to address the urgent need to unlock private sector finance and give the actors therein the confidence to accelerate the investment needed to deliver net zero by 2050.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, specifically the directorship of a research company that has published extensively on environmental, social and governance matters. I am also chairman of the Conservative Party’s investment committee. We are currently shortlisting fund managers for our long-term funds, and I reassure noble Lords that ESG rigour will be a key factor in our decision-making.
This is my first outing in Grand Committee, so I crave a little forbearance. I will make a few general points before turning to the specific. First, as regards climate change and full disclosure, the industry is moving in the right direction anyway, and I think that that needs to be acknowledged. For example, I read that the Investment Association, which represents 250 members managing £8.5 trillion, intends to quiz companies at their AGMs on the quality of their climate-related reporting and will relate any of those inadequacies to their members. This is partly a commercial imperative: customer attitudes have shifted materially and will no doubt continue to do so. For example, assets under management at ESG ETFs—that is, exchange traded funds—rose from $54 billion in November 2019 to $174 billion a year later. Those are not large amounts of money in the broad investment sphere, but they show the direction of travel.
Therefore, I was very pleased that this Government have committed to the highest of standards. On 9 November last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unequivocal on this. He said that he wants
“an open, attractive and well-regulated market”
which will continue
“to lead the world in pioneering new technologies and shifting finance towards a net zero future.”
I welcome that and, referring back to some of the work that my company has done in areas such as fast fashion and marshalling scarce water resources—and here I echo the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—I believe that these standards should be applied not just to carbon emissions but across the ESG piece.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and his quote from Jes Staley that the industry absolutely should push the climate agenda. However, in order to build the open, attractive and well-regulated market that the Chancellor described, I believe that we need to be very careful with some of the proposed climate change-related amendments at this stage. I have considerable sympathy with the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about embedding the principles into the Bill, particularly those amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, grouped together in his second group, including Amendment 14. A series of well-meaning amendments at the margin perhaps do not seem individually onerous, but they may end up being counterproductive, and I would like to try to explain why.
The worry we should have is that, if we overcomplicate this at this stage, the rules are more likely to be honoured in the breach than in the observance and/or work to the benefit of other regulatory regimes. I would not like to see the difficult issues we are debating here shifted into other jurisdictions. As always, the main beneficiaries of that would be compliance departments; it would naturally favour larger players and ultimately, as I said earlier, end up being counterproductive, partly by stifling innovation. This is also an important consideration in the context of equivalent discussions with the EU.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Sharpe, but we may have slightly different views on some of the issues he has mentioned. I also support the wide-ranging aims of the amendments in this group to ensure that our financial services sector and its regulation faces stronger requirements to take responsibility for, and consider its role in addressing, and hopefully managing and mitigating, climate change risks.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on his excellent introduction to the amendments in this group and his comprehensive summary of the issues. These amendments, or a version of them, are in my view essential to the success of our financial services sector and its role as a global leader. This is not a party-political matter. It straddles the role of our country and its financial system in saving the planet from the clear and catastrophic risks faced by humanity across the globe. I declare an interest in this issue as a member of the cross-party group, Peers for the Planet, and the Conservative Environment Network.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and other noble Lords that it is astonishing to see that this Financial Services Bill makes no mention of assessing, encompassing and managing the risks from climate change that have the potential to undermine the financial system. Failing to require any regulatory oversight or demands on such existential risks is surely a failing in this legislation. The noble Lord is correct that difficulties in measuring these risks cannot justify simply ignoring them. The risks are real and rising.
I understand the point just made that we cannot anticipate the weather or other climate matters before the fact, but the financial industry is surely well used to anticipating risks that have not yet arisen. I argue that the regulators can indeed require firms to conduct scenario analysis with reasonable assumptions about the risks of certain rises in temperature or other activities that are threats to the planet, just as financial firms are already required to do for interest rate or demographic and other risks.
I have added my name alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to Amendments 14 and 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I thank her for all the excellent work that she has been doing in this area as well. The amendments seek to ensure that the FCA and the PRA must have regard to both our international and domestic climate change commitments. I also support Amendments 11, 12 and 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and I have added my name to Amendment 75, which seeks to have a board member of the FCA with responsibility for climate change by amending FiSMA 2000. As other noble Lords have said, that is already required by the SMCR, with firms having to have board members taking long-term views of risks such as climate change, so it seems eminently sensible to propose that the FCA itself has that too.
I have also added my name to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which seeks to bring forward the 2017 TFCD recommendations to 2023, accelerating the climate-related disclosures rather than waiting until 2025. Again, I accept that the industry needs certainty, and this would be a change. However, I hope that having a bolder ambition can still be justified. This is of course a probing amendment, but I hope my noble friend will consider the issue. Indeed, I believe that the Covid-19 global pandemic, along with leaving the EU, offers an opportunity and potentially an obligation to take climate risks more seriously and recognise that there are issues that can be more important than short-term profit and quarterly reporting.
Businesses have been asked to forgo their operations and invest massive amounts in changing their practices at short notice, and have been forced to accept that they cannot continue as they have done in the past. This shows that previously unimaginable changes can be thrust on the global economy and on industries, sectors and individual firms to which they simply must adjust. I hope we can build on that to realise that forcing financial firms to live up to expectations on climate change, planetary temperature rise and associated biodiversity risks, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, is possible, even if painful. The asset management, pensions and banking industries can be encouraged to take more responsibility for driving climate-friendly operations, and regulatory oversight surely can—indeed, in my view, must—direct firms to improve their operations in these areas. So do the Government indeed intend to introduce the issue of climate change into the legislation to ensure that financial services are asked to operate more in the interests of long-term economic and climate sustainability?
Climate risk is inevitably investment risk, both to markets globally and to human beings, who are, after all, the customers of firms across the planet. Surely we have a responsibility to override the externalities that have hitherto prevented individual countries taking direct actions. So will my noble friend comment on some of these issues and the Government’s appetite to address what is clearly a view from across the House that these issues are important?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will not speak on the substance of most of the amendments in this group. In general terms I do not believe that alterations are required to legislation governing the PRA and the FCA, in view of the enthusiastic work that they have already commenced to embed climate-related financial risks in their work and in the work of the institutions that they regulate. Neither the FCA nor the PRA needed any alteration to their statutory powers and duties to start this process, and I do not believe they need anything in statute to carry on their work.
My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom said that he was worried about the meaning of “climate-related financial risk”. In practical terms, the sectors of the financial services industry have an understanding of what is meant by climate-related financial risk in relation to them, and that will inevitably evolve over time. If you take banks, it is fundamentally a credit risk problem; you can track almost all the issues back to credit risk. If you take an investment company, it is an investment risk problem, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said in an earlier contribution. With insurance, we are talking about something like the shifting nature and scale of conventionally insured risks in that sector. I am sure that other parts of the financial services sector will have an understanding of climate-related financial risk. So I am not concerned about the definition of that; I am just not sure that it is necessary to find its way into legislation, because it is already being done.
I would also caution people who want change overnight in this area that a huge amount of work is needed to implement, for example, measuring the carbon intensity of a bank’s balance sheet, or indeed an investment company’s balance sheet. These are not simple things to do but require huge amounts of new data and new ways of manipulating it, and the industries need to work out how efficiently to do that. I know a little about insurance companies and I am sure that there are similar challenges to overcome there too. I make a plea to leave it to the regulators to determine the pace of change that is required and not to impose additional duties on them. They must judge themselves how best to achieve the aims which I believe they share with the people who have tabled and moved this amendment.
I have a couple of comments on two of the amendments. Amendment 48 would bring forward the timing of the disclosures from the task force on climate-related disclosure to the end of next year, with the draconian penalty of not allowing companies to continue to operate in the UK if they have not made the disclosures. Are the proposers of this amendment seriously saying that they will stop a FTSE 100 company from doing business in the UK if its disclosures are not quite in line with the recommendations? Are they prepared for UK employees to lose their jobs because of technical disclosures? I do not believe that the amendment does anything to advance substantive climate change measures, only disclosures in annual reports which, at the end of the day, very few people actually read. This is not a real-world amendment, in my view, and it seems to be drafted in a disproportionate way.
My main reason for putting my name down to speak on this group is Amendment 75, which provides for the appointment of a member of the FCA board to have responsibility for climate change. This contains a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of boards, whether of public bodies such as the FCA or of private sector companies. Boards are there for governance purposes. They set strategy and hold chief executives to account for delivering against that strategy. They should review performance against what is required of them by statute and what they themselves set. They do not make operational decisions and should not get involved in day-to-day activities. That is why the FCA, like most major organisations, has to have a majority of non-executives on its board.
The amendment is silent as to whether this board member is to be an executive or a non-executive but I believe that either would be wrong. A non-executive should not have responsibility for particular activities within an organisation. This distracts from the core function of a non-executive which is around strategy, oversight and accountability. If the amendment is intended to create an executive board member with responsibility for climate change, that is misconceived as it implies that climate change is not the responsibility of the chief executive. The only way for any policy—whether it is climate change, diversity, social purpose or whatever—to gain traction in an organisation is through its leadership and that is sourced in the chief executive. I believe that the amendment is wrong, likely to be counterproductive or both.
I want to pick up on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. She said that this would bring it in line with the requirements of the senior managers and certification regime, which requires—I think she said—a board member to be responsible for climate change. That is not what the SMCR requires. It requires only the identification of a senior manager, as defined within the SMCR, who has to have identified responsibility. It is absolutely not required that it is a member at board level, so that is not an appropriate precedent to cite in aid of this amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, listening to today’s really outstanding speeches, I think most of us can agree that tackling climate change is not an optional extra. It is necessary to the survival of a liveable and civilised world, and it is urgent. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seemed rather the stand-out among the speeches. If I understand him correctly, he shares the general principles but would like them parked in some very long grass for a very long time. That fails to recognise the real urgency that we face. We are past the point where long grass is an appropriate place to put concerns.
This is a substantial group of amendments. It looks to the financial regulators, influencing the financial sector as they do, to become part of the solution. The amendments break roughly into three parts—a cluster of “have regards” and “considerations” that would influence the FCA and the PRA in shaping the rules to support the net-zero target; disclosure and reporting requirements; and the setting of a climate change objective for the FCA, together with appointment to the governing board of an individual responsible for climate change. Here, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I think there should be an individual with particular responsibility at the highest level to make sure that things happen in organisations.
I almost wonder that we are having to discuss disclosure, because, in American terminology, it seems to me a slam dunk. Andrew Bailey, in his Mansion House speech last November, called for “data and disclosure”, and repeated that time-honoured but real truism:
“What we cannot measure we cannot manage”.
The other measures proposed are equally straightforward —it is a very straightforward set of amendments. I have my name to many of them, but the range of names on various amendments underscores the cross-party nature of the concern and the determination of this House to use the Bill to leverage change. I join others in saying, that if you cannot tackle the issue of climate change in a financial services Bill, it is going to be hard to tackle it at all.
The hour moves on, so I do not want to repeat the brilliant discussion, except to say that speaker after speaker detailed the urgency of acting on climate change and the necessity that it become a priority for this sector. My message to the Government is carpe diem, because this House will if the Government will not. If the UK is to be a leader—and of all the years in which we wish to show leadership, it must be this one—it must break new ground.
There will be more to say on the next group of climate change amendments, which I consider more powerful and radical. They deal with risk and capital requirements. I very much hope that we receive a strong response from the Minister. I can understand that someone looking at the Bill and a template of previous financial services Bills may not have thought that climate change had a place. By now, Ministers surely must. Included among this group of amendments are so many that are exceedingly reasonable and, frankly, quite uncontroversial. I hope that the Government will begin to shape some amendments of their own, drawing on the content so very firmly placed before them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this substantial group of amendments, several of which are in my name and all of which address the need for better regulation to ensure financial services meet their climate change obligations and the associated financial risk. These amendments correct a fundamental failure of the Bill to address those obligations.
As was pointed out at Second Reading, we find ourselves entangled in an argument from the Minister that these issues are not covered in the Bill, and therefore amendments inserting climate change obligations are inappropriate for it. We reject that argument; it makes nonsense of the scrutiny and revising process that we are here to enact. If we find an omission, it is perfectly proper that we seek to correct it by tabling amendments to the Bill.
That is why we regret that the Government did not bring forward their own amendments, following the excellent arguments put forward by my shadow Minister colleague, Pat McFadden, and others in the Commons. As he pointed out there, and as others have pointed out today, the Chancellor set out green goals for the UK financial services industry back in November. Therefore, the Bill was an ideal vehicle to set out an accountability framework to underpin those goals. Every sector of our economy will have to play its part in delivering the climate change net-zero target—whether it is in energy, transport, housing or agriculture—and all these changes will require large-scale financial investment. Financial institutions will thus have to play a central role in delivering it, and it is right that we use this opportunity to spell out how it should be done in practice.
During the Commons debate, the Minister, John Glen, also argued that this issue would be dealt with elsewhere as part of a separate review—again, reference was made to this today. This cannot wait for another review or consultation. We are already falling dangerously behind, and as the climate change committee has made clear, we are not on track to meet the net-zero 2050 target. We need action now to galvanise both public and private finance to step up to the mark and to be accountable for the promises made. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that we were in danger of complicating regulation, but I do not think our asks do anything like that. Our asks are simple: they set out core principles that we expect the regulators to embrace, but we leave them to sort out the detail of how to follow that through and enact it. That is the right way to go about it.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I have indeed listened, and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the crucial role played by the financial services sector in supporting the Government’s climate change objectives. Given the strong levels of interest in this topic and the number of amendments we are considering, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I speak at some length.
Green finance was one of the cornerstones of my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s vision for financial services, as he set out in November in the other place. The Government want to put the full weight of private sector innovation, expertise and capital towards tackling climate change and protecting the environment. Real change requires embedding our climate change goals across all sectors of the economy, including the financial services sector. As my noble friend Lady Noakes has pointed out, the regulators are able to do this already under their current statutory objectives.
I would like to set out a small amount of detail about how the Government are delivering on this agenda. In 2019, the Government set out our vision in the Green Finance Strategy. This strategy also set out the Government’s commitment to use “remit letters” to set ambitious recommendations relating to climate change for the PRA and FCA. These letters will be issued at the next opportunity.
Late last year, the Chancellor announced our intention to make disclosures aligned with the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, or the TCFD, mandatory in the UK across the economy by 2025, with a significant portion of mandatory requirements to be in place by 2023. The Government also published the UK TCFD’s interim report and road map, which set out a clear pathway to achieving that ambition. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe highlighted, the UK expects to be the first country to make TCFD-aligned disclosures mandatory across the economy. The UK is also planning to issue a green gilt, subject to market conditions, to help fund projects to tackle climate change, finance much-needed infrastructure investment and create green jobs across this country.
I understand noble Lords’ appetite to go further and faster, and this is the motive behind many of the amendments we are debating. We are all in agreement that the financial services sector plays a role in meeting our commitments, but the thinking on how this should be factored into legislation and regulations in specific areas such as capital requirements and other prudential standards is still in its infancy. While we are certainly committed to remaining world leaders in this area, it is important that we act carefully and rationally, consult appropriately with interested parties and therefore make progress in the right way.
Before I cover the amendments, I hope my noble friend Lady Altmann will allow me to write to her on the Government’s approach to cryptocurrencies. I shall also write to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on government funding for fossil fuel projects overseas.
Amendment 23 seeks to prevent the Treasury revoking provisions of the retained UK capital requirements regulation, or CRR, where the rules made by the PRA are not aligned with the UK’s target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Lest we forget, the changes the Bill enables serve to implement a number of vital reforms following the financial crisis. These reforms reinforce the safety and soundness of the UK financial system. This amendment would prevent us giving effect to updated prudential rules and thereby undermine our ability to uphold our G20 commitment to the full, timely and consistent implementation of the Basel standards. There is no evidence that “greener” means “prudentially safer”, at least not yet, and therefore it is not clear that a regulator whose primary objective is the safety and soundness of financial institutions could meet such a requirement now.
Amendments 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 34, 35, 36 and 37 are all similar in nature. Specifically, they would insert an additional consideration into the accountability frameworks of the FCA and the PRA. In essence, their intention is to require the regulators to take climate change, biodiversity and related issues into consideration when implementing the prudential regimes. Amendments 11 and 12 are also similar, but arguably go further and would impose a duty, rather than a “have regard”, on the FCA to make prudential rules for FCA investment firms and their parent undertakings to manage the climate-related financial risk to which they are exposed.
I agree with the principle that the regulators should have regard to our climate change commitments. I believe that the goal—if I am interpreting the amendments correctly—is to make the regulators consider how to channel private financing towards greener investments. I agree with this goal, but there are some very real challenges to note. First, to hold the regulators to account and achieve what we want, we need to be able to define what we mean by “green”. A programme of work is under way domestically and internationally to achieve that through a green taxonomy; that is, agreeing how we classify what is “green” and ensure consistent standards on that. There is also the important matter of understanding the financial risk of such green investments and the extent to which changing prudential requirements according to the greenness of the investment is justified. Again, work is ongoing on how to capture climate change risks in prudential regulation, both within the Bank of England and by the Basel committee task force, which is leading work to understand how climate risk is transmitted, assessed and measured. This is a significant undertaking and the evidence will take some time to examine. I note the excellent points made by my noble friend Lord Sharpe on some of the complexities in this area.
While the UK is committed to being a world leader in this area, given the global nature of the climate change threat and the interconnectedness of financial markets, this means bringing other jurisdictions with us and, while being bold, it also requires careful thought and robust evidence. These are global discussions and global consensus takes time. Any amendment or “have regard” introduced now would therefore naturally be a stopgap until fuller definitions have been established. In the short-to-medium term, there could well be minimal changes to the prudential framework as a result of this have-regard until the appropriate capital treatment is established.
Secondly, there is a time constraint. We are committed to implementing these Basel standards, the first batch of which the Government aim to implement by the end of this year, lest we risk damaging our international reputation. Further, if we do not implement the investment funds prudential regime by the end of the year, we will have a more burdensome regime than the EU.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who I now call.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer, although I ask again, how can the Government justify having included climate change considerations in the then Pension Schemes Bill last year, but not in this far larger, more significant Bill in 2021?
I want to respond to what the Minister said: that there is no evidence that greener means prudentially safer. I hope I am quoting him accurately. I refer specifically to the fossil fuel companies that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned earlier, as well as to mining companies with a substantial role in environmental destruction. As the UNEP report to which I referred earlier said, this is unlikely to continue to be tolerated on the international stage. Surely the Government are aware and are taking account of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, which is responsible for popularising the term carbon bubble, if not for inventing it. The excess of carbon beyond climate limits is termed unburnable carbon, some of which is owned by listed companies. This has the financial implication of potentially creating stranded assets and destroying significant shareholder value.
The Carbon Tracker Initiative says that valuations tend to be based on near-term cash flows, which are less likely to be affected by climate-related factors. However, exposure varies, and some companies will be in a far worse position than others, as the demand for fossil fuels and the ability to burn them reduces. Surely, this is a potential concern and a risk that the greening of companies can tackle.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I failed to cover the Pension Schemes Act. I apologise to the noble Baroness. The Act provides a power to bring forward regulations, placing various obligations on pension schemes relating to climate change risks. The provisions in the prudential package of the Financial Services Bill do something slightly different. They place a duty on the regulators to have regard to certain matters and to explain how they have been considered, given that the Bill imposes duties on the regulators to make rules relating to Basel and the IFPR. I reassure the noble Baroness that my officials and I have considered these provisions carefully, as we have the other amendments discussed today.
As regards her main question, my point was simple. As yet, there is no international agreement on what the term “green” means. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that greener means prudentially safer. I do not say that we will never be able to, but it is not possible at present.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I thank and pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her important leadership on these issues through Peers for the Planet which is recognised across the Committee. I also thank all noble Lords who signed or spoke in favour of amendments for their co-operative, cross-party approach.
In quoting the Government’s approach, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, paraphrased St Augustine: “Lord, make me greener, but not yet”. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response and characteristic courtesy, but it felt a little complacent. One could also quote from St Paul—that it was about “the good that I would I do not”. There is no doubt about the Government’s intentions, ambitions and targets. We welcome and are impressed by them, but it is now reaching the point where we have to act.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 24.
Amendment 24
Lord Tunnicliffe
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment aims to understand the degree of flexibility that the Treasury will allow the PRA when it replaces provisions of the CRR via general rules.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 25. This is a Christmas tree Bill with many attractive decorations, to which the Committee has tried to add. They have all been important issues, but in my view Clause 3 is the most important clause in the Bill.
Clause 3 takes away a system of regulation without a clear replacement and, if we get it wrong, it could create another crisis. We have all started to forget the crisis of 2008-09 and we do not recall, I fear, just how close that crisis came to being a catastrophic worldwide crisis. We were saved by a number of very small margins, and I think many Members of the Committee have sensed this. That is why we spent the first part of the day addressing what, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, called “the accountability deficit”. I hope the Government heard the debate and we can come to a satisfactory consensus. I draw some comfort from the Minister’s closing remarks that that is, indeed, his intention.
Amendments 24 and 25 address the Clause 3 problem from a different direction. What should replace what Clause 3 takes out? This particularly relates to the “have regard” provisions. If we look at the history of legislation in this area, it starts with the now unrecognisable FSMA 2000. That was the original Act, but 2012 brought significant change and created the FCA and the PRA. The model was supposed to be that the Government and Parliament would create a framework and the regulators would invent the rules. However, in many ways, that was overtaken by the European Union capital requirements regulation. It is worth noting that, while we were a rule-taker in that regard, the EU regulation went through a significant democratic scrutiny process in the EU Commission and, particularly, the EU Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, may be able to assure us of that, since she took a considerable part in that scrutiny.
Then came 1 January 2021, and the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was effectively to translate the regulation into UK primary legislation. Clause 3 revokes the regulation, so the real question is, what is to replace it? One has to delve quite deeply into the Bill to find out.
The Bill inserts new Section 144C,
“Matters to consider when making CRR rules”
into the now-famous FSMA 2000. Subsection (1) states:
“When making CRR rules, the PRA must, among other things, have regard to … (a) relevant standards recommended by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision from time to time.”
As far as I know, there is no democratic input to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. I believe that UK interests are represented not by a politician or by government but by the Governor of the Bank of England. It seems that we are to be a rule-taker yet again.
Subsection (1) has three other paragraphs: paragraphs (b) and (c)—which I did not understand when I read them; I gather from a reference during an earlier debate that they are probably something to do with competition—and (d), which refers to
“any other matter specified by the Treasury by regulations”.
About the only good thing that can be said about that is that it has a parliamentary process and is subject to an affirmative statutory instrument. At first sight, it is the only democratic control in the regulations.
What has all this got to with Amendments 24 and 25? They are an attempt to prescribe what goes into the “have regard” section. Clause 3(4) of the Bill states:
“The Treasury may only make regulations under subsection (1) or (3) revoking a provision if they consider that … (a) the provision has been, or will be, adequately replaced by general rules made, or to be made, by the Prudential Regulation Authority.”
The weakness of this provision is that it is not at all clear what “adequately replaced” means, hence we propose that it be substituted by
“replicated or otherwise reflected in”.
That would mean that every provision in Clause 3(2) would have to be considered and replaced. The exception is in subsection (4)(b), which states
“consider that … it is appropriate for the provision not to be replaced”.
We cover that in Amendment 25, which would insert:
“Where the Treasury makes regulations in reliance on subsection (4)(b), the Treasury must, when laying a draft of the regulations before Parliament, also lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, in the Treasury’s opinion, there are good reasons for revoking the provision.”
The constraints which our amendments propose would mean that the initial, “have regard” rules would be at least as comprehensive as those they replace. I hope that the Government will consider with care these two modest amendments and accept them or incorporate their essence into their own proposals to achieve consensus on Clause 3. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his clear and incisive introduction to this group, and the identification of the problem of Clause 3, which I am proposing in a probing amendment should not stand part of the Bill. Amendments 24 and 25 seek to improve Clause 3 and appear to do so, but this group is crucial for debating the very issues that the noble Lord has raised. He reflected some of the concerns that I expressed in the first day of the debate: namely, that the language we are hearing from the Government and some Members of this Committee closely resembles that of 2006, most notably in the then Chancellor Gordon Brown’s infamous Mansion House speech.
Clause 3 transfers certain prudential regulation matters into PRA rules. The Treasury may by regulation revoke provisions of capital requirement regulations relating to the matters listed—a list that then amounts to a couple of pages. This Bill is often presented as primarily simply a matter of transferring and translating technical regulations from Basel and the EU into UK statute. Many of us have spent much of the last year in this Room working on just such statutory instruments. However, when considered more deeply, vesting such powers in the Treasury would seem to be a kind of discretionary deregulatory charter. It has been described to me as potentially a clause allowing Singapore-on-Thames to run riot.
I would not care to take an examination on the detail of what Clause 3 does, but I am being advised by someone who could set that exam, and I take great heart from the earlier expression of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for this probing amendment—for Clause 3 potentially hands quite substantial discretionary powers to the Treasury to get more involved in PRA matters. It could be used to soften up or undermine the PRA. I can already predict some of the answer that I may hear from the Minister, that “Our intentions are good”. But, as we go around this merry-go-round again and again, what matters is what is written on the face of the Bill, not whatever the current Minister or Government’s intention might be.
My question, to which I would appreciate an answer now and perhaps in more detail later, is: does the Bill as currently written—perhaps improved by Amendments 24 and 25, but certainly without them—hand too much discretionary power to the Treasury and should the wording not be tightened to specify more precisely the circumstances in which the Treasury would involve itself in these matters of the PRA?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, intimated when he introduced his amendments, Clause 3 is very important to prudential regulation and the banks and financial institutions concerned. However, we must make progress with this Bill, so I will speak briefly. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of what is intended here and why, and what the safeguards will be for those entities regulated by the PRA in terms of purpose, consultation, impact, cost benefit and so on. I do not read it in the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
I would like to understand the competitive position. My son works in London for a French investment bank regulated primarily in Paris rather than London, under the equivalence arrangements that we have granted. I suspect that the local branch here may be part of a legal entity based in Paris. How would such an EU bank be affected by the proposed changes in Clause 3 and whatever replaces the revoked regulations? Is there a level playing field?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has reminded us that this is the clause where the legislation on the CRR gets waived away into rules without any legislative replacement. This follows the pattern that the Government proposed in their consultation: once there are rules from the regulators, the statutory instruments are revoked.
Paragraph 2.25 of the Financial Services Future Regulatory Framework Review states:
“The default approach would be for any retained EU law provision that is in scope of the regulators’ FSMA rule-making powers to be taken off the statute book to become the responsibility of the appropriate regulator.”
Therefore, although there may be consultations on replacement rules at the point of revoking the SIs, there are no checks further down the track, so at some time further on all the rules could be revoked too. As a practical matter, that will not happen, but it is possible that for some things big changes could happen. It is probably more of a worry when it is happening to the wider generality of financial services legislation than with standards that are underpinned by Basel provisions, but I make this point because the Minister said on Monday at the start of Committee that everything is being listened to in the context of the consultation, although I must say that his replies so far do not inspire too much confidence.
It may seem convenient to have a more flexible arrangement of having regulators doing everything and not bothering Parliament with statutory instruments, and the view being pushed by the Government seems to be that Parliament should not become too bothered by rules because they contain frightening Greek letters such as Σ that really just indicate some very simple sums that could easily be explained in a sentence. Underlying that is that there should not really be challenge, only fig leaves and what the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, called the rear-view mirror.
Even though I have no great love of statutory instruments as a measure for showing parliamentary consent, there is a qualitative difference compared with rules, and I want to flag up that this clause is where the notion that we will no longer have any firm policy against which to hold the regulator accountable is endorsed. From here on, the regulator makes the policy, and there is no policy guidance between the regulator’s rules and the simple objectives, have-regards clauses and perhaps a few generalised statements, such as supporting UK economic growth. I do not like this sparseness, and it is ridiculous to suggest that rules are constantly, rapidly needing change. That is not true and not internationally sustainable.
To some extent the Government acknowledge this, otherwise there would not be the statement in the consultation that some things may have to be put into SIs as a consequence of equivalence decisions. So other countries can measure our standards, but not Parliament. How embarrassing. I heard what the Minister said in reply to my equivalence information point in the first group today. He said that such things may have to stay out of the public domain—at least until they become a statutory instrument—but I never suggested that they be public, just that there should be some sharing with Parliament about the policy direction. I am pretty sure that the EU will take the view that regulator rules alone are not enough and are potentially too transient when it comes to such a large financial centre as London, not least when it comes to looking at the lavish use of “bespoke”, which was always one of Brussel’s most hated words because it thought, and I tend to agree, that it was tailoring cut to flatter and trick the eye. That is fine for clothes, but not so good for financial services rules.
As I want to mark resistance to this passing of all policy to the regulators so they end up held accountable only to their own rules, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in the suggestion that Clause 3 does not stand part.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I understand the purpose of Amendments 24 and 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, but do they suggest that he would like to stick with the enormously detailed and prescriptive provisions of the CRR as they are in retained EU law? The Government’s intention to transfer most of the provisions of the CRR into more flexible rules is right. The PRA will be able to react more quickly if it needs to change particular rules, and this should reduce the risk of failure of banks in the future.
The Government have been clear that the UK’s regulators are the right people to set the detailed, firm-level rules to implement the remaining Basel standards. Of course, as discussed in previous debates, and supported by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, we need proper parliamentary oversight of the PRA before it starts to use its new powers. The wording in the noble Lord’s amendments suggests that he wishes to reduce the degree of flexibility that the Treasury will grant the PRA, but I think that that might be counterproductive. Does he not accept that, as we move to a simpler, more flexible, outcomes-based regulatory framework, there should be less detailed prescriptive rules?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, wants to retain all the CRR rules in legislation. I cannot agree with her approach, which might damage the attractiveness of the City as a financial centre. She referred to Singapore-on-Thames, which is becoming a fashionable way to describe a light-touch regulatory regime, but is she not aware that Singapore is one of the best and most strictly regulated centres in the world? It is strict, yes, but much simpler and less cumbersome and bureaucratic. Does the Minister agree that we need to return to a simpler, different, more flexible and agile regulatory style?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I do not have a great deal to say but there are a couple of points that I would like to make. First, the two probing amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, make a great deal of sense to me, so I hope that the Government will pay attention to them and provide some substantial answers.
However, what struck me more than anything else was that this was an opportunity to comment on Clause 3. That suddenly dawned on me as I looked at the language both in the Bill and in two amendments which appear in later groups. One I have added my name to and the other is in my name only at this point in time. The first, in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates, looks at capital adequacy ratios for investments in fossil fuel relating to exploitation and exploration. The other amendment, which stands in my name and is in what could loosely be called a regulatory group, deals with MREL thresholds for medium-sized banks.
It occurred to me that this is the last time that we will be able to raise issues such as these in government time in this House if the Bill passes with Clause 3 in it. All the rules issues detailed in Clause 3, which are in effect fundamental to policy, will be transferred to the book of the regulator. Were I to look for an opportunity to raise these issues, which I shall follow up on in later debates on the Bill, the Government would say to me either, “You’re out of scope”, or, “Those are dealt with by the regulator, so wait a year or two and the regulator might do a consultation on one of these issues, then you can make your opinions heard.” They might say to me, “Write a letter to the Treasury Select Committee and see whether it considers the issue important enough to take up its very precious time, in dealing with its very heavy workload, by picking up your issue as part of one of its broader consultations.”
If ever we needed a graphic illustration of the loss of authority of Parliament and the loss of accountability to it, this is the time to illustrate and say it. I am really curious to hear from the Minister how he feels that that is justified and why he will explain to me that the amendments we have tabled are such an irritant to him that he is quite determined that never again will they fall into the scope of a debate on government time.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, perhaps it will be helpful if I take as my starting point Clause 3, which enables the Treasury to revoke provisions in retained EU law to enable the PRA to implement the remaining Basel standards. As I discussed in an earlier debate, the UK Government are committed to the Basel prudential standards as a member of the G20. While a member of the EU, our adoption of the latest Basel standards was achieved through EU legislation. The capital requirements regulation implemented the previous set of Basel reforms in the EU and, therefore, in the UK. However, regulation is not static: it must continually evolve to mitigate emerging threats and respond to developments in the financial markets.
As I set out in earlier remarks, the most recent set of internationally agreed Basel standards now needs to be implemented in the UK. The capital requirements regulation, or CRR, forms part of retained EU law in the UK and therefore continues to form the basis of the UK’s prudential framework for credit institutions. In order to comply with the latest Basel standards, the CRR needs to be updated. The EU is updating its own standards through the second capital requirements regulation, CRR2. Rather than implementing the new provisions through detailed primary legislation to amend the retained CRR, Clause 3 gives the Treasury a power to revoke relevant provisions of the CRR that need to be updated in order to comply with the latest Basel standards. This then allows the PRA to make rules implementing the latest standards.
As I have already set out, the Government stand by the delegation of the responsibility for implementing those standards to the PRA but with an enhanced accountability framework. In that general context, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and for that matter the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I might usefully repeat something that I said in an earlier debate: the rules that will replace the EU legislation being deleted are already available in draft form. The regulators and the Treasury are working to make sure that the final rules are published ahead of the debate on the relevant statutory instruments, which have also been published in draft.
It is the PRA that has the technical expertise to implement these essential post-crisis reforms. This is a novel approach, so the Bill ensures that there are checks and balances in place. First, Clause 3 ensures that we transfer only some elements of the CRR to the PRA. The extent of the Treasury’s powers to delete will be confined to those areas of the CRR that are necessary to ensure that the UK upholds its international commitments. It is for the PRA to write the rules. The Treasury’s involvement is merely to enable the rules to be updated by deleting old rules that no longer meet international standards.
Secondly, the clause ensures that the deletions the Treasury makes take place only when it is clear that adequate provision has been made by the PRA to fill the space. Deletions will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, providing the proper opportunity for scrutiny. The clause also allows the Treasury to make consequential, supplementary and incidental deletions to parts of the CRR. This is to ensure a coherent regime across the CRR and PRA rules, which are critical to industry.
Furthermore, Clause 3 gives the Treasury power to make transitional and savings provisions to prevent firms facing cliff edges from the deletion of a provision in the UK CRR. This will allow the Treasury to save, for example, permissions to modify capital requirements that have already been granted to firms under the CRR and avoids the need for firms to reapply for those permissions under the new PRA rules.
Amendment 24 would remove the requirement on the Treasury to ensure the PRA’s rules “adequately replace” revoked parts of the CRR. It would replace this requirement with ensuring that the rules “replicate or otherwise reflect” them. I understand that the intention of this amendment is to probe the degree of flexibility allowed by the current drafting. The intention is not for the new PRA rules to completely mirror the CRR provisions that they will replace. The PRA rules will update the CRR provisions they replace to achieve compliance with the revised Basel standards, and the language of “adequately replaced by” is intended to allow for this.
The wording in the Bill— “adequately replaced”—is also phrased to ensure that the rules are written in a language appropriately tailored to the PRA’s rulebook, which is specifically for the UK sector, and that the regime remains coherent. The amendment replaces this with the word “replicated”, which suggests that the language of the EU CRR is copied over exactly into the rulebook. This may not be the most suitable language for the UK’s rulebook and may prevent the PRA making the necessary changes to ensure compliance with the latest Basel standards.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, the EU—as I am sure she will recognise with her immense experience—is an outlier in the extent to which it specifies these matters in the equivalent of primary legislation. The approach taken in the Bill will bring us more into line with other major financial centres. This means that the EU is used to assessing rules set in the equivalent of regulator rules.
Amendment 25 would bind the Treasury into setting out why it thinks it is appropriate for the rules not to be replaced before laying the relevant regulations before Parliament. Clause 5 already provides for the PRA to prepare a document setting out whether its rules correspond to the revoked provision and, if so, how. The Government’s view is that that should be the primary document to explain why a CRR provision is not being replaced to provide a coherent explanation. If that document does not reflect a revocation where the CRR rule is not being replaced, this can be explained by the Treasury in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the statutory instrument revoking the rules. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. The statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that Clause 3 waives away a whole series of rules, without any clarity about how they are replaced, is very prescient. She rightly made the point that it may not be helpful in our aspiration to achieve EU equivalence.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked if I want the old. No—I want the old to be used to test whether the new is equally as comprehensive. He also spoke about simplicity. As someone who has been involved in rules in all sorts of environments, I know that they are not usually complex because people want them to be but rather because, in the operation of simple rules, questions come up and teach you that you need more complex ones. What impact will that have in this situation? The probability is that the apparent rules will be simple and the complex ones will be hidden from us in a series of rules that we do not see, which the PRA will inevitably have to create to make its supervision practical.
Furthermore, we had the comment that we are looking for light-touch regulation. In 2008 and 2009, we discovered light-touch regulation. This was not solely a British mistake but one made almost throughout the western world. However, the consequence was very close to disastrous. I find it interesting that, in his response, the noble Earl said that we have the Basel standards and already know what they are. This suggests that they are a system of rules ready-made for this purpose; if that is true, where is this flexibility that everyone praises so much?
Finally, we were told to rely on the checks and balances. We had a long debate at the beginning of today’s session, in which many people around this table, to a greater or lesser degree, were not at all convinced that the processes we are being asked to adopt have sufficient checks and balances. I will have to consider whether I want to bring this further forward on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 24.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that this is a convenient moment to conclude our debate in Grand Committee today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned, and I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Her Majesty the Queen, in less than one year from now, will mark the 70th anniversary of her accession to the Throne. The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee will be marked by national celebrations and, as with previous jubilees, it is hoped that Her Majesty will visit Parliament next year to mark the occasion.
Noble Lords were told in November about the plans to present a gift to Her Majesty to mark this historic occasion. In 1977, to mark Her Majesty’s Silver Jubilee, the fountain in New Palace Yard was built. In 2002, to mark the Golden Jubilee, the sundial in Old Palace Yard was installed and, in 2012, to mark Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee, the stained-glass window in Westminster Hall was commissioned.
Noble Lords will therefore be pleased to hear that a gift has now been commissioned for Her Majesty from Parliament to mark her Platinum Jubilee in 2022. It is now open to all Members of both Houses to contribute towards this gift and I invite noble Lords to do so. As was the case in 2012, when hundreds of parliamentarians contributed towards the Diamond Jubilee gift, this gift will also be funded by personal contributions from Members of both Houses entirely at their own discretion. No public funds will be spent on the commissioning of the gift. I have written to all noble Lords with details of the gift and how they may make contributions and I warmly encourage them to do so.
Oral Questions will now begin. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short—no longer than 30 seconds—and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: Vaccination Programme
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress of the COVID-19 vaccination programme towards meeting its (1) delivery targets, and (2) objectives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the vaccine deployment programme is proceeding at pace, for which I give profound thanks on behalf of all noble Lords. We have offered a Covid vaccine to 15 million of the top four priority cohorts, hitting our 15 February delivery target. We remain on track to achieve our objective of offering a vaccine to all priority cohorts by 15 April and all adults by the end of July.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the vaccine programme certainly is going well, but there is evidence that some groups are being left behind. One such group is housebound people. Although they cannot leave their homes, carers and family come in, which opens them up to infection. Why does NHS England not record the number of housebound patients who have received the vaccination? What is being done to speed up their vaccination? The other group is people in poor areas and demographics. What is being done to correct this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we were alert to the issue of housebound priority cohorts from the very beginning, which is why we have put in place mobile vaccine units. We work closely with community pharmacists and GPs in order to take the vaccine to housebound individuals. While we do not report on them publicly, I understand from the front line that the progress of that has gone extremely well.
The issue of areas of deprivation is really troubling. It is often those areas where the disease is most prevalent and where the vaccine rollout has been the slowest. We are working extremely hard with local community groups, faith groups, marketing experts and influencers to get the message through to the right people and to take the vaccine delivery into the right contexts.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the vaccination programme has been one bright spot in what has otherwise been a less than illustrious handling of the pandemic, but the number of daily doses administered on Monday fell significantly, week on week, for the fifth day running. Can the Minister explain why? Can he further explain the apparent discrepancy between the vaccination rate in London and other regions of the country? It appears that some regions have a rate 50% higher than London. What are the reasons for that and what is being done to narrow the gap?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord’s analysis. We are sometimes constrained by supply, but I am reassured that we will hit the targets that I articulated. London has a younger demographic, which is why the rollout percentages can seem lower than in other areas.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister outline the Government’s strategy to address those areas and people who are reluctant to take up the vaccine? Those of us who have had it know that it is the passport to our freedom.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have an extremely sophisticated and energetic programme in this regard. Let me flag that the most important influencers in anyone’s decision on whether to take the vaccine are the people whom they know and love. The best way to encourage vaccine uptake is to take the vaccine yourself.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement that decisions would be led by data, not dates. In the same Statement, he said that step 2 would be no earlier than 12 April, step 3 no earlier than 17 May and step 4 no earlier than 21 June. This morning, the Daily Telegraph reported that the 21 June date may be brought forward if the data continues to show that coronavirus is being well dealt with. What is leading the Government’s decisions? Is it dates or data?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I recommend that my noble friend and the Daily Telegraph look at the large amount of conditional material that the Prime Minister articulated in his Statement. There were no firm dates. He made it clear that data would drive decisions and he made a lot of his indicative programme remarks reliant on passing the four key tests that he laid out very clearly in his programme.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, at Monday’s Downing Street press conference, Professor Chris Whitty expressed his view that front-line health and care workers had what he termed a “professional responsibility” to get vaccinated to reduce the risk that Covid poses to patients and care home residents. With studies indicating that in many care homes well in excess of 30% of care workers have not yet taken up the vaccine, what plans do the Government have to make getting vaccinated a condition of employment?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer was entirely right. As the noble Baroness probably knows, there are already important requirements on health care workers who, for instance, do surgery or are in certain risky clinical situations to have the right vaccines, hepatitis being one in particular. Having up-to-date vaccines is a condition of engagement for some medical staff. The noble Baroness is right to raise the question of social care. We are looking at the right policy in that area. We want to tread carefully and to take social care workers with us. We are aware of the risks in social care, but we do not want to provide barriers for employment. Getting that decision right will be one of the most important things that we do.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to follow on from that. My friend has a 99 year-old mother in a care home and she is naturally very glad at the prospect of more frequent and slightly less distanced visits. She has not held her mother’s hand for over a year. She is deeply concerned that some of the care workers in the home, who have to attend to some of her mother’s most intimate needs, have declined vaccination. Should not the rule in care homes be, in the words of a recent Times leader, “no jab, no job”?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend puts it very bluntly. At this stage of the rollout, when the vaccine has not been made available to everyone, it is too early to make that kind of decision. However, he makes the case well and I hear it loud and clear.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome today’s announcement that all people with a learning disability on their GP learning disability register will now be included in group 6. However, we know that these registers are incomplete. How will the Government and the NHS ensure that those in England not currently on the register can be added so that they can be offered a vaccine too? Will the Minister confirm that family carers and home carers will be offered vaccination at the same time?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We have to work with what we have. The existing register, while not perfect, is the tool that we have for our task. GPs had been encouraged to update registers in advance of the vaccine, as we had several months of knowing that it was coming. I understand that considerable work has gone into that. With regard to carers, my understanding is that they are not currently included in the clarification that came out today, but I am happy to confirm that point with her.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we all want our children back at school on 8 March, and the Government need to do everything possible to keep children learning, with testing systems that work, ventilation and the use of Nightingale classrooms. The Government missed the opportunity to vaccinate teachers at half-term, so I ask the Minister to explain why, if our children are to be back at school on 8 March. When will teachers and support staff be a priority for vaccination?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, teachers are a priority in as much as they are on the prioritisation list along with other key workers, but the honest assessment of the JCVI is that teachers are not at accelerated risk of increased sickness or hospitalisation over any other member of the public. We are enormously grateful to the teaching profession for the role it is playing in getting schools back and in testing but, in terms of sickness and mortality, teachers are in the right place in the JCVI prioritisation.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, NHS England has told GPs to use their clinical discretion on vaccines for adults with a learning disability—although I am pleased that the Minister says that this is no longer the case. What percentage of adults with a learning disability have been called for their first jab and, if it is not 100% at this stage, why not?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I do not have the precise figure to hand. Those in group 4 will include those with Down’s syndrome and other CEVs; those with severe or profound learning disabilities will be in group 6. As we know, group 4 has had an extremely high conversion rate and, although I do not think it is exactly 100%, it will be an astonishingly high amount and, if those figures are available, I should be glad to write to the noble Baroness with them.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, sadly, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Pandemics and Environmental Degradation
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the relationship between the emergence of pandemics and environmental degradation.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, my department has not made an independent assessment of the relationship between the emergence of pandemics and environmental degradation. However, Defra has been fully engaged in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services work, including the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which highlighted the links between exploitation of nature and emergence of infectious diseases, and the subsequent IPBES workshop report on biodiversity and pandemics, which was published last year.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. This pandemic is a stark example of exactly what those pieces of research have found: what happens when nature is abused, whether through habitat destruction or the wildlife trade, can wreak stark things for humans. I know that the Minister, through his work with the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, is aware that evaluation and disclosure by corporates and the investment sector is very important, but does he agree that subsequent action is even more important? What lessons would he draw from all the work on carbon issues, so that we move from high carbon emissions to much lower carbon emissions and an ambition for net—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
That question is far too long. Can we hear from the Minister, please?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is no doubt that increased risk of pandemics is just one of the many reasons why continued destruction of the natural world is so short-sighted and damaging to our long-term interests. Ecosystem degradation and habitat disruption can dislodge pathogens; it can also bring wildlife into closer contact with humans and livestock; and climate change can lead to shifts in wildlife vector ranges and is likely to increase the risk of future pandemics by driving the mass movement of people and wildlife. This is a priority issue for the UK Government.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, this degradation is driven by pressure on resources, which is of course caused by demand and increasing consumption, with poorer countries understandably wanting to raise living standards to those of more prosperous countries. The elephant in this particular room is, of course, population growth. When I was born, the world’s population was approximately 2.5 billion; it is now three times that; and, by 2050, by which time I fear I may be dead, it will be four times that. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to raise that issue internationally, to raise awareness and get action on overpopulation of the planet?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, whatever action is taken, it is likely that the global population will be in the region of 10 billion within a generation, so it is incumbent on us to find ways to work and live within nature’s limits. Through the upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity and the climate COP, which we are hosting, we are pressing for really ambitious targets on biodiversity and nature, mechanisms to hold Governments to account, finance for nature, and commitments to tackle the drivers of environmental destruction. We are also using our presidency of the G7 to help drive more activity in pandemic preparedness. The UK is at the forefront of this debate and is a world leader in tackling nature and climate change.
Lord Bird (CB)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on this Question: it is one of the most interesting I have heard recently. When will we break out of the idea that the environment is a cul-de-sac, something that we can take or leave? When will we lead in this country and spread the idea of the importance of the environment across every section of society—to the woman on the third floor of a block of council flats in Hackney, all that? I feel that we are always dealing with the very small amount of people who are very interested in it, and the vast majority do not give a toss.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. I agree with him; the environment is not a niche concern. Everything we have, everything we are, everything we do comes from the natural world. As we destroy the natural world, ultimately we destroy ourselves. That seems an obvious thing to say but, unfortunately, it still needs to be said. A recognition of that fact runs through all departments of the UK Government. This is, as I said, a top international and domestic priority for us.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are increasingly reminded of the link between animal diseases and human health. Currently, I think of bird flu in Russia and a question over the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic itself. Do the Government intend to raise this very real problem at the COP 26 meeting under their presidency this November?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I can absolutely provide that reassurance—not just through the COP 26, which we are hosting, but via the biodiversity convention and the G7. The noble Lord makes an important point: 60% of infectious diseases are caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites that are transmitted between humans and animals. Numerous reports confirm the link between environmental degradation and the emergence of zoonotic pathogens—Hendra virus in Australia, Nipah virus, Ebola, Zika, yellow fever, Dengue, SARS, MERS, Covid-19 and many others besides—so this is a crucial issue.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Dasgupta review cautions that the Covid-19 pandemic may be just the tip of the iceberg if we continue to encroach on natural habitats. The Minister obviously agrees. Does he also agree with Professor Dasgupta that citizens must be empowered to make informed choices and demand change? One way to do that is to establish a natural world in education policy.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The natural world and climate change should certainly be a thread that runs through the educational curriculum, and I think increasingly it is. That is my experience from talking in numerous schools around the country, where climate change and the environment are the first issues that young people want to raise. The noble Baroness is right: Covid-19 has highlighted that link between biodiversity loss and human health. It is a stark reminder, but the terrible consequences of this pandemic are nothing compared to the consequences we can expect if we continue to degrade the natural world and destabilise the world’s climate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, much of the spillover of viruses from animals to humans globally has been linked to intensive meat production, driven of course by human population growth and urbanisation. Can the Minister assure the House that we will apply these lessons to UK agricultural reforms by not incentivising the expansion of intensive livestock management in the UK?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
There is no doubt that there is a very clear link between industrialised agriculture—factory farming, if you like—and the emergent risk of pathogens. This is very high on the agenda. Linked to that is the risk of misuse of antibiotics in agriculture to keep animals alive in conditions that are so squalid that they would not otherwise be able to survive. Our new land use subsidy system that replaces CAP will incentivise ecologically sensitive farming and farming that is in the interests of, and aligns with, human health concerns.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My noble friend will be aware that China has been reforesting rather than deforesting in the last decade and that the animals in the Wuhan wildlife market tested negative. At the moment, the only known connection between wild viruses that are closely related to SARS-CoV-2 and Wuhan is the collection of nine bat viruses taken by scientists from a mineshaft in Mojiang county to Wuhan—a distance greater than that from London to Budapest. Does my noble friend share the US National Security Advisor’s deep concern that the World Health Organization was premature in ruling out a laboratory leak and endorsing an unsupported claim by the Chinese Government that the virus came to Wuhan on frozen fish or meat?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
There is no doubt in my mind that every stone needs to be overturned and every avenue explored before we reach firm conclusions—and that has not yet happened. I share many of the concerns raised by the noble Lord. However, in relation to his first point, wildlife markets have, nevertheless, been implicated in numerous outbreaks of zoonotic viral and bacterial infections, including SARS, MERS, avian influenza and swine flu. So that link is established and, irrespective of the broader concerns, it must be explored.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as the Minister said, it is now accepted that many new diseases have emerged due to environmental degradation and animal populations under severe pressure—not only coronavirus, including SARS, but Zika, AIDS and Ebola. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to meet the goals of the 2021 to 2030 UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and how is destroying 108 ancient woodlands to build HS2 compatible with that?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the United Kingdom has played a leading role internationally in raising the profile and the importance of tackling nature loss. We co-drafted the unprecedented Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, which has now been signed by 80 countries. We run the Global Ocean Alliance and are co-leading the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, calling for 30% of the world’s land and ocean to be protected by the end of this decade. Through our presidency of the COP we have put nature at the heart of the global response to climate change. I do not think that any country in the world is doing more heavy lifting or more generally to push the need to reverse nature degradation to the very forefront of the global agenda.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question and I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Rail Freight: Channel Tunnel
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the barriers to using the Channel Tunnel for the conveyance of rail freight; and what plans they have, if any, to overcome such barriers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government engage regularly with the international freight sector to discuss a range of issues and are keen to see the expansion of rail freight services running through the tunnel. It is ultimately a commercial decision for rail freight operators whether to facilitate new services, but the Government are open to engaging with industry-led proposals and potential new operators where there is a commercial proposition.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for that reply, but what needs to change to make it feasible to see more rail freight using the Channel Tunnel and the HS1 route to London?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I have just explained to the noble Lord, this is a commercial decision by the freight operating companies. The Government certainly stand by to support where we can. For example, we are developing and, indeed, have developed, bespoke customs regimes for rail freight traffic through the tunnel. We have already approved regimes at Barking, Dagenham, Daventry, Scunthorpe and Widnes. We are also looking at, for example, gauge clearance for alternative access routes to the Channel Tunnel. At the heart of all this, the industry has to demonstrate to government that if we put these interventions in place it will come forward with commercial proposals.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I take the Minister’s point that it is a commercial decision, but the Government could help hauliers and exporters of all kinds. What about setting up an innovations fund that they could bid for money from when they have a viable plan? This would stimulate the move from road to rail.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the noble Baroness is referring to our Mode Shift Revenue Support scheme, which is indeed already in place. It supports rail services where they may be slightly less commercial, to try to get freight off the road and on to rail. During the Covid pandemic we made sure that part loads would also be supported. The noble Baroness will also be pleased to hear that we have increased funding to this scheme by 28% in 2021 and it now amounts to £20 million.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern that rail freight was down 37% in January this year over last year and that passenger traffic through the tunnel was down 71% in January over last year? What support might they be eligible for, for problems that are not of their making but are largely a result of the bureaucratic and administrative change of rules because of Brexit and the situation with Covid? Will she join with me in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, without whose good offices we may not have had a tunnel at all?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will certainly join my noble friend for the latter comment. The tunnel is a great thing. The noble Baroness asked what support is available. We are working very closely with Eurotunnel to help it access the Government’s support schemes. Some of the Eurotunnel revenues remain in place, because of course haulage continues to go through on the shuttle system. The noble Baroness mentioned that freight was down 37% year-on-year in January. That was because, I think, people were expecting some changes and some impact of Covid. She will be relieved to hear that in February there was a 34% increase over January, and therefore I feel that things are heading in the right direction.
Lord Snape (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that only around 1 million tonnes of through-freight is taken across the Channel on long-distance freight trains from this country, whereas more than 20 million tonnes is taken on 1.6 million lorries? If you add to it the 2.5 million lorries a year thundering down the M20 to use the sea crossing at Dover, leaving these things to—as she puts it—commercial matters when they are environmentally disastrous is not what those of us who supported the Channel Tunnel from its inception really believed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord will know that whether a consignment uses conventional rail freight or an HGV will very much depend on the nature of the goods being transported. Conventional rail freight is more often used for more dense goods, such as those from the steel and automotive sectors and other bulk goods. But, as I have already said, there is capacity to increase conventional rail freight through the Channel Tunnel and we look forward to those who wish to do so.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, Eurostar also goes through the tunnel and is in serious financial difficulty, yet the Secretary of State says that it is not his company to save. Well, neither are the domestic train operators that have received billions in government support. Does the Minister accept that, although the Government may not have a legal obligation to Eurostar, they have a moral duty to the planet to ensure the survival of this environmentally friendly alternative to flying to Europe?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government continue to discuss Eurostar’s financial situation with the French Government. At the moment there are no proposals on the table.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, how many of these delays are due to widespread strikes in France over pensions and how many are due to the EU being, as usual, as difficult as ever? I have found no record, of course, of the EU ever having been accused of fairness and honesty.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure about the delays to which my noble friend has referred, but it is the case that at the end of the year, freight flows decreased somewhat owing to both testing for hauliers, which had to be put in place quickly in December, and preparations for the end of the transition period in January. However, I reassure my noble friend that all freight is now flowing as it should.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Minister said that there has been a 34% increase in freight truck traffic through the Channel Tunnel in February compared with January. Can she say whether that is a 34% increase in volume or in value, and does it apply equally across all sectors of industry and services?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I would love to have the answers to those questions, but I am afraid that I do not, and I do not have a calculator with me at this moment. However, I will write to the noble Lord with the details he has set out. It is the case that, in January, we were looking at daily HGV traffic flows in the region of around 2,800 vehicles on average and that we are now up into the area of mid-3,000 vehicles. I will write to the noble Lord with the analysis that he would like to see.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is not one of the barriers referred to in the Question the fact that gauges in the UK restrict the destination of much of the freight traffic coming through the tunnel? What progress is being made with the gauge enhancement programme to make it easier to send more freight through the Channel Tunnel by rail?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
This is a fascinating area and I thank my noble friend for raising it. We are developing a number of loading gauge enhancement projects to extend the strategic freight network of routes to offer the greatest flexibility for carrying intermodal shipping containers on standard wagons. We are working on the Great Western main line between Didcot and Bristol, on the Midland main line between Syston and Trent and, as I have mentioned, we are looking at alternative routes to the Channel Tunnel. Clearances for W10 and W12 will probably offer fairly poor value for money, so further development is more likely to consider W9A, which would allow containers on specialist wagons with lower decks.
Lord German (LD) [V]
Given that there are only nine months of grace, what progress have the UK Government made in securing a bilateral agreement to operate trains through to Calais-Fréthun, and what would be the impact on trade through the tunnel if the UK had to secure EU licensing in order to operate those trains?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We continue to work with the French Government on seeking arrangements for the longer term. This will include recognition of operator licences, safety certificates and train driver licences. We expect the impact of the longer-term arrangements on operators, when they are agreed, to be minimal.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Vere, for their kind words. However, is one solution to increasing the volume of rail freight traffic through the tunnel not in the Minister’s hands, because of the reduction in passenger traffic and therefore the greater capacity that is available on many parts of the network? She has talked about gauge enhancement, but we need more terminals and capacity. That would attract the just-in-time deliveries that I am sure she would be very keen to see.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is right to say that there are things that we can do; indeed, we are doing them. Network Rail is working with the freight operating companies on timetabling to ensure that we can prioritise freight, in particular in these times of lower passenger numbers. Of course, passengers will come back to the trains one day and we need to make sure that whatever solution we put in place now is for the longer term. However, I reassure the noble Lord that we will leave no stone unturned and that we greatly welcome his input in these matters.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.
Covid-19: Vaccination Passport
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they plan to have with the devolved Administrations about the introduction of a COVID-19 vaccination passport to enable those who have been vaccinated to travel.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to restarting the travel industry, as the Prime Minister has set out in his road map. Vaccinations could offer the route to that once we know more about the impact of vaccines on transmission and their efficacy. The UK is working with other countries to adopt a clear international framework on standards and we are committed absolutely to working with the devolved Administrations throughout at both official and ministerial levels.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
Does the Minister agree that it is important to differentiate between a certificate that might allow access to venues in the United Kingdom and one that would allow travel overseas, such as the one I have for yellow fever and malaria? Can he tell us which countries he and the Government are now in discussions with to enable to us to get back to travelling as soon as possible so that the travel industry can return to a financially sound situation?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, but these are two entirely separate issues. I assure him that the UK is working with a wide range of other countries and that the Government will make this a reality through ongoing work not only with other countries, but with the World Health Organization and other multilateral organisations, and through the UK’s presidency of the G7. The point the noble Lord has made is an important one.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Is it not true that if the Government had not blocked ID cards in 2011—a perfect form of vaccination passport—then we could have avoided problems about vaccination recording by entering annual vaccination data that would have been readable on the card chip, covered the entire population with a track-and-trace system, and, in effect, brought this nightmare of an epidemic to an earlier end? The Government missed a trick that could have saved billions of pounds and perhaps even thousands of lives.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for ID cards, but it was not shared universally either in Parliament or outside. I am certainly not going there on this issue.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I understand the frustration of the travel, hospitality and leisure industries that want to get their businesses up and running as quickly as possible. However, does the Minister accept that there are some concerns? The first is that with the rollout of the vaccine continuing over the summer, many young people, including students who want to study overseas, may be excluded from the chance to travel. Is there not a risk that the demand for passports, if they were introduced, could create a bureaucratic logjam that could interfere with the vaccine rollout and may unhelpfully aggravate the arguments over which vaccines are the most effective?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I hope very much that that is not the case. The Government’s objective is to see a safe and sustainable return to international travel for business and pleasure. To achieve this, my colleagues in the Department for Transport will be leading a successor to the Global Travel Taskforce. It is important that we work towards that objective.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, much of this debate is around holidaymakers, but there is an important section of the population—businesspeople—who travel in order to increase the prosperity of the companies and countries that they represent. Can the Government give some attention to easing short-term business travel restrictions which mean that, every time you go for a 36-hour trip to the European mainland, you need to spend £200 to get a certificate? This is ridiculous and does no good for business at all. There does not appear to be a business party in this Parliament any longer.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I understand where my noble friend is coming from, but repeat what I said in reply to the previous question: the Government’s objective is to see a safe and sustainable return to international travel for business and pleasure. I put business first advisedly. We have to do this in a safe and sustainable way, and the Prime Minister has set out a road map towards it.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree with the well-researched report by the Royal Society relating to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine certificates? It identifies 12 key areas that need better understanding before the introduction of Covid passports for international travel, including: the effectiveness of various vaccines; the nature and duration of the immune response; the ability of variants to escape vaccine-induced immunity; and the transmission or otherwise of the virus by those vaccinated, as mentioned by the Minister. Will the Government consider the scientific advice before any plans to introduce Covid passports?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not the lead Minister on that narrow area, but I note what the noble Lord says and will pass on his comments to colleagues.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
My Lords, if the certificates or passports were to happen, it would be essential to have just one system across the UK. It must not be just one Government doing it and imposing them on the other countries; they must be jointly developed. The Minister talked about the road map, but that was shared with the Welsh Government only after it had been briefed to the press, on Monday morning. Can the Minister assure us that, if there is work on this, it will be done jointly by all four Governments, so that there is only one system for the whole UK?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Baroness, as always, make a profound point, which is that the best thing that we must wish and work for is that all Administrations work together on this. We do not want internal divides. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is speaking further to First Ministers today, which is another opportunity to reflect on the details of the published road maps. I take what she said: we will continue to work with the devolved Administrations to reflect on the implications of the road maps, and to co-ordinate and co-operate on our response to this and other areas.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I live five miles from the English border, and I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not pressing for a passport, with 15,000 vehicles going one way and 32,000 coming the other way to work, every day. Referring to the discussions that the Minister mentioned, what is the Government’s attitude to people coming to this country who have been vaccinated by a non-approved vaccine, and are they discussing this with other countries?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I confess that I cannot find the answer to that at the moment. I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I apologise for not being able to answer it now.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on international travel issues, but surely the way forward within the United Kingdom is to have as rapid a vaccination rollout, of as many people, as possible. Can the Minister assure us that the devolved Administrations are intimately involved in that rollout programme and that they will all move ahead at the same time?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we wish for the fastest possible progress across our United Kingdom. I can give that assurance. In reply to the previous question, at this stage, the Government are not looking to make it a requirement to have a Covid-19 vaccination to travel into the country.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am not sure what our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is worried about. The way the SNP is going, he will not be allowed back into Scotland, with or without a passport. But he is correct to focus on this issue; it is difficult. The other day, the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that we must not discriminate against those who have refused a vaccine for whatever reason—a medical condition, for example—but we know that there are anti-vaxxers who are refusing the vaccine because they do not like it, cannot be bothered or are simply professional disrupters. Does my noble friend accept that it would be outrageous to hold back the reopening of society, in any way, and to compromise the rights and liberties of everyone else, because of those who refuse to take any step to protect either themselves or others? Should it not be the anti-vaxxers who suffer inconvenience, rather than the rest of us?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the Government’s objective is a safe and sustainable return to international travel. By a miracle of science and endeavour, this and other countries have good—outstanding—vaccines. We have a fine rollout programme right across the four nations. Everybody should support and get behind that programme, the vaccines and the people who are working on them.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, which brings Question Time to an end.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Wednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 131-I Marshalled list for Committee - (19 Feb 2021)
Committee
Clause 1: Relief from non-domestic rates for public lavatories
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “day,” insert “the hereditament is a publicly-owned library or community centre or a local authority property that is free of charge to enter and contains a public lavatory that is free of charge for anyone to use, or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the rate relief to publicly-owned libraries and community centres, and local authority properties, which are free to enter and which contain public lavatories that are free to use.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to amend Clause 1(3) of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring into the scope of the Bill those toilet facilities that are in community centres, libraries and other local authority buildings and are free of charge for use by members of the public.
There are clear and undeniable public health benefits to having toilets that are available for the public to use. This amendment seeks to increase that provision. I recognise that in some cases, libraries and other public buildings already make their toilet facilities available to the public. This amendment supports them for doing that, but goes further, as it provides a welcome encouragement for those facilities that do not have the same access provision to be made available to the public. There has been a noticeable decline in public facilities over recent years, and this amendment seeks to reverse that trend by providing rate relief as an encouragement either to continue with the access presently provided or to extend access to the public to take advantage of this rate relief.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled Amendment 9, which I am very happy to support, and the noble Lord will explain the effect of his amendment when he speaks shortly. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support for my Amendment 9 in this group. I will speak to both my amendment and Amendment 1, which the noble Lord has just moved. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which no longer has public lavatories but is the rating authority for those that exist. I thank the Government for scheduling this Committee fairly quickly after Second Reading so that we can progress this Bill; it gives us real hope that the Bill will manage to pass in this Session.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would follow up amendments moved in the Commons and comments made quite widely by people at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. They pointed out that very many lavatories that people consider to be public lavatories and that operate as public lavatories are ancillary to other facilities provided by local authorities and other voluntary bodies, and so on. The problem is that, from a rating point of view, they are part of the same hereditament as the facility to which they are basically ancillary and therefore would not come under the provisions of this Bill as it stands. The Minister has kindly written to interested Members of the House putting forward the view that the Government put forward in the Commons that, to exempt these genuine public lavatories from business rates would be onerous—particularly on the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for doing all this— and that it would therefore not be practical to go ahead with it.
My Amendment 9 tackles some of the affected lavatories, which would probably not be a very large number. I believe that this could be done without any onerous burden being placed upon the VOA or anybody else. It reads that, for the purposes of subsection 4(I), which is what this is all about,
“a self-contained public lavatories facility which forms part of a larger hereditament and which may be accessed independently from outside that hereditament forms a separate hereditament.”
It is possible that it would have to be done technically in some other way: it might be that it could be done via secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has amendments later on, to which I am not going to speak, but at this stage I will just say that I strongly support them; they provide an opportunity for the Government to tackle the technical details, and there are huge technical details in all this, because it is about rating. They would allow the Government to pick up a lot of the points that we are making in these probing amendments at this stage.
It seems to me that, when a lavatory is part of a council-owned building in the middle of a small town or village—it might be a library, market hall or any other council-owned building—and has an outside door so that, even if there is also an inside door that could be locked when the main building is not open, people would be able to access that from outside, sorting out the separate valuation for a limited number of instances like this would not be a great burden, and it could, and should, be done. In practice, the VOA will have done it anyway when it assesses the rates on the whole building, because here is a separate use from the main building and it will have a look at it and say, “What is the amount that that contributes?” Somewhere in the depths of its records, it probably has the information anyway. Even if it does not have it, however, it is not an onerous task for it to do. The number is relatively small compared with the great majority of lavatories in libraries and so on. I hope the Government will accept the principle of this—I do not expect them to accept my amendment as it is today—and go away and have a look at it. I invite the Minister to say that he will do that.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, I welcome the Bill. That the Government have chosen to encourage the provision of public lavatories is a great public good, because adequate lavatory provision is a liberation for many millions of people, for whom the thought of not finding one when they go out is a significant restriction on their participation in society as a whole. There are said to be some 14 million people in this country with bowel or bladder problems. That is a very large proportion of the population who are worried about being able to access a public lavatory when they go out.
I really encourage the Government, perhaps not immediately but during the progress of the legislation, to look at opportunities to extend its reach. An obvious example is lavatories in stations, which everyone regards as public lavatories. Victoria station is very well used. It is only in a very peripheral way a part of any other hereditament. The same applies to lavatories in other public buildings, and to push in the direction which is being opened by Amendment 1 is thoroughly worth while.
There is no obvious need for a public lavatory to be a separate building. It seems, given the attractiveness of public lavatories, that having them in a building encourages other uses of that building too, and that their integration into public buildings should be encouraged. If we can find a way round it over the next few years, we should not be privileging just those public lavatories which are free standing.
As has been said, I really hope that the Government look on this as an opportunity, over time, to encourage facilities that are needed for the general public enjoyment of public facilities by extending the rather narrow rating release in the Bill to the many other deserving facilities that are provided at public expense and otherwise, and without which we will find ourselves rather too often caught short.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Lord Greaves and Lord Lucas, have said in support of these amendments. For some people, venturing into parts of our urban communities where they cannot be sure of access to a public lavatory is a risk that they dare not take. The physical conditions that create this problem can affect all ages. One thinks especially of the elderly, but there are also visitors to the area and others who depend on the uncertainties of public transport to get home. Whoever they are, they need to be provided for.
My interest in this subject, as I have mentioned before, is a professional one. I am interested in whether the amendments to test alternative solutions to those which the Government are suggesting are capable of being put into effect. The valuation of buildings for rating was one of my specialist subjects when I was in practice at the Scottish Bar. The valuation process itself was not for me; that was the job of chartered surveyors. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a distinguished member of that profession, with years of experience in the practice of that art, and I am very sorry that for other reasons he is unable to take part in this debate.
However, valuation for rating is not just about facts and figures. There are some legal rules too, and that is where I come in. The non-domestic rating system is the product of a listing process. Every non-domestic hereditament that is capable of separate occupation must be entered in the valuation list and given a value. A single building may contain within it a number of properties that are in separate occupation. If so, one would expect each of them to be the subject of a separate entry and a separate value, but where one finds a building in a single occupation, the consequence is that the entire building is treated as a separate hereditament and valued accordingly.
Therefore, where one finds a stand-alone public lavatory—which is what the Government are providing for in the Bill—one would expect it to be entered in the roll with its own entry and its own value. The reform which the Bill introduces is that the value of these subjects is to be taken to be nil. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made very clear, the problem is that there are not enough of them. That is what the amendments in this group seek to address.
As I see it, the amendments in this group respect the rules that I have described. Amendment 1 assumes that the publicly owned buildings listed here have a public lavatory within them that is free of charge for anyone to use. It assumes, rightly, that the public lavatory is not the subject of a separate entry, so it asks the Government to accept that the building as a whole should be given the relief. One can draw an analogy with the relief of 80% that is currently given to hereditaments that are occupied by charities, but the part of the building containing the public lavatory is likely to be quite small in comparison with the whole, and the loss of income to the rating authority may be disproportionate to the public benefit.
There is some value in exploring an alternative, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is doing with his Amendment 9. This would introduce a statutory rule that these public lavatories should be treated, in effect, as separate hereditaments, so long as they can be accessed from outside and therefore given a separate value. I do not know how many there are—perhaps not many, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has suggested—and if so it may not take us very far, but some distance is worth travelling in the interests of addressing the problem through the Bill. As a lawyer, I cannot see any objection to this proposal. It is an adaptation of the ordinary rules, but if the law provides for it, it is a perfectly orthodox adaptation. I commend this as a very neat way of responding to a very real problem that needs to be addressed, and I am happy to give Amendment 9 my support.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of an informal campaign group which seeks to improve the standards of public toilets generally. I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response by letter to issues that I, among others, raised at Second Reading. However, I am sure that he will forgive me when I say that I found his arguments unconvincing.
I accept that to include facilities open to the public, but not as separate or distinct buildings, would mean a valuation exercise. In each local authority area this would involve numbers maybe in the dozens, not the hundreds. That really cannot be seen as a costly hurdle. The Minister believes that it would divert resources from the 2023 revaluation. It should simply be part of the revaluation. I also reject the idea that identifying the facilities concerned would be difficult. These are public facilities and public bodies would self-identify. I also recommend to the Minister the Great British Public Toilet Map, available online, and a number of apps which guide you to local public toilets.
As it stands, the Bill is of course sensible, but it is a paltry little measure and will certainly not bring the transformation needed. I am not sure how deeply the Government consulted local government representatives. The local authorities that I am familiar with ceased building stand-alone public conveniences decades ago because problems of anti-social behaviour are so much greater in isolated blocks. Nowadays, new sets of conveniences are mainly incorporated in other public buildings, where issues of safety for users, maintenance and cleanliness are more easily dealt with. Stand-alone blocks obviously still exist but are often old and are too often already closed and shuttered.
I also wish to test the definition of “publicly owned”. The definition is very blurred these days. Facilities can be publicly owned but privately run—for example, in many areas that is the case with leisure centres. My area has publicly available toilets in libraries and shopping centres. The shopping centres are commercial developments and commercially run, but the toilets are discrete units. They are not just toilets in shops; there are separate doors to them, but it is a commercial operation.
We also have public toilets in the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff—a large building at the centre of Cardiff tourism in the bay. It houses major musical events and a lot of youth and artistic activities. It runs free concerts and there are shops and cafes. There is free public access to the toilets. The Wales Millennium Centre is run by a trust, but that trust has been funded by major amounts of public money. I know that the noble Lord will say that that is in Wales and that there is a separate set of rules, but I use it as an example. Clearly, it would not qualify for this scheme, but why should it not? It provides the same facilities, with cleaning and maintenance, and the public are allowed to enter for a large number of hours each day of the week.
It is really not difficult to ascertain whether toilets are genuinely publicly available or available for a reasonable amount of time each day. The Minister told us that the Government are adopting the community toilet scheme, and similar types of rules can apply for rate relief.
My concern is not just that the Government’s scheme is not generous enough; it is also that it is not even-handed. Public toilets in buildings still have to be maintained and cleaned, so why should an accident of situation define whether this relief is granted? It could even discourage major new developments from incorporating what would be genuinely public toilets.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as listed in the register: as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to which I have added my name, challenge the scope of the Bill in its restriction to public toilets that are stand-alone and not part of a larger public building, such as a library or community centre. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss these amendments and for the letter that he sent explaining the reasons for confining the scope of the Bill to stand-alone public toilets. However, we have to remember that one consequence of the long period of cuts to local government funding has been that many public toilets have been closed permanently. In my local authority, which serves nearly half a million people, there are now no stand-alone public toilets. The Bill is welcome but it is very much like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
These amendments are intended to encourage the Government to appreciate the wider need to increase the availability of public toilets. There is already pressure for some public toilets in public buildings to be closed because of the costs associated with keeping them open, as they are not part of the focused purpose of the building. For example, a public library is having to use scarce funds to keep the public toilets in its building open when there is barely sufficient funding to staff the building. That is the dilemma facing local authorities, certainly in the northern urban areas that I know well.
My noble friend Lord Greaves’s points are well made. Local people regard public toilets within a public building as being the same as stand-alone public toilets. The challenge is explained in the letter that I referred to earlier—the volume of work it would impose on the valuation office—but my noble friend Lord Greaves’s amendment seeks to find a way round this for public toilets that have separate access. I hope that the Minister is able to respond positively to that amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is an expert on these matters. He has said that valuation for rating is not just about facts and figures. One example that he provided was the relief given to charities. The Government would do well to take heed of the arguments that the noble and learned Lord made, and that view has been well supported by my noble friend Lady Randerson. As well as making those arguments and supporting my noble friend Lord Greaves’s view, she argued that improved public toilets are more secure and can be more easily kept clean if they are within a public building, rather than being stand-alone.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure adequate availability of publicly funded public toilets. It is a responsibility that has been accepted since the days of the great Victorian public heath reformers. The Bill demonstrates that the Government continue to accept that they have that responsibility. It is not sufficient, in fulfilling this obligation, to make those public toilets that have survived the cull zero rated. The Government must provide the means for local government to increase availability to meet local need. That is what these amendments seek to do and I wholeheartedly support them.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the points highlighted by his amendment and for his valuable and knowledgeable contribution to the Second Reading debate, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and, with great knowledge, by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I point out that the horse has not bolted entirely. There are nearly 4,000 separately assessed public toilets in England and Wales—3,990 as of 31 March 2020—and therefore this is a very important relief for those properties.
The effect of the first amendment would be to extend the scope of the relief to include publicly owned properties, such as libraries, community centres and other local authority properties, where they contain free-to-use public lavatories. In effect, this would mean that the local authority-owned buildings that contained a non-fee-paying public lavatory would be exempted from paying rates.
It is the Government’s firm view that public bodies, like other ratepayers, should pay rates on the properties they own and occupy, and it is therefore right that the legislation should broadly reflect this principle. The Government’s policy aim, and the purpose of Clause 1, is clear in that it provides a targeted relief to support the provision of public lavatories in specific circumstances. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, such as those along our coastline or in towns, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a significant difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open.
For England, the cost of this targeted measure is estimated to be around £6 million. The amendment would significantly increase this; for example, extending support to public libraries alone would see a tenfold increase in cost—to around £60 million. Although I recognise where the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is coming from, this is not the aim of the Bill. I do not agree with the premise of this amendment.
I turn to the second amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I recognise that the noble Lord intends that the current practice of determining what is—and what is not—a separate hereditament should be amended, so that any toilet which can be accessed independently of any other hereditament should be considered separately. He is supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, with his breadth of legal knowledge. While I expect that most public bodies which can be independently accessed already qualify for this relief, I appreciate that there might be some which do not. I recognise the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
I must return the Committee’s attention to the importance of keeping the administrative costs and the burden of this relief on local authorities to a minimum. If we were to amend the Bill in the way in which the noble Lord proposes, the Government would be asking the Valuation Office Agency to carry out an assessment of the location and rateable value of public toilets. The agency does not hold this information already. It would then prescribe that local government should make its own—in some cases, contrary—assessment in order to implement the relief. Requiring councils to do this would bring administrative costs disproportionate to any potential benefits to ratepayers.
The Valuation Office Agency is responsible for the valuation of all properties in England. The Government do not intervene in this independent process. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is important that this element of the business rate system retains its independence. Not only would the cost of implementing relief in line with this amendment be disproportionate to any benefit to ratepayers, it would mean prescribing an approach to assessing hereditaments that differs from the VOA’s own. As such, I do not consider it right to place such an approach in law.
It is right that the measure should remain a targeted relief, focused on providing support for public facilities in specific circumstances. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Both amendments in this group—from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock and me, and from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—attempt to probe how the Bill could increase the number of public lavatories and prevent further closures.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about toilet facilities at stations. I regard these as public lavatories. It would be good to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover them. In recent years, charges have been removed at virtually all mainline stations in London—with the possible exception of Marylebone. This is good news.
Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, provides for those public toilets with a separate entrance to be brought into the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord is right; there are probably not that many facilities which would come into this category, but it would be a welcome move.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that it would not be onerous to identify the different facilities which would come into the scope of the Bill. I do not accept the Minister’s comments about onerous costs on local authorities. In effect, the facilities would self-identify. I do not believe there is a huge amount of work involved. I do not accept the argument that the cost would outweigh the benefit to the local authority going forward. I am also grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
We all support the aims of the Bill. It is good as far as it goes. If we want to stop the decline in the number of public lavatories—and the public health benefits that go with them—we will have to go a bit further than this welcome Bill. This is the point of our amendments. I am sure we shall bring them back on Report. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether, if we all want the same outcome, we should go further. I do not accept that the costs outweigh the benefits. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 2
Moved by
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “or mainly”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to explore the meaning of “mainly”.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response to my previous amendment. I thought that commenting here would be more convenient than making a separate intervention after the Minister in the previous group. That amendment—and others in this and other groups—will give rise to the need for further discussions with the Minister about some of the technical details, if he is agreeable. With the exception, perhaps, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, none of us is an expert lawyer. We are trying to understand how it works.
That is the purpose of Amendment 2. I am not trying to persuade the Government to remove “mainly”; that would make the Bill even worse. This is a typical House of Lords Committee probing amendment. I am sure that during the noble Lord’s long career as a local government Minister in this House, he will have a lot of fun with a lot of similar amendments to much bigger and longer Bills. This is what we do. It is a way of asking questions. What does “or mainly” mean? It is not clear, and it is not defined.
The National Association of Local Councils’ briefing says that the cost to councils of paying rates on public lavatories is £8 million. The Minister said that the cost of the Bill as it stands is £6 million. Either in his reply to this, or at some other time during today’s discussion, could he explain the difference between those numbers and where it comes from? Perhaps he can give us figures for the extra costs which he thinks would be incurred by some of the proposals being put forward.
I have one other amendment in this group—Amendment 7. I had another, similar probing amendment, but there was a technical problem with it. It was my fault for submitting it on the last day. The Public Bill Office kindly offered to have the Marshalled List reprinted, but I said I could cope with what we have here.
Amendment 7 suggests that “mainly”
“is to be construed according to an assessment by the rating authority of the balance of use by the public of the public lavatories compared with the remainder of the hereditament, disregarding the proportion of the area occupied by the public lavatories.”
I have been trying to get my mind round the relationship between a public lavatory—which might be free standing —and the land on which it stands. This might be a garden area or amenity area in a town or village: a mini-park—or a pocket park, as they are called nowadays; we all know the kind of thing—or it might be a full park. If it is within a park, and basically for the people using that park, it will not be paying rates anyway, because parks are zero-rated. I think it is regarded as part of the hereditament that consists of the park.
If the public lavatory is free-standing in a park or elsewhere and the land around it is a separate hereditament, it will benefit from the Bill. However, somewhere, there must be a dividing line between a lavatory in a park and one that is mainly in an amenity area that forms part of the same hereditament as the lavatory, which is therefore all rated. That is the purpose of this amendment. Alternatively, there may well be a public lavatory that is part of a wider hereditament, the rest of which has fallen into disuse, but it is all part and parcel of the same rate.
If the public use of a public lavatory is greater than that of the rest of the hereditament of which it is a part, and is thus mainly what happens there—this might be a building that contains other council facilities: a storage shed or office, for example—I do not know how this would be worked out under the Government’s own proposal that everything should rely on “mainly”, where this word applies to use by the public.
The other amendment I was going to put down was about the financial valuation. It may be that a hereditament contains a public lavatory and, to all intents and purposes, is a public lavatory but contains another use: it is a mixed hereditament. I am not talking about a public library—where the lavatory is just a small part of it, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said—or a community centre, where the public lavatory probably would not be there if it did not exist. How do you decide if a council-owned building that consists partly of a public lavatory and partly of something else is “mainly” a public lavatory? Even if the assumed assessment or valuation of the rest of the building for rating purposes is greater than that of the public lavatory, the latter should nevertheless trump—that may not be quite the right word—or prevail over the rest.
I hope the Minister understands what I am saying. First, how does he define “mainly”? Secondly, even if the public lavatory is a smaller part of the area, can it prevail as the main use? Thirdly, if it is not as valuable as the thing it is attached to, whatever that is—a tiny parish council office or something like that—can it nevertheless be the prevailing use? I ask those questions to find out how the provision will actually work in practice: what is the workability of this, as regards public lavatories? Having said that, I beg to move Amendment 2.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My noble friend Lord Greaves has rightly questioned the meaning of “mainly” and its purpose: is it, as he asks, about the extent of public use? He is an experienced user of such probing amendments in seeking to get to the detailed consequences of Bills, and this one is no exception. I am sure the Minister will be able to give a detailed explanation in reply, and I look forward to hearing it.
The other query that my noble friend Lord Greaves rightly raised concerns his information that the cost of paying rates on public toilets is £8 million a year, which is rather different from the £6 million cited by the Minister. It would be good to know the reason for the difference in those figures, and why. Having said that, I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s probing question.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have nothing really to add: the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has set out very clearly and carefully what he seeks to get from his amendment. As we have heard, it is a very good probing amendment that gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to set out carefully for the Committee what is meant by “or mainly”. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, this is a good House of Lords way of getting into the detail of the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Amendment 7 seeks, of course, to provide a welcome definition of what “mainly” could be construed or interpreted as, giving weight to public use of public lavatories. I will leave it there, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am beginning to learn how the House works, and I appreciate the education; I am sure I will get used to this way of drawing out important information. These amendments probe the current definition of a public lavatory that would qualify for this relief, and seek to amend this definition to capture some of the facilities that the Bill does not currently cover.
The Government have carefully drafted the scope of the Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out for the House the rationale behind this decision. Subject to Royal Assent, the relief within this Bill will apply to all hereditaments that
“consist wholly or mainly of public lavatories”.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probes the meaning of “mainly” in this provision. The phrase “wholly or mainly” can be found across government legislation and, in particular, exists within that legislation which provides for an 80% business rate discount to properties used
“wholly or mainly for charitable purposes”,
as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities are responsible for deciding which properties are eligible for business rate relief, and the use of “mainly” provides for some discretion on their part.
However, I will directly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on how this would work in practice. Councils should reflect on all relevant matters, including any relevant case law and guidance, when making these decisions. The use of “mainly” means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria for this relief because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence. That is very similar to the example that the noble Lord gave. The Government consider it right that the Bill provides local authorities with this level of discretion because these are decisions best taken on the ground and on the basis of local knowledge.
The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, follows on from the first and would act to define “mainly” within the Bill in reference to the extent to which a property is used as a public lavatory, rather than for other purposes. I appreciate that the intention of this amendment is to provide for the relief to be available to buildings that do not constitute separately assessed public toilets but that serve that purpose to a large extent. As I set out earlier, an expansion of the relief beyond those toilets that are separately assessed and have already been identified and separately rated would bring with it significant administrative burdens and costs.
In the case of this amendment, local authorities would be required to not just identify qualifying facilities but assess the extent to which the public are using them for different functions. The public use test would be particularly cumbersome because it would go beyond an assessment of a property’s physical elements and would require an analysis of the extent to which these elements are used by the public. The results of such a test could change relatively frequently, and local authorities may need to make the required assessment on a regular basis.
As currently designed, the measure in the Bill does not carry implementation costs disproportionate to the benefits to ratepayers, nor any significant implementation difficulties for local government. As such, we are not in favour of any amendment to this relief which would increase the complexity of its implementation, create unnecessary burdens for local authorities, or indeed create administrative costs disproportionate to the total benefit to ratepayers. However, I would be keen to engage with noble Lords on some of the technical reasons for not expanding the scope of the Bill.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendments, which probe the design of the relief before the Committee. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not consider that the potential benefits of the amendments would outweigh their substantial costs and I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their support in this little group, and I thank the Minister for agreeing that we will have some discussions about it. He said that this would be to explain to us what we did not understand, and that we would then understand it. That is fine; I am totally in favour of understanding things.
I hope that the Government understand that some of us, at least, are trying to help them with this, to produce a slightly better Bill. We are not trying to wreck it and certainly not trying to place lots of extra administrative burdens on local authorities. We are looking for ways in which common-sense solutions can be found to problems which are going to occur. Inevitably, a town council will say, “Why are we paying rates on this and not that?” They are not experts, and it will cause all sorts of grumpiness. Also, it will not do, in some instances, what the Government are trying to do, which is relieve the burden on councils, particularly town and parish councils which are increasingly taking on public conveniences. So I hope the discussion we have will be two-way
The Minister said two things. First, he said that, in deciding what “mainly” means, councils should reflect on all the “relevant case law”. He then said that he did not want to put administrative and other burdens on councils. It sounds to me as if the Government are already admitting that there are going to be problems. If you have got to go to all the relevant case law and goodness knows what, it inevitably results in the creation of new case law, because it will get to the courts.
The second thing the Minister said was that the rationale was similar to that for charitable 80% relief, and that that is for “wholly or mainly” charitable use. The word “use” is crucial there, because the Bill does not say “use”, but
“consists wholly or mainly of public lavatories.”
One of my amendments talks about use. Can we look at that, and give the rating authorities a steer that it is the use which is important, rather than the other things, as the legislation does for charitable relief? That might just be a way forward.
I hope that the Government will not be stubborn and say that they are not going to change this under any circumstances, if there are ways through some of these problems. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw at this stage and look forward to discussions with the Minister.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 3
Moved by
3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “lavatories” insert “which are free of charge for anyone to use”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confine the rate relief to public lavatories that are free of charge to use.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name seeks to add the words
“which are free of charge for anyone to use”
to Clause 1(3). The Bill provides a financial benefit and the effect of my amendment would be to restrict that benefit to public lavatories that are free to use—a very reasonable aspiration and objective. I do not see why those public lavatories that you must pay to use should be a beneficiary of this relief. The purpose of the Bill is to provide encouragement in this area, and I think that this amendment strengthens the Bill in this regard and provides a clear focus on the free use of public lavatories.
Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very sensible and I fully support it. Why should we provide financial benefit when the lavatory is not open for extended parts of the day? But I will let the noble Lord explain his amendment to the Committee.
On a more general point, in resisting amendments in previous groups, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has relied on the argument that the Government do not want to place additional burdens on local authorities and that any savings would be outweighed by the cost of identifying these lavatories. When he replies to the debate, it would be useful if the Minister could evidence that. I have heard nothing from any local authority—the National Association of Local Councils, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils or the Local Government Association—to suggest that the argument that the Minister is relying on has any basis in fact. So it would be useful if he could explain that to the Committee. Or is it just the assertion of the department? I look forward to his response to the debate.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which is fairly basic. I am old enough to remember one of the great hue and cry campaigns by women; it would be called a gender campaign nowadays. Not only did they have to spend an old penny—one of those great big things which people under 40 or 50 have never seen—but they had to go through a turnstile, which caused problems for pregnant women. That was a huge hue and cry at the time and was, I think, sorted out—but there are still plenty of supposedly public lavatories where you have to pay. The most disgraceful ones in my view were at mainline railway stations, which started charging considerably more than a penny, but that seems to be being changed now.
Amendment 10 would prevent bodies benefiting from free rates when the lavatories are not open for a reasonable amount of time and at reasonable times. I am always told by lawyers and Governments that the word “reasonable” should never be put in legislation because all legislation has to be reasonable before you start. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing to discuss in this Committee.
There may well be some public lavatories in tourist areas which are not needed, or not in such quantity, at some times of the year. There may be ones which are needed at some times of the week and not others. It may be perfectly reasonable to lock public lavatories overnight to prevent them being used for undesirable purposes. That was certainly done in my part of the world. There may, indeed, be public lavatories which are open only on special occasions because of where they are and what takes place there. We used to have one which was opened at various times of the year, particularly on Remembrance Day, because it was next to the cenotaph. What is reasonable ought to be up to local decision-making by the owners of the lavatories, but they ought to be stopped from keeping them shut when they ought to be open. That decision ought to be made by the rating authority.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who referred earlier to some confusion in the Bill about what a public lavatory is, in terms of ownership. Does this Bill apply only to facilities owned by councils or by other public bodies, or to other voluntary bodies and charities as well? Does it apply to commercial enterprises that might provide a public lavatory at the entrance of their commercial facility—there might be a park, or whatever—which is open all the time for public use? Could the Minister clarify that? Is it use as a public lavatory, under the Minister’s terms, that matters, or, is it who owns it that matters? That would be a helpful clarification.
My amendment is about how the Government are going to stop people freeloading and getting rate relief when they are not providing the facility they ought to be.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are important and relevant issues to explore in Amendments 3 and 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Greaves, respectively. When a financial benefit is to be gained, as there is in this Bill, it inevitably becomes an issue of dispute at some time in the future when some realise that they are not getting rate relief on their provision of public toilets while others are. That is why it is important to explore what the Government are proposing here.
As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Kennedy, there is a considerable range of public toilet facilities. Some are open only during the day and some not at the weekend; some require payment, and some do not. We need to understand the implications of this variety of provision for the purposes of the Bill. Is it acceptable to make a small charge for a public toilet facility and get the rate relief proposed in this Bill? What will happen if that small charge becomes ever larger? Is it still right, then, that that facility is zero-rated? These two amendments indicate that what may appear to be simple, straightforward changes can have inconsistent consequences once the detail of the implementation is exposed, as it has been so expertly this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, wanted to know the evidence that this would cause a burden disproportionate to the level of relief provided. The reality is that, under these proposals, we are not asking local authorities or the Valuation Office Agency to do anything in addition to what they already do. But where we are widening the scope, we are asking local authorities to do something they do not currently do, so by definition that will increase burdens on them and, in some cases, on the Valuation Office Agency.
The effect of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, would be to apply a set of conditions that would need to be satisfied before the relief could be granted. I will expand on the reasons why I do not believe these are helpful in the operation of the relief. As a principle, I do not agree we should be moving away from the clear and simple aims of the policy by limiting this much-needed support.
The effect of Amendment 3 would be to exclude those who own and run facilities where a small fee is charged from receiving this relief. The Government’s policy aim and purpose in Clause 1 is to target the relief to best support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about free-to-use public toilets. Nevertheless, the purpose of this Bill is to provide targeted support to separately assessed public lavatories, recognising the particular circumstances they face, not to draw a distinction between those that charge and those that do not. Such a distinction would add complexity, uncertainty and an unnecessary administrative burden for local authorities and would increase the pressure on those facilities that are not able to access this support. I do not agree that those ratepayers that operate a public lavatory and charge a minimal fee for the first service should be excluded from this vital support.
I understand the practice of charging a fee is reducing, but those that charge do so on the basis of a commercial decision. In some cases, that fee may be charged to meet the ongoing costs of maintenance and cleaning, which is entirely reasonable. Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of knowing which facilities charge and what services they provide, so I welcome the work of the British Toilet Association, which provides an online service called the Great British Public Toilet Map, which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This provides visitors with critical information about toilets in a specific area, including whether they are free to use, whether they are accessible and whether they have baby-changing facilities. Users can then make a decision in good knowledge and plan appropriately. I also commend the community toilet scheme, which was first devised by the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and is now used by local authorities across the country. This enables local businesses to work with councils to widen lavatory access so the public can use their facilities without making a purchase.
Amendment 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would limit the relief on the condition that the facilities should be open at set times and days as reasonably necessary. As I have outlined, our aim is to increase the support for the provision of public toilets, not to reduce the level of assistance for facilities that are most in need of support. I would not support the creation of a further burden on authorities to assess and police the opening and closing times of a toilet before awarding relief. The establishment of such a regime would be disproportionate to the value of the relief and would not represent good value for money to the taxpayer. As I have set out, the relief applies only to occupied facilities and is awarded only in these circumstances. While I understand the intention of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, in practice, they may, at best, be unhelpful and, at worst, unnecessarily increase pressure on toilets to close.
I hope that I have helped clarify the Government’s intention about how the measure would apply. With these assurances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, can agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. We are identifying issues the Government should reflect on before this Bill comes back on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has not sought to challenge my general point from my earlier remarks, that the position of the Government, in resisting any amendment here today, is that we are creating burdens on local authorities that far outweigh the benefits. Yet, as I have said, I have looked and cannot find any organisation from local government—the LGA, the Welsh LGA, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, the National Association of Local Councils—or, in fact, any local council or local authority in England or Wales that would support the Government’s position. If they actually asked them, I suspect there would be a lot of support from local authorities for increasing the benefits of support for their network of public toilets. I will leave that point there, and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 4
Moved by
4: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “lavatories” insert “of a prescribed description”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the Government has power to require that the lavatories are provided and operated in accordance with national standards, making proper provision for the various needs of their potential clientele including the disabled, parents with children, women and trans people.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I urge the Government to take the opportunity to give the Bill some wording that expands its ambit, and to take advantage of the leverage that it gives them—as the noble Lord has noted, it is a generous disbursement of funds—to achieve other policy objectives. The policy objective that I, personally, would like the Bill to support is whatever the outcome is of the Government’s current review of toilet provision in general.
It has been a joke all my life, let alone my noble friend’s life, how there is always a queue at the ladies and none at the gents. We have not had equal provision in relation to demand. We now need to recognise that there are people—particularly those who are committed transgender—who are not easily able to take advantage of toilets that are just for men or just for women. Having toilets that are universally unisex, such as those in the Old Vic and the Department for Education visitor accommodation, is extremely difficult for many women and some men, including me, to put up with.
There are, therefore, matters of policy relating to the provision of toilets that we can reasonably anticipate will come to the fore over the next couple of years. It would be good to give the Government, in this Bill, the ability to lever the rates relief that they are giving in order to achieve their policies. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, we may find that over time there will be opportunities to expand the Bill’s ambit to other worthwhile premises in ways which, as my noble friend insisted, go along with the modus operandi of the valuation office. That is fine, but we are missing a chance if we leave the Bill as it is and do not give the Government additional power along the lines that I have suggested. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is not clear to me why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, believes that it is necessary to—I quote—prescribe a definition of public lavatories. It is not clear what policy objective would be achieved by his amendments. Without wishing to cause offence, that clarity has not been expanded during the noble Lord’s introduction of the amendment.
As we have already heard, there is currently a huge variety of provision: some are in old-style toilet blocks, some include Changing Places and some include baby changing facilities. Some modern provision consists of a single facility into which only one person at a time can enter. Some public toilets are unisex, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explained. That is increasingly the case in modern office blocks. I have never heard anyone being particularly concerned about that provision. Public toilets are simply a facility for members of the public. I do not on earth see what is gained by prescribing a definition.
The best thing we can do, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explain his amendments, is agree to disagree with him. I, for one, cannot support this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 4 and 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enable us to debate important issues. He seeks to ensure that lavatories that operate in accordance with national standards benefit from this relief.
The trade union Unison has campaigned on the issue of disability and the barriers that disabled people face when using a standard toilet. Many disabilities are hidden. The sign that we often see indicating disabled facilities is a person in a wheelchair, but fewer than 10% of people who meet the Equality Act definition of disability use a wheelchair. Signs that say “Some disabilities are invisible” have become more prevalent given the requirements of the pandemic restrictions. Crohn’s disease and colitis are two examples of conditions that may mean that a person has to use a disabled toilet facility while having no outward signs of disability.
As we move forward we need a greater understanding and respect for difference, and we must ensure that people are protected. These are not easy issues; if they were we would not be debating them today. What we also need is many more Changing Places toilets, which are a very important to cater for. We will get on to this later.
The comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reminded me that all the toilets by the reception at Southwark Council are gender-neutral, individual toilets. They are there for public use. So things are certainly changing, but we must at all times have respect for difference and for people. As we move forward on these issues we must ensure we keep those thoughts to the forefront and provide the facilities that people need.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendments, which would provide the Government with the power to limit this relief to only those toilets that meet prescribed criteria of their choosing. The underpinning nature of the amendments is the desire to see toilets for all, and I am very supportive of the need to have toilets for those who need disabled access, gender-neutral toilets and gender-specific toilets. As I set out to the House earlier, the Government do not intend to limit the measure within the Bill to only those toilets that meet certain criteria. Subject to Royal Assent, the Bill will support the provision of separately assessed toilets across the country. I therefore do not agree that it would be right to make any amendments which could limit the benefits of this measure.
Furthermore, limiting the relief to only those public lavatories that fit a prescribed description would place a significant burden on local authorities, which will be responsible for administering the relief. Well-intentioned though the amendment is, it would weaken the effectiveness of the legislation were we to require its provisions to be subject to a new, locally administered system of controls.
While I appreciate the arguments that my noble friend Lord Lucas made in support of the Government having the power to make this relief more specific, any benefits must be weighed against the consequential impact on local authorities of using such a power. Although I do not think that the Bill would be improved by these amendments, I appreciate the points that my noble friend makes about the standards of our public toilets.
The Government are interested not just in the total number of public toilets in this country but in ensuring that everyone in our communities feels confident and comfortable using them. This means maintaining hygiene standards and ensuring fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets.
Noble Lords may therefore wish to note that the technical review of toilets launched by the Government will consider the ratio of female toilets needed versus the number for men and take into account the needs of all members of the community, to ensure fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets. The call for evidence, which closes on Friday, has received over 15,000 responses; a government response will be published in due course. As part of this review, the merits of any best practice guidance on the provision of gender-neutral toilets will be considered, alongside any guidance on the necessary provision of access to disabled toilets. These considerations also include provisions for older people and parents with very young children who need changing facilities.
I hope this reassures my noble friend that the Government are supportive of not just the total number of public toilets but the vital importance of ensuring that appropriate facilities are available to all. On this basis—and the basis that the potential administrative burden resulting from these amendments would outweigh the benefits—I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his obiter dicta on the Government’s general intentions in this area, which I applaud. I can see that he has clearly understood the intent of my amendment and disagrees with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment 4 withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 5. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 5
Moved by
5: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “zero”, insert “; and where, on a chargeable day, the hereditament consists partly of public lavatories, the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the public lavatories shall be separately calculated and the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the hereditament shall be reduced by the amount calculated in respect of those public lavatories.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give rate relief to premises that consist partly of public lavatories according to the proportion of the premises occupied by those lavatories.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 5 in my name provides for a relief where there is a public toilet in part of a premises by enabling it to be calculated and charged separately and benefit from the zero rating. It would provide welcome support for public lavatories, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will embrace it.
Amendment 6, also in my name, seeks to provide rate relief to a premises with a Changing Places facility. We need to do much more to support Changing Places facilities; providing this relief would be a very positive way to do so. Changing Places facilities provide the necessary space and equipment for people with disabilities —more than a standard accessible toilet can cater for. I mentioned at Second Reading that the Tower of London, a Historic Royal Palace, has a Changing Places facility installed. Noble Lords will know that that building’s construction dates from 1066, after the Norman conquest. The facility is in the New Armouries building, which was built in 1663. It has installed a Changing Places facility; we should follow its example and do the same elsewhere.
When lockdown ends, we want people to be able to get out, meet family and friends and do all the things we have all longed to do for so long. However, for disabled people wanting to enjoy those things that we often take for granted, we need to ensure more adequate, better and more suitable provision. It is not a lot to ask for. It is about dignity and letting people have the freedom to enjoy themselves. Supporting Changing Places facilities is a very welcome thing that we should all do. My Amendment 6 is a small step to encourage the provision of more Changing Places facilities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, can provide a positive response. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, the formula proposed by this group of amendments raises an interesting practical question. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said on Amendment 6 about the desire to provide for Changing Places facilities where required, but my interest is in a more practical question: whether what is proposed here works with the normal principles of rating and valuation law.
I understand that it is proposed to extend the relief to the more usual situation where there is a public lavatory, or perhaps more than one, within a larger building which is not accessible from outside—the situation contemplated by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in Amendment 9, which we considered earlier. This being so, these amendments correctly assume that a value has been given to the building as a whole; they seek to extract from that value the amount attributable to the public lavatory or lavatories by asking for it or them to be valued separately and the value given to the building as a whole reduced accordingly. As I said earlier, I am not and never was a valuer, but I fear that the exercise that the amendment contemplates is not nearly as simple as it might seem. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, touched on this earlier.
The problem is one that a valuer would readily identify. First, it is not normal for individual elements in a building, such as public lavatories, to be given values in the course of making up the value for the hereditament as a whole, so a valuation exercise would have to be undertaken which is not normally—indeed, probably never has been—undertaken in the course of the valuations we have today. There is also a consequence for the other part of the building that does not consist of these lavatories—the effect of extracting the value and whether the value attributable to the remainder can be properly sustained without some kind of examination. I suspect that this approach runs into quite difficult valuation problems which a valuer would need to explore with the Minister to see whether they could be resolved.
There may be an alternative solution. I mentioned earlier the example of charitable relief; this time I will take another. Rather than engaging in the rather difficult exercise I have hinted at, it might be worth considering applying a derating formula across the board to all hereditaments comprising public lavatories. There is precedent for that approach in a statute introduced in the 1920s to provide relief for industrial hereditaments. These were hereditaments that were shown to be occupied and used as a mine, factory or workshop. The details are to be found in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928. Hereditaments which met the tests for being treated as subjects of that kind were entitled to a reduction of half their annual value. The aim was to deal with the acute problems of unemployment and to stimulate the economy by encouraging the development of subjects for industrial use. Of course, an enormous problem was being addressed there that was shared across the economy as a whole, and one can well understand the measure and the extent of the relief that derating provided. I should mention that that statute was repealed some years ago so does not apply today.
A 50% reduction would be out of all proportion to what we are talking about when considering the public lavatories element in the overall hereditament, but that does not affect the principle on which the relief was given in these cases: that it is possible, without getting embroiled in detailed valuation exercises, simply to introduce a form of derating for a desirable purpose to encourage whatever one seeks to encourage. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, might find it worth considering a 1% or 2% deduction from the overall figure, perhaps adjustable by statutory instrument in the light of experience, as an alternative to the rather complicated valuation exercises that this group of amendments contemplates.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am attracted to the idea that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has just advanced. After Second Reading, I had a very long and entertaining conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the technical subject of valuation. Some of it may have stuck in my brain, but the overall impression that this was not a simple matter certainly stuck there—in particular, the idea that the uplift in rateable value that comes from having a toilet can be quite substantial. It makes, for instance, the upper floors of a department store much more attractive than one might think. So there are considerable complications underlying the process, and if a toilet was subtracted from the whole, the question of how that whole would be valued fairly—when a toilet is available but it is not being rated—becomes quite complicated. At least, that is the strong impression that I was left with after my conversation.
Having embarked on this course, the Government ought to be encouraged to continue down it. We ought to find a way to encourage those institutions that could comfortably provide public toilet facilities, and have their own reasons for doing so, in particular to encourage people to come into them or as part of their contribution to the society that they are embedded in. If a business is doing that, it seems reasonable that it should receive some recognition of it from the Government. It is providing a public service and we ought to find a way of supporting that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, illustrated one way of doing it. I think even that would have its complications, in that one would have to ask, “Is the business doing enough to deserve the 1% or 2% that would be deducted from its business rates?” However, I really encourage the Government to look down that road and prepare to take steps down it, even if they cannot do so today.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, these amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explore the opportunities for public toilets within a public building that are not separately rated, so that they may benefit from the purposes of the Bill. In particular, Amendment 6 seeks to achieve the benefits of the Bill for those facilities providing changing places. These are inevitably included within public buildings, where there is the large amount of space available to provide changing places.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shared his expertise on these matters. He provides alternative thinking about derating hereditaments that provide public toilet facilities. The principle is sound; we all seek today to find ways of supporting public toilets through the financial benefit provided by the Bill, and not just those which are stand-alone. I hope that the Minister will, with his department, think carefully about the solution that the noble and learned Lord is pointing to. I certainly hope that we will be able to explore it on Report.
I for one support any means for exempting non-domestic rates where there is a public benefit. This debate has revealed the total incoherence of non-domestic rating. For example, in my own town of Cleckheaton the public toilets we have as part of our small market hall are separately rated and cost the council £15,000 a year in rates. These are no grand-affair public toilets; they are just two toilets, one for men and one for women. The cost of the rates is by far the largest element of expenditure on the upkeep of these toilets, yet they provide a free public benefit. The rate charged on this humble public toilet block is far in excess, in ratio terms, of that charged on an out-of-town warehouse providing storage for online shopping. This is all out of kilter.
Fundamental reform is essential and the Government have for too long avoided taking these difficult decisions. I hope that the Minister will consider all the helpful suggestions made this afternoon and be willing to think again about the contents of the Bill. I look forward to his reply today, and to further discussions and further debate on Report.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the backing that the Committee has given to the measures in the Bill and recognise the arguments made in support of extending the relief further still. The first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would provide for relief to be given to properties which contain public toilets that are not separately assessed, and for that relief to be determined according to the proportion of that property occupied by the public toilet. The second would have the same effect, but separately for properties which contain Changing Places facilities.
In designing the scope of the Bill, the Government have given due consideration to the benefits to our communities of extending the relief to those toilets that are not currently separately assessed. However, these benefits must be weighed against the significant practical and financial implications of implementing such a relief. I hope that my colleagues present today have received a copy of the letter of 2 February setting out these implications in detail—actually, I think most noble Lords today have referred to it. For the benefit of the Committee, I will set them out again now.
The Government have taken the deliberate approach of targeting the measure within the Bill at supporting those toilets that appear separately on business rates lists. This means that this support will be available to those facilities for which the cost of business rates has the largest bearing on their ability to remain open. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require the separate assessment of the rateable value of public toilets that sit within larger properties, and for the awarding of a business rates discount relative to the proportion of the property that the toilet occupies.
A valuation exercise to provide an apportioned relief would be extensive and require the Valuation Office Agency to first identify where the facilities are, and then to assess the specific rateable value of each toilet relative to the property of which it forms a part. This exercise would carry significant financial and temporal costs, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It would require business rates valuers to carry out assessments and, where needed, to make site visits up and down the country. As such, it would divert critical VOA resources from the priority of delivering the 2023 revaluation and could potentially delay the implementation of the core measure of the Bill before the Committee today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned a formula-based approach to derating. This would also result in considerable burdens, for example by requiring the VOA to identify the location of the public toilets. Obviously, the scale of the intervention is different from that for mines in the 1928 Act, but I am happy to discuss that technical approach with my officials between now and Report.
I am proud to be here today championing a measure that will be of great value to our communities. While I recognise the importance of all publicly accessible toilets, the cost of extending this relief according to the amendment would be significant—far greater than the financial benefit to operators of such facilities. I hope that the Committee will agree that a relief with implementation costs disproportionate to its financial benefits would not represent good value for money for taxpayers.
Although extending relief to toilets that form part of larger properties would undoubtedly bring about significant and disproportionate costs and practical difficulties, I appreciate that the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, concerns Changing Places toilets in particular. I therefore hope that the Committee will allow me to set out the steps that the Government have already taken to support these vital facilities.
I am proud to belong to a Government who are delivering on their commitment to provide more Changing Places toilets. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced a £30 million fund to further extend the provision of these vital facilities and my department will shortly set out the allocation of this funding. I would be happy to provide my colleagues in the House with further details on this funding once they are available.
The funding comes on top of the £2 million announced by the Department for Transport to provide Changing Places toilets at motorway services and the £2 million made available by the Department of Health and Social Care to install these facilities in NHS hospitals across England. I hope that that reassures the Committee that where a Changing Places toilet is separately assessed, the measures in the Bill, subject to Royal Assent, act to reduce the business rates liability of these facilities to nil. While there are significant practical reasons why the Bill does not cover toilets—Changing Places or otherwise—within larger buildings, the Government are delivering on their commitment to supporting Changing Places toilets directly through grant funding.
I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his explanation of what would appear to be a far simpler method of achieving what I am seeking to do. I might have a look at that before Report as it seems to be a simpler method.
I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, I am pleased to learn of the additional government expenditure on Changing Places facilities. It is good to hear but we need to do more and go further. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 5 withdrawn.
Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 8. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 8
Moved by
8: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(8E) Subsection (4I) does not provide any relief from non-domestic rates under the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that rates continue to be charged on public lavatories that are permanently locked up and out of use.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the Deputy Chairman really ought not to continue tempting me to call a Division but, never mind, I am not going to.
I tried to do some research. In May this year, it will be 50 years since I was first elected to a local authority and I thought that I knew about things such as business rates and so on. I have discovered in the past week or two that I do not know much at all. They are complicated and technical. I thought that I would ring up the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and have a conversation with him but I have been advised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not to do that because I might get too far into this subject.
As part and parcel of this matter, I have been looking at the Government’s rating manual, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the regulations that are referred to in Clause 2, and discovered why no amendments have been tabled to that clause because I doubt any noble Lords who might want to table amendments to it would understand a word of it. However, I thought it necessary to table an amendment on empty properties.
The amendment is technically totally hopeless—I am certain about that—but it contains the words “empty properties”. All I want to do is use it to ask the Government: can they give a guarantee that the Bill will not allow people to pay no rates on public lavatories that they have closed? I am aware that local authorities all over the country nowadays charge rates on all kinds of empty properties, which used not to be possible. I do not want people to be able to close public lavatories and still have rate relief on them as a result of the Bill; in other words, I am asking that the Bill should not trump other legislation that allows local authorities to continue to rate empty property, and that people will not be able get away with that. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves’ Amendment 8 rightly explores the possibility of closed public toilets being eligible for the relief under the Bill. As those toilets provide no relief for the public, it is quite proper that no relief is provided for the authority paying the rates. It is clearly an issue that we need to explore, and be certain that the legislation ensures that authorities do not benefit from closing public toilets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will able to provide some clarity on it. The amendment, on the face of it, highlights what would be an incentive to keep a public lavatory open. I look forward to the Minister’s response because, from what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it would be perverse if, by closing a public lavatory, one would be eligible for rate relief. I am sure that that is not the Bill’s intention but it is important to get clarity from the Government on the issue that the noble Lord rightly raised.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to give that clarification. I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his amendment and support what he is trying to achieve. However, let me set out why it is unnecessary. His aim is to ensure that the relief cannot be applied in circumstances where a public toilet is permanently closed and out of use. I can assure the noble Lord that this is the Government’s intention. The Bill is therefore structured to reflect that aim. The Bill will amend only Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which relates only to occupied hereditaments. The Bill would therefore ensure that the relief would apply only to eligible occupied hereditaments, not to unoccupied public lavatories. As usual, local authorities will be responsible for determining the award of relief, having regard to the legislation, as they do with other relief schemes.
I hope that that clarification on how the measure would apply will help the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I will read carefully the Minister’s reply—and go one more step towards being able to pass my GCSE in business rating. I accept his assurance that what he said will be the case. As on all these occasions, if it happens not to be the case, we will come back and harass him in the House. However, his reply was acceptable; I will read it carefully and attempt to understand it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
Do I take it that the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment?
Amendment 8 withdrawn.
Amendments 9 and 10 not moved.
Clause 1 agreed.
Clause 2 agreed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 11
Moved by
11: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Assessment of the impact of Act on provision of public lavatories
The Secretary of State must within one year of the passing of this Act conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the provision of public lavatories.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, seeks to insert a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the Act. The Bill, though small, provides for significant rate relief for public toilets as they become zero-rated. In those circumstances, the Government would surely want to see what the effect of the policy has been. The proposed new clause would bring that into effect.
I am happy to support Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which goes well with my amendment, by giving us information, year on year, about the effect that the policy is having, given that it will be costing the public purse revenue of which it would otherwise be in receipt. If we found that public toilets were still closing, that would be useful information to help us consider how we keep them open and whether something else needs to be done.
Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thomas of Winchester, is on a similar theme to Amendments 11 and 13, but has an important emphasis on the review to look at the effectiveness of the Act in increasing accessible toilets and, in particular, Changing Places facilities, which we have talked about in earlier groups. I can see how beneficial it would be for the Government to have this information to hand. It would enable them to see that the Act was working effectively or highlight that more work needed to be done.
Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, is in a similar place. It picks up on the point and gives power to make a recommendation whether other measures in this area need to be introduced.
I like all the amendments in this group. Perhaps all those who tabled them should get together before Report to table one amendment that takes all these points on board.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me to speak to Amendment 13 in her name. We very much share the sentiments just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We all support this Bill and want to see it succeed. We want it as a foundation on which a renaissance in publicly available toilet facilities can proceed down the next decade or so. To know that we are succeeding or to know where any problems or challenges lie, we need good data. We therefore hope that the Government will accept an obligation to publish that information so that we can cheer them for their successes and encourage them to do better where that appears to be needed. It took around 50 years to persuade Victorian authorities to install public lavatories, let alone to agree funding and rates for them. With luck, because of this legislation, we will see increased provision at a much quicker rate. This amendment would let us keep track of progress and would be an essential expression of Parliament’s support for this measure.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I so agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just said. I support Amendment 11, but am speaking to Amendment 14, which follows Amendment 11 in this group, calling on the Government to undertake a review of the impact of the Act on the provision of accessible lavatories within a year of its passing.
There are three reasons why we need to know whether the change in rating for stand-alone public loos is resulting in more accessible facilities. First, the population is getting older, so there will be more disabled and elderly people about in the future than there are now, which means that the need for accessible toilets will grow. Secondly, sadly, there will not be so many food outlets on the high street which have accessible toilets for use by the general public, because of multiple closures in the wake of the pandemic. Thirdly, thousands of disabled people, like me, have spent the last year shielding, which means that they will not have been out and about. Many will now be more fearful than ever about going out without knowing where they can spend a penny in an accessible toilet. The Minister may say that any review should be done by local authorities, but we will not have a national picture unless the Government take ownership of it. Perhaps the British Toilet Association could help with up-to-date information.
I asked the Minister, at a meeting to which he kindly agreed, whether he could tell us how the £30 million rollout of Changing Places was going. These wonderful facilities are absolutely vital to about 250,000 disabled people. They are needed in town centres, arts venues, hospitals and wherever there are large gatherings of people. We have heard a bit about them this afternoon. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to give us more specific information at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and to support what she said. I am speaking in support of Amendment 11 and particularly to Amendment 13. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is not able to be in her place today, because we all know what a superb advocate she is for all these matters. I am happy to support these amendments, because they are significant.
Amendment 13 makes clear what everybody who supports the Bill already knows: that we want to ensure that it works; that it is seen to be working; and that the evidence is collected and available for us to see. There is a matter of principle here: that public policy changes should be seen to be effective, especially when public money is involved; that when local funds are dedicated to a particular purpose, they are used for that purpose; and that there is transparency and agency in local and national government.
There is also a practical issue here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we have waited a long time for practical and universal initiatives to be taken to stop the closure of public lavatories and to place them in their proper context, which is within a robust and vigilant policy for local health and safety, rather than in some afterthought where no one is really interested in what happens to them.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is very welcome, but it would be a major disappointment if the funding that is going to be generated is not used for that purpose. We have to know the impact of the Bill, that it works and that it has achieved its purpose, and we need the evidence to be published. As other noble Lords have said, it is all the more crucial that we know this, because the measures will be introduced at a time when local authorities have never been more strapped, and it has never been more difficult to decide on priorities. We need to know that this small change will take its place in the range of priorities.
Local government needs financial and political investment to repair the damage and help to rebuild communities. I think that the Bill is part of that and part of the fabric of our whole public health and preventive health system, for the personal reasons that many noble Lords have raised today, and as part of a series of principles. I support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response. I cannot see any possible reason for rejecting them and I hope I am right in that respect.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, all the amendments in this group are designed to ensure that the Bill is not the end of the matter, and that the Government are forced to confront the appalling and declining state of public conveniences in Britain. The Bill will not start to tackle the many problems. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that it will involve redistributing £6 million back to local authorities in England. There are 343 local authorities in England—of course, I realise that there is some double counting because of two-tier areas—but this number does not include parish councils. There are 9,000 of those, many of which go on to take responsibility for public toilets. The Committee can immediately see from those figures that £6 million will not go far; it will be swallowed up in the general budget of local authorities, which are chronically short of cash.
My own Amendment 15 is designed to ensure that, in good time, the Government are obliged to undertake a comprehensive review of public toilet provision. Are there enough of them and are they clean, well designed, well maintained and so on? As a result of this review, the Government should bring forward further measures. I realise that they are already undertaking a technical review of the accessibility and provision of public toilets for men and women. My intention with Amendment 15 is to ensure that the review is expanded and that a year after the Bill becomes an Act it is looked at to assess its effectiveness, if any.
In my amendment, I use “communities” to apply an all-encompassing term, because when one comes to the groups that have greater and specific needs, it is a long list. The issues for people with disabilities and, where relevant, their carers have already been covered very effectively by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester. When I was a Mencap ambassador for Changing Places toilets, I was always struck by the poor design of many toilets intended for people with disabilities. The money had been spent and the provision was there, but the design was poor, so the Changing Places toilets are a huge bonus.
Parents with children—men and women—need special facilities. It is not just a case of needing unisex baby-changing facilities: as children get older, there is a need for cubicles large enough for both parents and children. Why do the cubicle doors always open inwards, when they could provide so much more room if they opened outwards? Some 14 million people in the UK have bowel and bladder problems, and they need catering for. Adequate numbers of cubicles for women are needed. They have physiological reasons for taking roughly twice as long as men to use the toilet; add to that pregnancy and menstruation, and you have additional needs. I have spent a noticeable amount of my life queueing for toilets, as I am sure any female listeners would agree.
Facilities need to take account of societal and community circumstances. There is a trend towards the conversion of cubicles to gender-neutral provision. Gender-neutral facilities are important for a number of reasons, including, for example, when fathers wish to take young daughters to the toilet and when mothers wish to take young boys to one. But, for religious and cultural reasons, many women are simply unable to use unisex toilets. Additional gender-neutral facilities should not be provided at the expense of current facilities for men and women. They are needed, but not at the cost of what we already have.
Throughout this debate, the Minister has repeatedly referred to costs. I fear that he is missing the point entirely. He will not get a major improvement without some expenditure. I urge him and his officials to investigate what is really going on and what is needed, and to consult, for example, the British Toilet Association, which advises on the design and operation of public toilets. Its advice ensures that money is well spent. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to compatibility with human rights; I would argue that public toilet provision in the UK is so poor that it is a human rights issue, and of itself the Bill will not affect that situation.
While I am here, I also urge the Government to look again at the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act 1963. It required local authorities to remove turnstiles from public toilets. Only railways, for no good reason, are exempt from this legislation. Any noble Lords who have tried using toilets in railway stations will recognise the huge problems that causes for passengers with luggage, children or a buggy.
I urge the Government to be bold. Governments have failed to stem the decline in the numbers and quality of public toilets since the 1980s. They have failed to address the traditionally inadequate provision for women and the lack of facilities for people with disabilities. The last year has made us even more aware of the importance of cleanliness. At Second Reading I referred to the impact of sudden unlocking early last summer, when people travelled to the coast but shops and cafés with toilets were still shut. A hygiene crisis spoiled the day out for thousands of people.
I urge the Government to recognise that the Bill on its own solves nothing. They need to take this situation forward to a better place. In 2021, the availability of clean public toilets is a reasonable expectation for us all. As we recover as a country from Covid, we need to encourage our tourism industry. The state of our public conveniences is a source of national shame. For this reason, if for nothing else, the Government need to do more than just this Bill.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I support these important amendments, and I ask the Government particularly to pay attention to the three powerful speeches we have just heard from my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Those three speeches sum up what the future really ought to be for public provision in this area. When the Government say they are carrying out a technical review, I am afraid that I am a bit cynical about the word “technical” in this respect. I am sure that their intentions are good, but it is more than just technical. It is about basic humanity and a basic provision of human-based services for all people. As I say, I hope that the Government will take this seriously.
To pick up on two or three particular points, parish and town councils are absolutely crucial in the future provision of public lavatories. Although they do not cover anything like a majority of electors in this country, they do cover a huge number of small and medium-sized communities. These are places that people go to, or through, and where people go for holidays and recreation. It is crucial that they are provided with the necessary resources to do what we all want to do, which is, in many places, to turn old inadequate Victorian and Edwardian public conveniences into modern provisions of the kind that people have been talking about which are suitable for everybody.
To do that, they need resources. I keep being told, and the National Association of Local Councils have been told, by the Government that they have no powers to provide funding for parish councils. That was almost the exact wording that I was given in a Written Answer from the Minister, not too long ago. I do not believe that; I think it is complete baloney. The Government can provide funding for projects on almost anything they want. They could certainly provide capital funding through some scheme or other for parish and town councils to renovate and modernise their existing public conveniences and provide new lavatories. I hope that the Government look seriously at that in their technical review because, if they are going to be provided, in many places the town and parish councils will have to do it.
Secondly, I asked a question earlier and the Minister did not reply, on whether the Bill applies to all kinds of ownership—public bodies including councils, voluntary groups including charities and commercial organisations, some of which may be charities. He said separately, in reply on another amendment, that the Bill applies specifically to lavatories that appear on business rate lists. Is that the definition? Does it therefore apply to any public lavatories that appear on business rate lists, whoever owns them, even if it does not apply to lots that are publicly provided?
My final point is on burdens to councils. As the Minister well knows, councils love to talk about, involve themselves in and do something about very local facilities. I understand the difficulties of providing extra burdens on the VOA, particularly at this stage, but I believe that, in a relatively small number of cases, public lavatories could be provided with the relief in this Bill by giving some discretion to local authorities, in some way. I do not believe that local authorities would regard that as a great burden, but as part of their ordinary job. We are not talking about a lot. I have a list of eight public lavatories that are on the business rates list in my own area of Pendle in Lancashire—only eight. The numbers that might benefit from the Bill, if it was extended a little, are not more than that. We are talking about single figures in most local authorities, certainly most ordinary districts. They could cope with that perfectly well and would not complain about the extra burden; they would welcome the ability to influence things a little for the better.
Having said that, I very much support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope that we see a few improvements to the Bill from the Government, when we get to Report, to make it even better than it is now.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is an important series of amendments. My noble friend Lady Thomas knows, at first hand, the challenges facing people with disabilities as they seek to do what the rest of us take for granted. Before people with disabilities venture out, questions have to be answered. Is there an accessible public toilet? Is its accessibility such that it meets the needs of, say, those using larger mobility aids? Is it open at the appropriate times? How easy is it to access? Negative answers to these questions may well mean that someone with a disability is unable to go on a trip or holiday, or simply shopping.
My noble friend’s Amendment 14 is hugely important and I am proud that it is also in my name. I urge the Minister to take these concerns seriously, as I feel sure he will, and to press his ministerial colleagues to make them a priority. During this lockdown, we have all had the experience of not being able just to go out, when we want to. For people with disabilities, this can happen all the time. Ensuring there are accessible and available public toilets goes some way to remove one of their barriers to freedom.
My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke to Amendment 15, which is also in my name. My noble friend has had a long connection with those who rightly want to make the accessibility, cleanliness and availability of public toilets a national priority. As always, she made a powerful case. The least that the Government can do is to accede to the requests couched in these amendments and make the provision of public toilets that meet high standards one of their priorities. This is a public health issue, and we have all learned that we ignore the consequences of public health requirements at our peril.
Amendments 11 and 13, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, also make the case for assessing the impact of the Bill when it is enacted. In my view, assessment of the impact of new legislation should occur as a matter of course—it is surprising that it does not already—but it is important that an assessment of the Bill’s impact is made and that we learn from what has occurred as a consequence.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that all the amendments in this group are important and deserve to form part of a single amendment on Report, if the Minister is unable to concede to these requests at this stage. I look forward to hearing his response and hope that he is able to have discussions prior to Report, because it is in all our interests to make best use of the Bill, to make sure that the financial benefit it offers is available to others who offer public toilets and that we raise the standards of public toilets throughout the country.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, these amendments would require the Government to carry out an assessment of the impact of the relief on the provision of public toilets. The first, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require an assessment to be made within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, while the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would require an assessment of the impact to be published on a recurring, annual basis. The amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Pinnock, would require an assessment to be made with particular reference to accessible toilets and Changing Places facilities. The fourth amendment, which has been tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, would require such an assessment to review the impact of the relief on the cleanliness and maintenance of public toilets and the provision of baby changing facilities, in addition to the impact on the overall provision of public lavatories.
I appreciate the interest that noble Lords have in the efficacy of the measure within the Bill and assure the House that the Government keep all business rate reliefs under review. I also want to meet with interested noble Lords and the British Toilet Association before Report to see how we can review implementation of this relief. That is an important step and, I hope, will be an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that have been raised.
Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that I failed to answer earlier. I can confirm that the relief for all separately assessed toilets applies irrespective of ownership. I want to be clear on that point.
On the provision of public lavatories, the Committee may be interested in the data that is already published annually, to which I have already referred. There are some 3,990 separately assessed public toilets in England and Wales, and this figure is constantly updated and monitored. We do not want to see reductions, and it is clear that by significantly reducing the operating costs of these facilities, the measures in the Bill will help to keep public toilets open up and down the country.
While these measures constitute a significant element of support for these facilities, a number of other factors determine whether a toilet is able to remain open. Ultimately, the decisions on whether to maintain or close a facility must be made by the operator of the facility, often the local council. These decisions will usually be based on wider funding pressures, as well as the number of toilets elsewhere in the local area.
The Government strongly support the continued operation of our public toilets. As I set out earlier, we are providing £30 million of grant funding to directly support the provision of Changing Places toilets in particular. I also set out at Second Reading some of the good work that councils have undertaken through community toilet schemes to maintain and increase provision in their local areas. However, it is clear that there are a number of factors that determine whether a toilet is able to stay open, and it would not be possible to attribute any future changes in the overall provision of public lavatories, or facilities of any specific type, solely to the measures in this Bill. Equally, I do not envisage any direct link between business rates relief and the maintenance and cleanliness of existing public toilets. For this reason, and because the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that noble Lords will agree that any assessment of the kind proposed would be unnecessary and an ineffective use of government resources.
However, I welcome the fact that the Bill has shone a light on the interest from across the Committee in our public toilets, and I recognise the passion with which my colleagues have spoken of the need for adequate provision of accessible toilets in particular. I hope that the Committee will therefore allow me to conclude by reiterating the support of the Government for these vital facilities.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the importance of accessible toilets. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, again raised the issue of Changing Places toilets and the disbursement of the £30 million of funds. I am happy to give further details on the progress of that, I hope before Report. It is important to many people in the country that we ensure that the absence of accessible toilets is reduced, because lack of accessible toilets reduces the ability of people with a disability to make use of our public spaces with confidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the important question of design and doors opening inwards, thereby reducing space. That is a good point, and everyone here nodded in agreement with that sentiment. So I am pleased to let the Committee know that a technical review is looking at the ergonomics and features of toilets and will I hope take some of these points on board. We hope to see an improvement in design in the future.
While the Bill is important, the provision of public toilets is rooted in a number of factors, and in the particular case of accessible toilets, the Government are providing direct grant funding. On this basis, and as the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. The decline in the provision of public lavatories is a matter of great concern. The adequate provision of toilets is a public health matter, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said in this debate.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that many accessible toilets are poorly designed, despite considerable sums of money having been spent on them. I also agree with her that the need to provide more toilets for women and for men, and more gender-neutral toilets, as well as accessible and Changing Places toilets, is of paramount importance. As I have said, it is about understanding needs, the lack of provision of toilets for women, and ensuring respect for difference, along with the provision of facilities that are clean, safe and secure, and which people feel are safe to use.
The Bill does not address these issues because of its narrow scope, but I am sure we all agree that those are important matters. They are relevant issues that need to be addressed. I was very pleased by the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to meet interested Peers between now and Report, along with representatives of the British Toilet Association, and I look forward to taking part. However, at this stage I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 11 withdrawn.
Amendments 12 to 15 not moved.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Sitting suspended.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
For the Committe on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments; when putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make that clear when speaking on the group.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the rate relief to publicly-owned libraries and community centres, and local authority properties, which are free to enter and which contain public lavatories that are free to use.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to amend Clause 1(3) of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring into the scope of the Bill those toilet facilities that are in community centres, libraries and other local authority buildings and are free of charge for use by members of the public.
There are clear and undeniable public health benefits to having toilets that are available for the public to use. This amendment seeks to increase that provision. I recognise that in some cases, libraries and other public buildings already make their toilet facilities available to the public. This amendment supports them for doing that, but goes further, as it provides a welcome encouragement for those facilities that do not have the same access provision to be made available to the public. There has been a noticeable decline in public facilities over recent years, and this amendment seeks to reverse that trend by providing rate relief as an encouragement either to continue with the access presently provided or to extend access to the public to take advantage of this rate relief.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled Amendment 9, which I am very happy to support, and the noble Lord will explain the effect of his amendment when he speaks shortly. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support for my Amendment 9 in this group. I will speak to both my amendment and Amendment 1, which the noble Lord has just moved. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which no longer has public lavatories but is the rating authority for those that exist. I thank the Government for scheduling this Committee fairly quickly after Second Reading so that we can progress this Bill; it gives us real hope that the Bill will manage to pass in this Session.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would follow up amendments moved in the Commons and comments made quite widely by people at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. They pointed out that very many lavatories that people consider to be public lavatories and that operate as public lavatories are ancillary to other facilities provided by local authorities and other voluntary bodies, and so on. The problem is that, from a rating point of view, they are part of the same hereditament as the facility to which they are basically ancillary and therefore would not come under the provisions of this Bill as it stands. The Minister has kindly written to interested Members of the House putting forward the view that the Government put forward in the Commons that, to exempt these genuine public lavatories from business rates would be onerous—particularly on the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for doing all this— and that it would therefore not be practical to go ahead with it.
My Amendment 9 tackles some of the affected lavatories, which would probably not be a very large number. I believe that this could be done without any onerous burden being placed upon the VOA or anybody else. It reads that, for the purposes of subsection 4(I), which is what this is all about,
“a self-contained public lavatories facility which forms part of a larger hereditament and which may be accessed independently from outside that hereditament forms a separate hereditament.”
It is possible that it would have to be done technically in some other way: it might be that it could be done via secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has amendments later on, to which I am not going to speak, but at this stage I will just say that I strongly support them; they provide an opportunity for the Government to tackle the technical details, and there are huge technical details in all this, because it is about rating. They would allow the Government to pick up a lot of the points that we are making in these probing amendments at this stage.
It seems to me that, when a lavatory is part of a council-owned building in the middle of a small town or village—it might be a library, market hall or any other council-owned building—and has an outside door so that, even if there is also an inside door that could be locked when the main building is not open, people would be able to access that from outside, sorting out the separate valuation for a limited number of instances like this would not be a great burden, and it could, and should, be done. In practice, the VOA will have done it anyway when it assesses the rates on the whole building, because here is a separate use from the main building and it will have a look at it and say, “What is the amount that that contributes?” Somewhere in the depths of its records, it probably has the information anyway. Even if it does not have it, however, it is not an onerous task for it to do. The number is relatively small compared with the great majority of lavatories in libraries and so on. I hope the Government will accept the principle of this—I do not expect them to accept my amendment as it is today—and go away and have a look at it. I invite the Minister to say that he will do that.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, I welcome the Bill. That the Government have chosen to encourage the provision of public lavatories is a great public good, because adequate lavatory provision is a liberation for many millions of people, for whom the thought of not finding one when they go out is a significant restriction on their participation in society as a whole. There are said to be some 14 million people in this country with bowel or bladder problems. That is a very large proportion of the population who are worried about being able to access a public lavatory when they go out.
I really encourage the Government, perhaps not immediately but during the progress of the legislation, to look at opportunities to extend its reach. An obvious example is lavatories in stations, which everyone regards as public lavatories. Victoria station is very well used. It is only in a very peripheral way a part of any other hereditament. The same applies to lavatories in other public buildings, and to push in the direction which is being opened by Amendment 1 is thoroughly worth while.
There is no obvious need for a public lavatory to be a separate building. It seems, given the attractiveness of public lavatories, that having them in a building encourages other uses of that building too, and that their integration into public buildings should be encouraged. If we can find a way round it over the next few years, we should not be privileging just those public lavatories which are free standing.
As has been said, I really hope that the Government look on this as an opportunity, over time, to encourage facilities that are needed for the general public enjoyment of public facilities by extending the rather narrow rating release in the Bill to the many other deserving facilities that are provided at public expense and otherwise, and without which we will find ourselves rather too often caught short.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Lord Greaves and Lord Lucas, have said in support of these amendments. For some people, venturing into parts of our urban communities where they cannot be sure of access to a public lavatory is a risk that they dare not take. The physical conditions that create this problem can affect all ages. One thinks especially of the elderly, but there are also visitors to the area and others who depend on the uncertainties of public transport to get home. Whoever they are, they need to be provided for.
My interest in this subject, as I have mentioned before, is a professional one. I am interested in whether the amendments to test alternative solutions to those which the Government are suggesting are capable of being put into effect. The valuation of buildings for rating was one of my specialist subjects when I was in practice at the Scottish Bar. The valuation process itself was not for me; that was the job of chartered surveyors. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a distinguished member of that profession, with years of experience in the practice of that art, and I am very sorry that for other reasons he is unable to take part in this debate.
However, valuation for rating is not just about facts and figures. There are some legal rules too, and that is where I come in. The non-domestic rating system is the product of a listing process. Every non-domestic hereditament that is capable of separate occupation must be entered in the valuation list and given a value. A single building may contain within it a number of properties that are in separate occupation. If so, one would expect each of them to be the subject of a separate entry and a separate value, but where one finds a building in a single occupation, the consequence is that the entire building is treated as a separate hereditament and valued accordingly.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of an informal campaign group which seeks to improve the standards of public toilets generally. I am pleased to speak in support of the amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response by letter to issues that I, among others, raised at Second Reading. However, I am sure that he will forgive me when I say that I found his arguments unconvincing.
I accept that to include facilities open to the public, but not as separate or distinct buildings, would mean a valuation exercise. In each local authority area this would involve numbers maybe in the dozens, not the hundreds. That really cannot be seen as a costly hurdle. The Minister believes that it would divert resources from the 2023 revaluation. It should simply be part of the revaluation. I also reject the idea that identifying the facilities concerned would be difficult. These are public facilities and public bodies would self-identify. I also recommend to the Minister the Great British Public Toilet Map, available online, and a number of apps which guide you to local public toilets.
As it stands, the Bill is of course sensible, but it is a paltry little measure and will certainly not bring the transformation needed. I am not sure how deeply the Government consulted local government representatives. The local authorities that I am familiar with ceased building stand-alone public conveniences decades ago because problems of anti-social behaviour are so much greater in isolated blocks. Nowadays, new sets of conveniences are mainly incorporated in other public buildings, where issues of safety for users, maintenance and cleanliness are more easily dealt with. Stand-alone blocks obviously still exist but are often old and are too often already closed and shuttered.
I also wish to test the definition of “publicly owned”. The definition is very blurred these days. Facilities can be publicly owned but privately run—for example, in many areas that is the case with leisure centres. My area has publicly available toilets in libraries and shopping centres. The shopping centres are commercial developments and commercially run, but the toilets are discrete units. They are not just toilets in shops; there are separate doors to them, but it is a commercial operation.
We also have public toilets in the Wales Millennium Centre in Cardiff—a large building at the centre of Cardiff tourism in the bay. It houses major musical events and a lot of youth and artistic activities. It runs free concerts and there are shops and cafes. There is free public access to the toilets. The Wales Millennium Centre is run by a trust, but that trust has been funded by major amounts of public money. I know that the noble Lord will say that that is in Wales and that there is a separate set of rules, but I use it as an example. Clearly, it would not qualify for this scheme, but why should it not? It provides the same facilities, with cleaning and maintenance, and the public are allowed to enter for a large number of hours each day of the week.
It is really not difficult to ascertain whether toilets are genuinely publicly available or available for a reasonable amount of time each day. The Minister told us that the Government are adopting the community toilet scheme, and similar types of rules can apply for rate relief.
My concern is not just that the Government’s scheme is not generous enough; it is also that it is not even-handed. Public toilets in buildings still have to be maintained and cleaned, so why should an accident of situation define whether this relief is granted? It could even discourage major new developments from incorporating what would be genuinely public toilets.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as listed in the register: as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to which I have added my name, challenge the scope of the Bill in its restriction to public toilets that are stand-alone and not part of a larger public building, such as a library or community centre. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss these amendments and for the letter that he sent explaining the reasons for confining the scope of the Bill to stand-alone public toilets. However, we have to remember that one consequence of the long period of cuts to local government funding has been that many public toilets have been closed permanently. In my local authority, which serves nearly half a million people, there are now no stand-alone public toilets. The Bill is welcome but it is very much like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
These amendments are intended to encourage the Government to appreciate the wider need to increase the availability of public toilets. There is already pressure for some public toilets in public buildings to be closed because of the costs associated with keeping them open, as they are not part of the focused purpose of the building. For example, a public library is having to use scarce funds to keep the public toilets in its building open when there is barely sufficient funding to staff the building. That is the dilemma facing local authorities, certainly in the northern urban areas that I know well.
My noble friend Lord Greaves’s points are well made. Local people regard public toilets within a public building as being the same as stand-alone public toilets. The challenge is explained in the letter that I referred to earlier—the volume of work it would impose on the valuation office—but my noble friend Lord Greaves’s amendment seeks to find a way round this for public toilets that have separate access. I hope that the Minister is able to respond positively to that amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is an expert on these matters. He has said that valuation for rating is not just about facts and figures. One example that he provided was the relief given to charities. The Government would do well to take heed of the arguments that the noble and learned Lord made, and that view has been well supported by my noble friend Lady Randerson. As well as making those arguments and supporting my noble friend Lord Greaves’s view, she argued that improved public toilets are more secure and can be more easily kept clean if they are within a public building, rather than being stand-alone.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure adequate availability of publicly funded public toilets. It is a responsibility that has been accepted since the days of the great Victorian public heath reformers. The Bill demonstrates that the Government continue to accept that they have that responsibility. It is not sufficient, in fulfilling this obligation, to make those public toilets that have survived the cull zero rated. The Government must provide the means for local government to increase availability to meet local need. That is what these amendments seek to do and I wholeheartedly support them.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the points highlighted by his amendment and for his valuable and knowledgeable contribution to the Second Reading debate, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and, with great knowledge, by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I point out that the horse has not bolted entirely. There are nearly 4,000 separately assessed public toilets in England and Wales—3,990 as of 31 March 2020—and therefore this is a very important relief for those properties.
The effect of the first amendment would be to extend the scope of the relief to include publicly owned properties, such as libraries, community centres and other local authority properties, where they contain free-to-use public lavatories. In effect, this would mean that the local authority-owned buildings that contained a non-fee-paying public lavatory would be exempted from paying rates.
It is the Government’s firm view that public bodies, like other ratepayers, should pay rates on the properties they own and occupy, and it is therefore right that the legislation should broadly reflect this principle. The Government’s policy aim, and the purpose of Clause 1, is clear in that it provides a targeted relief to support the provision of public lavatories in specific circumstances. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, such as those along our coastline or in towns, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a significant difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Both amendments in this group—from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock and me, and from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—attempt to probe how the Bill could increase the number of public lavatories and prevent further closures.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about toilet facilities at stations. I regard these as public lavatories. It would be good to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover them. In recent years, charges have been removed at virtually all mainline stations in London—with the possible exception of Marylebone. This is good news.
Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, provides for those public toilets with a separate entrance to be brought into the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord is right; there are probably not that many facilities which would come into this category, but it would be a welcome move.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that it would not be onerous to identify the different facilities which would come into the scope of the Bill. I do not accept the Minister’s comments about onerous costs on local authorities. In effect, the facilities would self-identify. I do not believe there is a huge amount of work involved. I do not accept the argument that the cost would outweigh the benefit to the local authority going forward. I am also grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
We all support the aims of the Bill. It is good as far as it goes. If we want to stop the decline in the number of public lavatories—and the public health benefits that go with them—we will have to go a bit further than this welcome Bill. This is the point of our amendments. I am sure we shall bring them back on Report. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether, if we all want the same outcome, we should go further. I do not accept that the costs outweigh the benefits. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 2
Lord Greaves
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to explore the meaning of “mainly”.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response to my previous amendment. I thought that commenting here would be more convenient than making a separate intervention after the Minister in the previous group. That amendment—and others in this and other groups—will give rise to the need for further discussions with the Minister about some of the technical details, if he is agreeable. With the exception, perhaps, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, none of us is an expert lawyer. We are trying to understand how it works.
That is the purpose of Amendment 2. I am not trying to persuade the Government to remove “mainly”; that would make the Bill even worse. This is a typical House of Lords Committee probing amendment. I am sure that during the noble Lord’s long career as a local government Minister in this House, he will have a lot of fun with a lot of similar amendments to much bigger and longer Bills. This is what we do. It is a way of asking questions. What does “or mainly” mean? It is not clear, and it is not defined.
The National Association of Local Councils’ briefing says that the cost to councils of paying rates on public lavatories is £8 million. The Minister said that the cost of the Bill as it stands is £6 million. Either in his reply to this, or at some other time during today’s discussion, could he explain the difference between those numbers and where it comes from? Perhaps he can give us figures for the extra costs which he thinks would be incurred by some of the proposals being put forward.
I have one other amendment in this group—Amendment 7. I had another, similar probing amendment, but there was a technical problem with it. It was my fault for submitting it on the last day. The Public Bill Office kindly offered to have the Marshalled List reprinted, but I said I could cope with what we have here.
Amendment 7 suggests that “mainly”
“is to be construed according to an assessment by the rating authority of the balance of use by the public of the public lavatories compared with the remainder of the hereditament, disregarding the proportion of the area occupied by the public lavatories.”
I have been trying to get my mind round the relationship between a public lavatory—which might be free standing —and the land on which it stands. This might be a garden area or amenity area in a town or village: a mini-park—or a pocket park, as they are called nowadays; we all know the kind of thing—or it might be a full park. If it is within a park, and basically for the people using that park, it will not be paying rates anyway, because parks are zero-rated. I think it is regarded as part of the hereditament that consists of the park.
If the public lavatory is free-standing in a park or elsewhere and the land around it is a separate hereditament, it will benefit from the Bill. However, somewhere, there must be a dividing line between a lavatory in a park and one that is mainly in an amenity area that forms part of the same hereditament as the lavatory, which is therefore all rated. That is the purpose of this amendment. Alternatively, there may well be a public lavatory that is part of a wider hereditament, the rest of which has fallen into disuse, but it is all part and parcel of the same rate.
If the public use of a public lavatory is greater than that of the rest of the hereditament of which it is a part, and is thus mainly what happens there—this might be a building that contains other council facilities: a storage shed or office, for example—I do not know how this would be worked out under the Government’s own proposal that everything should rely on “mainly”, where this word applies to use by the public.
The other amendment I was going to put down was about the financial valuation. It may be that a hereditament contains a public lavatory and, to all intents and purposes, is a public lavatory but contains another use: it is a mixed hereditament. I am not talking about a public library—where the lavatory is just a small part of it, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said—or a community centre, where the public lavatory probably would not be there if it did not exist. How do you decide if a council-owned building that consists partly of a public lavatory and partly of something else is “mainly” a public lavatory? Even if the assumed assessment or valuation of the rest of the building for rating purposes is greater than that of the public lavatory, the latter should nevertheless trump—that may not be quite the right word—or prevail over the rest.
I hope the Minister understands what I am saying. First, how does he define “mainly”? Secondly, even if the public lavatory is a smaller part of the area, can it prevail as the main use? Thirdly, if it is not as valuable as the thing it is attached to, whatever that is—a tiny parish council office or something like that—can it nevertheless be the prevailing use? I ask those questions to find out how the provision will actually work in practice: what is the workability of this, as regards public lavatories? Having said that, I beg to move Amendment 2.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My noble friend Lord Greaves has rightly questioned the meaning of “mainly” and its purpose: is it, as he asks, about the extent of public use? He is an experienced user of such probing amendments in seeking to get to the detailed consequences of Bills, and this one is no exception. I am sure the Minister will be able to give a detailed explanation in reply, and I look forward to hearing it.
The other query that my noble friend Lord Greaves rightly raised concerns his information that the cost of paying rates on public toilets is £8 million a year, which is rather different from the £6 million cited by the Minister. It would be good to know the reason for the difference in those figures, and why. Having said that, I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s probing question.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have nothing really to add: the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has set out very clearly and carefully what he seeks to get from his amendment. As we have heard, it is a very good probing amendment that gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to set out carefully for the Committee what is meant by “or mainly”. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, this is a good House of Lords way of getting into the detail of the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Amendment 7 seeks, of course, to provide a welcome definition of what “mainly” could be construed or interpreted as, giving weight to public use of public lavatories. I will leave it there, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am beginning to learn how the House works, and I appreciate the education; I am sure I will get used to this way of drawing out important information. These amendments probe the current definition of a public lavatory that would qualify for this relief, and seek to amend this definition to capture some of the facilities that the Bill does not currently cover.
The Government have carefully drafted the scope of the Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out for the House the rationale behind this decision. Subject to Royal Assent, the relief within this Bill will apply to all hereditaments that
“consist wholly or mainly of public lavatories”.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probes the meaning of “mainly” in this provision. The phrase “wholly or mainly” can be found across government legislation and, in particular, exists within that legislation which provides for an 80% business rate discount to properties used
“wholly or mainly for charitable purposes”,
as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities are responsible for deciding which properties are eligible for business rate relief, and the use of “mainly” provides for some discretion on their part.
However, I will directly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on how this would work in practice. Councils should reflect on all relevant matters, including any relevant case law and guidance, when making these decisions. The use of “mainly” means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria for this relief because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence. That is very similar to the example that the noble Lord gave. The Government consider it right that the Bill provides local authorities with this level of discretion because these are decisions best taken on the ground and on the basis of local knowledge.
The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, follows on from the first and would act to define “mainly” within the Bill in reference to the extent to which a property is used as a public lavatory, rather than for other purposes. I appreciate that the intention of this amendment is to provide for the relief to be available to buildings that do not constitute separately assessed public toilets but that serve that purpose to a large extent. As I set out earlier, an expansion of the relief beyond those toilets that are separately assessed and have already been identified and separately rated would bring with it significant administrative burdens and costs.
In the case of this amendment, local authorities would be required to not just identify qualifying facilities but assess the extent to which the public are using them for different functions. The public use test would be particularly cumbersome because it would go beyond an assessment of a property’s physical elements and would require an analysis of the extent to which these elements are used by the public. The results of such a test could change relatively frequently, and local authorities may need to make the required assessment on a regular basis.
As currently designed, the measure in the Bill does not carry implementation costs disproportionate to the benefits to ratepayers, nor any significant implementation difficulties for local government. As such, we are not in favour of any amendment to this relief which would increase the complexity of its implementation, create unnecessary burdens for local authorities, or indeed create administrative costs disproportionate to the total benefit to ratepayers. However, I would be keen to engage with noble Lords on some of the technical reasons for not expanding the scope of the Bill.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendments, which probe the design of the relief before the Committee. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not consider that the potential benefits of the amendments would outweigh their substantial costs and I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their support in this little group, and I thank the Minister for agreeing that we will have some discussions about it. He said that this would be to explain to us what we did not understand, and that we would then understand it. That is fine; I am totally in favour of understanding things.
I hope that the Government understand that some of us, at least, are trying to help them with this, to produce a slightly better Bill. We are not trying to wreck it and certainly not trying to place lots of extra administrative burdens on local authorities. We are looking for ways in which common-sense solutions can be found to problems which are going to occur. Inevitably, a town council will say, “Why are we paying rates on this and not that?” They are not experts, and it will cause all sorts of grumpiness. Also, it will not do, in some instances, what the Government are trying to do, which is relieve the burden on councils, particularly town and parish councils which are increasingly taking on public conveniences. So I hope the discussion we have will be two-way
The Minister said two things. First, he said that, in deciding what “mainly” means, councils should reflect on all the “relevant case law”. He then said that he did not want to put administrative and other burdens on councils. It sounds to me as if the Government are already admitting that there are going to be problems. If you have got to go to all the relevant case law and goodness knows what, it inevitably results in the creation of new case law, because it will get to the courts.
The second thing the Minister said was that the rationale was similar to that for charitable 80% relief, and that that is for “wholly or mainly” charitable use. The word “use” is crucial there, because the Bill does not say “use”, but
“consists wholly or mainly of public lavatories.”
One of my amendments talks about use. Can we look at that, and give the rating authorities a steer that it is the use which is important, rather than the other things, as the legislation does for charitable relief? That might just be a way forward.
I hope that the Government will not be stubborn and say that they are not going to change this under any circumstances, if there are ways through some of these problems. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw at this stage and look forward to discussions with the Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confine the rate relief to public lavatories that are free of charge to use.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name seeks to add the words
“which are free of charge for anyone to use”
to Clause 1(3). The Bill provides a financial benefit and the effect of my amendment would be to restrict that benefit to public lavatories that are free to use—a very reasonable aspiration and objective. I do not see why those public lavatories that you must pay to use should be a beneficiary of this relief. The purpose of the Bill is to provide encouragement in this area, and I think that this amendment strengthens the Bill in this regard and provides a clear focus on the free use of public lavatories.
Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very sensible and I fully support it. Why should we provide financial benefit when the lavatory is not open for extended parts of the day? But I will let the noble Lord explain his amendment to the Committee.
On a more general point, in resisting amendments in previous groups, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has relied on the argument that the Government do not want to place additional burdens on local authorities and that any savings would be outweighed by the cost of identifying these lavatories. When he replies to the debate, it would be useful if the Minister could evidence that. I have heard nothing from any local authority—the National Association of Local Councils, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils or the Local Government Association—to suggest that the argument that the Minister is relying on has any basis in fact. So it would be useful if he could explain that to the Committee. Or is it just the assertion of the department? I look forward to his response to the debate.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which is fairly basic. I am old enough to remember one of the great hue and cry campaigns by women; it would be called a gender campaign nowadays. Not only did they have to spend an old penny—one of those great big things which people under 40 or 50 have never seen—but they had to go through a turnstile, which caused problems for pregnant women. That was a huge hue and cry at the time and was, I think, sorted out—but there are still plenty of supposedly public lavatories where you have to pay. The most disgraceful ones in my view were at mainline railway stations, which started charging considerably more than a penny, but that seems to be being changed now.
Amendment 10 would prevent bodies benefiting from free rates when the lavatories are not open for a reasonable amount of time and at reasonable times. I am always told by lawyers and Governments that the word “reasonable” should never be put in legislation because all legislation has to be reasonable before you start. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing to discuss in this Committee.
There may well be some public lavatories in tourist areas which are not needed, or not in such quantity, at some times of the year. There may be ones which are needed at some times of the week and not others. It may be perfectly reasonable to lock public lavatories overnight to prevent them being used for undesirable purposes. That was certainly done in my part of the world. There may, indeed, be public lavatories which are open only on special occasions because of where they are and what takes place there. We used to have one which was opened at various times of the year, particularly on Remembrance Day, because it was next to the cenotaph. What is reasonable ought to be up to local decision-making by the owners of the lavatories, but they ought to be stopped from keeping them shut when they ought to be open. That decision ought to be made by the rating authority.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who referred earlier to some confusion in the Bill about what a public lavatory is, in terms of ownership. Does this Bill apply only to facilities owned by councils or by other public bodies, or to other voluntary bodies and charities as well? Does it apply to commercial enterprises that might provide a public lavatory at the entrance of their commercial facility—there might be a park, or whatever—which is open all the time for public use? Could the Minister clarify that? Is it use as a public lavatory, under the Minister’s terms, that matters, or, is it who owns it that matters? That would be a helpful clarification.
My amendment is about how the Government are going to stop people freeloading and getting rate relief when they are not providing the facility they ought to be.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are important and relevant issues to explore in Amendments 3 and 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Greaves, respectively. When a financial benefit is to be gained, as there is in this Bill, it inevitably becomes an issue of dispute at some time in the future when some realise that they are not getting rate relief on their provision of public toilets while others are. That is why it is important to explore what the Government are proposing here.
As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Kennedy, there is a considerable range of public toilet facilities. Some are open only during the day and some not at the weekend; some require payment, and some do not. We need to understand the implications of this variety of provision for the purposes of the Bill. Is it acceptable to make a small charge for a public toilet facility and get the rate relief proposed in this Bill? What will happen if that small charge becomes ever larger? Is it still right, then, that that facility is zero-rated? These two amendments indicate that what may appear to be simple, straightforward changes can have inconsistent consequences once the detail of the implementation is exposed, as it has been so expertly this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, wanted to know the evidence that this would cause a burden disproportionate to the level of relief provided. The reality is that, under these proposals, we are not asking local authorities or the Valuation Office Agency to do anything in addition to what they already do. But where we are widening the scope, we are asking local authorities to do something they do not currently do, so by definition that will increase burdens on them and, in some cases, on the Valuation Office Agency.
The effect of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, would be to apply a set of conditions that would need to be satisfied before the relief could be granted. I will expand on the reasons why I do not believe these are helpful in the operation of the relief. As a principle, I do not agree we should be moving away from the clear and simple aims of the policy by limiting this much-needed support.
The effect of Amendment 3 would be to exclude those who own and run facilities where a small fee is charged from receiving this relief. The Government’s policy aim and purpose in Clause 1 is to target the relief to best support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about free-to-use public toilets. Nevertheless, the purpose of this Bill is to provide targeted support to separately assessed public lavatories, recognising the particular circumstances they face, not to draw a distinction between those that charge and those that do not. Such a distinction would add complexity, uncertainty and an unnecessary administrative burden for local authorities and would increase the pressure on those facilities that are not able to access this support. I do not agree that those ratepayers that operate a public lavatory and charge a minimal fee for the first service should be excluded from this vital support.
I understand the practice of charging a fee is reducing, but those that charge do so on the basis of a commercial decision. In some cases, that fee may be charged to meet the ongoing costs of maintenance and cleaning, which is entirely reasonable. Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of knowing which facilities charge and what services they provide, so I welcome the work of the British Toilet Association, which provides an online service called the Great British Public Toilet Map, which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This provides visitors with critical information about toilets in a specific area, including whether they are free to use, whether they are accessible and whether they have baby-changing facilities. Users can then make a decision in good knowledge and plan appropriately. I also commend the community toilet scheme, which was first devised by the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and is now used by local authorities across the country. This enables local businesses to work with councils to widen lavatory access so the public can use their facilities without making a purchase.
Amendment 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would limit the relief on the condition that the facilities should be open at set times and days as reasonably necessary. As I have outlined, our aim is to increase the support for the provision of public toilets, not to reduce the level of assistance for facilities that are most in need of support. I would not support the creation of a further burden on authorities to assess and police the opening and closing times of a toilet before awarding relief. The establishment of such a regime would be disproportionate to the value of the relief and would not represent good value for money to the taxpayer. As I have set out, the relief applies only to occupied facilities and is awarded only in these circumstances. While I understand the intention of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, in practice, they may, at best, be unhelpful and, at worst, unnecessarily increase pressure on toilets to close.
I hope that I have helped clarify the Government’s intention about how the measure would apply. With these assurances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, can agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. We are identifying issues the Government should reflect on before this Bill comes back on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has not sought to challenge my general point from my earlier remarks, that the position of the Government, in resisting any amendment here today, is that we are creating burdens on local authorities that far outweigh the benefits. Yet, as I have said, I have looked and cannot find any organisation from local government—the LGA, the Welsh LGA, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, the National Association of Local Councils—or, in fact, any local council or local authority in England or Wales that would support the Government’s position. If they actually asked them, I suspect there would be a lot of support from local authorities for increasing the benefits of support for their network of public toilets. I will leave that point there, and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 4
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the Government has power to require that the lavatories are provided and operated in accordance with national standards, making proper provision for the various needs of their potential clientele including the disabled, parents with children, women and trans people.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I urge the Government to take the opportunity to give the Bill some wording that expands its ambit, and to take advantage of the leverage that it gives them—as the noble Lord has noted, it is a generous disbursement of funds—to achieve other policy objectives. The policy objective that I, personally, would like the Bill to support is whatever the outcome is of the Government’s current review of toilet provision in general.
It has been a joke all my life, let alone my noble friend’s life, how there is always a queue at the ladies and none at the gents. We have not had equal provision in relation to demand. We now need to recognise that there are people—particularly those who are committed transgender—who are not easily able to take advantage of toilets that are just for men or just for women. Having toilets that are universally unisex, such as those in the Old Vic and the Department for Education visitor accommodation, is extremely difficult for many women and some men, including me, to put up with.
There are, therefore, matters of policy relating to the provision of toilets that we can reasonably anticipate will come to the fore over the next couple of years. It would be good to give the Government, in this Bill, the ability to lever the rates relief that they are giving in order to achieve their policies. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, we may find that over time there will be opportunities to expand the Bill’s ambit to other worthwhile premises in ways which, as my noble friend insisted, go along with the modus operandi of the valuation office. That is fine, but we are missing a chance if we leave the Bill as it is and do not give the Government additional power along the lines that I have suggested. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is not clear to me why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, believes that it is necessary to—I quote—prescribe a definition of public lavatories. It is not clear what policy objective would be achieved by his amendments. Without wishing to cause offence, that clarity has not been expanded during the noble Lord’s introduction of the amendment.
As we have already heard, there is currently a huge variety of provision: some are in old-style toilet blocks, some include Changing Places and some include baby changing facilities. Some modern provision consists of a single facility into which only one person at a time can enter. Some public toilets are unisex, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explained. That is increasingly the case in modern office blocks. I have never heard anyone being particularly concerned about that provision. Public toilets are simply a facility for members of the public. I do not on earth see what is gained by prescribing a definition.
The best thing we can do, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, explain his amendments, is agree to disagree with him. I, for one, cannot support this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 4 and 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enable us to debate important issues. He seeks to ensure that lavatories that operate in accordance with national standards benefit from this relief.
The trade union Unison has campaigned on the issue of disability and the barriers that disabled people face when using a standard toilet. Many disabilities are hidden. The sign that we often see indicating disabled facilities is a person in a wheelchair, but fewer than 10% of people who meet the Equality Act definition of disability use a wheelchair. Signs that say “Some disabilities are invisible” have become more prevalent given the requirements of the pandemic restrictions. Crohn’s disease and colitis are two examples of conditions that may mean that a person has to use a disabled toilet facility while having no outward signs of disability.
As we move forward we need a greater understanding and respect for difference, and we must ensure that people are protected. These are not easy issues; if they were we would not be debating them today. What we also need is many more Changing Places toilets, which are a very important to cater for. We will get on to this later.
The comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reminded me that all the toilets by the reception at Southwark Council are gender-neutral, individual toilets. They are there for public use. So things are certainly changing, but we must at all times have respect for difference and for people. As we move forward on these issues we must ensure we keep those thoughts to the forefront and provide the facilities that people need.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendments, which would provide the Government with the power to limit this relief to only those toilets that meet prescribed criteria of their choosing. The underpinning nature of the amendments is the desire to see toilets for all, and I am very supportive of the need to have toilets for those who need disabled access, gender-neutral toilets and gender-specific toilets. As I set out to the House earlier, the Government do not intend to limit the measure within the Bill to only those toilets that meet certain criteria. Subject to Royal Assent, the Bill will support the provision of separately assessed toilets across the country. I therefore do not agree that it would be right to make any amendments which could limit the benefits of this measure.
Furthermore, limiting the relief to only those public lavatories that fit a prescribed description would place a significant burden on local authorities, which will be responsible for administering the relief. Well-intentioned though the amendment is, it would weaken the effectiveness of the legislation were we to require its provisions to be subject to a new, locally administered system of controls.
While I appreciate the arguments that my noble friend Lord Lucas made in support of the Government having the power to make this relief more specific, any benefits must be weighed against the consequential impact on local authorities of using such a power. Although I do not think that the Bill would be improved by these amendments, I appreciate the points that my noble friend makes about the standards of our public toilets.
The Government are interested not just in the total number of public toilets in this country but in ensuring that everyone in our communities feels confident and comfortable using them. This means maintaining hygiene standards and ensuring fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets.
Noble Lords may therefore wish to note that the technical review of toilets launched by the Government will consider the ratio of female toilets needed versus the number for men and take into account the needs of all members of the community, to ensure fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets. The call for evidence, which closes on Friday, has received over 15,000 responses; a government response will be published in due course. As part of this review, the merits of any best practice guidance on the provision of gender-neutral toilets will be considered, alongside any guidance on the necessary provision of access to disabled toilets. These considerations also include provisions for older people and parents with very young children who need changing facilities.
I hope this reassures my noble friend that the Government are supportive of not just the total number of public toilets but the vital importance of ensuring that appropriate facilities are available to all. On this basis—and the basis that the potential administrative burden resulting from these amendments would outweigh the benefits—I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his obiter dicta on the Government’s general intentions in this area, which I applaud. I can see that he has clearly understood the intent of my amendment and disagrees with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 5. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 5
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give rate relief to premises that consist partly of public lavatories according to the proportion of the premises occupied by those lavatories.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 5 in my name provides for a relief where there is a public toilet in part of a premises by enabling it to be calculated and charged separately and benefit from the zero rating. It would provide welcome support for public lavatories, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will embrace it.
Amendment 6, also in my name, seeks to provide rate relief to a premises with a Changing Places facility. We need to do much more to support Changing Places facilities; providing this relief would be a very positive way to do so. Changing Places facilities provide the necessary space and equipment for people with disabilities —more than a standard accessible toilet can cater for. I mentioned at Second Reading that the Tower of London, a Historic Royal Palace, has a Changing Places facility installed. Noble Lords will know that that building’s construction dates from 1066, after the Norman conquest. The facility is in the New Armouries building, which was built in 1663. It has installed a Changing Places facility; we should follow its example and do the same elsewhere.
When lockdown ends, we want people to be able to get out, meet family and friends and do all the things we have all longed to do for so long. However, for disabled people wanting to enjoy those things that we often take for granted, we need to ensure more adequate, better and more suitable provision. It is not a lot to ask for. It is about dignity and letting people have the freedom to enjoy themselves. Supporting Changing Places facilities is a very welcome thing that we should all do. My Amendment 6 is a small step to encourage the provision of more Changing Places facilities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, can provide a positive response. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, the formula proposed by this group of amendments raises an interesting practical question. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said on Amendment 6 about the desire to provide for Changing Places facilities where required, but my interest is in a more practical question: whether what is proposed here works with the normal principles of rating and valuation law.
I understand that it is proposed to extend the relief to the more usual situation where there is a public lavatory, or perhaps more than one, within a larger building which is not accessible from outside—the situation contemplated by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in Amendment 9, which we considered earlier. This being so, these amendments correctly assume that a value has been given to the building as a whole; they seek to extract from that value the amount attributable to the public lavatory or lavatories by asking for it or them to be valued separately and the value given to the building as a whole reduced accordingly. As I said earlier, I am not and never was a valuer, but I fear that the exercise that the amendment contemplates is not nearly as simple as it might seem. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, touched on this earlier.
The problem is one that a valuer would readily identify. First, it is not normal for individual elements in a building, such as public lavatories, to be given values in the course of making up the value for the hereditament as a whole, so a valuation exercise would have to be undertaken which is not normally—indeed, probably never has been—undertaken in the course of the valuations we have today. There is also a consequence for the other part of the building that does not consist of these lavatories—the effect of extracting the value and whether the value attributable to the remainder can be properly sustained without some kind of examination. I suspect that this approach runs into quite difficult valuation problems which a valuer would need to explore with the Minister to see whether they could be resolved.
There may be an alternative solution. I mentioned earlier the example of charitable relief; this time I will take another. Rather than engaging in the rather difficult exercise I have hinted at, it might be worth considering applying a derating formula across the board to all hereditaments comprising public lavatories. There is precedent for that approach in a statute introduced in the 1920s to provide relief for industrial hereditaments. These were hereditaments that were shown to be occupied and used as a mine, factory or workshop. The details are to be found in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928. Hereditaments which met the tests for being treated as subjects of that kind were entitled to a reduction of half their annual value. The aim was to deal with the acute problems of unemployment and to stimulate the economy by encouraging the development of subjects for industrial use. Of course, an enormous problem was being addressed there that was shared across the economy as a whole, and one can well understand the measure and the extent of the relief that derating provided. I should mention that that statute was repealed some years ago so does not apply today.
A 50% reduction would be out of all proportion to what we are talking about when considering the public lavatories element in the overall hereditament, but that does not affect the principle on which the relief was given in these cases: that it is possible, without getting embroiled in detailed valuation exercises, simply to introduce a form of derating for a desirable purpose to encourage whatever one seeks to encourage. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, might find it worth considering a 1% or 2% deduction from the overall figure, perhaps adjustable by statutory instrument in the light of experience, as an alternative to the rather complicated valuation exercises that this group of amendments contemplates.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am attracted to the idea that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has just advanced. After Second Reading, I had a very long and entertaining conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the technical subject of valuation. Some of it may have stuck in my brain, but the overall impression that this was not a simple matter certainly stuck there—in particular, the idea that the uplift in rateable value that comes from having a toilet can be quite substantial. It makes, for instance, the upper floors of a department store much more attractive than one might think. So there are considerable complications underlying the process, and if a toilet was subtracted from the whole, the question of how that whole would be valued fairly—when a toilet is available but it is not being rated—becomes quite complicated. At least, that is the strong impression that I was left with after my conversation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, these amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explore the opportunities for public toilets within a public building that are not separately rated, so that they may benefit from the purposes of the Bill. In particular, Amendment 6 seeks to achieve the benefits of the Bill for those facilities providing changing places. These are inevitably included within public buildings, where there is the large amount of space available to provide changing places.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has shared his expertise on these matters. He provides alternative thinking about derating hereditaments that provide public toilet facilities. The principle is sound; we all seek today to find ways of supporting public toilets through the financial benefit provided by the Bill, and not just those which are stand-alone. I hope that the Minister will, with his department, think carefully about the solution that the noble and learned Lord is pointing to. I certainly hope that we will be able to explore it on Report.
I for one support any means for exempting non-domestic rates where there is a public benefit. This debate has revealed the total incoherence of non-domestic rating. For example, in my own town of Cleckheaton the public toilets we have as part of our small market hall are separately rated and cost the council £15,000 a year in rates. These are no grand-affair public toilets; they are just two toilets, one for men and one for women. The cost of the rates is by far the largest element of expenditure on the upkeep of these toilets, yet they provide a free public benefit. The rate charged on this humble public toilet block is far in excess, in ratio terms, of that charged on an out-of-town warehouse providing storage for online shopping. This is all out of kilter.
Fundamental reform is essential and the Government have for too long avoided taking these difficult decisions. I hope that the Minister will consider all the helpful suggestions made this afternoon and be willing to think again about the contents of the Bill. I look forward to his reply today, and to further discussions and further debate on Report.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the backing that the Committee has given to the measures in the Bill and recognise the arguments made in support of extending the relief further still. The first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would provide for relief to be given to properties which contain public toilets that are not separately assessed, and for that relief to be determined according to the proportion of that property occupied by the public toilet. The second would have the same effect, but separately for properties which contain Changing Places facilities.
In designing the scope of the Bill, the Government have given due consideration to the benefits to our communities of extending the relief to those toilets that are not currently separately assessed. However, these benefits must be weighed against the significant practical and financial implications of implementing such a relief. I hope that my colleagues present today have received a copy of the letter of 2 February setting out these implications in detail—actually, I think most noble Lords today have referred to it. For the benefit of the Committee, I will set them out again now.
The Government have taken the deliberate approach of targeting the measure within the Bill at supporting those toilets that appear separately on business rates lists. This means that this support will be available to those facilities for which the cost of business rates has the largest bearing on their ability to remain open. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require the separate assessment of the rateable value of public toilets that sit within larger properties, and for the awarding of a business rates discount relative to the proportion of the property that the toilet occupies.
A valuation exercise to provide an apportioned relief would be extensive and require the Valuation Office Agency to first identify where the facilities are, and then to assess the specific rateable value of each toilet relative to the property of which it forms a part. This exercise would carry significant financial and temporal costs, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It would require business rates valuers to carry out assessments and, where needed, to make site visits up and down the country. As such, it would divert critical VOA resources from the priority of delivering the 2023 revaluation and could potentially delay the implementation of the core measure of the Bill before the Committee today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned a formula-based approach to derating. This would also result in considerable burdens, for example by requiring the VOA to identify the location of the public toilets. Obviously, the scale of the intervention is different from that for mines in the 1928 Act, but I am happy to discuss that technical approach with my officials between now and Report.
I am proud to be here today championing a measure that will be of great value to our communities. While I recognise the importance of all publicly accessible toilets, the cost of extending this relief according to the amendment would be significant—far greater than the financial benefit to operators of such facilities. I hope that the Committee will agree that a relief with implementation costs disproportionate to its financial benefits would not represent good value for money for taxpayers.
Although extending relief to toilets that form part of larger properties would undoubtedly bring about significant and disproportionate costs and practical difficulties, I appreciate that the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, concerns Changing Places toilets in particular. I therefore hope that the Committee will allow me to set out the steps that the Government have already taken to support these vital facilities.
I am proud to belong to a Government who are delivering on their commitment to provide more Changing Places toilets. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced a £30 million fund to further extend the provision of these vital facilities and my department will shortly set out the allocation of this funding. I would be happy to provide my colleagues in the House with further details on this funding once they are available.
The funding comes on top of the £2 million announced by the Department for Transport to provide Changing Places toilets at motorway services and the £2 million made available by the Department of Health and Social Care to install these facilities in NHS hospitals across England. I hope that that reassures the Committee that where a Changing Places toilet is separately assessed, the measures in the Bill, subject to Royal Assent, act to reduce the business rates liability of these facilities to nil. While there are significant practical reasons why the Bill does not cover toilets—Changing Places or otherwise—within larger buildings, the Government are delivering on their commitment to supporting Changing Places toilets directly through grant funding.
I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his explanation of what would appear to be a far simpler method of achieving what I am seeking to do. I might have a look at that before Report as it seems to be a simpler method.
I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, I am pleased to learn of the additional government expenditure on Changing Places facilities. It is good to hear but we need to do more and go further. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 8. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 8
Lord Greaves
“(8E) Subsection (4I) does not provide any relief from non-domestic rates under the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that rates continue to be charged on public lavatories that are permanently locked up and out of use.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the Deputy Chairman really ought not to continue tempting me to call a Division but, never mind, I am not going to.
I tried to do some research. In May this year, it will be 50 years since I was first elected to a local authority and I thought that I knew about things such as business rates and so on. I have discovered in the past week or two that I do not know much at all. They are complicated and technical. I thought that I would ring up the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and have a conversation with him but I have been advised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not to do that because I might get too far into this subject.
As part and parcel of this matter, I have been looking at the Government’s rating manual, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the regulations that are referred to in Clause 2, and discovered why no amendments have been tabled to that clause because I doubt any noble Lords who might want to table amendments to it would understand a word of it. However, I thought it necessary to table an amendment on empty properties.
The amendment is technically totally hopeless—I am certain about that—but it contains the words “empty properties”. All I want to do is use it to ask the Government: can they give a guarantee that the Bill will not allow people to pay no rates on public lavatories that they have closed? I am aware that local authorities all over the country nowadays charge rates on all kinds of empty properties, which used not to be possible. I do not want people to be able to close public lavatories and still have rate relief on them as a result of the Bill; in other words, I am asking that the Bill should not trump other legislation that allows local authorities to continue to rate empty property, and that people will not be able get away with that. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves’ Amendment 8 rightly explores the possibility of closed public toilets being eligible for the relief under the Bill. As those toilets provide no relief for the public, it is quite proper that no relief is provided for the authority paying the rates. It is clearly an issue that we need to explore, and be certain that the legislation ensures that authorities do not benefit from closing public toilets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will able to provide some clarity on it. The amendment, on the face of it, highlights what would be an incentive to keep a public lavatory open. I look forward to the Minister’s response because, from what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it would be perverse if, by closing a public lavatory, one would be eligible for rate relief. I am sure that that is not the Bill’s intention but it is important to get clarity from the Government on the issue that the noble Lord rightly raised.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to give that clarification. I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his amendment and support what he is trying to achieve. However, let me set out why it is unnecessary. His aim is to ensure that the relief cannot be applied in circumstances where a public toilet is permanently closed and out of use. I can assure the noble Lord that this is the Government’s intention. The Bill is therefore structured to reflect that aim. The Bill will amend only Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which relates only to occupied hereditaments. The Bill would therefore ensure that the relief would apply only to eligible occupied hereditaments, not to unoccupied public lavatories. As usual, local authorities will be responsible for determining the award of relief, having regard to the legislation, as they do with other relief schemes.
I hope that that clarification on how the measure would apply will help the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I will read carefully the Minister’s reply—and go one more step towards being able to pass my GCSE in business rating. I accept his assurance that what he said will be the case. As on all these occasions, if it happens not to be the case, we will come back and harass him in the House. However, his reply was acceptable; I will read it carefully and attempt to understand it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
Do I take it that the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 11
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Assessment of the impact of Act on provision of public lavatories
The Secretary of State must within one year of the passing of this Act conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the provision of public lavatories.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, seeks to insert a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the Act. The Bill, though small, provides for significant rate relief for public toilets as they become zero-rated. In those circumstances, the Government would surely want to see what the effect of the policy has been. The proposed new clause would bring that into effect.
I am happy to support Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which goes well with my amendment, by giving us information, year on year, about the effect that the policy is having, given that it will be costing the public purse revenue of which it would otherwise be in receipt. If we found that public toilets were still closing, that would be useful information to help us consider how we keep them open and whether something else needs to be done.
Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thomas of Winchester, is on a similar theme to Amendments 11 and 13, but has an important emphasis on the review to look at the effectiveness of the Act in increasing accessible toilets and, in particular, Changing Places facilities, which we have talked about in earlier groups. I can see how beneficial it would be for the Government to have this information to hand. It would enable them to see that the Act was working effectively or highlight that more work needed to be done.
Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, is in a similar place. It picks up on the point and gives power to make a recommendation whether other measures in this area need to be introduced.
I like all the amendments in this group. Perhaps all those who tabled them should get together before Report to table one amendment that takes all these points on board.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me to speak to Amendment 13 in her name. We very much share the sentiments just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We all support this Bill and want to see it succeed. We want it as a foundation on which a renaissance in publicly available toilet facilities can proceed down the next decade or so. To know that we are succeeding or to know where any problems or challenges lie, we need good data. We therefore hope that the Government will accept an obligation to publish that information so that we can cheer them for their successes and encourage them to do better where that appears to be needed. It took around 50 years to persuade Victorian authorities to install public lavatories, let alone to agree funding and rates for them. With luck, because of this legislation, we will see increased provision at a much quicker rate. This amendment would let us keep track of progress and would be an essential expression of Parliament’s support for this measure.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I so agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just said. I support Amendment 11, but am speaking to Amendment 14, which follows Amendment 11 in this group, calling on the Government to undertake a review of the impact of the Act on the provision of accessible lavatories within a year of its passing.
There are three reasons why we need to know whether the change in rating for stand-alone public loos is resulting in more accessible facilities. First, the population is getting older, so there will be more disabled and elderly people about in the future than there are now, which means that the need for accessible toilets will grow. Secondly, sadly, there will not be so many food outlets on the high street which have accessible toilets for use by the general public, because of multiple closures in the wake of the pandemic. Thirdly, thousands of disabled people, like me, have spent the last year shielding, which means that they will not have been out and about. Many will now be more fearful than ever about going out without knowing where they can spend a penny in an accessible toilet. The Minister may say that any review should be done by local authorities, but we will not have a national picture unless the Government take ownership of it. Perhaps the British Toilet Association could help with up-to-date information.
I asked the Minister, at a meeting to which he kindly agreed, whether he could tell us how the £30 million rollout of Changing Places was going. These wonderful facilities are absolutely vital to about 250,000 disabled people. They are needed in town centres, arts venues, hospitals and wherever there are large gatherings of people. We have heard a bit about them this afternoon. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to give us more specific information at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and to support what she said. I am speaking in support of Amendment 11 and particularly to Amendment 13. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is not able to be in her place today, because we all know what a superb advocate she is for all these matters. I am happy to support these amendments, because they are significant.
Amendment 13 makes clear what everybody who supports the Bill already knows: that we want to ensure that it works; that it is seen to be working; and that the evidence is collected and available for us to see. There is a matter of principle here: that public policy changes should be seen to be effective, especially when public money is involved; that when local funds are dedicated to a particular purpose, they are used for that purpose; and that there is transparency and agency in local and national government.
There is also a practical issue here. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we have waited a long time for practical and universal initiatives to be taken to stop the closure of public lavatories and to place them in their proper context, which is within a robust and vigilant policy for local health and safety, rather than in some afterthought where no one is really interested in what happens to them.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is very welcome, but it would be a major disappointment if the funding that is going to be generated is not used for that purpose. We have to know the impact of the Bill, that it works and that it has achieved its purpose, and we need the evidence to be published. As other noble Lords have said, it is all the more crucial that we know this, because the measures will be introduced at a time when local authorities have never been more strapped, and it has never been more difficult to decide on priorities. We need to know that this small change will take its place in the range of priorities.
Local government needs financial and political investment to repair the damage and help to rebuild communities. I think that the Bill is part of that and part of the fabric of our whole public health and preventive health system, for the personal reasons that many noble Lords have raised today, and as part of a series of principles. I support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response. I cannot see any possible reason for rejecting them and I hope I am right in that respect.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, all the amendments in this group are designed to ensure that the Bill is not the end of the matter, and that the Government are forced to confront the appalling and declining state of public conveniences in Britain. The Bill will not start to tackle the many problems. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that it will involve redistributing £6 million back to local authorities in England. There are 343 local authorities in England—of course, I realise that there is some double counting because of two-tier areas—but this number does not include parish councils. There are 9,000 of those, many of which go on to take responsibility for public toilets. The Committee can immediately see from those figures that £6 million will not go far; it will be swallowed up in the general budget of local authorities, which are chronically short of cash.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I support these important amendments, and I ask the Government particularly to pay attention to the three powerful speeches we have just heard from my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Those three speeches sum up what the future really ought to be for public provision in this area. When the Government say they are carrying out a technical review, I am afraid that I am a bit cynical about the word “technical” in this respect. I am sure that their intentions are good, but it is more than just technical. It is about basic humanity and a basic provision of human-based services for all people. As I say, I hope that the Government will take this seriously.
To pick up on two or three particular points, parish and town councils are absolutely crucial in the future provision of public lavatories. Although they do not cover anything like a majority of electors in this country, they do cover a huge number of small and medium-sized communities. These are places that people go to, or through, and where people go for holidays and recreation. It is crucial that they are provided with the necessary resources to do what we all want to do, which is, in many places, to turn old inadequate Victorian and Edwardian public conveniences into modern provisions of the kind that people have been talking about which are suitable for everybody.
To do that, they need resources. I keep being told, and the National Association of Local Councils have been told, by the Government that they have no powers to provide funding for parish councils. That was almost the exact wording that I was given in a Written Answer from the Minister, not too long ago. I do not believe that; I think it is complete baloney. The Government can provide funding for projects on almost anything they want. They could certainly provide capital funding through some scheme or other for parish and town councils to renovate and modernise their existing public conveniences and provide new lavatories. I hope that the Government look seriously at that in their technical review because, if they are going to be provided, in many places the town and parish councils will have to do it.
Secondly, I asked a question earlier and the Minister did not reply, on whether the Bill applies to all kinds of ownership—public bodies including councils, voluntary groups including charities and commercial organisations, some of which may be charities. He said separately, in reply on another amendment, that the Bill applies specifically to lavatories that appear on business rate lists. Is that the definition? Does it therefore apply to any public lavatories that appear on business rate lists, whoever owns them, even if it does not apply to lots that are publicly provided?
My final point is on burdens to councils. As the Minister well knows, councils love to talk about, involve themselves in and do something about very local facilities. I understand the difficulties of providing extra burdens on the VOA, particularly at this stage, but I believe that, in a relatively small number of cases, public lavatories could be provided with the relief in this Bill by giving some discretion to local authorities, in some way. I do not believe that local authorities would regard that as a great burden, but as part of their ordinary job. We are not talking about a lot. I have a list of eight public lavatories that are on the business rates list in my own area of Pendle in Lancashire—only eight. The numbers that might benefit from the Bill, if it was extended a little, are not more than that. We are talking about single figures in most local authorities, certainly most ordinary districts. They could cope with that perfectly well and would not complain about the extra burden; they would welcome the ability to influence things a little for the better.
Having said that, I very much support these amendments and look forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope that we see a few improvements to the Bill from the Government, when we get to Report, to make it even better than it is now.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is an important series of amendments. My noble friend Lady Thomas knows, at first hand, the challenges facing people with disabilities as they seek to do what the rest of us take for granted. Before people with disabilities venture out, questions have to be answered. Is there an accessible public toilet? Is its accessibility such that it meets the needs of, say, those using larger mobility aids? Is it open at the appropriate times? How easy is it to access? Negative answers to these questions may well mean that someone with a disability is unable to go on a trip or holiday, or simply shopping.
My noble friend’s Amendment 14 is hugely important and I am proud that it is also in my name. I urge the Minister to take these concerns seriously, as I feel sure he will, and to press his ministerial colleagues to make them a priority. During this lockdown, we have all had the experience of not being able just to go out, when we want to. For people with disabilities, this can happen all the time. Ensuring there are accessible and available public toilets goes some way to remove one of their barriers to freedom.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, these amendments would require the Government to carry out an assessment of the impact of the relief on the provision of public toilets. The first, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require an assessment to be made within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, while the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would require an assessment of the impact to be published on a recurring, annual basis. The amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Pinnock, would require an assessment to be made with particular reference to accessible toilets and Changing Places facilities. The fourth amendment, which has been tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, would require such an assessment to review the impact of the relief on the cleanliness and maintenance of public toilets and the provision of baby changing facilities, in addition to the impact on the overall provision of public lavatories.
I appreciate the interest that noble Lords have in the efficacy of the measure within the Bill and assure the House that the Government keep all business rate reliefs under review. I also want to meet with interested noble Lords and the British Toilet Association before Report to see how we can review implementation of this relief. That is an important step and, I hope, will be an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that have been raised.
Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that I failed to answer earlier. I can confirm that the relief for all separately assessed toilets applies irrespective of ownership. I want to be clear on that point.
On the provision of public lavatories, the Committee may be interested in the data that is already published annually, to which I have already referred. There are some 3,990 separately assessed public toilets in England and Wales, and this figure is constantly updated and monitored. We do not want to see reductions, and it is clear that by significantly reducing the operating costs of these facilities, the measures in the Bill will help to keep public toilets open up and down the country.
While these measures constitute a significant element of support for these facilities, a number of other factors determine whether a toilet is able to remain open. Ultimately, the decisions on whether to maintain or close a facility must be made by the operator of the facility, often the local council. These decisions will usually be based on wider funding pressures, as well as the number of toilets elsewhere in the local area.
The Government strongly support the continued operation of our public toilets. As I set out earlier, we are providing £30 million of grant funding to directly support the provision of Changing Places toilets in particular. I also set out at Second Reading some of the good work that councils have undertaken through community toilet schemes to maintain and increase provision in their local areas. However, it is clear that there are a number of factors that determine whether a toilet is able to stay open, and it would not be possible to attribute any future changes in the overall provision of public lavatories, or facilities of any specific type, solely to the measures in this Bill. Equally, I do not envisage any direct link between business rates relief and the maintenance and cleanliness of existing public toilets. For this reason, and because the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that noble Lords will agree that any assessment of the kind proposed would be unnecessary and an ineffective use of government resources.
However, I welcome the fact that the Bill has shone a light on the interest from across the Committee in our public toilets, and I recognise the passion with which my colleagues have spoken of the need for adequate provision of accessible toilets in particular. I hope that the Committee will therefore allow me to conclude by reiterating the support of the Government for these vital facilities.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the importance of accessible toilets. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, again raised the issue of Changing Places toilets and the disbursement of the £30 million of funds. I am happy to give further details on the progress of that, I hope before Report. It is important to many people in the country that we ensure that the absence of accessible toilets is reduced, because lack of accessible toilets reduces the ability of people with a disability to make use of our public spaces with confidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the important question of design and doors opening inwards, thereby reducing space. That is a good point, and everyone here nodded in agreement with that sentiment. So I am pleased to let the Committee know that a technical review is looking at the ergonomics and features of toilets and will I hope take some of these points on board. We hope to see an improvement in design in the future.
While the Bill is important, the provision of public toilets is rooted in a number of factors, and in the particular case of accessible toilets, the Government are providing direct grant funding. On this basis, and as the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. The decline in the provision of public lavatories is a matter of great concern. The adequate provision of toilets is a public health matter, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said in this debate.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that many accessible toilets are poorly designed, despite considerable sums of money having been spent on them. I also agree with her that the need to provide more toilets for women and for men, and more gender-neutral toilets, as well as accessible and Changing Places toilets, is of paramount importance. As I have said, it is about understanding needs, the lack of provision of toilets for women, and ensuring respect for difference, along with the provision of facilities that are clean, safe and secure, and which people feel are safe to use.
The Bill does not address these issues because of its narrow scope, but I am sure we all agree that those are important matters. They are relevant issues that need to be addressed. I was very pleased by the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to meet interested Peers between now and Report, along with representatives of the British Toilet Association, and I look forward to taking part. However, at this stage I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. The time limit for the following debate will be one hour.
Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 January be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, you will recall that under the business rates retention scheme introduced in 2013-14, local authorities typically keep up to 50% of the business rates collected from local ratepayers. The actual amount retained by the authority depends on its local share, the amount that it pays or receives as part of the redistribution arrangements—its so-called tariff, or top-up—and ultimately whether it pays a levy on its growth, or receives a safety net payment because its business rates income has declined.
While the complexity of the rates retention scheme can sometimes be quite daunting, the underlying principle is really very simple. It allows local authorities, for the first time since 1990, to keep a share of the growth in their local tax base, over and above the resources they get from central government. However, there is another way in which local government can benefit from the rates retention scheme: through the designated area arrangements.
The Government can designate a discrete geographical area in which the rates income, or some part of it, is ignored for the purpose of tariffs, top-ups, levy and safety net. Instead, the rates income is retained in its entirety by the local authority. Since 2013, the Government have created over 200 designated areas, most as part of enterprise zones. In such areas, authorities have been permitted to keep all the growth in their business rates for a period of 25 years, the additional business rates income being used by authorities and their local enterprise partnerships to help the regeneration of those areas. Other designated areas have been set up specifically to allow authorities to keep all the growth in business rates, to create an income stream against which authorities have been able to borrow for specific infrastructure improvements. In total, between 2013-14 and 2019-20, authorities have kept an additional £237 million from designated areas, which has been used to provide improved infrastructure and to support regeneration more generally.
The regulations create a new designated area in Teesside, that of the South Tees Development Corporation. Once the regulations are in force, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and the Tees Valley Combined Authority will keep all the growth in business rates for a period of 25 years. This development corporation site is the first mayoral development corporation outside London and was inspired by the independent report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in June 2016. In covering the industrial area that had been blighted by the liquidation of the SSI steelworks, he foresaw the development opportunities that would be afforded by this 4,000-acre site on the south bank of the River Tees, a site with good road and rail access, and sitting alongside one of the deepest ports on the east coast of the United Kingdom. He recommended the establishment of the South Tees Development Corporation and advised the Government and local partners to put the relevant resources in place to realise this goal.
The designation of this special economic area is part of that financing plan—part of a masterplan that will see new investment on the site and the creation of an additional 20,000 new good-quality jobs on one of the largest development sites in Europe. It builds on central and local government investment to initially deal with the legacy of steel-making and ensure that the site was kept safe and secure, before working with local, national and international investors on what market opportunities are most relevant to the site. The development corporation secured ownership of the developable land through agreement and a compulsory purchase order, bringing order to a piecemeal and incoherent situation, and allowing developments at scale.
There is a healthy pipeline of investment interest in place, and the provisions of this statutory instrument will ensure that, as the land is developed and new industries emerge, part of the business rates income will be reinvested in site development. It is a virtuous circle, where success in investment will bring resource to accelerate the development of the site. The regulations provide that the designated area will come into force only after the Government are satisfied that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and the Tees Valley Combined Authority have put in place arrangements that ensure that the money they keep as a result of these regulations will be used solely for the benefit of the South Tees Development Corporation.
To that end, the Government have negotiated a memorandum of understanding with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and the Tees Valley Combined Authority which will ensure that there are clear revenue-sharing arrangements in place, protecting the finances of the local authority and enabling funding to be released for the development of the site. This will be signed as soon as Parliament agrees to the regulations, and will enable the designated area to come into existence on 1 April 2021. From that point, all growth in business rates will be shared 50:50 between the council and the combined authority.
Growth will be measured exactly as in other designated areas. Schedule 2 provides details of that measurement. When in any year the business rates income in the designated area is greater than a baseline amount, set out in Schedule 1, the council and combined authority will keep 100% of the difference. The baseline amount—a little over £7 million—has been set by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. It represents the annual amount of business rates that it would expect to collect in the designated area at this point in time. As the regeneration of the development corporation increases, the council and combined authority will keep every pound of the collectible business rates above that £7 million baseline. This will be reinvested in the area, generating still further growth.
These are important regulations. They will provide additional funds over an extended period, allowing the council and the combined authority to invest in the regeneration of South Tees. I commend them to the House.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and cogent explanation. I realise that these are very technical regulations to designate, for the purposes of non-domestic rates, an area in England, including for the admirable objectives that he described, such as in Cleveland. However, I want to press him about the wider plight of our town centres, as I did last month. Their decline has been drastically accelerated by the Covid-19 crisis and the acceleration of online shopping.
It is no good leaving this to market forces. If that is the Conservative Government’s stance, we might as well say goodbye to town centres, which have for generations, if not centuries, been the centres of community and business life. Commercial and online pressures and changing lifestyles have been accelerated by the pandemic. Business rates and rents have a critical role to play here. Of course there are different exemptions, suspensions, and reliefs for business rates, but that is sticking plaster. We need a much more radical and comprehensive solution to this problem, or our town centres will simply die.
To keep town centres viable and vibrant, they must be supported with UK government non-domestic rates subsidies designated for local government and transferred through the Barnett formula to devolved Administrations as well. That support must be long term, if not permanent, to incentivise retail and hospitality outlets to locate in town centres. Currently, town centre businesses are being killed by unfair competition, high costs, high rents, and high business rates. This is not the fault of local authorities across the country. After savage Conservative government cuts during the past 10 years, of about 30% in many respects, local councils do not have the funding or the legal basis to subsidise town centre enterprises in the necessary way.
Crown post offices have closed, some backed into local branches of WHSmith, but how long will those WHSmith branches survive in our town centres? Local bank branches have also been rapidly disappearing. The Government need a completely new agenda. Business rates should be completely scrapped for microbusinesses in town centres, along with rents. Instead of Government Ministers passing the buck to local authorities, the Treasury should step in and take responsibility. Rejuvenating town centres would also reduce our carbon footprint and end the throwaway culture. The Government should promote a regeneration of repair skills and facilities in town centres through skills support packages.
That means ending our society’s obsession with low personal tax. If we want a decent quality of life in town centres, which everyone says they do, we have to be prepared to pay for it. It is not going to happen on its own: market forces and commercial pressures will not resolve this problem. Treasury funding, provided through local councils, is necessary to regenerate and revive our town centres, and I hope that the Minister will seriously take up this option and encourage the Government to act before our town centres die. In that context, I support this order, but I think that a wider, more fundamental strategy is needed.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also welcome these regulations and the narrow spectrum that they contain, but I want to address the wider issues that business rates inflict on business in this country, particularly with regard to the needs of revival following the pandemic. While these regulations provide a system for incentivising growth and encourage local government to take steps to promote business growth, they will not serve every cash-strapped council in the short term. The effects of the pandemic and lockdown have shown how challenging our present business rate system is and how fragile a tax it is.
One of the first incentives that the Government provided to business during the pandemic was a business rate holiday, and rightly so. Given the extent of the lockdown, this is acting as a real drag-anchor on our town centres, which are now facing a much smaller retail offering moving forward. Fixed business rate taxes act as a discouragement to newcomer shops and enterprises. Our town centres will need a rethink if they are to survive as hubs for our communities.
Equally, the universality of business rates and their inherent weaknesses will undoubtedly lead to slower town centre recovery in the poorer parts of the country. Boarded-up shops will be more of a feature if large steps are not taken now to revitalise our town centres. The retail and community offer in our centres must be given the right incentives if they are to re-establish these as places to which people want to go. Our business rates system is simply not fit for purpose for this to happen.
The crisis facing our high streets and the burden business rates place on companies compound the problems that we have with this tax. Business rates, by taxing the value of a business’s machinery and premises, are a tax on investment itself. The result is a higher bill for the ambitious entrepreneur who decides to expand factory space or add solar panels to the roof and a lower bill for the speculative landowner who chooses to leave their commercial plot derelict or unused. The replacement of business rates with a new tax based solely on land value and paid by landowners, would remove the existing disincentive to invest. It would also spare millions of small businesses which rent their premises the unhelpful administrative burden of business rates.
Business rates have become an unacceptable drag on our economy. This system is a tax on productive investment at a time of chronically weak productivity growth and a burden on a high street struggling to adapt to the rise of online retail and the impact of the pandemic. Because of the highly unequal way in which land values currently exist, a land tax of this sort would significantly reduce business taxes in the poorest parts of the country, helping bring about the regional rebalancing that is so badly needed. By taxing only land, and not the productive capital above it, it would remove a major disincentive to investment, boosting productivity and accelerating the UK’s recovery.
The business rates retention policy in these regulations, of sharing between central and local government—and solely within local government in this case—and providing local councils with extra cash to promote growth, could work equally well under a land value taxation scheme. Any growth in revenue could still accrue to the local authority alone. Therefore, although I agree that these regulations can serve us well as a policy in a period when growth is possible and likely, I encourage the Government to consider a new system altogether which would stimulate growth and encourage endeavour rather than just taxing it.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, in most areas of government, when the political decisions for actions to be taken are made, the process boils down to one of money coming in and then that money being committed or spent centrally or locally. In some areas, the process becomes very complicated and can lead to high levels of dissatisfaction and disagreement. These regulations, which appear in principle—as my noble friend the Minister has said—to be very simple, in fact form part of the whole debate on the financing of local government, the very relationship between central and local government, and the way in which businesses large and small contribute to the cost of local and national services.
Business rates are controversial, and substantial reform is overdue. In the meantime, as a result of the current Covid crisis and the inability of many businesses to trade profitably if they can even continue at all, the extra burden of non-domestic rates has rightly been recognised in short-term relief for businesses in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors with rateable values of less than £51,000. I hope that the Chancellor will have more to say and to offer on this subject in his Budget Statement.
We saw a number of changes in the way business rates were levied and spent in the Local Government Finance Act 2012, when normally 50% of monies could be retained by the local authority as opposed to being remitted to the Treasury. However, the Government are committed to a much wider reform of business rates. In its 2019 election manifesto, the Conservative Party promised to reduce business rates and to fundamentally review the whole basis of these charges. Since then, the Covid crisis has hit business hard, so a change in the basis of charging rates is urgently required. We have been promised a revaluation of rates from 2023, which luckily will be based on property values of April 2021, so it will reflect the impact of the present crisis. This is welcome, but in the meantime we are now extending a localisation of control of the rate income by this measure before us today.
This benefits Tees Valley Combined Authority and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. As my noble friend the Minister has indicated, it allows the retained monies to be used in the designated area where the need is greatest and where local economic growth is most required. That is a good thing. The establishment in certain parts of the country of mayoral combined authorities with specific spending powers and, in particular, the emphasis on local economic growth has clearly required new funding arrangements. Although these regulations are dealing only with any income arising from the growth of rate returns, in this one designated area, those sums will be totally at the disposal of local government. As this money will be shared 50/50 between the local authority and the mayoral combined authority in the area, I hope that the required memorandum of understanding between the two, which has been referred to, will be a really co-operative and positive statement and an encouragement for greater economic activity, and will allow the designated area to be confirmed in April, as suggested.
Memoranda of understanding are being ever more utilised as precursors for more solid agreements, as has been demonstrated in our recent UK trade initiatives. While always well intentioned, they do not always result in long-term satisfaction. Moving more of the monies received into the hands of local democracy is very important and it is, of course, not a substitute for thorough reform. We await that reform with great interest.
I am assuming that regulations similar to these will be put before us for other areas where a mayoral combined authority and local authorities are working together, and that this will include West Yorkshire, which moves to a new status soon. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this will indeed be the formula for all such combinations in the future as devolution proceeds? When the proposed revaluation is completed, will further changes be made to support business even more with the hope of economic enhancement, job creation and a lessening of the burdens on business as we emerge from the present crisis?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument in his normal straightforward way. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Heseltine for his tireless efforts on behalf of this country. His farsightedness brought new life to Liverpool, and it is great to see that it will now do the same for the Teesside area, where it is certainly much needed.
As the Minister said in introducing the statutory instrument, the complexity of this scheme can sometimes seem daunting. I certainly felt that way on reading this legislation and the related documents. Therefore, would it be possible to simplify the legislation? One would imagine so. If so, can the Minister undertake to ensure that his department will do so?
I have two more general observations to make on the business rating system. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke very eloquently about the problems that our town centres now face. They were bad before Covid; they are infinitely worse now. What will revive those town centres? Back in 2011, Mary Portas, an authority on retailing, was commissioned to write a report. She came up with a very detailed document that made specific proposals running into the teens, but, as far as I can make out, very few of them have been followed up in any detail at all.
Will the Minister revisit the Portas report and some of the very interesting ideas put forward in it? For instance, she suggested that there should be super-business improvement districts, with new powers to change an area and the planning that goes on within it. She suggested that it should be made much easier for individuals to set themselves up as market traders. Currently, there are so many regulations governing how our markets work that people face almost daunting obstacles in what should be a very simple business and which has, in the past, been a way of producing very successful retail businesses that have brought new rates into an area. Is there a central register of what works in a local authority area to enable it to generate more business rate income?
It is clearly beneficial to an area to have thriving businesses that will generate the income that they will then be able to use, as the Minister said, to improve infrastructure and the area generally. Would it be possible, if it is not done already, for central government to investigate what initiatives work? Does a town centre management scheme, for instance, bring new life into an area? Can educational initiatives be introduced locally that will, before very long, bring new business rates into an area? I would like to see government be proactive on this and would be grateful if the Minister would say whether he thinks that that sort of initiative is possible.
Finally, I echo the words of others in this debate. It is absolutely imperative that the business rates holiday, which was very speedily granted in the wake of Covid and the devastating effect that it had on our high streets, is extended in the Budget. Can the Minister give us any assurance on that?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks in presenting the statutory instrument.
These regulations form part of a scheme to allow local government to retain a share of non-domestic rates, to be shared between central and local government, with 50% each. As a former local councillor for 37 years, I know how important rates are in providing local services. The Government previously identified a number of geographical areas designed to help job creation and encourage growth. I appreciate that this system applies only to England and Wales, but the 50:50 split of rates income between central and local government is generally mirrored in Northern Ireland.
I acknowledge that these regulations do not extend to the Province, but I share their overriding aim to provide flexibility and support for local councils, enabling them to promote economic development via the rates system. Belonging to a pro-business party, my colleagues have previously outlined our support for devolving to local councillors the powers and ability to lower business rates in their council areas by up to 3%. We also want to enhance the small business rate relief scheme and maintain industrial derating.
Ultimately, these regulations promote and encourage a rates-based growth strategy in designated areas of local government. This is certainly something on which I want to see a greater emphasis in Northern Ireland, and my colleagues in the Executive are seeking to take this forward. New developments and new businesses can boost the income of local councils and generate growth. Therefore, the business rates base should be a key driver.
The recovery from Covid-19 must have at its core an emphasis on skills and productivity, backed by infrastructure investment. A business rates system which is fit for purpose and allows the economy to grow and evolve is therefore essential. Higher rates bills are not only a barrier to business creation and growth, but a harmful impediment to existing firms. Rates reforms can remove these obstacles to growth and place the future of businesses that are under threat from the chaos of the pandemic on a more stable footing.
I am also mindful that the charitable relief from non-domestic rating has been a vital lifeline for faith-based organisations and for the community and voluntary sector. Any strategy for spearheading the recovery from the ravages of Covid-19 must not neglect these groups, as their operation has already been severely disrupted.
In conclusion, I agree with those who have emphasised the necessity of a specific plan to revive our town centres and high streets. I trust that the Government will give us a positive lead on that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I know that the scheme is welcomed by many local authorities as a way of getting money back into their areas by means of development and reinvesting locally. It is very much to be commended for that.
I inquired of staff in the House of Lords Library how many designated areas had been granted and for how long, and I thank them greatly for their excellent assistance in this. It was fascinating to see the range of places covered, the sums involved and the length of time granted. However, it gave me pause to ask about two aspects.
First, how does the Minister determine how long an area is designated for? I see that Birmingham city centre, which was designated in April 2013, was given 33 years, whereas Mersey Waters in Liverpool was designated for only 25 years, and the London zones of Croydon and Brent Cross for only 16 years and 12 years respectively. Can the Minister explain why some are granted such short periods and others so much longer, or does that reflect the period applied for by the local authorities?
My second question relates to how many applications are refused. As with any such applications, a great deal of work will go into preparing these and, over the years, I have known of too many cases in which the Government of the time encourage applications and then refuse to approve any, or many. I hope that this is not the case here. When a previous inquiry of this type was sought in 2011, the then Minister in another place would not disclose the number of unsuccessful applicants. I hope that the number of applicants is high and the percentage of refusals low. In either case, it must be clear in advance what is required and why an application is to be refused. Like other Members of this House, I too recall the effectiveness of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in Liverpool. We have something to build on in so many places in this country, and we should be doing it.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. These regulations form part of the scheme for local retention of non-domestic rates. Their purpose is to designate an area in relation to which a proportion of the non-domestic rating income raised is to be retained in its entirety by the local authority in whose area the designated area falls and shared by that authority with its combined authority.
The department has reached this view because it considers that the primary purpose of the instrument relates to local government finance, which is within the devolved legislative competence of each of the three devolved legislatures. The territorial extent of this instrument is England and Wales. These regulations form part of the scheme to allow local retention of the non-domestic rate scheme which was introduced on 1 April 2013 to give local government a direct share of the local non-domestic rating income and thereby an incentive to promote local growth. This replaced the previous scheme whereby non-domestic rates were collected by local authorities, paid to central government and redistributed back to local government via the local government finance report.
As part of their policy to deliver growth, the Government have previously identified a number of geographical areas designed to help create jobs and businesses in areas of economic opportunity. They will do this by giving businesses the right conditions for growth, creating public and private partnerships and encouraging competition to attract foreign inward investment. In these areas, the Government have allowed local authorities to retain 100% of the growth in non-domestic rates. This provides a powerful incentive for growth.
Can the Minister say whether there is a monitoring process in place to ensure that local authorities use these funds for business growth and not for other purposes?
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind my House of my interests as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This debate on the specific share of rateable income newly generated by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and the Teesside mayoral authority has raised some important considerations. The first is that currently around half of the income of local authorities is raised via business rates. This is either through retained business rates, which is the subject of these regulations, or by the redistribution of business rates collected locally and redistributed nationally.
In recent years the Government have made very considerable reductions in central government grants and have expected local authorities to base their expenditure on income derived in the main from council tax collection and business rate income. With the huge pressure on the most highly rated premises in our town centres, it is hardly surprising that retail outlets are closing in such large numbers. In the competition between online and physical retail, the biggest financial advantage lies with online premises, where rateable values are so much lower.
I have an example. I live in a small Victorian town, where a small shop is paying at the rate of £250 per square metre of its premises. The equivalent for an out-of-town warehouse, also in Yorkshire, which is the distribution centre of a major online shopping business, is a mere £45 per square metre. That vast disparity is at the heart of the crisis in our local high streets. This is the background to the regulations we are debating.
In a nutshell, the system is broken, as several noble Lords have detailed. The Government need to address this problem with considerable urgency and energy. It is also unfair. Designated areas are of benefit in those areas only. However, retaining those rates locally results in the national income of business rates not growing by that proportion. This in turn means that there is less to distribute across the rest of the country. Designated areas discriminate against those local authorities that, for a variety of reasons, are unable to encourage high business rate growth—including, for instance, serving an area within a national park.
What is also apparent in the need for the regulations is the narrowness of the Government’s definition of devolution. Devolution as experienced in other nations in Europe would see no need for the regulations. The Government need to let go and free up local authorities to develop their enterprising faculties. That is what this small example of a designated area is able to do. The challenge, however, with the current high levels of unemployment, is for all growth and job creation to be encouraged. How can local and mayoral authorities achieve this while they remain harnessed to the constraints of central government?
Throughout this debate, we have heard sharp criticism of the existing system and a general desire to encourage enterprise, job creation and the prosperity that follows. This scheme of designation of business rates retention in the Tees Valley mayoral authority and the Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council area is welcome for this part of the country. However, major reform is vital. My noble friend Lord German has proposed a site value rating approach, whereby land is taxed, not the enterprise on it.
I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government, in considering reform of the system of business rates, are mindful of the advantages of site value rating. With those comments, I of course support the regulations and the retention of rates in that part of the north-east of the country.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I 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, much wider than the regulations before us. As for the regulations, this is a government scheme that allows local authorities to retain some of the income from non-domestic rates that they collect. The regulations before the House today designate the Tees Valley Combined Authority and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to be recipients of the rates raised in their areas.
I have a few questions for the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and some comments to make on the contributions made by a number of noble Lords. When he responds, will the Minister explain the process for selecting this particular area to come forward at this time? What is the process for adding further areas? I think he said that over 200 areas have now been allowed to retain a large element of their rates. I remember the Government confirming—I think it was as far back as November last year—that other authorities, in Manchester, Liverpool, London and elsewhere, would retain an increased proportion of their business rates. If he can, will the Minister update the House on the progress of this? Does the Government have some sort of priority list?
My noble friend Lord Hain raised the decline of our town centres, an important issue that was contained in many speeches this afternoon. As my noble friend said, the decline has been accelerated at a pace by the Covid-19 pandemic. I agree that we need urgent action by the Government to deal with the unfair competition that many high streets now have from out-of-town shopping and online operations that are accelerating their destruction. Over the last year we have all seen reports of many well-known and loved chains disappearing. They have closed down and will not reopen, leaving boarded-up shops in their place. If we want to have anything like the high street we know and love, we have to do something to save it. I hope that the Minister can update the House on the work his department is doing on that issue. If he cannot do so today, will he write to the House and send a copy of his letter to Members who have taken part in this debate?
The noble Lord, Lord German, made a fair point when he highlighted that business rates are a disincentive to setting up new operations. I agree that our business rates and council tax systems are not fit for purpose. We need urgently to address how we are going to fund local activities; we need to get this right. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, made reference to the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto to reform the business rates. I look forward to some proposals from the Government, as early as possible in this Parliament, on how they are going to do that. I think we should all agree on getting more money into the hands of local authorities to equip them better to spend money locally.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for his work in the area of regeneration over more than 40 years. He is rightly recognised for the excellent work that he has done. The noble Baroness also raised the Portas review. I remember that; it took place soon after the coalition Government came to office. It is now well over 10 years since it reported and it would be good, at some point, to hear what has actually happened on the back of that review. I think the noble Baroness is right that very little came from it. There were a number of interesting proposals which the Government should perhaps look at again. The problem now, of course, is that we are 10 years further on and the problems are more difficult to deal with—but we do need to look at that. I also join the noble Baroness in supporting the call for the extension of the business rates holiday. I hope that the Chancellor will address that when he delivers his Budget.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, rightly highlighted the importance of giving local authorities the flexibility to support local businesses. Local authorities do know their businesses and communities, and having the flexibility to make a difference locally is really important. I am sure that the Minister supports that. Equally, I support the noble Lord’s call for support for faith-based organisations and recognition of the important part they play in our local communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked about the length of retention periods for money raised by local authorities. She gave examples of how they are quite different in Croydon, Brent Cross, Birmingham town centre and Liverpool. There may be very good reasons for this, but I am not aware of what they are. If the noble Lord cannot respond now, could he highlight what those reasons are in a letter to the House?
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, raised the important point of supporting public and private partnerships and businesses through such schemes, as illustrated by these regulations—I fully agree with that.
Today’s debate has been much wider than the very narrow issue about the business rates retention scheme in the Tees Valley, and I suppose it was always going to be. We have raised really important issues about our high streets, which we all love—we want them back, prospering and working well. However, to do that, we have to support them and shop local to ensure that they are there. If we do not make sure that we support them, they will not be there in the future, which would be a detriment to us all. This has been an excellent debate, and I am sure the noble Lord will respond to what he can today and that, if not, he will come back to us in a letter.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have indeed had an interesting and extremely wide-ranging debate on the regulations before us. I thank noble Lords on all sides for their thoughtful contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord German, talked about looking at a land value taxation scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Kennedy, and a number of other noble Lords raised the issue of the future of business rates. We need to wait for the outcome of the fundamental review of business rates; it was recently declared that that will be published in the autumn. It is very important that we are cognisant of these seismic shifts that we have seen between physical retail on our high streets and town centres and the move to online, which of course has been accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, gave an eloquent speech about how government can and should support our town centres, which are really hurting as a result of this pandemic in particular. I point to this Government’s sizeable towns fund, which is £3.6 billion and will be allocated in £25 million chunks, with town deals that look to unleash the economic success and vibrancy of our town centres and high streets—£1 billion of that is specifically for our high streets, which are such an important part of life in our towns and cities. In terms of support, that is something we are bringing forward.
On rates relief and the future of business rates relief, an incredible £10 billion has been saved by providing a business rates holiday. The decisions on the future of that for 2021-22 will, of course, be something that is considered by the Chancellor in the upcoming Budget.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, talked about the important issue of the simplification and reform of local government finance. It is fair to say that, before the pandemic, we had long and detailed discussions with local government about reforms to the local government finance system. These included possible reforms to the allocation of funding, by means of a review of relative needs and resources, and to the business rates retention system. Earlier in the financial year, we announced that the Government will not proceed with reform in 2021-22. The Government’s decision was to postpone reform and was taken in the interest of creating stability for local authorities, and it has allowed both the Government and councils to focus on meeting the immediate public health challenge posed by the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, once the pandemic is over—we have announced our road map to recovery—we will work with local government to understand the lasting impact it has had on both service demands and revenue raising. We will then revisit priorities for the reform of the local government finance system, taking into account wider work on the future of business rates and adult social care, so the final decisions about reform will be taken in the context of next year’s spending review.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope raised the issue of new designated areas and the process, which is essentially by application. We have already created 226 designated areas across 94 different local authorities in England, mostly in enterprise zones; this includes 22 in Yorkshire and another 30 in Humberside. While we currently have no plans to roll out more enterprise zones, we are considering creating designated areas as part of free ports, as set out in the prospectus we published in November 2020. We are currently considering the applications that we received in response to that prospectus and hope to make a further announcement shortly. More generally, we are always looking at how best to help local government and partners meet their regeneration needs and challenges.
My noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised a number of points about the differences between the lengths of time for which areas are designated. The majority of designated areas run for 25 years. This is because we recognise that the effective regeneration of an area requires a sustained long-term commitment, which needs to be underpinned by long-term funding arrangements. A few designated areas, such as those mentioned by my noble friend, in Brent Cross and Croydon, were put in place solely to provide a funding stream to enable authorities to borrow for specific infrastructure developments. The period for which those designated areas run was worked out with the authorities concerned to ensure that, based on their projections of the likely additional business rates yield, they would have sufficient additional funding to repay their loans.
On the question of how many applications are refused, over the years designated areas have been selected in a number of ways. The first enterprise zones were created before the business rates retention scheme had come into force. Subsequent designated areas were created following discussions with local enterprise partnerships and local authorities. In 2016, we ran an open competition which led to the creation of 24 new enterprise zones—many comprising multiple designated areas—from some 60 applications. As with Brent Cross and Croydon, we have also created a handful of designated areas, having been approached by individual authorities to assist with the financing of specific infrastructure projects. In all, we have designated 226 separate areas across 94 different authorities. Since 2013, these have contributed nearly £240 million of additional investment in the regeneration of areas throughout England.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and as someone who was formerly a local authority leader, I pay tribute to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He is the regeneration impresario. In principle, it is about how we can take locally generated investment and reinvest it in the local area—effectively pump-priming money put in by the state by leveraging in money from the private sector. This is behind the approach we are taking in South Tees. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, took those principles and reapplied them again and again, because they work. He made a huge contribution in this field. With regeneration comes opportunities for good-quality jobs. It helps lift whole areas. It is important that we find measures within local finance to enable and encourage local authorities to grow so that they can reinvest in their local areas, so that we have that virtuous cycle.
The regulations will ensure that, from 1 April, any growth in business rates will be retained in its entirety by Redcar and Cleveland council and the Tees Valley Combined Authority. Instead of having to be shared with central government, this can be used for the benefit of the local area. They will provide those authorities with an income stream over 25 years that will be used to invest in the South Tees Development Corporation. This investment will secure the creation of new industries and 20,000 new jobs in an area blighted by the closure of the former steelworks.
In conclusion, these regulations make an important contribution to the redevelopment of one of the largest development sites in Europe. They underline the Government’s long-term commitment to the regeneration of South Tees, and I commend them to the House.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text