House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
On 9 March we introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has been carried forward into the new Session. This legislation will deliver on our manifesto commitments to make punishments tougher for the most serious offenders and to introduce more effective community sentences, and work is also under way on the non-legislative reforms set out in my White Paper last year, which aim to tackle the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and improve the rehabilitation of offenders in the community.
Rob Butler
It is essential that the public have confidence in the sentencing decisions reached in our courts. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that an important element in that confidence can come from judges and magistrates explaining clearly the aims their sentences are designed to achieve, recognising that they are about not just punishment but rehabilitation in order to reduce reoffending and then create far fewer victims of crime in the future?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend speaks from experience about these matters, and he will know that by law the court must explain the effect of a sentence and its reasons for deciding on it in clear, ordinary language. The pre-sentence report pilot that I announced in the sentencing White Paper also aims to increase sentencers’ confidence that their determinations will indeed improve outcomes for offenders and reduce reoffending.
Marco Longhi
Sedgley in my Dudley North constituency has recently seen gangs of youths coming together, throwing stones at passing cars and at people’s property and generally engaging in behaviour seen as very intimidating towards neighbours, so will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the following three things? First, please can we refrain from describing this type of activity as “low-level antisocial behaviour” because victims of these crimes certainly do not see it as such? Secondly, could we ask the police and the judiciary to look at prosecuting and indeed convicting so that sentencing is meaningful and therefore acts as a deterrent? Thirdly, can we please engage with colleagues across Departments to look at investment in schemes for young people that are tailored for them?
Robert Buckland
I understand, Mr Speaker, but my hon. Friend had to cover a lot there because the question of offending by young people and children raises complex issues. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the way in which we describe this behaviour, and indeed I made that very point in my maiden speech to the House. We should label that criminality as “criminality”, and it will sometimes be in the public interest to prosecute, because we have flexible community orders for children to address their offending behaviour, involving parents and carers in that process, too. But there are alternatives, and it is important to commend restorative action and early interventions to prevent children from getting into the criminal justice process in the first place.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Government’s 2019 manifesto promised to do “right by victims” and
“to fight crime against women and girls”,
but I have to say to the Secretary of State that nothing seems further from the truth. Women do not need rhetoric; they need legislation, but he appears more interested in silencing protests than giving a voice to victims of sexual crimes—more interested in defending statues than women and girls. Will the Secretary of State show that he cares by working cross-party to implement Labour’s Bill on ending violence against women and girls?
Robert Buckland
That was not a question; it was a soundbite, which bears no reality to what this Government have been doing. We have passed landmark domestic abuse legislation, we work tirelessly in the fight against violence against women and girls, and we continue to do that in our new Bill, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which presents a golden opportunity for Labour to work together with us. But what did they do? They voted against it on Second Reading; they voted the whole thing down. I will not believe Labour until they truly match their rhetoric with their deeds; so far their record has been dismal and weak.
Mr Lammy
In 2019 Philip Leece viciously raped a woman on her way home from a night out; she was 26 and soon to be married. Adding insult to injury, he published the name of his victim online and ridiculed her as being too fat and disgusting to rape. For that, he received a pathetic fine of £120. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not commit to implementing Labour’s whole Bill on ending violence against women, will he at least agree to implement Labour’s proposals for tougher sentences for those who name and shame victims of sexual offences?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that distressing case, and he can rest assured that over the years in which I have dealt with the unlawful and criminal naming of victims in that way I have not hesitated to take action as a Law Officer. Indeed we are already making preparations to see what can be done to improve and strengthen the law in this area, because, make no mistake, the naming of victims of sexual abuse—and other types of offending as well where anonymity is an essential part of the process—is not just wrong, it is criminal and we will do whatever it takes to help stamp it out.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Legal advice and legal aid underpin a fair, rules-based society. The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under continual review to ensure provision across England and Wales, and legal advice is always available through the Civil Legal Advice telephone service.
Navendu Mishra [V]
In Greater Manchester, we are lucky that the Greater Manchester Law Centre provides an excellent service for people across the city region, but in my constituency of Stockport there are no community legal aid providers; it joins the 78% of local authorities in England and Wales that do not have that service. Does the Minister agree that these legal aid deserts are denying vital support to millions of people, and will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that there is the necessary funding for every area to have an acceptable number of legal aid providers?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Legal aid is essential, which is why I am delighted that when the law centres sought support from the Government, every penny piece requested was provided—including, by the way, to Greater Manchester Law Centre, which received £140,000. We are standing behind excellent legal aid providers, including those who provide it digitally and remotely, because when it comes to legal advice, what matters most is quality, not necessarily geography.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) is spot on, is he not? The Government must address the vast deserts where no legal aid providers exist. The disabled and vulnerable in most of England and Wales have been denied access to justice due to the Government’s inaction. How can the Minister possibly justify a situation where 37 million people in Stockport, Hull and across the rest of England and Wales do not have access to a community care legal aid provider? He talks tough, he promises all sorts; he does nothing. Get on with it!
Alex Chalk
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. What a shame that when there was a Labour Government, he did nothing to stand up to the Labour Prime Minister who decried “fat cat” legal aid lawyers and said that he was going to
“derail the gravy train of legal aid”.
Where was the hon. Gentleman then? Nowhere. This is the Government who are getting behind legal aid and getting behind the civil legal aid service, and who, by the way, funded the community justice fund, which provided support for the Disability Law Service that he wants to see, and so do I.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Complainants in rape and sexual offence cases are protected by automatic reporting restrictions. There is a lifetime ban on reporting any matter likely to identify a victim from the moment the offence is reported. As the Lord Chancellor has outlined, we are giving consideration to what more we could do to provide greater deterrence and punishment when an offence is committed.
Charlotte Nichols [V]
While we still see instances of victims of sexual assault being named publicly, women continue to be silenced from naming their abusers by civil actions from those who are wealthy enough to take them. I wrote to the Prime Minister in March asking him to take action on this, but the Minister’s reply of 13 April missed this point entirely. Will he now say what steps he will take to prevent victims from being gagged by wealthy and powerful abusers in civil courts?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously, we want to make sure that there is equity before the law, and no matter how rich or powerful someone is, they have to obey the rules as they are laid down. As the Lord Chancellor has outlined, we are giving consideration to what more we can do in this area to make sure that the anonymity of victims in this kind of case is protected and there is sufficient deterrent and punishment for those who name their own victims, or indeed those who are victims in court, so that it does not occur.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
Prior to coronavirus, outstanding case loads in the Crown court were low by historical standards. However, coronavirus has put huge strain on the court system, in common with so many other public services. The Government have taken decisive action, with 60 Nightingale courtrooms, a quarter of a billion pounds spent on improving the justice system, 290 safe jury trial rooms and 1,600 extra staff. It is thanks to those decisive measures that magistrates court case loads are now 60,000 cases lower than they were at the peak over the summer.
Laura Trott
I thank the Minister for his answer and for his previous engagement on the issue of a Nightingale court in Kent. Will he provide an update on when he thinks the court will be established and up and running?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend has been a tireless advocate for a Nightingale court in Kent. My colleague Lord Wolfson is working very actively on that question and I strongly hope we will be in a position to make a positive announcement in the very near future.
Seema Malhotra
The employment tribunal backlog stands at a staggering 51,000, which is 45% higher than pre-pandemic levels. The Minister will blame that on covid, but he knows the system was broken before, with cuts made by his Department. Now, as we see multiple employment claims shooting up and some employers using covid as a cover for fire and rehire or cutting people’s employment rights, we have a tribunal system that is unable to cope. Labour warned about this and called for a package of urgent measures. When will the Minister finally step up and take responsibility for the backlog of cases?
Chris Philp
In common with so many other areas of the justice system employment tribunals were profoundly affected by coronavirus, but we have taken decisive action. The number of employment tribunal sitting days is being increased dramatically, and the tribunal is benefiting from the 1,600 extra staff hired across Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and from the enormous investment in technology, which is enabling across the court system, including the tribunal, 20,000 remote hearings a week. Those are the actions we are taking to address the issue the hon. Lady raises.
John Spellar
The Minister is being remarkably complacent, because he must know that much of the backlog was actually caused by massive cuts by the Conservative Government. That was a huge error, impacting not only on very serious criminal cases in the Crown court, but on dealing with the petty crime and antisocial behaviour that is blighting our communities. He also knows that cases are taking years to get to court, with the impact that that has on the availability or willingness of witnesses. When he will he stop putting out this complacent line and get a grip of the problem?
Chris Philp
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the situation prior to coronavirus. The outstanding case load in the Crown court prior to coronavirus was 39,000 cases—low by historical standards and substantially lower than the 47,000 cases left behind by the last Labour Government. Moreover, under this Government, crime, as reported by the crime survey, has dropped by 41%. There is no complacency. A quarter of a billion pounds has been spent, 1,600 extra staff have been hired and 23,000 extra police are being recruited. There is no complacency here.
Dr Evans [V]
I asked the House of Commons Library what was going on in the east midlands pre-pandemic. Interestingly, in Bosworth the number of court cases in the backlog has stayed the same. That is partly because there was an 11% rise in Leicester courts, but a 12% fall in Leamington Spa. Clearly, covid has had a massive impact and I pay tribute to the court staff working tirelessly to clear that, but overall there is a mixed picture. What is the Minister’s Department trying to do to tease out what is covid and what is pre-existing, and, most importantly, to share good practice to try to deal with all those cases?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his interest, of course, in his constituency and his region. There is a great deal we are doing across the country, including in the east midlands. I mentioned the investment of a quarter of a billion pounds. We are also saying that for Crown court cases there will be no constraint on the number of cases listed. We are encouraging the judiciary the length and breadth of the kingdom, including in the east midlands, to be forward-leaning in listing. We have, of course, already opened the Nightingale court in Nottingham and are planning to open a further Crown court in Loughborough in the late summer, which will accommodate large multi-handers—it will be a supercourt. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome that important step, which will benefit his region.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Even the Minister’s own MPs accept that there is a crisis in the court system. There are now a record 57,000 outstanding Crown court cases. Lawyers are concerned that they cannot safely see their clients in cells and facilities in many courts are inadequate for the same purpose. The temporary leases on many of the Nightingale courts will come to an end within weeks. Defendants are spending longer than ever in prison and on remand, and some are wrongly feeling pressured to plead guilty rather than face months and maybe years before their cases will be heard. Will the Minister confirm his plans for the future of Nightingale courts, put a stop to the other planned court closures and tell the House just how long is it going to take to clear this backlog?
Chris Philp
I am rather perplexed to hear the shadow Minister talk about planned court closures. There are not any planned court closures and, in fact, as I have said, we have opened up 60 new Nightingale courtrooms and will be looking to continue those as long as they are needed. I already said, in the last answer, that we are planning to open up a new Nightingale court in a number of places in the country, including in Loughborough. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that the judiciary can list at will in the Crown court to encourage the recovery, which we are supporting with money—I have mentioned the quarter of a billion pounds several times already—remote hearings and extra staff. The pandemic has caused enormous difficulties for the court system, as it has for public services. Jury trials and pandemics do not mix very well. We have taken decisive action. That decisive action is delivering results.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Will the Minister look to fast-track rape cases by providing DNA testing hubs requiring immediate testing of the accused on request, like breath tests, and confirm that positive tests, alongside a dated audio recording from the victim’s mobile phone saying that they do not consent to sex, would be sufficient to enable immediate imprisonment through fast-track Nightingale courts to massively scale up the number of rapists taken off our streets and put behind bars? Will he meet me to discuss this?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is raising an extremely important point. Some of the questions that he is raising, to do with DNA testing and disclosure, are being addressed in the rape review that is due to report very shortly. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing would be delighted to meet and discuss some of these—[Interruption.] He is leading this work and he would be delighted to discuss these points; he gave me that undertaking just a moment ago. We are looking to expedite and ease these matters through, for example, the wider use of section 28 pre-recorded evidence, so people can give their evidence more quickly. On prioritising hearing rape cases, the hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point. Listing is a matter for the judiciary, but I know that judges think very carefully about the kind of points that he made when they decide which cases to prioritise.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a long and keen interest in the Supreme Court. It is entirely legitimate to look, in the wider context of constitutional reform, at the Act that underpinned the creation of that court to see whether it can be improved and updated. I will be open and consultative as that work is carried out, and I will say more at a later date about which aspects of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 I intend to consider.
Sir Edward Leigh
For 600 years, the House of Lords and, latterly, its Appellate Committee did a superb job of being our Supreme Court. Nobody has ever given a proper cost-benefit analysis of what has been gained by abolishing it, apart from spending so much more extra public money. I doubt that the Government, or any Government, have the guts to abolish this wasteful institution, but will the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor make it clear that we do not have a written constitution? We are not America. The Queen in Parliament —in other words, this House of Commons—is supreme, not the Supreme Court. That is particularly important if the Scottish National party should ever carry out its threat of a unilateral referendum against the wishes of this House of Commons in an Act of Parliament. Will the Secretary of State—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sir Edward, you should know that it is not supposed to be a speech; it is a question. You have been here so long you should know that.
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to decry the rationalist approach that was taken by the then Labour Government to our unwritten constitution. He is absolutely right to warn us against a descent into a United States-style constitutional court, which will do no one, least of all the judiciary, any good. I pay tribute to the members of that august body, but it is right that in the wider context of constitutional reform, we look at all aspects of our constitution to make sure that we get the balance right and to emphasise the point that Parliament is supreme.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
The Leader of the House described a Supreme Court ruling on his Government’s plans as a “constitutional coup”, yet we now see the UK Government using the same court to prevent the Scottish Government from implementing human rights legislation. Is the message to judges from the UK Government that they should just stay out of Downing Street’s business, but stand by if needed to prevent the devolved nations from implementing democratically agreed policy? How does the Secretary of State think that that will protect the Union?
Robert Buckland
Tempted as I am to talk about the particular issue that the hon. Lady raises, there is an ongoing Supreme Court reference. That is a normal use of our constitutional devices to make sure that all parts of the kingdom, including the devolved Administrations, legislate in a way that is consistent with the powers that they have. That is what is happening; it is a very good example of a mature democracy in operation.
With regard to the hon. Lady’s underlying political point about the Scottish Government’s decision to legislate in that way, this country is among the leaders in the world in child safeguarding. No amount of virtue signalling about the incorporation of international conventions that will make no difference to the quality of safeguarding of children in our country will get away from that fact.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
Is not one of the key features of our unwritten constitution respect for the independence, integrity and quality of our judiciary? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we have no intention of going down the American route with any political interference in the appointment of our judges?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely on the nail, as ever. He knows that I have long valued the principle of comity, which is that we as parliamentarians respect the independence and role of the judiciary, and that in their work the judiciary likewise respect the position of Parliament. That is what comity is all about, that is what I believe in, and that is what we will embody in our policies as we develop them.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Reducing crime in prisons is a key priority. We are delivering on our commitment to invest £100 million in bolstering prison security and clamping down on the weapons, drugs and mobile phones that fuel violence and crime behind bars. This investment enhances security at the entry point to prisons, using the latest technology, and strengthens staff resilience to corruption, as well as targeting organised criminals who exploit prisons as a lucrative market.
Andy Carter
As the Minister says, many of the crimes committed in prison are related to illegal contraband that finds its way inside. Constituents who live close to Thorn Cross Prison in Appleton Thorn in my constituency have told me about their increasing worry about daylight drops in gardens that border the open prison. Could the Minister tell me what steps he is taking and what residents can do to address that real concern, particularly where children are playing in gardens and their parents are concerned for their welfare?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point on behalf of his constituents. The Government’s £100 million investment to prevent crime in prison has enabled hundreds of security items to be purchased that will assist his constituents, including 176 search dogs, 300 metal detection archways and wands, mobile phone detection technology and 51 X-ray body scanners. We have also developed clear guidance for prisons on managing trespassers within the open estate, including protocols on reporting evidence to the police and addressing the site-specific security risks. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further if that would be helpful.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to the Chief Coroner, his predecessor and his staff for their work in supporting coroners during the covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 has had an enormous impact on coroners and their staff; it is therefore to their very great credit that in 2020 the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest remained at 27 weeks, as it was in 2019.
Steve McCabe [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer, but my constituents who are served by the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service often express frustration at delays when they are making burial arrangements. It is a particular issue for Muslim and Jewish families, for whom burials should take place as soon as possible after death. What is being done to ensure that coroners’ courts engage with local religious group to address these problems and make sure that religious beliefs are respected and honoured?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Coroners are independent judicial office holders, so they will operate independently. However, I can say that the Government have provided over £4 billion to local authorities to ensure that those coroners who are doing this important work have the resources they need. So far as the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service’s timeliness is concerned, the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest in that area was 10 weeks, down from 14 weeks, in 2019. I am pleased to say that that is well below the average in England and Wales.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
As at 31 December 2020, the cumulative length of service by all band 3 to 5 prison officers was more than 243,000 years. From late 2016 to the end of December 2020, the number of prison officers has increased by more than 3,600. Having experienced staff in prisons is vital to ensuring that they remain safe, secure and decent.
Ms Rimmer
I thank the Minister for his answer to my question. We both know that being a prison officer is a difficult job that takes years of experience to perfect, yet a combined 86,000 years of experience has been lost since 2010. Does he accept that this has had a catastrophic effect on safety, and will he commit to giving prison officers the pay rise his experts recommend to tackle the problem?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for rightly paying tribute to our prison officers. Let us just pause to reflect for a moment. At the beginning of this pandemic, Public Health England estimated that, on a reasonable worst-case scenario, more than 2,500 prisoners could die in prison. Because of the excellent work of our prison officers, that figure—although each one is a tragedy—is closer to 119. It was prison officers who delivered that. I am pleased to say that, even in this difficult financial situation, our prison officers received between 2.5% and 7.5% increases last year. We are also investing heavily in the security equipment needed, including PAVA spray, SPEAR—spontaneous protection enabling accelerated response—training, and body-worn video cameras, that make prisons a better and more conducive environment not only for prisoners but for prison staff.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
The Minister must surely recognise that there are consequences to 86,000 years of staff experience being lost since 2010, because what happens when there are not enough experienced staff can be summed up in one word: violence. In 2019, violence was 134% higher than in 2010. Even last year, with prisoners locked up alone, violence was 38% higher. Self-harm has doubled, and assaults on staff have tripled. Experience matters. With further cuts coming, thanks to the Minister’s friends in the Treasury, will he recognise this? How is he going to make our prisons safer?
Alex Chalk
I agreed with the first half of that but not the second half. It is absolutely right that we have retention. May I reassure the hon. Lady that there are an additional 3,600 prison officers? In fact, I am sorry to say that what she said about the data on violence is wrong. The violence in terms of assaults on prison officers has gone down by 20%. I hope she will also be reassured to know that the leaving rate is down by nearly 3% as well. We are getting behind our prison officers. We are investing in our prisons. We are providing the security, providing the investment and making sure that their brilliant work can continue long into the future.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I recognise the deep distress that the theft of a much-loved pet can cause, which is why laws are already in place to deal with offenders who commit such abhorrent crimes, but more can be done. The Environment Secretary, the Home Secretary and I have had discussions to consider further action, and I have set up a taskforce to investigate and tackle this issue from end to end, looking at prevention, reporting, enforcement and prosecution.
Mr Harper
I welcome the setting up of the taskforce, because what is important is not just the sentencing but the deterrent effect, so that we see fewer pets—dogs, particularly—being stolen. The Secretary of State’s answer will be very welcome, but can he say what more can be done? I ask him this on behalf of my two rescue labradors, Sophie and Chase, but also on behalf of the newly elected police and crime commissioner in Gloucestershire, the Conservative Chris Nelson, who made stopping pet theft one of his key election priorities.
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I declare an interest, as an owner of a cat. Let us not forget that this applies to a number of much-loved animals, who have, particularly in lockdown, proved an invaluable source of solace and comfort to many millions of people. He is right to talk about the wider issue. Those who minimise pet theft forget that it is often the thin end of a wedge and it might even involve organised crime. We need to take a zero tolerance approach here in order to deal with wider criminality, so we will be looking at the nature of the black market that exists and the rises we have seen with regard to the value of individual animals. All that is very much on the table.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
We have increased resources to handle calls and inquiries relating to probate applications and, as a result, the average time taken to process such an application is running at between four and six weeks. We have also had a big push towards moving the process online—to be digital—and in March more than 75% of grants were done digitally.
Wera Hobhouse [V]
One of my constituents applied for probate and was mistakenly sent the wrong will. This was discovered only after they chased it and they discovered that the case had been closed, with no word from the probate office. When the correct will was sent, it was lost and once again my constituent was not informed. It took nine months for probate to be granted from when they first applied. The loss of a friend and a relative is already an incredibly difficult time. Can the Minister tell me and my constituent what he is going to do to improve communications in the probate office so that nobody has to go through a similar experience?
Chris Philp
Thankfully, distressing examples such as that are extremely rare. I encourage Members who encounter them to write to us at the Ministry of Justice so that we can make sure they are rapidly resolved. The number of complex cases where there are various queries and difficulties has reduced by two thirds since January—they have gone down from 2,500 to 650. I urge constituents to use the digital system, because for straightforward digital cases we are now issuing probate in one week and, even for stopped cases, where there is a query, it is being done in four weeks. We should all be urging our constituents to use the digital service to make sure this is as fast as possible.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and letter to the Department on this issue, and we will be providing the response. There is already a mechanism in place to facilitate transfers of sentenced persons to and from the United States. British nationals serving sentences in the US can request to be transferred to a UK prison under the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons.
Sir Desmond Swayne
In the particular circumstance, and given the powerful case I have made in correspondence, can the Minister fix it for my constituent to commence his sentence in the UK?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has fought doggedly on behalf of his constituent. The prisoner transfer agreement that exists between the US and the UK has been in place for 31 years. It does not allow for the so-called “takeover” of sentences. The only way this individual can be transferred is for his constituent to return to the US, commence his sentence and apply for transfer to a British prison. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that, once that application is agreed by the US, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will endeavour to process the transfer as quickly as possible.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
In 2019, 11,257 cases were prosecuted for an assault against an emergency worker and in that year 9,066 resulted in conviction and sentencing. As you may know, Mr Speaker, the Government are legislating to double the maximum sentence for an assault on an emergency worker from 12 to 24 months. Just this morning, we had Committee proceedings taking evidence on that and the move was widely welcomed by the police chiefs who gave evidence to our Committee.
Chris Bryant
It sounds as though that was a very well-written piece of legislation in the first place because it seems to be having an effect. However, we do still have large numbers of emergency workers being assaulted and the Sentencing Council still has not produced new guidelines to insist that magistrates must treat simply spitting as a “proper assault”. Especially in the last year, that has become more important than ever before. May I ask the Minister: how many of the people who have been prosecuted have had sentences longer than six months? That is the key to determining whether lengthening maximum sentences to two years will be effective.
Chris Philp
I should start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the instrumental role that he played in bringing forward the legislation to which I have just referred. On the question of Sentencing Council guidelines, I understand that the Sentencing Council, which is independent of Government, is in the process of looking at the sentencing guidelines. I hope that it will reflect the very strong feelings on both sides of this House about the seriousness of assaulting an emergency worker and that it will bear that in mind when it publishes those revised guidelines. I am afraid I do not have to hand the number of those being sentenced to more than six months; of course many will be. Where the assault is more serious, it will be prosecuted as grievous bodily harm or GBH with intent, which carry much higher maximum sentences. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with those figures if that will assist him.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
We have innovative and ambitious cross-Government action plans to tackle reoffending as part of our uncompromising mission to cut crime. For example, we are introducing GPS tags for serious acquisitive offenders to track their movements for up to 12 months post release and increasing the length of curfews. In January, we announced a £70 million investment, which included enhancing the Department’s approved premises and providing temporary basic accommodation for prison leavers to keep them off the streets and reduce reoffending.
Ben Everitt
I thank the Minister for that answer. It is jobs that I am interested in. We know that having a job can reduce a person’s chance of reoffending by up to 50%, so what steps is his Department taking to support young offenders to get on the job ladder? I will give a local example here. We have an excellent “Ban the Box” campaign, which Milton Keynes College supports, to end that cycle of reoffending and offer a chance to young people to turn their lives around.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend has identified, with his usual wisdom, one of the three pillars of success post incarceration: a house, a friend and a job. He is quite right and I congratulate Milton Keynes College on its participation in the “Ban the Box” campaign. The Ministry of Justice has also been pleased to support business in the community at the event marking the remarkable milestone, it tells me, of 1 million roles covered by “Ban the Box” in March this year. We adopted “Ban the Box” in the civil service in 2016 and about 350,000 of those 1 million jobs are now in the civil service. More widely, as part of our approach to revising offender management, we are working very closely with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that those who leave the secure estate have a fair shake in the job market, which, as he rightly said, will go a long way to cutting reoffending.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Supporting victims to seek justice is a significant priority for the Government. We are investing in vital victim support services—more than £150 million this year—and a new victims code sets out the level of service that victims can expect to receive from justice agencies, but we must go further. The victims Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will enshrine victims’ rights in law, hold agencies to account for delivering those rights and set expectations for the standard and availability of victim support.
Dr Huq [V]
The Minister talks about a victims Bill. There has been one in every Queen’s Speech since 2016 and we have not seen any concrete action. So can I ask him to remedy that by starting with a particular concrete action? Can he back the amendment that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and I are tabling to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to address the fact that 50% of women seeking abortion at clinics face intimidation and emotional distress? We want national legislation put in place to provide clarity for women, police and girls rather than relying on councils all the time, which do not have the bandwidth, resources or time to do this issue justice.
Kit Malthouse
I take the hon. Lady’s rebuke about a victims law, but she should be reassured that we are currently scoping the outline of that Bill with an intention to consult for prelegislative scrutiny later this year. We are firmly of the conviction that the victims code, which became effective on 1 April this year, is worthy and should be enshrined in statute and that is what we are aiming for. As to her amendment to the Bill, no doubt it will be considered as part of the legislation going forward.
Debbie Abrahams [V]
At a recent Oldham roundtable on domestic abuse, we heard of the increase in abuse during lockdown and the issues that the victims were facing. In particular, the lack of measures to address wider cultural issues, the fact that poverty is a driver and consequence of abuse, and the lack of availability of appropriately adapted or supported safe accommodation, were all cited as issues with the Government’s new Domestic Abuse Act 2021. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Act is as effective as we all want it to be? At the moment, it is just a sticking plaster over a gaping wound.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is quite right that legislation is only half the fight. The implementation of that legislation, and what we actually do physically on the ground for the victims of domestic abuse, are key to ensuring that we reduce the number of victims and increase the number of perpetrators who receive punishment.
When I was Housing Minister, I was pleased to work closely with the supported housing sector, particularly in the area of refuge, to ensure that refuges stayed within the housing benefit regime, rather than moving towards universal credit. One key plank of the argument that we made to Treasury colleagues was that that would enable greater investment by the sector in this area, as it could then be confident on the income stream that will arise from people who are within that kind of accommodation. I have just taken over the brief on victims, so I will shortly be talking with colleagues in MHCLG about what more we can do on supported housing—not just for people in that particular situation, but more widely for those who are seeking either to build a better life post incarceration or to escape victimisation.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The first duty of any Government is to protect and deliver justice, but justice for victims of violence against women and girls is becoming ever more distant. Rape convictions have fallen by more than 50% in the last two years—a record low, according to the Crown Prosecution Service. Worse still, more and more victims are dropping out of the process altogether. The Government are due to release a violence against women and girls strategy, but Labour’s is ready to go and includes: a fast-track system; a dedicated Minister for survivors of sexual violence; and a survivors’ support package, which would aid victims before, during and after the process. Will the Minister commit to taking these proposals forward now? If not, can he explain to victims why this Government choose further delay and inaction?
Kit Malthouse
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment, but I am afraid that I reject her rebuke as to inaction. With my other hat on at the Home Office, I have been working very hard over the last two years to address some of these issues, in particular, for example, by setting murder as one of the key national priorities; a third of all murders are domestic. In order to prevent murders, the police and others have to reach back into the crime types that result in that catastrophe, not least domestic violence and abuse. There is an enormous amount of work going on.
The hon. Lady should not believe that the fact that we have not yet published our rape review—I hope to publish it shortly—means that work has not been under way. For her and other Members’ information, I chair an action group—a taskforce—that brings together the police, the CPS and other partners across Government to focus on this issue, and to see if we can drive better outcomes for victims and better performance in the courts; there is an enormous amount of work going on. Having said that, this issue is not one on which there should be a political divide. If there are good lessons to be learned from the Opposition or, frankly, from around the world, we would be foolish not to have a look at them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
In the Gracious Speech last week, the Queen outlined this Government’s plans to recover from the covid-19 pandemic and to build back a better country for our future. The justice system has a vital part to play in that—to cut crime, to protect victims, and to guarantee fairness in our society. My ministerial team and I look forward to steering a number of new Bills through Parliament during this Session. As I said earlier, I am pleased that our new pet theft taskforce will now look at how we can better protect people from the awful crime of pet theft and ensure that action is taken against those who perpetrate it and those who organise it.
Kerry McCarthy
Will the Secretary of State advise on what is being done to ensure that prisons reopen for family visits as soon as possible? The guidance on the Government website has not been updated since 29 March. Although I am told that prisons can reopen once they reach stage 3 of the national framework, I certainly know of some that have reached that stage but still are not open, which is very upsetting for the families involved, so will he give us an update?
Robert Buckland
Of course, Her Majesty’s Prison Bristol will be near to or in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I am glad to tell her that the majority of prisons have now reached stage 3 in accordance with the plan that I published last year. The individual decision making is very much up to governors and regional group directors, but I can assure her that Ministers and senior officials are driving forward progress on reopening, allowing visits, and indeed considering moving to the next stage, stage 2, which would further open up the prison environment —consistent of course with public health guidance and the needs and the safety of prisoners.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
What a brilliant question! I have always regarded myself as an early adopter of technology as one of the first in my family to own a Sinclair pocket calculator—remember those?—so I am now given the opportunity to early adopt in criminal justice as well. There are lots of ways that we can use technology to decrease offending. For example, I referred earlier to the GPS trackers that we are fitting to a group of criminals post release. Some 50% of those released from prison following, for example, conviction for a burglary go on to reoffend. If we know where they are all the time, then they are less likely to offend, but also, if there is a burglary, the police are able to match their location to the data to eliminate them or make them a person of inquiry. Similarly, Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that we are rolling out alcohol abstinence tags, which we fit to the ankles of those who are convicted of a crime where alcohol has driven their criminal behaviour. At the moment, compliance with these tags is well over 95%.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
In reply to my earlier question, did the Secretary of State really say that the incorporation of international conventions—we were talking about the UNCRC—will make no difference to the quality of safeguarding of children in our country? I was so taken aback that I have changed my second question. I have to ask: does he actually believe that, and is it just this international convention or are they all as impotent as he appears to think that one is?
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Robert Buckland
Volumes of possession actions remain significantly low as a result of measures that we took in response to the pandemic. Indeed, although the ban in England on bailiff-enforced evictions will end on 31 May, the requirement for landlords to give extended notice periods to seek possession orders in all but the most egregious cases has really struck the right balance. We intend to taper down these notice periods to pre-covid levels by October, which will help to manage demand in the courts. I pay tribute to senior judiciary for working at pace to develop a case management approach to possession cases.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that her concerns are wholly misplaced; I would be kind enough to say that. Some of the objection to this is, frankly, synthetic. The last Labour Government introduced it in Northern Ireland in 2003 without any concomitant reduction in turnout. Countries such as France and Canada and other mature democracies have long had this system in place. We will provide free identification for the tiny minority of people who do not have it. Frankly, the people of this country are wondering why on earth this has not been done before and are bewildered by the Opposition’s confected objections.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend rightly identifies an expanding area of business, sadly, for the courts and the police. He will be pleased to know that just last week, I held a meeting with the National Economic Crime Centre at the National Crime Agency to talk specifically about this issue. He will understand the complexity of online fraud in particular, whereby the offender may well be overseas, laundering money through a third territory and banking it in a fourth. Nevertheless, we need to do more to increase our capacity and capability to tackle this issue, to which we are all, including me, subject.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a lot of experience, not just as a Member of this House but as a former police and crime commissioner. He will be reassured to know that the female offender strategy continues. In particular, with regard to the work that we are doing on pre-sentence reports, we will help courts and decision makers come to conclusions based upon community sentence treatment requirements, whether that is support for addiction or for mental health problems, which are a constructive direct alternative to those short terms of imprisonment that he rightly criticises.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to hold the Government to account on these issues. He will recall that the White Paper I issued last year set out our plans for a framework that will do just that, by targeting the most serious violent and sexual offenders, ensuring that they serve longer proportions of their sentences of imprisonment in custody, therefore reflecting more appropriately the severity of their crimes and protecting the public, and ensuring that we introduce robust and effective community options for those who commit less serious offences.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will be encouraged to know that the Judicial Appointments Commission, senior judiciary and I work together on that very issue, to ensure that the professions are doing all they can to encourage and support applicants from a black and minority ethnic background. In particular, I pay tribute to CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, for driving forward that important diversity. There is much more work to be done, and progress for all of us is frustratingly slow, but I will continue to put my shoulder to the wheel to ensure that we see sooner rather than later someone of a black and minority ethnic background sitting in the Supreme Court.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise an issue that affects many people. One issue is the embarrassment and shame of people who fall victim to such fraud that they could have been tricked in the first place. Not only is supporting victims to overcome that stigma very much part of the victims code that we introduced in the past month or so, working with the sector, but as we develop the consultation into our new law, there will be opportunities fully to reflect the pernicious nature of online criminality. By helping to design out fraud, the financial services sector can make its greatest contribution to the reduction of such heinous crime.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the context of those recommendations, prison officers received rises of between 2.5% and 7.5%. It is right to say that in one specific instance the recommendations of the body were not accepted—we are mindful of our overall duties with regard to the public purse—but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in terms of the recruitment, support and promotion of the vital role of prison officers, the Government will not stint in their unwavering support and encouragement.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the election of Commissioner Akinbusoye, who is one of the 29 Conservative police and crime commissioners—a full 70% of the available slots were secured by the Conservative party at the elections two weeks ago. My hon. Friend is quite right that police and crime commissioners have a critical role to play in offender management, given that more than half of crime is committed by reoffenders. At the severe end in particular, we know that, on average, all murderers in the country have committed at least seven previous offences. In my role as Policing Minister, I will work closely with police and crime commissioners to make sure that not only as chairs of their local criminal justice board but more widely they can play an important role in driving down reoffending.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and would be interested to know more about the specific approach being taken. I assure him that south of the border the concept of supported accommodation and a supported approach is very much at the heart of what we are seeking to do, particularly with regard to young offenders. The development of the use of smaller units and diversionary work has been very much at the heart of what we have done over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman will see that the number of children now incarcerated has fallen from 3,000 to just over 500 or so in the past year. That is a dramatic improvement, but I am certainly interested to know more about the Scottish Government’s initiative.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous campaigning on this important issue. He knows that I have always placed heavy emphasis on the need to examine the law carefully in this area, because I accept that there are loopholes. I asked the Law Commission to undertake an in-depth review of economic crime law and, if necessary, to make recommendations on options for reform. It began its work last November and is aiming to publish an options paper later this year. We will work with the Law Commission to implement any next steps.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Robert Buckland
We commissioned an independent review, which was published after public involvement, and we have now conducted a consultation process, again with full involvement from civil society. We will have plenty of opportunities, in this House and in the other place, to debate and scrutinise any legislation that comes forward. There are ample opportunities for all of us to take part in this important process, and I am sure that the product of those deliberations will indeed be one of quality that enhances the balance between the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next item of business.
St Ilids Meadow postal round
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition to the House on behalf of constituents of Ogmore regarding the inadequate postal service being provided by Royal Mail to the residents of St Ilids Meadow housing estate in Llanharan, in my constituency. I would like to draw the House’s attention to a separate petition organised by a constituent, which has attracted 100 signatures. The petition notes that St Ilids Meadow is not yet served as part of permanent postal route but instead is delivered to in an inconsistent manner by way of overtime work at the Pontyclun sorting office. The petition further notes that post has taken as long as four weeks to arrive and waiting times have shown little sign of improvement. Residents have missed letters about medical appointments and letters advising the clinically vulnerable among them to shield, and work-related correspondence vital to their being able to continue to do their jobs from home. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Royal Mail to make the postal round at St Ilids Meadow, Llanharan a permanent postal round. And the petitioners remain etc.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Ogmore,
Declares that the postal round at St. Ilids Meadow, Llanharan be made a permanent postal round rather than one which is overtime only.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Royal Mail to make the postal round at St. Ilids Meadow, Llanharan a permanent postal round.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002663]
Ministerial Code/Register of Ministers’ Interests
(2 years, 11 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
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on enforcement of the ministerial code and the publication of the register of Ministers’ interests.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
May I start by congratulating the right hon. Lady on her multiple new roles? I apologise for the fact that she has to put up with me for her debut. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is unable to be here, but I know that he is looking forward to working with her.
On 28 April, the Prime Minister appointed the right hon. Lord Geidt, former private secretary to Her Majesty the Queen, to the position of independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. In taking up the appointment, he agreed revised terms of reference for the role, which strengthen its independence. One of his core tasks is to oversee the preparation of the list of Ministers’ interests. In giving evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last Thursday, he confirmed that it was his intention to publish the updated list on Ministers’ interests by the end of this month.
Angela Rayner
The ministerial code is clear: there must be no misuse of taxpayers’ money, nor actual or perceived conflicts of interest, but time and again Ministers act like the rules are for other people—none more so than the Prime Minister himself. Last year, he declared £15,000 from a Tory donor for his sleazy jet trip to a private island. This weekend, we read that the real cost was double that, and paid by someone else entirely.
People might ask, “Why is this important?” It is important because it goes to the very heart of our democracy. Who do our Government answer to: the public, or private interests? We learned only from the media that the Prime Minister has blocked the publication of the independent commissioner’s report. Can the Minister tell us why the delay? Does she accept that the rules apply to everyone, even the Prime Minister, and will he accept—
Mr Speaker
Order. This case is with Standards, and really we ought to keep away from it until Standards has been able to deal with it.
Angela Rayner
Okay. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The list of Ministers’ interests is also mysteriously delayed, I assume while the Prime Minister tries to remember who paid for his flat, but does the Minister accept that if the Prime Minister can block the independent adviser from investigating he cannot in practice be fully independent, because the code clearly is not preventing actual or perceived conflicts of interests?
When the Home Secretary lobbies on behalf of a former adviser flogging substandard face masks, who lands a £100 million contract without tender and at double the going rate, who cannot perceive that as a conflict of interest? It is something that we know not from the Home Secretary declaring it, but because it was revealed in an admin error. Then there is the Health Secretary, who appears to have ordered an official to recommend a bid that he had not even read from a former Tory MP, who pocketed another £200 million of taxpayers’ cash. Surely the independent adviser must investigate those cases with no prime ministerial veto.
Finally, there is the Prime Minister’s own top adviser, Lord Lister. He concealed being paid by a luxury developer owned by yet another Tory donor, which was granted a record-breaking taxpayer-backed loan by the very public body that Lister chaired—money that was meant for affordable homes, but given out at mates’ rates for luxury flats and private profit. Will the Government release the loan agreement, along with the correspondence on that decision, and hand it to the independent investigator, and when will they publish their report on officials’ second jobs? When Ministers and advisers use the public purse as a personal cashpoint, the public have a right to know.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we start, the supplementary was meant to be two minutes. I did interrupt, so I allowed some leeway. I will therefore also allow some leeway for the reply. When we mention Members of the other place, it is meant to be on a substantive motion. I know that seems strange, but these are the rules of the House, which I do not make; the House has made them and adopted them. We must stick to the rules. We do not criticise individual Members of the other House except on a substantive motion.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The right hon. Lady raises issues about the ministerial code, the arbiter of which is the Prime Minister; the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is a matter for that Committee; and the role of the independent adviser. She also touches on various reviews that are taking place and matters for the House authorities. As you pointed out, Mr Speaker, these are not things it would be appropriate for me to pontificate on, but I will try to answer the general thrust of the accusations the right hon. Lady makes today, and I shall speak frankly, because I know she appreciates that.
The charge the right hon. Lady makes is that the people she names are somehow on the take. That is the charge she is making here today on the Floor of the House: that they have not been focused over the past 16 months on working their socks off to save lives, to get a vaccination programme up and running and to do the things that the public need us to do, but that they have, unbelievably, entered into politics, made sacrifices and overcome the obstacles that she will be aware of to get into this place not to serve in public life but to do a mate—more accurately, a Tory mate—or someone they vaguely know, or met in a lift once, or perhaps do not know at all, a favour. That is the accusation that she is making today. I am afraid that that is why the Labour line of attack is not getting traction, well rehearsed though it is. It is not getting traction with the public because it is not plausible. It is based not on fact but on speculation, innuendo and smear.
Perceived conflicts of interest are not those that the right hon. Lady has made up. The public care about scrutiny—they do. They care about accountability, transparency and standards in public life. What they see through though is the performance she has given today, which is designed to smear decent colleagues and denigrate British business. I would direct the right hon. Lady to the National Audit Office report, which refutes the accusations she has made about MPs, civil servants, business and members of the public—but I am sure she already knows that. I would suggest to her that an Essex MP is perfectly entitled to forward an offer from the Essex chamber of commerce to help in a pandemic. MPs do it all the time—it is part of our job—but the right hon. Lady already knows this, too, and so does everyone else. The urgent question today has more to do with Labour’s internal politics and divisions than the conduct of Members of this House and enterprises that have been working to help the NHS and to save lives.
The right hon. Lady has made particular accusations today about colleagues, and I want to make a final point, Mr Speaker. If you were to take every single MP she has made an allegation about this afternoon, if you were to look at all the political donations they have received since the pandemic started, since January 2020, and if you were to add them all up and then double them—no, quadruple them—you would just about match what the right hon. Lady herself has received in the same time period. She should thank her lucky stars that we do not play the same games that she does.
The right hon. Lady is in a new position shadowing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who now looks after some of the most pressing issues facing this nation: the Union of the United Kingdom, devolution, the recovery from this crisis, national security, community resilience and the British brand around the world. That is what we are focused on. I hope that, after her debut today, she will be too, and I wish her well.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
The role of the independent adviser is an important one, and I personally was impressed by Lord Geidt’s evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last week. Ostensibly, the delay in the publication of the Register of Ministers’ Interests was due to the vacancy in that important position that arose after the resignation of Sir Alex Allan. What does my right hon. Friend suggest be done should such a vacancy arise again, so that the register is not delayed in the future?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes some very good points. He knows, because I have appeared before his Committee regarding this and other matters, that there have been delays to certain things, in part because of what the Government have had to deal with over the past 16 months, but those appointments are in train now. As he also knows from the evidence his Committee took, the register is due to be published very soon. I am sure that things will be on a much more stable footing as, hopefully, we come out of the pandemic.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Annex B of the ministerial code says it is
“important that when a former Minister takes up a particular appointment or employment, there should be no cause for any suspicion of impropriety.”
Given that David Cameron worked as an adviser for Greensill Capital and is reported to have share options worth tens of millions of pounds, do the 57 messages to senior officials that we are aware of regarding Greensill Capital give any cause for suspicion of impropriety? Will that be investigated by the independent adviser? One of those messages to a senior civil servant said the decision
“seems bonkers. Am now calling CX,”—
the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
“Gove, everyone.”
Is that acceptable? Does that give cause for concern about impropriety and will that be investigated? When the Minister is on her feet, can she tell us what action, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster got the call, did he take on behalf of his old boss?
Penny Mordaunt
As I said in my opening response to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), these issues are being looked at—there are reviews in train—and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those until they have reported. However, I think all Members of this House will want things looked at. They will want to ensure that we get to the bottom of these issues, and I hope, too, that we will look at the wider issues around the Gupta Family Group and the role of the SNP in those matters.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I welcome the appointment of Lord Geidt and also the modest increase in the terms of reference to increase his independence. Do my right hon. Friends accept that it is possible still for us to go a little further to increase the degree of independence of Lord Geidt and his successors, and that it is not too late to add the extra levels of independence that have been suggested by Lord Evans and, among others, me to make sure that the role has extra credibility, without necessarily giving way to some of the extraordinary allegations that seem to prejudge some of the important work being done by independent or cross-party reviews already under way in this important area?
Penny Mordaunt
May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done on these and related matters? It is very helpful when colleagues make positive suggestions. My understanding is that a response has been sent to Lord Evans, but we are keeping all things under review. We clearly want to ensure that we arrive at a situation where we can have the greatest possible transparency and ensure that we retain the trust of the public.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Accepting everything that the Minister says about the probity of her colleagues, does she not think that it would be in their interests for their names and their reputations to be cleared by a system that is wholly independent of the Prime Minister? Complaints against Ministers could be investigated, those investigations would be instigated by someone independent of Government, and thereafter their conclusions would be published. Surely that would be good for her colleagues.
Penny Mordaunt
I think I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is in those colleagues’ interests that there is credibility and weight to any investigations. The difficulty is that we have this peculiar and unique relationship between Ministers and the Prime Minister—they are not employees; they are in a particular category—and therefore we have a situation where the Prime Minister is the arbiter and is responsible for the ministerial code. What we are doing in all of these processes is trying to arrive at the condition that the right hon. Gentleman describes, but still stay within the boundaries of what is legal and what is correct.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Thanks to the efforts of this Government at the beginning of the pandemic, at no point did Blackpool Victoria Hospital or other local organisations such as Blackpool Council run out of PPE, despite the obvious global shortages. The public would rightly expect Ministers to do everything within their power to source PPE to keep people safe, so does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the actions taken by this Government were both proportionate and necessary, given the circumstances?
Penny Mordaunt
I do, and as well as thanking Members of this House who forwarded information to try to help address the PPE shortages, I should put on record our thanks for the incredible work of the procurement teams in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care. One criticism the National Audit Office did make was that paperwork was not done on time, but I always remember one of the people who had done an incredible job during that period saying, “I would rather be criticised for late paperwork than a nurse not having gloves.” That is what enabled us to get equipment to the frontline during an incredibly difficult time for supply chains all around the world.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am not going to comment on any of the individual issues, as that would be wholly inappropriate; I want to ask the Minister why such a long time has passed since the last register of ministerial interests was published. It is not even now an accurate list of Ministers, because so many Ministers have changed. Would it not make far more sense and be more in the interests of the public if the register were published every month, and if all the details that related to an individual Member of this House were also published in our register, so that a member of the public could simply see everything that is relevant to that individual Member?
Penny Mordaunt
We have seen all sorts of innovations over the last year given what technology now enables, and the hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible suggestion. It is for Lord Geidt to take these matters forward, and I am sure he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said today.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Given that the NAO has found “no evidence” that Ministers were involved in any decisions around emergency PPE procurement, does my right hon. Friend agree that throwing unsubstantiated mud like this for party political advantage damages not just the Government but our political processes and is deeply irresponsible?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend—and it also damages business. Without the efforts of the private sector, whether it be pharma companies or production lines changing to produce what the country needs, we would have been in a really sorry state. Let us be frank, part of this agenda is to discredit the private sector.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
If the Prime Minister does not respect the ministerial code how can he be expected to judge the behaviour of other Ministers who may have breached it?
Penny Mordaunt
The Prime Minister does respect the ministerial code and he is the arbiter of it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
MPs make mistakes from time to time and when that is drawn to their attention they apologise and we are severely admonished for them, but it is extraordinary that the new register of ministerial interests has not been published yet, and when Ministers start to double down and reports are not published, people start to wonder what the Government have to hide. Is the Minister saying to us today that no one has breached the ministerial code of conduct and that this is all just a misunderstanding that will be sorted out when various reports are published?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman’s question again betrays what is actually taking place this afternoon. I do not know; I do not have a crystal ball to see into the future. I am in the same position as everyone else, but what I do know is that to make unsubstantiated allegations about people is quite wrong.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Members right across the House received offers of support from businesses right around the country to make a huge contribution during a time of national crisis. Is it not the case that every Member has a responsibility to forward these offers of help and that all these offers were then judged on the same basis independently by the civil service, and to undermine this national effort is actually pretty damaging for the entire country?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If there is one message I want to get across this afternoon, it is that if we are ever again in the situation that we found ourselves in last year, I would urge British business to step up as it did before. The public do not think the things that the Opposition say. They know that businesses in their communities did an incredible job, and we will stand up for them and thank them for their achievements last year to keep this nation safe.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
I do not think anyone is criticising business, but it is quite clear that we need an inquiry into lobbying, procurement, and ministerial and civil service conflicts during the covid crisis. However, experience shows that such inquiries are not effective if requests for information are ignored, so does the Minister agree that what we really need is a judge-led inquiry with the power to order production of evidence and to take evidence on oath, and with the threat of appropriate sanctions for non-compliance and for perjury or equivocation?
Penny Mordaunt
In preparing for this urgent question, I had in my pack a list of the inquiries that are going on into one aspect or another, and it ran to something like one and a half pages. My personal view is that I do not think we need any more reviews. We have the Committee on Standards, we have the House authorities, we have the Boardman review; we have all these pieces of work looking at all the issues that hon. Members have raised this afternoon. What I would like to do is focus on the matters of substance that are facing this country and ensure that we take the trust of the public with us in that respect. I would also say to the hon. and learned Lady that I am afraid that part of the agenda is to question business. That is what is going on this afternoon.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The National Audit Office found no evidence that Ministers were involved in any decisions around emergency PPE procurement—or in the procurement of ear pods at £250. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party had spent more time helping us fight the virus rather than banging on about wallpaper and the procurement of PPE, it could have gained back some trust from the British public?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is perfectly legitimate for any Member of this House to raise issues around how we hold people to account and how we scrutinise things, but he has characterised how this is being presented, and he will know from his constituents that the public take a dim view of it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Paragraph 1.3.c of the ministerial code states:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
Does that rule still apply, and does it also apply to the Prime Minister?
Penny Mordaunt
Of course it still stands; it is the ministerial code. I am sorry to say that this is another question that does not make any substantial allegations or provide any facts or evidence; it is smear and innuendo, and it is not the way to behave.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The National Audit Office found no issues with the PPE contracts. The Labour-led Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, commended the Government’s vaccine programme as world-leading. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this attempt from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has more to do with her bid for votes from the Labour membership than with any concern about public procurement?
Penny Mordaunt
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will reflect on what she has done this afternoon, and if she does have ambitions in the leadership department, I would ask her to reflect on whether what she has done today is the hallmark of a leader.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
The ministerial code states that the register of interests must be published twice a year. The latest one is five months late, so it has been 10 or 11 months since the last one was published. At the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee last week, Lord Geidt told us that he was determined that a full list of Ministers’ interests would be published
“as quickly as possible…by the end of this month.”
Can the Minister confirm that all Cabinet Ministers have resubmitted their interests and give a more precise date for when the new list will be published, given that the end of the month is during parliamentary recess?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the right hon. Lord Geidt will publish the register before the end of this month. That is what he has said; I am sure that he will wish to do it in a way that is helpful to the House and that he will have heard what the hon. Lady has said. I do not know which Cabinet Minister has filled out which form; all I can tell the hon. Lady is that as a Minister of the Crown, I have certainly filled out mine, and I am sure that my colleagues have done so as well.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care for their efforts to ensure that the Cumbria local resilience forum and our North Cumbria health trust were kept stocked with PPE at the height of the pandemic, enabling them to keep my constituents in Workington safe. I remember the pressure that Ministers were under at the time and will forever be grateful for the often late-night correspondence dealing with potential issues. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that Government Ministers did everything that they could to get their skates on, as they were urged to by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and pass on all offers from businesses to help to secure vital PPE at a time of national crisis?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record the tremendous job that was done in his local patch. He is saying that credit is due to Ministers, but actually credit is due to colleagues across the House. For many months, I took a call every morning at 10 am, sometimes from hundreds of colleagues across the House. People from every single political party put forward offers of help for PPE and all sorts of things that the health service needed. That is part of our job, and people made a huge difference to the effort by doing it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I wrote on 25 March to the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, about the No. 10 refurbishment. I asked 24 questions on potential breaches of the ministerial code. Two months on, I have still not received an answer. Is this an admin error or do the Government have something to hide? People in Luton North and across the country deserve answers, especially when they are struggling to keep a roof over their head, never mind defending a luxury refurb. Will the Paymaster General please ask her colleague the Cabinet Secretary to respond to those questions?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will respond to the hon. Lady. He takes his responsibilities very seriously. The problem is that the matter is now the subject of a review—it is a subject for someone else to look at. I think, in all honesty, that there is nothing I or the Prime Minister could say at the Dispatch Box that will satisfy people until someone independent says it. I have to say, again, that this is a sideshow. I very much encourage the hon. Lady to return to the matters of substance, which I am sure are the issues that her constituents care about.
Mr Speaker
I will just say for the record that I expect MPs’ letters to be answered. MPs on all sides have a job to do, and they can only be helped by early answers to their correspondence.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Over the past few weeks, I knocked on hundreds and hundreds of doors in my constituency during the local elections, and not a single constituent mentioned the wallpaper of the Prime Minister or his holidays. What they were concerned about was welcoming the implementation of Brexit, how the Government were handling covid and the success of the vaccination programme. Does the Paymaster General agree that unless the Labour party gets its act together and starts listening to the people and their concerns, it will remain the Opposition party?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree; I had a similar experience on the doorstep during the recent campaign. That is not to say that the public do not care about standards in public life and accountability. They do care about those things; they just recognise this for what it is, which is a load of flannel.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
The first part of this urgent question is about enforcement of the ministerial code. I have heard a great deal about reviews and recommendations, codified guidelines and inquiries—maybe too many inquiries or the wrong inquiries. I am not besmirching anybody here and I am not alleging anything, but if somebody in the Cabinet Office has broken the ministerial code, what is there to enforce their taking the right action and resigning from their position?
Penny Mordaunt
Ultimately, that is one of the responsibilities of the Prime Minister. It is because of the unique status of a Minister—that they are not an employee—that that exists. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
My constituents care about scrutiny, transparency and standards in public life. Will the Minister reassure the people of Anglesey that all offers to supply PPE were assessed by independent civil servants using a rigorous eight-stage process to ensure that any contracts awarded delivered not only high-quality supplies, but value for taxpayers’ money?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is, I think, a perception that if a business flagged their offer to a Member of Parliament or a Minister they somehow bypassed the system. They did not. They still went through those eight rigorous checks and the National Audit Office has confirmed that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I have a high regard for the Minister, but I am afraid I struggle with her explanation on this issue. On 22 February, inadvertently or not, the Prime Minister made a misleading statement to the House regarding PPE contracts. He stated that they were all published. They were not. That is based on a High Court ruling and is irrefutable. His lack of apology and correction of the record is clearly a breach of the ministerial code. That this happens with seeming impunity—
Mr Speaker
Order. A criticism is only on the substantive motion. This cannot be used. It has already been tried earlier. The rules of the House must be obeyed. I know it is not what Members want to hear, but I am in charge of ensuring that the rules are kept to. Unfortunately, we cannot continue with that question.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
We all know that Government procurement is a long, clunky and expensive process. It was therefore of clear national importance for the Government to fast-track some procurement decisions, particularly in relation to PPE, to protect people and keep people safe. Does the Minister agree that the recent elections in Teesside, where we gained a new Member of Parliament and a landslide for the Tees Valley Mayor, show that the public support our decisive decision making over the Labour party’s political point scoring?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The British public want us to focus on the issues that matter to them. They want us to recover quickly, both economically and in dealing with the backlog of issues we have in education and healthcare. They want us to get on and deliver. What they do not want is this Punch and Judy politics. They are tired of that. They want some delivery. They want some competence. That is why they are electing Conservatives across the country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Government face a slew of allegations over contracts for mates, lobbying, conflicts of interest and influence. Does the Minister think now is the time to exempt a new Government agency, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, with £800 million of public money from existing procurement and freedom of information rules? When faced with sleaze, surely the response is to stop the sleaze, not the scrutiny?
Penny Mordaunt
Sadly, again more smear. It seems that anyone who was awarded a contract for PPE or anything else is a Tory mate, even when they turn out to be a Labour party donor.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to her place—or to one of her many places, I should say—but I cannot really welcome the tone of her questions. I am surprised that she is continuing with these unsubstantiated allegations. Perhaps in all the excitement of the reshuffle and the announcement of her shadow Cabinet, she has forgotten that the elections have already taken place—or perhaps she has another election on her mind. Is not the truth of the matter that since 2010 this Government have strengthened the ministerial code, strengthened the requirements around the publication of Minister’s interests, and introduced the requirement to publish all Government contracts over £25,000? The record of the Governments in the past decade has been to massively increase public scrutiny and transparency.
Penny Mordaunt
That is absolutely correct, and I could add to the list the things that we have also done to increase transparency and accountability at a local government level, which we know was an area that needed to be looked at.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
The Minister has been deflecting from the fact that whether she likes it or not, there have been breaches of the ministerial code. Does she believe that simply trying to deny it or attacking anyone who tries to raise the issue is a satisfactory response to her earlier assertion that the public care about transparency and scrutiny?
Penny Mordaunt
I have said several times this afternoon that the public do care about that and they are right to do so. We should be here to answer questions about those issues. What I am not going to put up with is decent colleagues, decent businesses and members of the public being smeared by innuendo. I think that I have made my views very clear on that, and I hope that Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—and I do wish her well—reflect on that.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
10-point Plan: Six Months On
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Last November, the Prime Minister announced a radical and ambitious response to the economic impact of covid-19. This was, of course, the UK’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. Its aim is to build back better, to use our recovery to level up the country, to scale up new industries and to support jobs throughout the United Kingdom as we accelerate on our path to net zero by 2050.
Six months on, I am pleased to inform the House that we are already seeing this ambition being delivered on. The 10-point plan is projected to create and support up to 250,000 jobs, and mobilise £12 billion of Government investment and up to three times as much from the private sector by 2030. We are investing in the UK’s most important asset—our workforce—to ensure that our people have the right skills to deliver the low-carbon transition and thrive in the high-value jobs this will create. This is the case for the engineers and construction workers who will build the new offshore wind farms and nuclear plants to provide clean power to our homes, to the retrofitters who will make homes more comfortable and efficient. This work of course builds on the strong progress we have already made as a country in decarbonising our economy. Last year, we hit over two months of coal- free electricity generation, which is the longest streak since the industrial revolution. Two weeks ago, we broke a new wind power record, with both onshore and offshore wind turbines generating 48.5% of the electricity in Great Britain. The plan is projected to reduce UK emissions by 180 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between 2023 and 2032. I am sure Members are aware that that is equal to taking all of today’s cars off the road for about two years.
Since the 10-point plan’s publication, we have enshrined the UK’s sixth carbon budget in law, proposing in that a target that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. That is an enormous commitment, but one that we are working extremely hard—flat out, indeed—to achieve. Our Energy White Paper has set out a comprehensive, strategic vision for the transformation of the energy system consistent with delivering net zero emissions by 2050. We have also launched our new, ambitious UK emissions trading scheme, for consultation later this year.
On offshore wind, we have confirmed up to £95 million of Government investment for two new offshore wind ports: Able Marine Energy Park—AMEP—on the south bank of the River Humber, which will receive up to £75 million of government investment; and Teesworks offshore manufacturing centre, on the River Tees, which will receive up to £20 million. Those investments have already been endorsed by business. Since the launch of the 10-point plan, we have seen a 501% increase in British businesses signing up for the UN’s Race to Zero initiative. Rolls-Royce is working on the world’s largest jet engine, which will cut aviation emissions, as part of its £500 million UltraFan engine project. Jaguar Land Rover has announced plans to be all-electric from 2025, with Ford, Bentley, Volvo and Nissan stating that they will do this from 2030. Just today, GE Renewable Energy has announced that it expects to create up to 470 green jobs to support the delivery and operation of all three phases of the Dogger Bank wind farm, the world’s largest offshore wind farm, located off the north-east coast. The impressive growth of the offshore wind sector presents a great example of how delivering net zero will help us level up across the UK. It also demonstrates the confidence that international investors have in our contracts for difference approach and the immense confidence employers have in our people, particularly those in the north-east, where so much of this infrastructure is being deployed.
However, this is not just about energy; each of us has a contribution to make. We are helping businesses and people to go greener every day, by delivering on our commitment to greener business, buildings and transport. In March, we published the UK’s industrial decarbonisation strategy, the first strategy of its kind from any major economy in the world. It sets out clearly how industry can meaningfully decarbonise, remaining competitive and reducing emissions, instead of simply offshoring our industries and pushing emissions abroad.
To that end, the industrial energy transformation fund has already allocated nearly £300 million to 39 projects to help industry transition to a low-carbon future. This month we began the process for deciding the first carbon capture cluster locations in our industrial heartlands, which will be operational by the mid-2020s, with another two set to be created by 2030. All of this increased investment totals £1 billion, helping to support 50,000 jobs, potentially, in areas such as the Humber, the north-east and the north-west, and in Scotland and Wales. We are providing £1 billion of funding to phase 1 of the public sector decarbonisation scheme, which will support up to 30,000 jobs. These jobs will be in building services, engineering and design, low-carbon heating, installation of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures.
The 10-point plan is our commitment on meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Further strategies for sectors of the economy will be set out over the next year. This will include publication of our heat and building strategy, ahead of COP26, to set out our long-term approach to reducing emissions from all buildings in this country. It also includes our hydrogen strategy, which is backed by a £240 million net zero hydrogen fund investment, to support—I stress this point—both green hydrogen produced by electrolysers, and blue hydrogen enabled by carbon capture and storage.
We have also committed a further £20 million to increase the number of on-street charge points for electric vehicles. We will provide £50 million to help people and businesses install these charge points. We will also publish our transport decarbonisation plan as soon as possible, setting out an ambitious pathway to end UK transport’s carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is fully engaged and committed to publishing that.
The impact of those commitments can already be seen. As of March 2021, battery electric vehicle sales stand at 7.7% of the market, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle sales are 6.1%, which is a huge increase of 88% and 152% respectively from only a year ago. Our acceleration towards low-emission vehicles will not only contribute to cutting our carbon emissions, but strengthen British industry through supporting up to 40,000 jobs by 2020.
All these policies and initiatives are coming together and will be set out in our net zero strategy in the autumn. The strategy will build on the 10-point plan, and it will make the most of new growth and employment opportunities across the UK as we build back better and greener from covid-19.
It will not have escaped hon. Members’ notice that we will be hosting COP26 towards the end of the year, and what we are doing now is setting the scene for that historic event. In that context, our ambition and our leadership are absolutely crucial. The 10-point plan demonstrates our commitment not only to the green recovery, but to the kind of leadership that we want to show in this vitally important year. All these actions bring us a step closer to net zero by 2050, meeting this planet’s greatest threat with ambition and innovation, which is absolutely necessary if we are to hit our goals. I believe passionately and sincerely that a new era of green jobs through Britain’s green industrial revolution has been inaugurated. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The climate crisis is the single greatest long-term challenge we face. As Secretary of State, I was proud to pass the world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 with cross-party support. In that spirit, although we believe that the UK should be going further and faster, we also recognise that our targets for 2030 and 2035 are ambitious by international standards. But the Secretary of State’s central challenge is whether targets are matched by the scale of action required in this decisive decade, and once again, his statement showed that the Government are very good at self-congratulation but perhaps less good at self-awareness. The evidence is that there is a wide gap between rhetoric and reality. Crucial areas are not being dealt with, and the scale of finance is not being delivered, leading us to be off track on our targets.
Let us take a few key issues. The first is buildings, a crucial part of decarbonisation. Last year, the green homes grant—remember that?—was the flagship measure, which the Secretary of State said would
“pave the way for the UK’s green homes revolution.”
Now it is the policy that dared not speak its name in the Business Secretary’s statement, and no wonder—it has been a complete fiasco, with contractors not paid, installers forced to make lay-offs and homeowners unable to get grants. As importantly, when the scheme failed, more than £1 billion was not reallocated but simply cut from the budget. We desperately need a comprehensive plan for the massive task of retrofitting and changing the way we heat millions of homes, with the finance to back it up. It is a big task. The heat and building strategy was supposed to be published last year but has been delayed and delayed. Can the Secretary of State promise that when it is published, it will finally contain the plan and the finance we need?
Next, let us turn to electric vehicles. Again, we were supposed to see the transport decarbonisation strategy last year. Today, the Secretary of State did not even give a date for publication, so perhaps he can tell us in his reply when we will see it. We support the 2030 phase-out date, but the Climate Change Committee says—this is really important—that we will need 48% of the cars sold in the UK to be EVs by 2025, in just four years’ time. Despite the recent progress that he talked about, we are way off that, at less than 15%. We are not financing gigafactories, on which there is a global race. Our charging infrastructure remains inadequate, and the Government have actually cut the plug-in grant. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government are not investing enough to make the EV revolution happen in the way that is necessary for our car industry’s future and consumers?
On offshore wind, we should be proud of our world leadership on generation, and I welcome today’s jobs announcement, but according to RenewableUK, only 29% of capital investment in recent projects has been in the UK. Can the Secretary of State tell us when the Government will finally deliver on their pledge for 60% of the content of our offshore wind to be domestic?
On manufacturing, there was no mention of steel in the statement, which seems a surprising omission, given how crucial it is to our country, our steel communities and the green transition. A clean steel fund of £250 million announced two years ago and only to be delivered in two years’ time is, I am afraid, wholly inadequate. The Secretary of State knows it, his Back Benchers know it and our steel industry knows it. Will he acknowledge that, and what is he going to do about it?
On hydrogen, we are investing hundreds of millions, which is welcome, but it is against billions being invested by others. On aerospace, the Jet Zero Council is all very well, but jobs have been lost in aerospace during this crisis, as the Secretary of State knows, and our investment again fails to measure up internationally.
Here is the worry I have about the scale of investment. The Secretary of State talks about investment over the decade of tens of billions, public and private, but everyone from PwC to the CCC says that we need that investment not over a decade but each and every year to get on track for our targets. In that context, the Treasury’s crucial net zero review was due in autumn 2020, and now it has been promised for spring 2021. Well, we are in spring 2021. Can he tell us when it will finally see the light of day? It is a crucial piece of work.
All this means that we are way off meeting our fifth and sixth carbon budgets. Green Alliance estimates that policies announced will only lead to 26% of the reductions necessary to get the UK on track for 2030. Can the Secretary of State tell us how far off track he thinks we are for our fifth and sixth carbon budgets?
The climate emergency is a massive challenge for our country—the biggest long-term challenge we face. There is also a massive opportunity for our country, with our amazing scientists, our brilliant workforce and our world-leading businesses. But to make that future happen, we need a Government with the aspiration and commitment that matches the ingenuity and aspiration of the British people. Instead of a piecemeal 10-point plan, we need a comprehensive green new deal with the scale of investment and commitment that meets the moment and the emergency. I am afraid that I do not believe the Government’s record measures up to the scale of the challenge we face. We will hold them to account on behalf of the country.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. The heat and buildings strategy was always due in 2021; I know that because I commissioned it when I was the Energy Minister. I hope it will be published shortly. We also have a hydrogen strategy. He mentioned that our £240 million hydrogen fund was little compared to other countries, but private sector investment has been very successful in the deployment of offshore wind. The reason we have a commanding position—the No. 1 position—in offshore wind deployment is not because of the Government writing cheques; it is because the Government created incentives for the private sector to invest. That will be exactly the way in which we will scale up the hydrogen economy.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned offshore wind and the UK content of the supply chain. We are absolutely focused on that; we potentially have an auction round 4 at the end of this year, and I am committed to increasing—in fact, we have policies to increase—the level of UK content in offshore wind. The GE Renewable Energy announcement in Teesside only a couple of months ago, in which it committed £142 million, is exactly the kind of investment and commitment to the UK supply chain that we want to see.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Point 4 of the 10-point plan refers to the need for large-scale battery factories for electric vehicles—sometimes called gigafactories. They need to be up and running within five years, so will the Secretary of State update the House as to where we are in securing them? Will he also comment on the state of discussions about the future of Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port, with its ambitions to build electric vehicles there?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend mentions gigafactories and the opportunities that they represent. There are conversations as we speak between people who are making batteries and the car makers; clearly, the dynamic between the auto manufacturers and the people who will be making the batteries is an important one. I hope to make a positive announcement about that soon. In relation to Ellesmere Port, there are very positive discussions with Stellantis. I am very much engaged with this matter, and we are particularly hopeful that we can make some movement in the summer on this too.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I welcome the statement in so far as it goes, but there is need for further clarity. Hydrogen has been mentioned on a couple of occasions. When exactly does the Secretary of State expect the hydrogen strategy to come forward, and how does he expect the business models to operate in practice?
We have concerns not just about hydrogen and the delays in that regard, but in relation to carbon capture and underground storage. The House will be cognisant of the fact that in 2017 the Government pulled the plug on £1 billion-worth of investment in Peterhead. We know that there are plans to have two clusters in place by the mid-2020s. One of those clusters has to be in the north-east of Scotland, linking the north-east of Scotland with Grangemouth, because of course Scotland has contributed more than £350 billion in oil and gas revenues to the UK Treasury. There can be no just or fair transition if the communities that I represent and others in Grangemouth are left behind.
My final point is in relation to an issue that appears to have escaped the notice of the Secretary of State in his statement, and that is transmission charges. He will be aware that our renewables project in Scotland must pay to access the grid, whereas the renewables project in the south-east of England gets paid to access the very same grid. I see that the Energy Minister is in her place. That is important because she wrote to me on 12 April and said:
“On the specific question of grid charging arrangements, it is important to note that this is a matter for Ofgem as the independent regulator.”
However, as the Minister knows only too well, Ofgem’s strategy and policy is determined by the UK Government. Indeed, the Government’s own energy White Paper states, on page 86:
“We will set out our vision for energy as a guide to Ofgem, by consulting in 2021 on a Strategy and Policy Statement for the regulator.”
When will that consultation begin and when will this Government stop holding back Scotland’s renewables potential?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman raised three issues. The hydrogen strategy should be coming out in the summer. It is a twin-track strategy, as I described it as Energy Minister. We are committed to the production of both green, electrolyser-produced hydrogen and blue hydrogen, which comes from carbon capture.
That leads me to the hon. Gentleman’s second point. He will know that there are a number of attractive sites for carbon capture here in the UK. We have set out our road map for two clusters by 2025 and two more by 2030, and we are in the process of deciding how to proceed on that. He can rest assured that Acorn is a very attractive project; it is something that I have looked at, and I am sure we will have some more information on that.
On offshore transmission charges, the hon. Gentleman knows that this has been an issue for a long time. I committed to looking at it as Energy Minister, and we will have a consultation on that. He must also appreciate that the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), is absolutely right: this is ultimately a matter for Ofgem, which, as he knows, is an independent regulator.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I too particularly look forward to the publication of the transport decarbonisation plan. In west Cornwall, we are working up a plan to bring the towns of St Ives, Penzance and Hayle together in a low-carbon transport plan, bringing together the railway, the roads and multi-use off-road tracks. Will the Secretary of State look at how he can help us to achieve that? Also, if it so happens that he is down in my neck of the woods in a month’s time for the summit, maybe he could meet us to hear about our ambitious plans to provide low-carbon transport for all people living in west Cornwall.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that I would be happy to meet him in Cornwall at any time of his choosing, provided, of course, that it fits in with my diary commitments. I am fully aware of the transport decarbonisation plan being absolutely crucial to his constituents—
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman asks when. Unfortunately, wide though BEIS’s purview and authority are, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will have a more accurate perspective on when that strategy will be published.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that how we heat our homes and insulate our buildings is an urgent issue that will affect every house across the entire country. He told the Select Committee a few weeks ago that the heat and building strategy would arrive at the end of Q2. Unless I have misunderstood, that is not before COP26; it is around now. Can he update the House as to why it has been delayed once again?
Kwasi Kwarteng
When I was Energy Minister, I wanted it to appear in the first quarter and I think I made public commitments to that. The hon. Gentleman will understand that many of the issues have been discussed across Government, and I am very confident that the heat and building strategy will be published soon. I cannot, however, give him a firm cast-iron date on this.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I welcome the focus on electric vehicles in the 10-point plan and the £1.3 billion investment in accelerating the roll-out of the grid infrastructure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a comprehensive network of ultra-rapid charging points in order to accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles and to get rid of a lot of the range anxiety?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When MPs talk to their constituents, we hear them talk about range anxiety, and it is critical that we have the right charging infrastructure to drive forward the EV roll-out. We have committed public funds to this, but I am very happy to discuss with her, as it is obviously critically important. I feel that we are in a good place, but I would be very interested to hear her ideas.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The 10-point plan announced 50,000 new jobs in energy efficiency, which may or may not have been in addition to the 80,000 new jobs that were due to be created by the green homes grant announced last summer in the Government’s plan for jobs. My repeated written questions to the Department to clarify whether those 50,000 jobs are in addition to the 80,000 have not yet elicited a clear answer, so could the Secretary of State tell me how many jobs in energy efficiency have been created so far, and what plans are in place to create more, now that the green homes grant has been scrapped with no plan to replace it?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The 50,000 jobs related to the green homes grant. The hon. Lady will know that there were three elements to the green homes grant. One related to the decarbonisation of public sector buildings. That was £1 billion deployed through Salix. That has gone extremely well. Of the remaining £2 billion, £500 million was to be disbursed by local authorities for council housing, social housing and people who are vulnerable. That programme is going very well. What has been rejigged has been the half that related to owner-occupied buildings. It was a short-term stimulus plan that was due to run out in March this year, and we are looking at a replacement scheme.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I welcome the ambitious plans that my right hon. Friend has set out to clean up our energy system and support green British jobs as we work to end the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2050. However, can he confirm that he will prioritise keeping bills affordable, particularly for lower-income households in Stoke-on-Trent, as we transition towards net zero?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will know that this is a critical point. There is always a balance between trying to decarbonise and making sure that energy bills are low to protect people. That is why we have a warm homes discount, which has worked very effectively. We have deployed money, and committed to that in the manifesto, with a home upgrade grant of about £2.5 billion. We are always looking at schemes not only to decarbonise, but to keep the costs low for those who are most vulnerable.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
One could be forgiven for thinking that COP26 is approaching and the Government need to make some headline announcements. What is missing in the Secretary of State’s statement today is a clear set of metrics against which this House, this country and the world can measure the Government. Will he take on board the thoughtful recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, which said that he should report properly to this House with clear targets and metrics which we can hold him to? I know that he is a man of intelligence, and a man who is committed to this; if he is that committed, will he open up that scrutiny so that we can really hold the Government properly to account?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Let me declare an interest: I served under the hon. Lady’s chairmanship on the Public Accounts Committee and I am very grateful for the time that I spent on the Committee. Of course, I will treat the Committee with the respect and courtesy that are due it. I look forward, as do my officials, to being asked about any of the Government’s programmes in respect of the net zero agenda.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I welcome the commitment in the 10-point plan to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but we have very few electric vehicle charging points in Southend and many parking restrictions. We would very much like to see them on new builds and in people’s driveways. With petrol and diesel cars being banned by 2030, will my right hon. Friend please help us to get more of these charging points in Southend before we become a city?
Kwasi Kwarteng
That begs the question, when will Southend become a city? Leaving that to one side, of course I will help my hon. Friend achieve those goals. The electric charging point roll-out is perhaps the most important metric—the most important thing to do— in order to achieve our goals with respect to electric vehicles.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Following on from the question of the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), there were some positive comments from the chief executive of Stellantis yesterday to the effect that things were moving in the right direction but we were not quite there yet. May I take this opportunity to remind the Secretary of State that Cheshire West and Chester Council and the local enterprise partnership have been working very closely with the civil servants over the past few months to make sure that the right deal is in place. They stand ready to do anything else they can to get this thing over the line, which is what we all want to see.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am conscious of the work that the hon. Gentleman has done, as he put it, to get this over the line. I was gratified to see Mr Tavares’ comments yesterday and I think that we are in a reasonable place. We obviously need to work very hard together to get it over the line, but the situation in Ellesmere Port is moving in a positive direction.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank and welcome everything that the Secretary of State has said today. May I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in extolling the virtues and benefits of the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland—of course headquartered in Banchory in my constituency—as being essential to our drive towards net zero? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, if his Department were to choose this project, it, along with the energy transition deal, would demonstrate again to the people in the north-east of Scotland the value of remaining a part of our United Kingdom?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted to see this degree of cross-party fraternity on that. All I would say is that the Acorn project has a lot to recommend it.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
The Government talk of a green industrial revolution, but surely they should be working through the concept of a green new deal bringing together attacking climate change and addressing social justice and job creation. On job creation specifically, how do the Government come to the figure of a quarter of a million new jobs by 2030, as many non-governmental organisations and think-tanks believe that the Government could be creating closer to 1 million jobs over the decade with the right policies of investment, with areas such as Northern Ireland achieving 50,000 more new jobs?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Of course, the number of jobs depends on the definitions that you use. The 250,000 number specifically relates to the measures in the 10-point plan. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, as he has been in the House for a while now, that as Energy Minister I always used to say that we have about 400,000 so-called green-collar jobs today and our target was for 2 million by 2030. That is a much wider range of jobs than those specifically created by the 10-point plan, and that is where there is a discrepancy in the numbers.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
There is a lot of older housing stock in my constituency and I therefore fully support the Government’s aims to make our homes warmer and greener. I appreciate that there are issues with the green homes grant scheme, but will the Secretary of State commit to boosting investment in energy efficiency measures in our homes, because that will not only be good for the planet and good for residents in helping to reduce bills, but create tens of thousands of quality green jobs?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s points. He and I stood on a manifesto in 2019 that expressly committed us to spending £9.2 billion over 10 years on exactly the kinds of measures that he mentioned. That is something that I am very focused on.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Thousands of my constituents work in the nuclear sector, which only this week has seen students from Warrington University Technical College beginning prestigious degree apprenticeships at Sellafield in Warrington—proof that the sector is a vital partner in the skills and levelling-up agendas, meeting our decarbonisation goals and creating high-quality green jobs. The Government have rightly concluded that we need much more nuclear power in the mix to reach net zero. However, under their watch, three large-scale nuclear projects have been abandoned due to the lack of a financing mechanism, which the Government claim to have been working on for four years. Why is nuclear financing more complicated than nuclear science?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I do not think it is. The hon. Lady will remember that the third of the Prime Minister’s 10 points was expressly committed to nuclear power. I was very pleased, as Energy Minister, to visit the nuclear college at Hinkley Point. I am sorry that I did not manage to go to Sellafield. We are completely committed to this, and we will bring forward in this Parliament legislation that will further commit us to creating more nuclear power in this country.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The 10-point plan recognises the immense value of local jobs in offshore wind production—something that my constituents are anticipating as Barrow and Furness is the home of the second-largest wind farm in the world. However, wind is not the only crucial renewable energy source in Cumbria: nuclear is hugely important and, as the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said, we are reliant on it. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend update the House on the financing policy that sits behind this to enable these jobs to be created?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will realise that sensitive discussions are being held all the time, but I refer him back to my answer to the previous question. The third point of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan was all about nuclear power. It said explicitly that we are committed to having a decision on a plant before the end of the Parliament. We are in conversations with operators and developers—very fruitful conversations, I might add—to bring that about, and we have an ongoing commitment to increasing, not decreasing, capacity in nuclear power.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that wide-scale housing insulation is key to bringing down household emissions? If so, can he explain what possible rationale he had for axing the green homes grant scheme? Will he take this opportunity to publicly apologise to the businesses affected by the shambolic delivery of the green homes grant schemes, including those businesses that his Department failed to pay for the work that was carried out under the scheme in good faith, some of whom were reportedly forced to make staff redundant?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The accusation that BEIS somehow did not pay people who worked on the scheme is a very serious one and I need to investigate it. I do not think that was the case but, as I said, I will investigate.
As I have mentioned, the green homes grant was composed of three elements. One was the decarbonisation of public sector buildings through Salix, the public finance body, and another relied on local authorities to distribute funds to enhance social housing and decarbonise those buildings. Both those elements were successful. The other element related to owner-occupiers. It was a short-term scheme that was always designed to end at the end of March, which it did, and we are looking to develop a replacement.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
Falmouth boasts the deepest natural harbour in western Europe and it is well placed to play a leading role in the UK’s ambition to deploy a gigawatt of FLOW—floating offshore wind—capacity by 2030. FLOW deployment in the Celtic sea alone could create more than 3,000 jobs. Local universities and the private sector have come together to accelerate deployment with a Strength in Places fund application. Will the Secretary of State visit the port of Falmouth with me—perhaps while he is in Cornwall next month—to see the exciting plans for ensuring that Cornwall is at the heart of this emerging sector?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not sure which is coming first—St Ives or Falmouth—but I am sure that arrangements can be made for such a visit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he please outline how the intended £12 billion of Government investment—with potentially three times as much from the private sector—to create and support 250,000 green jobs will be distributed throughout the United Kingdom? In particular, what will happen in Northern Ireland, which currently seems to be increasingly outside of the UK plan but has the potential to play a tremendous role—for example, at Harland & Wolff in Belfast and, indeed, other booming sites of industry throughout Northern Ireland—in achieving our industrial revolution?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has brought that question up. He will know that I speak regularly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), about investment in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to net zero. The hon. Gentleman will know about the offshore wind opportunities in Northern Ireland, I am particularly excited about the opportunities for hydrogen, and he will also know about the operation of Wrightbus and its efforts to bring hydrogen into the transportation system. There are exciting opportunities for Northern Ireland in relation to the net zero 10-point plan and I would be happy to discuss them with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about the paper he is going to produce this year on heating buildings and about point 2 of the plan, on the hydrogen strategy. Will he make sure that the plan properly recognises that significant numbers of homes, including in my constituency of Forest of Dean, are not on the gas grid, and that we need solutions that work for the people who live in them so that they can have what they want, which is greener heating for their homes that is affordable and deliverable on the necessary timescale?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend will know that in the United Kingdom we have an extremely diverse range of buildings and dwellings, which means that a one-size-fits-all policy just does not work for energy in the UK. There are lots of ways in which we can decarbonise buildings, which is exactly what will be spelled out in the heat and building strategy and—to a lesser degree, but more focused on hydrogen—in the hydrogen strategy. I would be happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend what we are doing to ensure that his constituents who are off the grid can get cheap, affordable green energy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to the 20 questions. I wish him well for his extensive tour of Cornwall.
Debate on the Address
Affordable and Safe Housing for All
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 358 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (h) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to prevent the potentially ruinous costs of remediation works to make buildings safe being passed on to leaseholders and tenants; and call on the Government to set a deadline of June 2022 to make all homes safe.”
I am pleased to open the debate for the Opposition today. I look forward to shadowing the Secretary of State on housing. Although he and I may have different outlooks, I hope we can make positive progress together on the key issues, particularly the cladding scandal. I want to put on the record my thanks to and admiration for my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who will shine even brighter in her new role as shadow Leader of the House.
If this year has taught us anything, it is the importance of home. The stay at home order put that sharply into focus. For those of us in stable, warm, comfortable homes, with room to work and live, lockdown has been difficult in many ways, but we have not battled daily. For those renters sharing a home, for those living in damp and overcrowded housing or in unsafe, unsellable blocks covered in flammable cladding, or for those without a home, living in temporary accommodation or on the streets, and for those in insecure work or those missing out on support schemes with mounting rent arrears, “Stay at home,” has felt like a prison sentence.
Ministers have taken some welcome action, such as the moratorium on evictions, but alongside housing charities I am deeply concerned that the rolling back of those protections will now lead to a wave of homelessness. The Secretary of State promised that no one would lose their home because of coronavirus. He must now come forward with a comprehensive plan that achieves that. The pandemic has massively exposed the deep inequalities in our society. If now is not the time to bring the country together with a shared mission of decent, affordable homes for all, like the mission arising out of the second world war, when is?
Housing is a fundamental human right. Everything else—getting the kids to school, going to work, health and mental health, and holding down a job—flows from having security in your home. Yet far from the “Housing First” mission being at the heart of our response to build back better, the Government’s approach has all the hallmarks of the past eleven years of failure and their belief that the market knows best, and if they cut perceived red tape and pump prime the market even more, that will work. Well, it will not, and we have the last eleven years of that failed approach to prove it. Rough sleeping—doubled. House prices—up 50%. Home ownership down, new social house building down 80%, and 230,000 fewer council houses. Now, more people are living in expensive, poor-quality private rented housing, subsidised by a soaring housing benefit bill.
This Queen’s Speech doubles down on the Government’s failed ideology. It lays bare whose side they are on. Developers will have watched in glee—the planning Bill is a developer’s charter, with everything they could have wanted to maximise their profits off the back of communities and first-time buyers. We want more affordable home ownership in all parts of the country, but this approach will not deliver it. The issue is not whether developers are getting planning permission; they are. It is that they are not then building. Meanwhile, this Queen’s Speech says nothing on homelessness; nothing for renters living in overpriced, poor-quality homes, thousands of whom are on the brink of eviction; nothing on the social housing Bill promised after Grenfell; nothing for those stuck on council waiting lists because right-to-buy properties are not being replaced; and nothing to address the climate emergency after the Government’s flagship Green Homes grant was dropped. Those gaping holes speak volumes: millionaire developer donor mates dealt a winning hand; renters, leaseholders, first-time buyers and local communities dealt a busted flush. Far from a national mission to put homes for all first, we have more of the same.
Nothing illustrates that better than the building safety crisis—a crisis that now goes way beyond Grenfell-style cladding and has broken the market in flats across the country. Without serious intervention, the nightmare will continue for leaseholders and tenants for years to come. The fire in east London two weeks ago should have been a wake-up call—if the Secretary of State needed another—to tell him that his hands-off approach just is not working. Thankfully there were no fatalities, but it could have been much worse. The block was covered in the exact same cladding that caused the Grenfell disaster. What is more, residents tell me that the balconies contributed to the fire spreading, the waking watch failed to reach everyone and there was no plan for the evacuation of vulnerable residents.
Residents have been pleading with the Government to fix their block for years. New Providence Wharf was mentioned in the House of Commons at least 10 times before this fire. Even after receiving millions from the building safety fund and being put on the “name and shame” list, the developer had not even started removing the cladding by the time the fire took place. Leaving it largely to the private sector has not worked. It was never going to. We have asked, begged and pushed the Government to step in. Now must be the time to act. That is why with our amendment Labour is today asking every Member of this House to vote to enshrine a cast-iron deadline to make all homes safe.
June 2022 will be five years since the Grenfell disaster. Nobody should pass that milestone living in an unsafe block. I believe the Secretary of State when he says that he wants to do the right thing, but we need much more urgency. We need leadership. We need sustained and concerted action from the Government to underpin the process and restore confidence. I want to work with him to get this right, and quickly. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has set out strong proposals. The Labour Front Bench has too. Let us work together across this House and sort it out.
I welcome the additional money put into the building safety fund, but the fund still has lots of problems with its scope, deadlines, application process and transparency. As ITV’s survey of leaseholders out today showed, the issue goes way beyond cladding and way beyond the current criteria. Most of the identified problems are not even covered by the fund, which is exclusively for certain types of cladding. Balconies, firebreaks, insulation and blocks under 18 metres are not covered, even if applications could be made by the very short deadline. We also need to get rid of the ludicrous “first come, first served” approach.
The building safety crisis goes well beyond funding. Without sorting out the underlying issues, just throwing money at the problem will not resolve it. The whole system, from mortgage lending to regulation, governance and risk assessment, is broken. Take the Green Quarter, which is just outside my constituency. Leaseholders and the developers were too early for the fund, so have footed the bill to remove dangerous cladding themselves. Works have now been completed, and they recently had a new risk assessment, but instead of getting the A rating that they expected for mortgages and insurers, it came back as B2, meaning that they are still trapped with further bills to pay having done all the right things.
That is why we need a national taskforce to develop a holistic approach to building safety and risk assessment, putting confidence back into the system with all the players around the table and proper regulation and guidance, driven by the Government. As has happened in Australia, the Government must also carry out a full audit of dangerous buildings, prioritise them according to risk and make it absolutely clear who pays and, crucially, who does not. Government Ministers, including the Secretary of State, have promised leaseholders that they will not be forced to pay. Yet despite the cross-party pressure, including from the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), amendments to the Fire Safety Act 2021 to enshrine that in law were rejected by the Government.
In its current form, the draft Building Safety Bill would shift responsibility for all costs on to innocent leaseholders. I will take the Secretary of State at his word, and I expect that clauses 88 and 89 will not be included when the Bill is finally published. If he wants to give that reassurance to leaseholders watching, I will happily give way to him. If he does not want to do that, MPs will have a chance tonight to vote on our amendment to do just that. The Government say that this is a Queen’s Speech for home ownership, yet that rings very hollow for those homeowners living in tower blocks across our towns and cities.
This Queen’s Speech is a clear sign of a Government running out of steam, with low or no ambition for this country. Where we needed big, bold action and a mission of housing first, we have tinkering around the edges and a piecemeal approach that does not rise to the challenge. The Government could have given more people security of ownership, not overheated the market. They could have implemented a planning regime that creates places and builds communities, not a developers’ charter. They could have driven forward their long-delayed reforms of the private rented sector, abolishing section 21 and giving people security of tenure—a commitment that Labour reaffirms today. On the 100th anniversary of Becontree, the first and largest council estate in the UK, they could have invested in a new generation of council housing for the 21st century. They could have made homes fit for the future, with net zero standards and large-scale retrofitting creating tens of thousands of jobs. They could have kept the spirit of Everyone In and committed to ending homelessness. They could have reformed wholesale our feudal leasehold system, whereby millions of families face extortionate fees, poor service and poor contract terms, with little or no recourse. While the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill is welcome, it has to be the first step of wider reform and that cannot come soon enough. They could have done all this and more, but tellingly, they chose not to.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Lady talked a number of times about home ownership but then implied that the Government are doing nothing about it but are reducing levels of home ownership. However, does she accept that home ownership peaked in 2003 and has declined since? It is now being reversed, including through some of the policies that the Government have brought forward, such as First homes, which gives first-time buyers on lower incomes a 30% discount on market price. Will she welcome that kind of intervention?
Lucy Powell
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Home ownership, especially for younger people, is now falling as well, so he should check his figures on that. This Queen’s Speech will do nothing for home ownership. It is a developers’ charter when it comes to planning; that is not what is wrong with our planning system at all. For those who cannot afford to buy their own homes, there is absolutely nothing in this Queen’s Speech.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her Front-Bench position and I am very pleased to see her there. Just to come back to the First homes arrangement, there is no argument about encouraging young people, particularly first-time buyers, to buy their own homes. Is not the problem with First homes that it is going to take the first top slice of any funding through section 106 agreements and therefore displace an element of social and other affordable housing for rent? That is the challenge with First homes: it displaces homes for rent.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Indeed, this is not just a failure of home ownership. There has been over a decade of Tory failures on housing. We have seen home ownership decrease. We have seen rough sleeping and homelessness increase. We have seen council house waiting lists increase. We have seen the failure to deal with the Grenfell tragedy, and, in the wake of that tragedy, the failure to ensure that all homes are safe, so does my hon. Friend agree that there is a litany of failures, not just on home ownership?
Lucy Powell
I very much agree, and when I made some of those points earlier, it was met with silence from Government Members.
In conclusion, the dream of having a secure, safe and affordable home is a powerful one, and rightly so. Housing is much more than an investment or a commodity. Homes are the places we grow up in, the places we grow old in. How safe and secure they are shapes who we are—the opportunities we can take, the freedoms we have, the successes and happiness we share—but for too many in this country after 11 years of a Conservative Government that has become a pipe dream. The Government’s market-driven ethos just will not create the homes we need, and for people trapped in buildings with dangerous cladding that dream has become twisted and has become a waking nightmare. Today we can start to fix that at least, and I hope Members from all parts of the House will join me in supporting our amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that while their contributions should address the terms of the amendment, it is in order to refer also to other matters relevant to the Gracious Speech. To begin with there will be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, but I suspect that may be shortened later.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As the Prime Minister has made clear, the future beyond the pandemic is not about restoring the status quo; we can and must do better, and last week’s Queen’s Speech set out our ambitious and comprehensive plan to do just that. For my Department, this means building back fairer and building back safer.
I welcome the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to the shadow Front Bench, the third shadow Housing Secretary I have debated with across the Dispatch Box since I became Secretary of State. Shortly after becoming shadow Housing Secretary, her predecessor got off to a bad start by admitting to a journalist that the Labour party had no housing policies, so I would like to congratulate the hon. Lady on a noticeable change of approach. I say that cautiously, as in her first TV interview she implied that it is now Labour party policy to oppose the building of more homes, a position that she herself has advocated for many years even in her central Manchester constituency, with all its brilliant opportunities for growth and regeneration.
We are told that the Labour party is under new management—well, at least for now—and it seems that its maxim is “Tough on homes, tough on the causes of homes”, but we are going to take a different approach. It seems from the hon. Lady’s opening remarks today that the Opposition accept there is a major problem, which is welcome: they accept that there is a generational problem that we need to come together to tackle, but it does not seem that they are yet willing to support any of the policies that will actually change and improve the status quo. We cannot wish more houses to be built; we have to make it happen, and we have to accept some of the difficult choices that are required. Despite the hon. Lady’s rhetoric today, we consider this to be an issue beyond party politics; we do want to work together, as I said when we spoke the other day, and I do welcome her appointment.
No reasonable person in this House, or indeed across the country, can credibly make the case that we should not be building more homes, because all of us in this House aspire to be or are already homeowners, and we aspire for our own children and grandchildren to be homeowners as well. The property-owning democracy is one of the foundations of this country—the belief that home ownership should be achievable for all who dream of it, and that young people, irrespective of where they are born, should be able to own the keys to their own home. For too many, this uniquely British dream has proved to be out of reach, and we face a generational divide between those who own property and those who do not. By the age of 30, those born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1965. Too many young people are being locked out of the benefits of capitalism. As we work hard to level up the country and to bridge this home ownership divide, we must do everything we can to make home ownership accessible to even more people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The scheme the Secretary of State has on the mainland here is called shared ownership. We have a similar scheme in Northern Ireland in which, with £80,000, people can go on to co-ownership. It is a really good scheme; my son is in that scheme. But the Secretary of State will be aware that house prices are going through the roof. In my constituency, in the last month alone prices have been going up by 16.7%, so what extra help can be given to first-time buyers who just want to get on the housing ladder?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and many of the policies we are pursuing are UK-wide. They include, for example, the mortgage guarantee that is enabling young people to get on the housing ladder with 95% mortgages, which will benefit his constituents as much as it will benefit mine. Through these schemes—such as the 95% mortgages, our reformed and more consumer-friendly model of shared ownership, and the Help to Buy equity loan—we are helping more people on to the ladder. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the First homes scheme will ensure that there are 30% discounts for first-time buyers, those on low incomes and key workers such as our NHS and social care workers, veterans and young police officers to get the keys to their own property.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
We all want to see more affordable homes, and we badly need them on the Isle of Wight. Why are we not doing more to free up the 1 million homes—planning applications for properties—that have been landbanked by developers? This is a massively quick win. What can we do about it?
Robert Jenrick
I will come to that point in a moment, if I may, because the good news is that the planning reform Bill does that as well. We are not divided on this issue; we are united. We want a better planning system, and we want planning applications that are granted to be built out as quickly as possible. The Bill will achieve both of those objectives.
But again, just as no reasonable person could contest the fact that we need to build more homes, no reasonable person could argue that we are going to achieve those aspirations through the demand-side interventions that this Government have been pursuing alone. However significant those are—even though we have now given the keys to the 300,000th property purchased under Help to Buy—and however beneficial those schemes are to people across the country, we also need to tackle the supply side of this challenge, and we are doing that.
Last year alone, more homes were delivered—244,000—than in any year in my lifetime. Were it not for the pandemic, more would have been delivered than at any time since Harold Macmillan stood at this Dispatch Box as Housing Secretary. To put these numbers into perspective, under the last Labour Government, in one year work began on just 95,000 homes—the lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. Behind these numbers and targets, the millions of ordinary working people trying to achieve their dream of getting on the property ladder are being frustrated.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State cites some interesting statistics, and I will cite one back at him. In the last 12 months, 80% of house sales in Cumbria have been to the second home market—for people who already have a house and are therefore depriving, in numbers, the communities they bought a home in of a full-time resident population. Does he understand the damage that does to communities such as the lakes and the dales, and what will he do to make sure the houses he builds actually end up in the hands of people who will live in them?
Robert Jenrick
I would say two things to the hon Gentleman, who makes an important point. First, my right hon Friend the Chancellor and his predecessors have brought forward tax changes so that there are further costs involved in purchasing second homes or for international buyers to enter the market. That money of course helps to fund our affordable homes programme. Secondly, I hope he will become an enthusiastic advocate of First homes, because not merely does it provide homes for first-time buyers and key workers, but it does so for people in their local area. So his constituents will be able to benefit from those homes, and then they will be locked for perpetuity to first-time buyers and key workers from his area. If he wishes to work with me on that, I would be delighted to ensure that some are brought forward as quickly as possible in his constituency.
Robert Jenrick
I will, and then I really must make progress.
Mr Betts
The Secretary of State mentioned Harold Macmillan. As someone who was brought up in a Macmillan home back in the 1950s—I am old enough, in case Members have not noticed—I think we then built 300,000 homes for four years. A very substantial number of those were built by the public sector. The Select Committee recently recommended that to get to 300,000 homes today we would need to build at least 90,000 in the public sector through housing associations and councils. That would cost about £10 billion a year of Government grant. We have not had a response from the Government, have we, to that proposal?
Robert Jenrick
There has been a response and I will come on to that in a moment.
We have brought forward the biggest affordable homes programme for at least 10 years—£12 billion, a very substantial sum. At the moment, there is no sign that the market is even capable of building more homes than that. If it can, I will be the first person to be knocking on the door of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor asking for more money so that we can build more affordable homes of all types. Our ambition is to build 1 million new homes over the course of this Parliament and, yes, to get to that target of 300,000 homes a year that was set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Prime Minister. She was right: we do need to build more homes.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Robert Jenrick
I will come to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Since 2010, we have delivered over half a million new affordable homes, including 365,000 affordable homes for rent, many of which—148,000—are going to social rent. The new affordable homes programme we have just brought forward has the largest contingent of social rented properties of any of its kind in recent years. Over 700,000 households, many first-time buyers, have now been able to take advantage of these schemes. We are committed to affordable homes of all tenures. That, of course, includes those that will be delivered through the £12 billion affordable homes programme, which, as well as building homes in its own right, is unlocking £38 billion- worth of private sector investment to drive affordable and market rent housing. That is the highest single funding commitment to affordable housing for at least a decade.
The truth, however, is that even those bold steps and record investment will only get us so far. To build the homes that I think we are agreed in this House we need and to level up truly, we have to face up to our generational duty and responsibility to increase the supply of homes at pace and at the volume that is required. That means taking decisive action to remove the barriers that for too long have held us back. My Department has a unique opportunity to achieve transformational change that will improve the lives of millions of people. We will be working on the most substantive reform of leasehold, property rights, building safety, renters’ rights and planning in a generation.
Kevin Hollinrake
On planning reform, as the Secretary of State knows, 30 years ago small and medium-sized enterprises built two thirds of new homes and today that figure is only 23%. The costs of planning have a disproportionate effect on small and medium-sized housebuilders. Does he believe that his reforms to the planning system will change that and improve the life of SMEs?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend touches on the litmus test for our reforms. Each and every one of our reforms must help small and medium-sized builders to prosper, so that small builders in every one of our constituencies, local entrepreneurs and the people who depend on them, from plumbers to brickies, benefit from the reforms, creating a more diverse and competitive industry. Everyone can be assured that it is in their interests that we are working day and night in my Department, not for the big volume housebuilders. They have the money to navigate the current system; they hire the best QCs and consultants; they love the current planning system. It is the little guy whose side we are on and that is why we are committed to reforming the system.
Bob Seely
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. We all agree on the principles. My worry is that by saying we have to scrap the current system, we simply create a whole host of new problems. By reforming the system and improving it, which does need to be done, we have a much better chance of the Government achieving their goals, rather than a big bang with all the unforeseen consequences.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has not seen the Bill yet. When he does, I hope he will be reassured and converted into an enthusiastic supporter of it. He and I are going to meet in the coming days, and I hope I will be able to reassure him that this is not about casting aside the good, but about reforming and building on it so that we can have the planning system we all deserve.
The principles behind our planning reform are simple. This will be good news for smaller developers, and everything that we do is designed to assist them. It will move the last paper-based system into the digital age, with interactive maps at our fingertips. It will get more local people—more than the 3% who currently engage with plan making—actively engaged and interested in what a local plan is. It will return planning to the social and moral mission that it began as, inspiring plans for the future of a local area, not simply paper-pushing and development management.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is entirely right that we support small and medium-sized builders to get houses delivered, but at one end we will need more system building—houses that are prepared in a manufacturing plant and then assembled—to get to the 300,000. What support is the Secretary of State providing for that sector, and what innovation can he tell us about?
Robert Jenrick
That is an extremely important point. Through our home building fund, we are investing in a number of ways in the emerging modern methods of construction industry, which I know my hon. Friend has championed for some time. We have been supporting new entrants into that market, including from overseas so that we internationalise the market; for example, Sekisui, the leading Japanese manufacturer, has now come to the UK. Our affordable homes programme makes a commitment that, in time, a quarter of all affordable homes in this country will be built to modern methods of construction, which helps to create the pipeline for investors to come into that sector.
The other thing that the Bill will do is empower local people to set standards for beauty and design in their area through design codes that developers will have to abide by, putting beauty at the heart of our planning system for the first time, and embedding the work of the late Sir Roger Scruton and everyone who was involved in the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission in the planning system as a matter of law. There will also be a greater emphasis on better outcomes, rather than simply on process, to protect and enhance the environment. We will ensure that biodiversity net gain is met, we will ensure that all streets are lined with trees, and we will deliver on net zero homes as a matter of national priority.
This is also, remember, the Bill that delivers the planning changes that we need to build the 48 hospitals and the schools that we need, and to ensure that we protect heritage and statues from those who would seek to tear them down. It provides the planning framework for our eight new freeports, and it ensures new powers and opportunities for the regeneration of high streets, town centres and brownfield land, which of course has never been needed more.
Robert Jenrick
Appropriately, I will come to my hon. Friend at this point.
Jo Gideon
As my right hon. Friend will know, Stoke-on-Trent City Council is rightly proud of its record; we build 97% of all new homes on brownfield sites. The latest data shows that the house building sector has bounced back after being temporarily shut down last year. Does he agree that the measures announced in the Queen’s Speech will continue to prioritise building on brownfield land so that we can protect our green fields?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Stoke-on-Trent is exactly the sort of place that is building the homes that the local community needs. It is meeting—indeed, exceeding—its national targets, and it is managing to do so sustainably and responsibly, in line with the preference of local people to build on brownfield land first. We have brought forward a £100 million fund to support that, which I think Stoke-on-Trent is already benefiting from—or I expect that it will in the future. That is exactly the kind of investment in sites that are less than viable, or where viability is challenged, that I expect to be able to announce later in the year.
These are once-in-a-generation reforms that will help us to build back fairer, increasing supply, improving affordability and unlocking opportunity for millions of young people. So too will essential reforms championing both homeowners and renters. As announced in the Queen’s Speech, the leasehold ground rent reform Bill will put an end to ground rent for new leasehold properties as part of the most significant change to property law in a generation. For too many, the dream of home ownership has been soured by leases imposing crippling ground rents, additional fees and onerous conditions.
That Bill is the first of two leasehold-reforming pieces of legislation that will put that right, making home ownership fairer and simpler, saving millions of leaseholders thousands if not tens of thousands of pounds, and reforming a system that we inherited from our distant forebears—an essentially feudal system that no longer meets the expectations and preferences of homeowners in the 21st century. Today, I will also be launching the Commonhold Council, which will pave the way for home- owners to take greater control of their home through a collective form of home ownership unusual in this country but ubiquitous in others around the world—another vital step towards people enjoying their homes as homeowners in the truest sense of the word.
We are also backing a fairer deal for the millions of renters. To that end, we will publish our consultation response on proposals to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions and improve security for tenants in the private rented sector, while strengthening possession grounds for landlords when they need that for valid reasons.
Robert Jenrick
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will keep going, because I appreciate that other Members wish to speak.
We will set out our proposals for a new lifetime deposit model, to make it easier for tenants moving from one tenancy to the next. We are also committed to raising standards, for example by ensuring that all tenants have a right to redress, and that well-targeted, effective enforcement drives out poor and criminal landlords. I am pleased that these plans have been welcomed by many across the sector, including Shelter, which has said that they breathe fresh hope for Britain’s renters. We will be working with Shelter and many others as we approach the publication of our White Paper in the autumn.
As we build back fairer, it is right that we also ensure that we build back safer. It feels especially poignant to be introducing the Building Safety Bill so close to the fourth anniversary of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. I am acutely conscious of its significance to the bereaved and to survivors, who, more than anything, never want any community to go through what they have suffered. That is what our landmark Bill aims to deliver, through the biggest improvements to building safety regulation for a generation.
Building on the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Bill will embed the new Building Safety Regulator as part of a wide-ranging, rigorous approach to regulating the built environment in this country. By implementing the recommendations made in Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review, the Bill will strengthen accountability and responsibility across the sector, with clear duties and responsibilities for building owners and managers. It will ensure that products used in the construction of buildings are bound by rigorous safety standards, which I am afraid are being found wanting day by day at the Grenfell inquiry. Crucially, it will give residents a stronger voice in the system, making it easier for them to seek redress and raise concerns.
The Building Safety Bill also supports the removal of unsafe cladding, with a new levy on developers seeking permission to develop certain high-rise buildings. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to raise at least £2 billion from a new tax on the residential property development sector to support this work, ensuring that the industry pays a fair share towards the cost of the situation it contributed to. As Members are aware, leaseholders in high-rise, high-risk building over 18 metres will pay nothing, with their costs being paid either by developers, insurers or warranty providers, or by the taxpayer through our £5 billion Government fund—the largest ever Government investment in building safety, and five times the size of the building safety fund set out in the Labour party’s 2019 manifesto.
We have heard nothing today from the Labour party on its plans, other than the fact that it would set up a new committee. I will of course take up the suggestion from the hon. Member for Manchester Central to work with her, as I have done already. Working together on these issues is in the national interest, so we should be doing everything we can to unite as a House.
Despite the challenges of the past year, the Government’s ambition and determination to answer this call for change are clear. We will ensure that we level up across the country. We will ensure that we take advantage of the historic opportunity to build back better. As one of my predecessors, Harold Macmillan, said when he began his task of building the homes the country needed in the 1950s, this is the start of an “inspiring adventure.” We are seizing it with both hands. We are building more homes than at any time for 30 years. We are helping more people on to the housing ladder. We are delivering fairness for renters. We are reforming property rights and leasehold as no Government have done since that of Margaret Thatcher. We are ensuring that no one needs to sleep rough on our streets, as we build on the phenomenal international success of our “Everyone In” programme.
With the promise of more to come, through once-in-a-generation reforms to planning and building safety, and record investment in all forms of affordable housing, these measures promise to extend opportunity and security for millions, to bridge the generational divide, and to recreate an ownership society—a society in which everyone has a stake and everyone can open their front door with pride and say, “Welcome to my home.” This is what the Queen’s Speech seeks to deliver. This is what my Department will work day and night to ensure in the weeks and months to come. I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in today’s session of the Queen’s Speech debate on the theme of safe and affordable housing for all, which I will come to in just a moment.
It has to be said that the Government’s plan outlined last week was a bit of a damp squib. In terms of the challenges faced by our constituents, it was pretty much a non-event; indeed, it contained proposals that caused some alarm. There was nothing about using the levers that this Parliament has, which devolved Governments do not have, to tackle issues such as child poverty or even commit to the modest ask to retain the £20 per week universal credit uplift. In contrast, the Scottish Government are using their limited powers to double the Scottish child payment to tackle child poverty. Plans for social care seem to have come to naught, while the Scottish Government seek to establish a national care service for Scotland.
Despite all the hand-wringing from this Government, there was no action on fire and rehire, as set out in the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). While the UK Government continue to throw their hands in the air over this very serious issue, the Scottish Government will review the Fair Work First criteria for contracts and Government support grants to include specific references to fire and rehire tactics, and we will continue to press for employment law to be devolved to Scotland’s Parliament, where it rightfully belongs.
Moreover, the absence of an employment Bill is very disappointing, not least because it means that the Government have decided to do nothing about exploitative unpaid work trials, just as they refused to back the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). In addition, I and others in this place had some hope for the inclusion of statutory paid bereavement leave for all—an idea whose time has come as we work towards a post-pandemic world, reminding us of all the crushing loss that grief can inflict on us, which, as a society, we would do well to give better recognition to. We had hoped that that could be put on a legislative basis.
All those hopes to improve the lives of hard-working people across the UK have been dashed in this rather empty programme for government—and all of this is before we come to the fact that the Government’s programme is set to deregulate and privatise wherever it can. The procurement Bill, which will seek to privatise Scotland’s NHS not by the back door but increasingly by the front door, is an act of legislative aggression against the express wishes of the people of Scotland, all taking place in the teeth of amendments to the Trade Bill put forward by the SNP to protect Scotland’s NHS. We continue to see the narrative of the democratic outrage committed against Scotland that was started by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
Then we come to the so-called electoral integrity Bill for compulsory ID by 2023, which will suppress voter participation, and I fear that that may be the intention. Indeed, without my parliamentary pass, I, too, would be excluded from participating in voting for elections, alongside 3.5 million other citizens. It seems that maintaining electoral integrity demands that a huge number of voters be excluded from voting.
I suppose it is easier to speak of integrity by crushing the suffrage of those who do not have photo ID and, coincidentally, may be less likely to vote Tory than it is to do anything meaningful to tackle the murky world of political lobbying, as set out in a Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). If there is a desire to protect the integrity of our politics, would that not be a better place to start? Nor are there any measures to deal with dark money, which is yet another very real danger to electoral integrity. Folk will no doubt wish to speculate as to why nothing is being done to properly tackle those issues. It would be laughable if it were not so very serious and dangerous to our democratic system.
I wish to turn to the theme of safe and affordable housing for all. Housing and local government are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government require buildings to be constructed in ways that better withstand fires and actively prevent their spread. That explains why Scotland has only a handful of buildings with Grenfell-type cladding, whereas that is a much more widespread problem across England. We, in Scotland, can look forward to a single building assessment programme. It is soon to be launched and will be carrying out safety assessments on all properties with external cladding, so that the scale of the funding needed for the necessary remedial work can be identified. There will be no “first come, first served” approach to building safety in Scotland. Funding needs to begin with an understanding of need.
Although the Building Safety Bill applies only to England, part 5 contains applications to Scotland where a new homes ombudsman is to be created for the whole UK, and paragraph 8 of schedule 1 amends the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Therefore, this Bill must not be pushed through unless and until the necessary legislative consent is secured from the Scottish Government. A very important principle of devolution is at stake. The people of Scotland elect MSPs to govern in devolved areas. This UK Government have no business or remit to encroach on those areas, so they must engage in dialogue—constructive dialogue—with those elected to represent the people of Scotland in devolved matters if they wish to secure legislative consent. It is understood that the regulation of construction products is a reserved matter, but it is essential that Scottish Ministers are consulted about such regulations before decisions are made, as they will have an impact on Scottish developers, builders and homeowners, and could also interfere with the Scottish Parliament’s freedom to legislate on devolved matters. So a legislative consent motion should be sought in that case, too. By the same token, appointments to the Health and Safety Executive amending the 1974 Act should not just require Scottish Ministers to be consulted; their agreement should be required for such appointments.
As well as being safe, homes must be affordable. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Scottish Government have provided about 100,000 new affordable homes since 2007, but we clearly need to go further. The Scottish Government are planning for another 100,000 new affordable homes. In order to help first-time buyers to get on the property ladder, the Scottish National party’s Scottish home fund helps to boost the finances of those seeking to purchase a property. This shared equity pilot scheme provides first-time buyers with up to £25,000 to help them buy a property that meets their needs, located in an area where they want to live. So far, the investment has been £240 million in this fund and it expected to support more than 11,000 households to buy their first home. So far, so good, but it is deeply disappointing that the total Scottish Government financial transaction budget in 2021-22 was cut by almost two thirds as a result of the UK Government’s spending review in November.
As for the planning Bill in England, such a Bill will not of itself magically build homes, as the Secretary of State knows. We know—and we have heard it mentioned by somebody else in the Chamber—that 1 million homes in England have approval but have not yet been built. Government investment and political will is also necessary to deliver affordable homes, which are so desperately needed. The Secretary of State may wish to look closely, as he will find it instructive, at the Scottish Government work done in this area, which has already delivered 100,000 new affordable homes—the other 100,000 are to be delivered by 2032. The fact is that despite the claims made by the Secretary of State today, the UK Government are playing catch-up on house building—I do not think there is any dispute about that. I remind him why I have made that comment about playing catch-up. He will recall that in 2015 the incoming Tory Government promised to build 200,000 new starter homes. Not a single one has been delivered. That is a terrible record, almost as bad as—actually, a little bit worse than—that of the Labour-Lib Dem Government in Scotland between 2003 and 2007, who built merely six houses. The broken promise of the UK incoming Government of 2015 makes those six houses look like a titanic effort—not an easy thing to do.
In the course of the new Parliament, the Scottish Government will put £1.6 billion into decarbonising how buildings are heated. Ambitiously, that equates to one third of all homes by 2030—a very important step in tackling climate change, since heating homes is a significant contributor to our emissions. Sadly, the UK Government are investing only one third of what has been invested in Scotland to decarbonise homes, which means that they are unlikely to meet their own targets to decarbonise homes by 2050.
I am sure that the Secretary of State understands the importance of increasing the supply of affordable housing. We have seen how urgent it is, and we know that it will improve the lives of the people across England who his Government represent in housing, who have suffered cramped, overcrowded conditions—conditions in which I myself grew up. Overcrowding fractures family relationships and has a hugely damaging impact on children as their development, schoolwork and self-esteem suffers. As we emerge from this pandemic, we know that so many people suffer these intolerable conditions under the strained relationships that lockdown has foisted on many of us.
What of supporting people to stay in their homes? We have seen from this Government repeated missed opportunities to cover the average cost of rents and ensure that people are supported to stay in their homes not just during the covid crisis, but beyond. The decision to maintain local housing rates in cash terms in 2021-22 represents a return to a freeze for renters. According to the Resolution Foundation, that means that 450,000 households have fallen into rent arrears since last January because of the covid pandemic. How will freeze local housing allowance rates help those families? It will not. It will disproportionately hurt them and further exacerbate the already deep financial difficulties that they face. The Secretary of State may wish to reflect on that.
We know that restoring local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile has a positive impact on homelessness and poverty, as well as wider economic and social benefits, but the Scottish Government are finding that UK budget decisions have an adverse impact on their work to support those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, since they are priced out of private sector tenancies. We also know that the temporary restoration of housing allowance rates facilitated moves out of temporary accommodation, which is something that we should all want to see. Does the Secretary of State believe that the positive benefits of restoring local housing allowance rates, with all the positive impacts that that can have on homelessness, are worth saving—or are those at risk of homelessness worth sacrificing? If so, why? What price social cohesion?
All this is before we even mention the ongoing, the continuing, the dreaded, the hated Tory bedroom tax. Of course, the tax has been fully mitigated in Scotland, with the Scottish Government spending £71 million in 2021-22 to do so because we do not have the powers to abolish it, although we are often told that we have a powerhouse Parliament. This cruel and punishing policy, imposed on Scotland by a Government rejected by the people of Scotland, has meant that the discretionary housing payment spend in Scotland is estimated at approximately £82 million. We are safeguarding tenancies and working hard to prevent homelessness, doing all we can with the limited powers that we have to mop up the damage wreaked on Scotland by this Government. While they impose this cruel and damaging policy on the people of Scotland, the mopping up is increasingly difficult, with 85% of welfare powers still reserved to this Parliament. We have a job on our hands as we continue to try to help struggling families to meet the cost imposed on them.
Keeping people in their homes—sustaining tenancies—matters because the best way to tackle homelessness is to prevent homelessness in the first place. The Secretary of State may wish to reflect on that and on the fact that cutting local housing allowance rates and the bedroom tax, and preventing homelessness through the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, becomes much more difficult alongside these policies. Short-sighted welfare policies force people into unmanageable financial hardship and can lead to a spiral of difficulties, leading them to lose their home.
The Government’s programme lacks ambition and substance; vitally, it does not command the support of the people of Scotland, who have repeatedly rejected this Government at the ballot box. Indeed, last week they could only muster a feeble 21% on the constituency vote. The people of Scotland favour progressive politics and progressive policies that put people first, seek to be inclusive, and offer support to those who need it when they need it in order to build a fairer and more compassionate country. Governing our own affairs, we could do so much more for the people of Scotland, and increasingly the people of Scotland are persuaded of that argument.
Self-government, of course, is not controversial. It is only controversial, uniquely, when we talk about Scotland. No country can be better governed than by the people who live and work there. That is why, when we have our opportunity to put Scotland’s future back in the hands of the people of Scotland—as we will as we emerge from the pandemic—the answer will be a resounding rejection of the values of this Tory Government and of the values of this Parliament, so that Scotland’s future is back in the hands of the people of Scotland and the democratically elected Scottish Parliament. We will then no longer need to tolerate Tory attempts at voter suppression, failure to deal with cronyism, dark money and lobbying shenanigans. We reject those things in the name of the people of Scotland.
I wish I could say something more positive about the programme for government presented today, last week and the rest of this week, but, sadly, I fear that there is nothing to say.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As we are moving to the five-minute time limit, I remind everybody contributing from a remote location that they should have a visible timer at the bottom right of their device. If they do not, I ask them please to get a timer because there is a lot of pressure on time today. We do not intend to be rude, but Members will be cut off if they go beyond whatever the time limit happens to be.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Unlike the bizarre and perverse world view expressed by the SNP in the previous speech, I very much welcome as a tonic the enthusiasm, innovation and creativity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to his brief and exhibited today.
Of course, the success of housing policy is dependent on balancing two elements. The first is encouraging home ownership in order to provide stability and security in the way that many of us have been able to enjoy, but which too many young people are not yet able to. That needs to be balanced against the interests of existing communities where houses are built, so that we do not have overstretch of infrastructure such as healthcare and education. We need to ensure that visual amenity and quality of life are not unduly damaged, and that we are able to create more jobs where housing is being built so that we do not continue to have commuter towns with all the disbenefits that they have seen in recent decades.
As part of my view of Conservatism, I have always had an indispensable view about the value of the green belt. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is placing great emphasis on the maintenance of green-belt land. It is there for a purpose: to stop urban sprawl and the concreting over of our countryside. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. It is therefore our duty to protect it for future generations, rather than giving in to short-term interests in one way or another.
This matter is tied up with the concept that the housing targets set by the Government are not instructions to build, but targets; and they are targets that need to be netted off against other interests that the Government may have set out, for example: the green belt, not wanting to build on floodplains, and not damaging our areas of outstanding natural beauty. They are difficult balances to get and they are always controversial in any one area.
As the Secretary of State knows, we have many of these difficulties in North Somerset—a part of the country that is well away from the nimby part of the spectrum. In fact, as the new Boundary Commission is likely to show, many of my constituents, because of the rise in our population, will be represented in constituencies outside North Somerset. It is very important to point out to district councils that the setting of the Government’s targets is not an excuse for them to try to build on green-belt land, because that is, I am afraid, what some of them are attempting to do.
The Government’s plans on the housing numbers have to be seen alongside some of the other elements of policy and the levelling-up agenda. The regeneration of some of our great cities, particularly in the northern part of England, will stop the drift of people to the south of England, which adds to the pressure on housing. The ability to get greater regeneration in terms of jobs in that part of the country will enable people to stay and to have the sorts of careers that they have otherwise only been able to get by moving closer to London. We must stop being a London-centric country when it comes to our planning system. I very much welcome that, as I do the opening up of competition in the house-building sector. Far too much power lies in the hands of the oligopoly in this country, and we need to see far more smaller companies coming into that sector if we are to see the sort of improvements that many of us want to see.
We still have to deal with the issue of cladding. The £5.1 billion set aside by the Government is a very large amount of money, particularly in the current fiscal circumstances. I caution my colleagues against thinking that they will be able to get substantially more money from the Treasury. We have to ensure that we get the end of forfeiture, which is why I welcome the leasehold reform. We need to ensure that the cost falls in the appropriate place, not on leaseholders, and that we do not absolve developers and builders of their responsibility to put right the mistakes that they created. We must ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent only where it is absolutely necessary and that taxpayers are not ripped off by putting right things through public money that should be put right through the private money of the developers.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to look at Portishead in my constituency as an example of many of these issues. I look forward to welcoming him or his officials—as many of them as would like to come down. I end with a word of warning at the risk of presenting myself as an unreconstructed fiscal Conservative: money will be very tight. The effect of quantitative easing, as set out by the OBR, means that we, as a country, are vulnerable to rises in interest rates, and we must therefore limit the way in which we seem to be splashing money in every single direction. We need to return to sound money and fiscal Conservatism, because we need to conserve the opportunities for the future by not landing the next generation in undue debt.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First, the Building Safety Bill has already been considered by the Select Committee as part of prelegislative scrutiny, and we have welcomed it, as it implements Dame Judith’s recommendations. I say gently to the Secretary of State that we conducted our review to a strict timetable. We published our recommendations last December, but we are still waiting for a Government response. We look forward to it. Generally, we welcomed the Bill and made quite a few suggestions about how we thought it could be improved.
However, I say to the Secretary of State that this is a building safety Bill, not a cladding removal Bill, and there is a danger that we see building safety simply in terms of removing dangerous cladding. It is absolutely important that that is done, particularly the aluminium composite material cladding, but also the other forms of cladding as well. We know that there are a multitude of defects in buildings that can cause fire problems: faulty balconies; faulty fire doors; missing fire breaks; faulty installations and so on, all of which make buildings unsafe. We could get a situation where the Government pay for the cladding to come off, but it still leaves the buildings unsafe, and leaseholders cannot afford the rest of the costs.
I have just been talking today to Jenny and Laura. The interview was organised by Yorkshire Calendar. Leaseholders were explaining to me that their buildings have other defects and that they and other leaseholders are worried sick that they are living in buildings that are unsafe, but that they do not have the financial ability to pay for the defects to be dealt with. That is a terrible situation. Hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are facing that problem in this country today.
We still have not had an explanation from the Government of their loan scheme and how it will operate. There are also people living in lower rise blocks worried about the future. Most renters will be expected to pay for all fire safety defects to be dealt with through their rent, which is unfair on them when the leaseholder next door may get assistance. We, as a Committee, have therefore recommended a comprehensive building safety fund to cover all fire safety defects. It should be paid for initially by the Government, with a major contribution from industry, including the providers of construction products. Of course, developers should be held to account wherever possible, but in the end, there needs to be certainty for homeowners who simply cannot afford to pay that the Government will get the problem resolved for them. That is the requirement that we have asked for.
On the Planning Bill, back in the early days of the coalition the then Chancellor, George Osborne, called planning an “obstacle to growth”. That is untrue. Planning is a means to achieve growth, but it has to be a means to achieve the right sort of growth in the right places. That is the challenge of the planning system. I think the Secretary of State will recognise that, in the White Paper, there is a major emphasis on local plans. I am sure that the Committee will support that, because we recommended some years ago that local plans should be made statutory and be simplified. The Government did not agree with us at the time, but I am pleased that they have come round to that point of view.
There are, however, major challenges around how we convert a situation where the public have a right to be consulted and express views about every single planning application to one where that consultation takes place at the local plan stage. That will be a major challenge under the new system that the Government are proposing. How we get to a situation where a local plan can contain all the relevant issues in relation to the multitude of different sites in the renewal category is a major challenge. We look forward to seeing how it will be resolved in the Bill.
In the end, the real challenge on planning reform is in the technicalities and details, so I make an offer to the Secretary of State. The Bill might be an awful lot better were it produced in draft form and he once again asked the Committee to have a look at it. I do not think that there will be a lot of disagreement on some of the issues, but the Government might have a think about getting the technicalities right so that the main beneficiaries down the line are not planning lawyers. On the housing needs assessments, it is slightly perverse that the latest iterations say that the number of homes to be built in the north and the midlands, in areas outside the major cities, will be lower than the number currently being built. That seems a bit like building fewer, rather than building better.
On renters’ reform, I am a bit disappointed that we are now having a White Paper rather than a Bill. Again, if it is about technicalities, why not at least produce a draft Bill for us to have a look at in this Session of Parliament? Finally, social care reform is an issue for other Select Committees on one level, but it is important to get it right to ensure that the finances of local councils are put on a stable basis for the future.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for pointing out at the beginning of today’s debate, that there is no restriction on the subjects that can be raised on any day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. Before I move to address other subjects, I would like to say how pleasing it was to see the Secretary of State nodding in response to the Chair of the Select Committee’s invitation to work on a cross-party basis on the grave concern about the plight of leaseholders following the cladding scandal. I am sure that the Secretary of State is as concerned as Members on both sides of the House by reports of leaseholders facing bankruptcy and lease forfeiture right now, which must be prevented at all costs.
Barely a day goes by without some fresh horror story emerging from our universities. Teenage totalitarians are shutting down free speech, egged on by activist academics and compliant administrators who could not win an election if their lives depended on it. The latest case is of a mature law student on the eve of her finals threatened with the loss of her degree for defining a “woman” in terms with which more than nine out of 10 people would agree. The Education Secretary’s proposals to put an end to such abusive indoctrination cannot come too soon.
No day was selected by the Opposition to focus on defence, foreign affairs or security. If time permitted today, I would return to such issues as I have raised in the past, including that of the 250-plus war widows who are still waiting for the return of their war widows’ pensions, forfeited when they remarried or cohabited. That loss will not happen to war widows in the future, but it has not been put right for war widows in the past.
I would refer to the possible misdiagnosis of veterans, who in reality have mild traumatic brain injury resulting from blast injuries in Afghanistan or Iraq but are being misdiagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
I would refer in particular to the urgent necessity to permit to resettle in the UK, before they become trapped, locally employed Afghan civilians, including interpreters, who helped our troops. That could lead to a wider debate about what we and our NATO allies can do to deter or counteract a total Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and the slaughter of those we supported and encouraged for so many years. For example, will we maintain in the region a strategic base from which action can be taken if necessary?
Finally, I will refer to this, as opposed to just mentioning it in passing. According to a rather impressive scoop by Larisa Brown in The Times a few days ago, some very good news about the plight of Northern Ireland veterans is coming at last. It appears that troubles-related cases, up to the signing of the Belfast agreement, will have a line drawn under them, and that will be coupled with a truth recovery mechanism on the model of what was done in South Africa on the inspiration of Nelson Mandela.
The proposals, if true, are closely aligned with the recommendations of the Defence Committee’s seventh report of 2016-17, published in April 2017. That report drew heavily on the expert testimony of four eminent law professors that was given on 7 March 2017 and is well worth studying today. Their testimony made it clear that anything done to resolve the question of vexatious reinvestigations and prosecutions must apply across the board. It later became clear that, as a result of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, no more questions should be raised about putting terrorists and security forces on the same level. Everyone is on the same level before the law, and the 1998 Act said that even the most heinous murders would result in nothing longer than a two-year prison sentence.
How much better will it be to take a leaf from the book of what was done so successfully in South Africa by substituting for investigation and prosecution, with little chance of success, a truth recovery mechanism to bring closure to the bereaved?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
On the cladding crisis, I regret that there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to protect leaseholders from having to pay to fix faults that are not of their making. When the Building Safety Bill comes before us, Ministers will find that amendments are tabled to provide that protection to leaseholders. We are not giving up and there are a growing number of Members of this House, including on the Government Benches, who are determined to do right by our constituents, because they have run out of patience and are running out of time. As their lives remain on hold, their flats remain worthless, they face monthly bills for waking watches and insurance premiums, and the demands are starting to arrive for sums of money that they simply do not have.
As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), rightly pointed out, offering to solve half the problem will not work, because there are other fire safety defects. As the recent fire at New Providence Wharf reminded us, living in an unsafe building is not a theoretical risk; it is an actual risk. I know it is difficult for Ministers, but believe you me it is nothing like the difficulty that our leaseholders are living with. The only solution is to make loan funding available to the blocks to fix all the problems and then to pay back the cost of that loan over the long term by levying the house builders and developers.
My second concern in the context of this debate is for all those in rent arrears because of covid. As the moratorium on evictions comes to an end, what is the Government’s plan to stop lots of people being made homeless? I am not aware that there is one. At the beginning of the crisis, the Secretary of State said, as we heard earlier, that
“no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home”,
yet when the Government recently announced that the bailiff-enforced eviction ban would be extended to 31 May, their own press notice said:
“This will ensure residents in both the private and social sector can stay in their homes and have enough time to find alternative accommodation”.
Those two statements do not square. Either my constituents will be able to stay in their own homes or they will have to find alternative accommodation because they have been evicted. Which is it? And by the way, where is the alternative accommodation that they can afford?
This brings me finally to the planning Bill, which I think will have a rough ride. I do not think it will fix the problem that it is trying to address. Ministers have announced many changes to the planning system in the last decade or so, and all of them have tried in one way or another to remove power from local communities, because it is argued that they are the main obstacle to house building. I think that analysis is wrong. A growing number of people contact me as an MP because they live in unsatisfactory and overcrowded accommodation. They bid with hundreds of others for a council property, they cannot afford to buy and they cannot afford to rent privately. There simply are not enough council houses, so local authorities need the means and the funding to build them.
We are never going to have enough homes if we just rely on the volume house builders, because they will build only the number of properties they think they can sell at the price they want to get for them. That is why we have planning permissions unbuilt, which is hardly a sign of a planning system that is working. I read that Ministers are contemplating a “use it or lose it” levy, and I think that is a very sensible idea. Indeed, we proposed it six years ago. Even where local communities come forward to designate sites, they do not have the power to ensure that that is where the new homes are built. Community after community can tell the story of sites being identified locally, whereupon the house builders come along and say, “I’m really sorry, that doesn’t work for us, but what about that greenfield site over there?” And even if their planning application is refused, they are pretty confident that they will win on appeal.
I cannot think of a system less likely to encourage local communities to take responsibility than one in which the final decision is removed from their hands. That is why local communities should have the power to determine exactly where the new homes are built, what kind of homes are constructed and who gets them. It is not surprising that we see resistance to new homes if the community knows that no one on its waiting list and no one living locally who is hoping to buy their first home can have any chance of affording them. How many more planning Bills will it take before we come to the realisation that in the end local communities have in every sense to take responsibility? I believe that if we give them all the tools, they will do the job.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Thank you very much for calling me in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Over the past few days we have been debating the Gracious Speech of our monarch, who has been nobly carrying out this duty for longer than anyone else has been sitting in either House. Over that time, she has been the only constant. Her words and policies have changed with the will of the people who have chosen her scriptwriters through election. It is an extraordinary recognition of the reality of power and duty. Her subjects have the power to force her to read the words, and she dutifully does so, giving us an illusion of constancy in a changing world. That illusion is no trick; it is a vital part of the stability of our nation. It allows continuous innovation without fear, and novelty without revolution. As democrats have always known, the alternative to constant change is not stasis but sudden violence. The earthquake is no alternative to the bicycle. Her Majesty has been providing the constancy that has enabled that change and avoided violence, and we have been blessed to live in a newer, more peaceful Elizabethan age.
Our civic Union, which has grown out of the union of the high kings of Ireland, the tribes of Wales, the clans of Scotland and the kingdoms of England, is another constant. It has provided certainty for 300 years, and those who threaten it should think about the difference between expedient interest and long-term strategy. To lose our nation would be not just a question of currency or governance but a moment of profound disorientation for many, as so many would be left with the question of what is home. That is why I have chosen to speak today on the importance of home.
Across our nation today, almost 100,000 people are living in temporary housing. They are families like ours who are living with the uncertainty that temporary housing ensures. They have narrower windows for decisions, timelines moved from months and years to days and weeks, and injections of transience, not just in geography but in aspiration. This corrodes the ties that bind communities and undermines the ability to invest in the future. Children find it harder to study and make friends, and their results suffer. Adults cannot invest in their own futures, turn jobs into careers or accommodation into homes. At every level, this costs us all. How many Einsteins could not finish their schooling? How many Flemings did not start their education? How many Dysons did not have the time to set aside to innovate?
That is why this emphasis on housing matters, but it is much more than an emphasis on housing; it is an emphasis on community. It is a reversal of the policies that have sadly endured for too long and have slowed down the ability of owners and occupiers to be one and the same. That has stolen energy out of our economy and stability out of our nation. As Jack Airey argued in a Policy Exchange report in 2019, “Building Beautiful Places”, which built on the work of so many others, including of course Sir Roger Scruton, we need to feel at home not just in our home but in our community, our town and our country. How we build what we build builds us up or drags us down. It is profoundly important to remember why we build, not just where.
There are huge examples of successful construction and opportunities where we have seen shared space inspire co-operation and inspire changing, caring atmospheres. We can deepen community and we can intensify co-operation, but it demands that we build on the nature of our community and respect those who are there. When we rebuilt this place, we did not just enrich Pugin but enriched Britain, because the fire that started with the tally sticks destroyed not just an old Parliament but an old world. It brought about a new innovation in currency and a change in our economic future. It removed the restrictions that for many had held back our economy.
This is a time when we need to talk again about those changes, because the Queen’s Speech does not cover the changing nature of currency, the changing nature of the economy, and the innovations that we are seeing online through various forms of cryptocurrencies. I will not, in the few moments I have left, go into why I am going to be bullish on Ether and not Bitcoin, or the nature of the change in the Treasury that is needed to enable innovation that sees the sharing of prosperity on a global basis rather than a local one.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that we need to ensure that we have local engagement in a digital way in our planning concerns as we go forward?
Tom Tugendhat
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. As she has kindly spoken about digital, I will continue for a moment on why I think the Treasury needs to create a safe space for cryptocurrency development.
Setting the standard for this new economy will shape a new electronic age—a new digital world. Just as our laws—the laws passed in this place and in the old Parliament—created the trading economy that enabled so many to prosper, and created the concepts of individual ownership, corporate responsibility and indeed private responsibility, we now need to see those values injected into new changes. If we do not get this right, these standards will be set by authoritarian Governments with no interest in innovation, or in wild places where there is no regulation and no accountability.
As we come to the end of the Queen’s Speech debate tomorrow, I hope that the Government, and the Treasury in particular, will reflect very hard on the nature of crypto exchanges, because they will fundamentally be the underpinning of a new trading world, and the standards that are set for them will either see us all prosper or see us cut up.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On the planning Bill, the Secretary of State, and the Government, could have listened to those concerned about high land values. He could have tackled the Land Compensation Act 1961 to bring down unrealistically high land values and to make more land available for developing more affordable homes. He could have listened to those who had called for councils to be given the power to do what Macmillan did in the 1950s and to build directly within communities with the support of communities. He could have listened to those observing the situation with the already parlous state of the construction workforce, noting that the Government’s immigration changes have now reduced that workforce by a further 9%.
The Secretary of State could have listened to all those sensible voices. Instead he listened to the voices of a few people saying that all we need to build more homes is to have permissive planning legislation. That is bogus because, as we have heard from other hon. and right hon. Members, nine out of 10 planning permission applications are granted and over 1 million planning permissions were given over the past 10 years and not delivered.
Jim Shannon
When it comes to the issue of land that has been banked for development, some 1 million homes are set aside for that purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be a timescale on when that land can be dealt with? Does he also feel that, within the land banked development plan, there should be provision for social housing for people who cannot afford housing by going for a mortgage?
Tim Farron
I agree with all those points. It is vitally important that land that can be used for housing is made available for affordable housing—for homes for local people that they can afford.
It is worth bearing in mind that there are other problems in the planning system. In my part of the world, south Cumbria, we have three planning authorities—the district council, the Yorkshire Dales national park and the Lake District national park. One problem there is not the overweening power of the planners, but the overweening power of developers to be able to run rings around the community. The viability assessment, for example, allows a developer to get planning permission for developing, let us say, 30 or 40 houses and then, having agreed to build a dozen or so affordable homes, to tell the planners, and indeed the local community, “We’ve changed our mind; we’ve found a few rocks, so we won’t go ahead as we had promised.” The planners’ lack of power to ensure developers do what the community wants them to do undermines local democracy and undermines the ability to deliver affordable homes to local communities.
One hugely worrying aspect of the Government’s proposals is that developers will be able to build up to 50 homes without any affordable homes among them whatsoever, which will be massively ruinous to a community such as mine where the majority of developments are smaller than 50 houses and where the average wage is less than a 12th of the average house price. I heard the Secretary of State’s offer earlier about first homes and I will take him up on his offer. In the South Lakes we will offer to be a pilot for first homes, on the understanding that it is not a replacement for the existing provision for affordable homes through the planning system. I am all ears because we need to do everything we can to ensure there are local homes for local people.
I mentioned in an intervention a desperately worrying thing. People talk about an increased number of homes being available, but in the past 12 months we have seen a reduction in the number of homes available for local people in south Cumbria, and other parts of the country as well, as second home ownership has rocketed, in part fuelled by the Government failing to think through the impact of the stamp duty holiday. Eighty per cent. of homes purchased in Cumbria in the last 12 months have gone into the second home market. They are not lived in. What does that mean for the local community? It means we are robbing that community of a permanent population.
People can talk about levelling up, but it does not look like levelling up to me when we see a school closing because there are not enough permanent homes locally to send children to that school. Levelling up does not mean very much to us in Cumbria if there is no demand for the bus service, so the old person who wants to attend a GP appointment 10 miles away cannot physically get there; and the post office shuts down because there are not enough homes in the village to sustain the post office all year round. That does not look like levelling up; that looks like the Government deciding to ignore the plight of rural Britain, including my part of Cumbria.
Therefore, I urge the Secretary of State to look at my early-day motion, which has the backing of the Lake District national park and the Yorkshire Dales national park, calling for councils in England to be given the same powers they have in Wales to increase council tax on second homes, but also to intervene to change planning law to protect first homes in communities such as mine, so those places do not become ghost towns. It is deeply troubling that there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech that allows us to tackle the explosion of second home ownership, which is undermining community in places such as mine.
I want to say a few words about the Building Safety Bill. That is an opportunity for those of us who care about those who are the victims of the staggering unfairness of the cladding scandal to seek to address it, but it would be even better if the Government were to do a U-turn now and decide not to lay at the door of those people who are blameless the price incurred by those who are guilty of recklessness and lethal decisions in both the development side and the Government regulation side of the development of properties over years. It is outrageous that we are apparently about to penalise the innocent for the failures of the guilty.
We must protect our environment, create a planning system that listens to local people and protects our landscape, and make sure that we have homes that are available and affordable for local people, so that our communities in the likes of the lakes and the dales remain sustainable. My great fear is that the Secretary of State’s plans are all about listening to the people with the power and ignoring communities such as ours, which are in desperate need of support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to four minutes if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in. I remind Members that, if they take interventions, they should take them within the time limit. I know it is difficult, because we have a lot of speakers, but if those who did not put in to speak intervene, it prevents those who did put in to speak from making their speeches. I am sorry about this, but I will reduce the limit to four minutes, and if people take interventions, please try to stay within the limits that we have set.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I hope to make three quick points—or perhaps only two, but we will see. I strongly support the levelling-up agenda as set out in the Queen’s Speech—not only levelling up between north and south and London and the regions, but—perhaps the most important aspect—helping generation rent to become homeowners. During my 29 years as a parliamentarian under Governments of both colours, roughly 85% of people have aspired to home ownership—that figure has remained constant—but sadly the percentage of people who own their own property has fallen to roughly 65% now.
In 1979, my first home in Plymouth cost £13,250. I was 24 and at that time it was quite common to buy one’s first home in one’s early or mid-20s. In Devon now, the average age of first-time buyers is mid-30s. My starting salary as an assistant solicitor was £4,800. That same house is today worth £190,000—fifteen times more—and the starting salary is six times what it was. That is the problem: the affordability gap, which cannot be bridged without specific and consistent intervention. We simply have not built enough homes in the last 30 years. We need to ensure a better balance of supply and demand by building more. I support the focus on the first homes policy. A 30% discount is very attractive. Let us wish the Government every success in rolling out that important new policy.
I also recognise that a significant minority of people do not want or are not able to purchase a property, so the rented sector in both the private and the social housing sectors must also be vibrant. We have a real problem in the private rented sector in the south-west right now: it has virtually disappeared. Intervention may be needed at some stage if the market does not respond as we hope it will. I wish the Government well with their first homes policy, but I am sure the Minister who winds up the debate will confirm that it is about not just first homes or social renting, but a range of innovative housing products and solutions that will sit alongside those important policies.
My second point is to support the proposal to amend permitted development rights to enable more rapid conversion of office and retail stock into residential stock. That is significant, because as traditional retail declines under pressure from internet shopping and more people work from home, we have a new opportunity carefully to identify new strategic brownfield sites and to turn them into residential areas. Planners have been talking about brownfield sites for decades, but many towns and cities throughout England do not have large pockets of old industrial land sitting there, waiting to be developed. Many places in our country do not have derelict factories left over from the industrial revolution, but they do now have empty shops and under-occupied offices. We have to capture this moment.
Plymouth is a prime example. Virtually nobody lives in our city centre, and now it has far more retail stock than is required, so rapid conversion into homes for local people would be a very desirable move—a win, win, win. Not only would it create more much-needed homes, but it would help to bring our city centre back to life and it would protect the precious rolling hills of the south downs that surround our city. In developing this policy as they intend, the Government are pushing with the grain of social change and bringing additional benefits with it. It is an important policy and I strongly support it.
I support the Government in building back better. This Queen’s Speech will help us to do so.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I want to address whether the Government’s proposals help many of the leaseholders in Garston and Halewood in any meaningful way. Liverpool City Council is currently monitoring 149 high-rise residential blocks across the city because of fire safety issues relating to cladding, and the Liverpool Cladiators, among others, are campaigning to have the horrendously costly fire risk remediation done to their homes without the blameless leaseholders having to pay. That is one problem.
In addition, many ordinary families in my constituency who bought new build leasehold houses on estates in good faith are being financially exploited by unscrupulous freeholders who see them only as cash cows. All those people—most of them young families—are trying to get on in life in aspiring to own their own homes. That is an admirable thing that we should be encouraging, but instead, they have found themselves in a living nightmare of escalating costs and financial exploitation that they knew nothing about when they signed up to home ownership. Indeed, some of them were actively misled.
In spite of the warm words, the legislation announced by the Government leaves many of these people in the same trap, with no guarantee of relief, and in some cases only very partial relief. The Building Safety Bill does nothing to help those who live in buildings under seven storeys. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) set out, it does not pay the costs of non-cladding remediation needed to ensure fire safety. It does nothing to stop freeholders passing on the ruinous costs to their leaseholders or to ameliorate the soaring insurance costs passed on in service charges. In Liverpool, insurance costs increased this year by between 300% and 1,400%—costs that will be passed on. Before this legislation, leaseholders were facing unpayable, ruinous costs in the tens of thousands of pounds each, literally trapped in fire-trap buildings, in homes that are unmortgageable and unsellable, with no way out. After this Bill is enacted, with its regulator, its new homes ombudsman and its new framework to provide national oversight of construction products, they will still be in exactly the same position.
What about the many hundreds of my constituents who have bought new build leasehold houses and find themselves being financially exploited? They are having to pay escalating service charges, ground rent and fees because the freeholds have been sold on as an income-producing financial asset, thus ensuring that agents squeeze every last penny out of them, while providing as little as possible—usually nothing—in return. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill does nothing at all to help existing leaseholders, and the Government appear content to allow these people, who bought their homes in good faith, to be left with no redress under its provisions. My constituents in existing leases will have all the same expensive problems after the enactment of this legislation that they had before it and no way of improving things. Even if they purchase the freehold, exploitative covenants are placed in the contract for sale. Wholesale leasehold reform is needed, but this Bill does nothing about that.
Despite two Bills in the Queen’s Speech that promise solutions to these intractable problems faced by leaseholders, leaseholders will not be given the legislative help that they need and that their predicaments demand. They will still face the prospect of having to pay thousands of pounds and put up with very large, exploitative costs into the far future. They will be left with unmortgageable and unsellable homes, massive, unaffordable bills and no real help from this Government. Rhetoric won’t cut it, Minister—you have to help these people properly.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Housing is a central area of policy that must be a priority for the Government. On adult social care, I share the disappointment of many across the House and country that there is no detail about the future of adult social care in the Queen’s Speech. I still believe that the solution is the one that has been effectively argued for many times by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), which involves an insurance component and has long been in use in countries such as Germany. What is obvious to me and to others who have been involved for many years is that a—very much in quotes—“solution” for adult care that is in fact simply an addition to general or indeed even hypothecated taxation and a power grab into local government by the NHS is no solution at all. It would disempower not only local government, with its ability to tailor offers to those in need of care to local needs and circumstances, but local charity and private sector partners. Those partners include Anchor Hanover, which I met last week, with its innovative work in housing for the elderly, including an extraordinary number of centenarians, and with stepped-up levels of care according to need—a model very much like the one Derbyshire County Council was working on under my leadership and has been again more recently.
Housing is central to good adult care solutions in the future, but housing is not, to put it mildly, an NHS specialism. An example of this needed innovation is buyer shared ownership, a mechanism often regarded as being for young people, but something with a valuable application for older people too, in their being able to trade down, retain equity and fund their care in both the housing and nursing sense. I look forward to the Government bringing forward their vision of the future sustainability framework for adult social care in this country, and I hope the MHCLG stays involved.
One of the main themes of this Government is levelling up the country, but I do have some concerns about the introduction of a levelling-up Bill rather than, instead of as well as, a devolution Bill. Local government needs to be just that—not just local administration for central diktats or a vehicle for the bidding-in culture for Whitehall funding pots. As a board member of Northampton Forward, I see how much time, effort and resources go into bid proposals from central Government funding pots, with plans changed to fit the criteria for each. Of course, as MPs we welcome the award of funding for our areas from these bidding rounds—I certainly do for mine—but it does not stop us simultaneously suggesting that there may be an even better way.
As a Conservative, I have always believed that increased home ownership is something that should be within the reach of an ever larger number of British people. It is one of the reasons I founded and chair the all-party parliamentary group on SME house builders. As a result, I know at first hand the willingness to build more houses that sits at the core of the SME sector, so I am encouraged to see the planning Bill brought forward in the Queen’s Speech and the emphasis on SMEs within it.
Time prevents my discussing the need for more details on a renters reform Bill, particularly for a housing court, and concerns about the affordability of the environmental measures, such as ending gas boilers, especially for the elderly, not to say my welcome for the Bacon review—another time—but I do hope that the Government will listen to those with expertise in these areas as the details of their plans are worked on.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out, on jobs, that while the Gracious Speech may sound good, it is severely lacking in substance. It is not just on jobs that the Government are providing little more than rhetoric, but on housing, skills, employment rights and financial inclusion too.
The need for a deadline to make all homes safe was powerfully outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and I congratulate her on her new role. I will be backing Labour’s amendment today. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill must make leasehold more transparent and as fair a system as for homeowners, but while the building safety Bill looks at the safety of future buildings, it does nothing to help those trapped in unsafe buildings, including many in Feltham and Heston. Indeed, it seems to be reinstating regulations removed by previous Tory Governments. The £50 a month supposedly maximum bill for leaseholders in buildings of under 18 metres still means a bill of £600 a year, with no clarity on how many years they will be paying it or any leverage over what landlords seek to charge them. Since 2017, Tory Ministers have promised at least 15 times that leaseholders will not have to pay unfair costs, yet that is what this Government voted for last month, rather than ensuring that those responsible must pay. Living safely is not a privilege; it is a right.
Let me turn to the economy. There was no announced employment Bill, which the Tories promised in 2019. TUC polling shows that 84% of working people want all workers to have the same basic rights. The Prime Minister promised that he would enhance workers’ rights after our departure from the EU, so what happened? Did he lose the memo? Did it get lost in his refurbishment? The time is now to finally introduce a long-awaited employment Bill that would include measures to create a single enforcement body to enforce employment law, improve rights to flexible working, and end the deeply immoral practice of fire and rehire. This has been a hugely unequal pandemic. The number of people on zero-hours contracts is at almost 1 million. Women, ethnic minorities, young people and the lowest paid have paid the worst economic price. Poor employment rights and low pay cause the in-work poverty that is a modern-day scandal.
Vital for employment is reskilling and upskilling. A decade of Tory Government has meant spending on further education has halved and 200,000 apprenticeships have disappeared since 2016. The Government’s proposed lifelong learning entitlement is, bewilderingly, set to start in four years’ time. If improving our skills system is so crucial, why is action being left until after the next general election and after the next spending review? Why are we only focusing on certain sectors?
On financial inclusion for businesses and consumers, the Government’s plans must also include the 5.9 million small businesses and sole traders who are at the heart of our local economies. Bringing small businesses into public procurement processes is well overdue and a vital first step, but there must be a focus on small business finance.
On the poverty premium highlighted by Fair by Design, people on low incomes are forced to pay more than better off consumers on a range of products such as energy bills and high-cost credit, and they pay more in insurance because they are more likely to live in areas considered high risk. This costs the average low-income household an extra £490 per year. In 2017, the House of Lords Select Committee on Financial Exclusion recommended the Government expand the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority to include a statutory duty to promote financial inclusion. That must be on the Government’s radar.
In conclusion, the Queen’s Speech should be the road map to getting our economy and society back on a path to a fairer future for all. Its gaps are glaring.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
We must fix our broken housing market not just because it is the right thing to do—we need to build more houses in the right places, at the right price, to the right quality standards, at the right speed, and to the right environmental standards—but because we must keep our promises to future generations and keep our promise to level up. We cannot achieve levelling up without fixing the housing market.
The White Paper and the measures announced in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech will not in and of themselves fix that entire problem, but I am very heartened. Reading the introduction to the White Paper or speaking to one of our wonderful Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Front Benchers, one gets the impression that we are on the right track but we will not solve the problem all at once. It is that kind of realism, dosed with the enthusiasm that this Government have for levelling up and for fixing tricky problems, that gives me the confidence that we are heading in the right direction.
The housing market is incredibly broken. We have suffered decades of tinkering. Well-meaning policy interventions from Governments of every type over decades and decades have nicked away at what used to be a market but now operates as some kind of amorphous blob with an incentive coming in one way and an unintended consequence coming out the other.
There are lots of things to like in this Queen’s Speech. I am keen to address the speed at which we can get through the planning process. Seven years to put a local plan together! How can communities stay the same for seven years, when what we want them to do is grow, progress and become better? If we plan on the basis of what we were looking at seven years ago, we will never build the right houses in the right place at the right time.
The digital agenda is close to my heart. We need to make planning smarter, more digital, more accessible. We need to break the stranglehold of big business. Anybody who has ever been through a planning situation knows that the system seems to be set up so that nobody wins—apart from perhaps the developers with the deepest pockets and the longest time to wait. We need to make sure that we break up that monopoly of big players in planning and housing development.
Freeports are part of the infrastructure revolution that we have planned, and a key part of delivering on our promises to level up to stimulate the economy. It is the ambition and the appetite, with that realism, that will take us through, but we need a lot more shooting for the moon. To what we already have, I would add an ambition to reform how we tax property. The stamp duty land tax holiday was a fantastic and very welcome measure to support the market through the pandemic, but we now need to take the opportunity to look in the whole not just at stamp duty, but at business rates and locally raised revenue. Add that to our freeport ideas, and put freeports on steroids—stimulus and tax breaks for inward investment like the special economic zones in some of the highest- growth areas of the world—and we will be cooking.
We need to build the right houses in the right places at the right time, at the right speed and to the right environmental standards, to keep our promises.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Queen’s Speech claims:
“Measures will be brought forward to ensure that children have the best start in life, prioritising their early years.”
Let me measure that against the situation in Rochdale. The awful fact is that in some wards in Rochdale, one in five children live in a home below the poverty line. In fact, those are the most advantaged wards, because as many as half the children in some wards live in homes below the poverty line, which is a scandal in modern Britain. It is heartbreaking for those families and those children because we know that poverty leads to ill health, less adequate education and all the things that are consequent on them. It is not simply lack of money, but lack of hope and ambition. There is nothing in this Queen’s Speech that remedies that, and nothing that says that schools in areas such as mine will have extra funding to cope with that disadvantage.
We are in an almost bizarre situation. Most of those homes will be dependent on universal credit. The £20 cut in universal credit is a bitter blow to those families—it is unreasonable and unfair. It will take about £12 million out of the Rochdale local economy every year. That is not levelling up; it is the levelling down that we have seen over the past 10 years-plus, as Rochdale Borough Council has had to cut £185 million from its budget. The lack of adequate funding has an impact on social care: there is not enough of it and not enough guarantee of its quality. We waited for this Queen’s Speech to tell us what would happen to social care, and we heard nothing at all.
Social care is just one of many areas that are missing from the Queen’s Speech, such as fire and rehire. Ministers made promises and said it was a disgrace, but we have seen large national companies such as British Airways and British Gas using fire and rehire tactics. Locally in the north-west, the bus company Go North West is threatening to fire and rehire its employees; fortunately, because they had the protection of a big union, Unite the union, they were able to fight off that challenge through industrial action, but many employees do not have that opportunity. That kind of bullying in our workforce is shameful to Britain and shameful to a Government who say that it is wrong but do nothing about it.
As in many other aspects of life, there are things that are missing, but the biggest challenge that we face in the long run, of course, is climate change. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s speech on housing. Of the 30 million houses in Britain today, most will still be around by 2050 when we have to be carbon neutral, but I did not hear any plan from him to fund the retrofitting of existing homes. In towns such as Rochdale, probably half the houses are pre-first world war terraced houses in need of retrofitting. Many of the post-first world war houses will be the same. There was nothing in the Gracious Speech or in the Secretary of State’s comments saying where the money will come from to make that kind of retrofitting difference. This is now a crisis.
I say to the Secretary of State of state that it is time for the Government to go beyond words. I have read the housing White Paper that says what can be done. We know what can be done. What we want to know now is what will be done. Do the Government have the policies? Do they have the insistence that we will make that change?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Before we approach reform of the planning system in this country, it is vital that we actually get the homes built for which planning applications are still outstanding. The reality is that more than a million homes have planning permission but remain unbuilt. My suggestion to the Secretary of State—I think he knows this—is that after all planning conditions are discharged, developers should be given 18 months to start on site. If they do not, they should lose their planning permission. If they have not built the homes after three years, they should be charged full council tax on every single one of the dwellings that they have failed to build.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the planning Bill a work in progress and allow Members across the House to have some input so that we can get it right once and for all. In particular, if he enabled the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to undertake prelegislative scrutiny, I think that would improve the Bill no end.
I have no objection to planning permission not being needed where a local authority sets out a planning brief for a site and invites developers to come in and build exactly as it has determined, but every other planning application and proposal to build should be subject to local democratic control.
On social housing, we need to be more ambitious. We need to be building between 90,000 and 100,000 units a year. That would mean that there were rents that people could afford, rather than rents being subsidised through housing benefits. We should also transform the position by giving tenants, when they move in, a guaranteed price at which they can exercise the right to buy when their circumstances allow, and then all the receipts should be invested in new social housing. That is an area that we can all improve on.
The Government have been brilliant on Everyone In, and we now need to roll out Housing First right across the country. I hope that we can ensure that we provide the homes that people need so that they are not forced to sleep rough on the streets because of their circumstances.
The Building Safety Bill is clearly welcome. As the Chairman of the Select Committee stated, we did the prelegislative scrutiny and we are still waiting for the Government to respond to that. If they accept all the recommendations made by the Select Committee, that will smooth the process of the Bill, and we will have a Bill that people will be proud of.
The reality is that we need to protect leaseholders from the unscrupulous behaviour of developers. The leasehold reform Bill will take things forward from now on, but we have to combat companies such as Bellway, which sell freeholds from under the noses of leaseholders, without even informing them, to finance companies that then exploit them to no end.
I was disappointed that we did not hear in the Gracious Speech about the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. I reiterate my view that we need to ensure that people who are homeless are assisted but not arrested.
Equally, on health, it is time that we had a tobacco manufacturers 2030 fund, with a levy on producers of tobacco, so that we can invest in encouraging people to give up smoking for the good of their own health. Unfortunately, that was not mentioned. I hope that we will hear a commitment from the Health Secretary tomorrow.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Members of Parliament right across this House—certainly my colleagues representing constituencies in London—will know that most of the casework we receive relates to housing. A secure and safe home is the most basic need that is denied to far too many. The Government repeatedly talk about levelling up, but, knowing this need, they continue to fail on all fronts those who are most in need.
The proposed leasehold reforms mean that new leaseholders will not be subject to high and escalating ground rents, but what about the 4.5 million existing leaseholders? Just look at safety and security. The Government have promised to protect leaseholders from cladding costs no less than, I believe, 17 times, but we are now four years on from Grenfell and up to 11 million people are still living in homes with unsafe or unsuitable cladding. Leaseholders continue to be hit by profiteering at every single stage of this scandal. As well as having to pay to remove dangerous cladding at their own expense and all the other safety issues that have now arisen, this Government continue to fail them as they are hit with sky-high insurance premiums and extortionate waking watch costs.
This issue affects an estimated 12,000 people across Lambeth alone, where my constituency is. It is very clear that the Government must provide upfront funding to make these homes safe, and be clear that neither interim nor remediation costs will fall on leaseholders. But again and again, this Government fail to deliver. That is why I am so pleased that Labour has tabled an amendment to set binding targets to remove all cladding by June 2020 and to protect leaseholders from these costs. If the Government want to actually keep a promise for once, they might consider walking through the Lobby with us today.
We certainly need more housing and the capacity to build it. We need so much more right across the country, but at what cost? Handing more power to developers, reducing the amount of real affordable housing—not what we currently call affordable—and taking power away from local government does not make much sense to me. Social housing providers have already expressed concerns that these changes to planning will actually reduce housing affordability. I do not understand how that is levelling up.
The Local Government Information Unit says that the changes would
“leave local government with the political liability on planning whilst depriving them…of the powers to manage it effectively.”
From planning to leasehold reform, I just cannot see how this Government can reconcile what they call building safe and affordable housing with these measures, which leave many with a guarantee of neither.
As we come out of this pandemic, the Government will have missed a major opportunity: their own target to decarbonise by 2050. Even doing this by 2050 is not good enough, so why are there no specific measures in the Queen’s Speech about driving forward all our plans on protecting the environment? We have so little time and we should be doing so much more as a country.
I was extremely disappointed to find that the Queen’s Speech did not specifically provide more funding for homelessness. I would like to see the Everyone In scheme turned into long-term policy. We saw how much we were able to deliver during the pandemic for those who are homeless. Ultimately, we should be removing the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises the homeless, and doing all that we can to support them. Under this Government, buying a home has become the preserve of the rich, and nothing in the Queen’s Speech is doing anything to change that.
Overall, the legislative proposals in the Queen’s Speech and the laws that have already been put forward, including the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the spy cops Act—the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021—all point towards a new type of authoritarian Government. I certainly did not expect this Government to be a champion of civil rights, but all this put together is something else. From the Bill that will disenfranchise millions of voters by barring those—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s time is up.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The purpose of life is a life of purpose”,
according to the American author Robert Byrne; and so it goes with Governments. Governments are edified and enlivened by their driving purpose, which brings the practicalities of a defined philosophy to life. As ever, priorities are pressing, but I have no doubt that, with the support of experienced Back Benchers and the sage advice of former Ministers, my friends in Government will succeed.
Home-making matters, for home is where the heart is. Attachment to somewhere, security for oneself and one’s family, and a sense of pride in place, are essential links in the great chain of being. Personal places are at a premium, and the Secretary of State is right that more Britons deserve the chance to fulfil their dream of home ownership. However, for the public to support house building, what is built must be better. With at least 750,000 empty homes, and countless sites with planning permission undeveloped while the highest grade agricultural land is concreted over, it is clear that the current planning system is not working, so reform is welcome.
Such reform should certainly involve a streamlined system, but with much more demanding standards. As we build, we must build beautifully. I was proud to give advice to the Scruton commission and the work that is being done following it. We should only ever make places that our generation can be proud of, and that those who come later will revere.
In essence, the focus on housing policy has for too long been on quantity and housing targets at the expense of quality. How very sad that the horrors brought by volume house builders have left communities filled with fear at the mere rumour of a planning application. A home is not “a machine for living” as Le Corbusier believed it was. Rather homes are a reflection of our humanity. Beautiful buildings have extraordinary power to excite and enthral, both on their own and as components of lovely places.
The work of craftsmen shaping buildings as an ode to what is already known and loved rathe—than as monuments to garish, modish vanity—is what most people say that they admire, yet seemingly we have become incapable of building much of worth. It is time that that changed. Yes, the Bill will make land designated under “growth” or “renewal” easier to build on, at least in theory, but with communities dr”iving and defining the system, improvement is within reach. Developers must be told that if what they intend is more hideous identikit volume housing, it simply will not get planning permission.
Once areas have been identified for development, there must be a master plan for the locality, and every component and space must be designed to excite and inspire. People are not opposed to development that enhances their community, but developers must raise their game, and local planning authorities have the right to expect the Government—and their agent the Planning Inspectorate—to give them the confidence to say no to poor design, no to endless out-of-town commercial developments, and no to the consumption of greenfield land when brownfield sites go unused.
No more good-grade agricultural land should be lost, there should be no building on the floodplain, and no more ugly housing estates bolted on to small towns. Developers must be allowed to build, but only when they adhere to rigorous standards.
With the revitalised sense of pride in place born of community involvement in the evolution of settlements, a Government-led planning renaissance could give birth to something truly wonderful, leaving a legacy not of obnoxious building imposed on unwilling residents but of happy childhood memories of special places, communal fraternity, and villages, towns and cities full of character, particularity and charm. Such should be the scale of ambition for this Government and this House—a future for Britain even more glorious than the best of what has been.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is always pleasure to follow my friend the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I agreed with a lot of what he said. I also very much agreed with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). As a fellow London MP, in my case east London, housing makes up the largest single section of my case load. That did not use to be the case. It has grown enormously over the past decade. Immigration used to be the single largest section of my case load. Now it is housing, and it is growing and growing.
My constituency covers two east London boroughs: Redbridge and Waltham Forest. Today, I will talk largely about the problems in Waltham Forest, which is one of the biggest London boroughs. Demand is very clearly outstripping supply in every section of housing, and has been for a great number of years. The number of households on the general waiting list in Waltham Forest is now 9,025—nearly 10,000 families. When I say the general waiting list, I mean the housing association registered social landlord waiting list and the council waiting list. That figure has been rising since I was elected 10 years ago, when it was a great deal lower than it is now.
Only 600 to 700 vacancies arise each year. That suggests that the average wait is 14 years for accommodation. The reality is that, because of the way that allocations and demand work, many of those applicants will never be housed. It will not be 14 years, or even 20 years; they will never be properly housed. Purely in Waltham Forest, 1,275 households are homeless and living in temporary accommodation. Of those families, 626 are housed in temporary accommodation within the borough, 584 are outside it but in London, and 65, sadly, are outside London, largely in Essex and other home counties, the furthest place being Colchester. That is an improvement on the situation a couple of years ago, when I was regularly dealing with cases of people who would contact me to say that they had been offered accommodation in the west midlands or even further afield. That has been addressed not because of Government investment and an increase in supply, but because of the work of the registered social landlords, the housing associations and council staff and councillors, and their dedication in trying to find, by whatever means, places that people can call a home.
Moving to the supply, the number of new builds has dropped like a stone. In the year just gone, 2020-21, there were only 64 new builds in the whole of Waltham Forest, one of the biggest London boroughs. Ten years ago, that figure was nearer 500. The Secretary of State talks about building and it will be miraculous if he gets anywhere near his aims, because in my case load I am seeing the exact opposite of what he talked about. The severe lack of social rented housing also means that I spend an awful lot of time dealing with people who live in very substandard and overpriced private rented housing, where cowboy landlords are taking advantage of people, largely those who are poor and vulnerable, and very often those with little command of English, who therefore do not know the system. The supply of social housing across London is inadequate, and my constituents are the people who are paying the price.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome the Gracious Speech: setting out how this Government will boost jobs, drive growth and innovation, and increase opportunity for everyone, with the significant objective of levelling up our country such that young people will not need to move in order to improve their life chances. Today’s focus is on housing and it is relevant to consider what is happening in my constituency, which has a strong record of delivery, with a total net increase in the number of homes between 2012 and 2020 of 4,464. That is 25% higher than the figure for the country as a whole. If the rest of the country had delivered new homes at the same rate as Rugby, we would be much closer to achieving the objective of 300,000 new homes a year.
‘ That has been achieved through Rugby Borough Council, as the planning authority, having been a long-term proponent of plan making as a method of development control for many years. It was a shock to me, as a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government between 2010 and 2015, to learn that not all planning authorities have an emphasis on plan making. Even today, only half of all areas have an up-to-date local plan, and I welcome the Government’s proposals to change that.
Rugby has identified zones of development on predominantly brownfield land and has delivered a good mix of housing. An exemplar of new housing at pace is at Houlton, where the council, working closely with Urban & Civic as the master developer, has delivered a great example of how a detailed plan makes better development. It is a template for identifying a parcel of land, as suggested by the Bill, and taking it through to a development site, with associated infrastructure. We have had the early delivery of a link road and of our schools—the primary is already open and the secondary is due to open in September—and plans for community assets are at the plan making stage. That should be looked at by others.
I welcome the White Paper on planning reform. The system is outdated and ineffective. It goes back to the 1940s and is largely unchanged from what I studied at university in the 1970s. I support the proposals for growth and renewal, and protection zones, and I want to empower local authorities to be able to lead on developments. I want plan making to be focused on, exactly as Rugby has done, but there needs to be substantial democratic involvement and we need to consider the role of the planning committee in making certain that we get good-quality development. Good, effective engagement will be the key to success.
On speeding up housing delivery, I hear with concern proposals to levy council tax on approved but unbuilt houses. I fully agree that there need to be proposals to deter land banking. Presumably, any such proposal would apply only to new consents and not the 1 million homes approved but not yet built. It would be a fundamental change to the basis on which applications would be granted. It might provide an incentive to build out before applying for further consents, but housing markets operate in peaks and troughs, and circumstances change. Market conditions two years after an approval might be very different from those at the time an application was made.
I believe that proposal would encourage developers simply to delay putting in their applications until they are absolutely ready to build. It would almost certainly reduce the number of outstanding consents, but it would put huge pressure on council planning departments, with applications coming in en masse in good times and little activity at lower times. There is already no incentive for a developer to sit on a planning approval, because it has already cost him a great deal of money to get where he is today. We do need to change our planning system and get homes suitable for all our residents.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I start by acknowledging the important work of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in scrutinising the Government’s plans for safe housing for all. I also put on the record my membership, as co-vice-chair, of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue.
The UK Government announced in the Queen’s Speech that they plan to introduce Bills that will modernise the planning system: the planning Bill, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill and the Building Safety Bill. Although their plans for leasehold reform are welcome, concerns remain that they have no intention of addressing a persistent and key problem with many tower blocks across England: the issue of remediation costs for faulty cladding.
At present, leaseholders face—and under current plans they will continue to face—remediation costs passed on to them by the owners and developers of buildings with unsafe external wall cladding. This indefensible situation is affecting the mental health and wellbeing of thousands, and it is putting them at real risk of financial ruin, despite being in no way responsible for the use of these dangerous materials. Many of those affected are on medication, due to stress over the worry of finding these funds and anxiety over the potential of fire while living in an unsafe home. They cannot sell their homes either, as lenders will not offer mortgages until the dangerous cladding is removed.
This is a national disgrace, and the UK Government must take immediate action to rectify it. They had an opportunity to address the issue in the debates on the Fire Safety Act 2021, but they did not do so, despite multiple amendments proposed by Members of this House, including the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and in the other House. Those amendments aspired to introduce a real prohibition on the passing on of remedial costs to leaseholders.
In this new Session, the UK Government must follow the example of the Scottish Government, who have taken a holistic approach, with the priority for remediating faulty construction on public funds and developers. In Scotland, a programme of single-building assessments will be carried out, undertaken on a whole building, rather than individual flats. That will allow buyers and sellers in affected buildings to access mortgages without being forced to pay for an external wall system report on individual properties.
As elaborated in the Select Committee’s report, the UK Government have the option to create a comprehensive building safety fund to fund all fire safety remediation projects and high-risk buildings of any height. That should be fully funded by the UK Government and industry, with clear principles for delineating how the costs should be split between the two. That should also be followed by a re-examination of the principles under which funds are allocated to remediation projects. Instead of the current height-based approach, the Government should prioritise allocating money to residents living under the greatest safety risk. They must also at last address the worries that many have felt since the tragic Grenfell disaster and put in place a legally enforceable deadline for the removal of all historical building safety defects, as part of a Government-led, UK-wide effort to make homes safe, at no cost to leaseholders or tenants.
The UK Government cannot continue to turn a blind eye to individuals and families being forced to pay for safety defects that they did not cause. The dream of many is to own their own home, but if they find themselves trapped in a home that they can neither be safe in nor sell, that dream can quickly become a nightmare. Until any planned leasehold reform recognises that problem and commits to fighting it, the UK Government are complicit in perpetuating that nightmare.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) [V]
I wish to convey to the House a tragedy that occurred in my constituency in the early hours of Sunday morning—at 2.36 am to be precise. As it happened, I was wide awake. I heard a loud explosion from my community, a quarter of a mile from where I live, and my windows shook. Watching the scene from where I live—I live on the top of a hill and can see all around the district—I could see blue lights coming from all directions. About an hour later, I found out that a house had exploded in Mallowdale Avenue in Heysham, not a quarter of a mile from where I live. A little boy, George Arthur Hinds, who was only two years and eight months old, lost his life. His parents were severely injured, as were the people next door. Three houses in all were affected; we think two were completely obliterated.
The next day I was invited by the local council to look at the site. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was heartbreaking. I was not prepared for what I saw. Belongings and toys were strewn all over the streets. Debris was everywhere. The whole community were out and they were all in shock, but they rallied together. Some are related to the families concerned.
We had phone calls from the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and good wishes from the Prime Minister conveyed through his Parliamentary Private Secretary. That made my community feel very valued indeed. I thank the emergency services for being there so quickly; it was just unbelievable. I cannot imagine what they had to contend with, but we are so lucky to have them. My whole community in the wider area have clubbed together to make sure that anyone who was affected was looked after. I am so proud to represent them.
What it brought home to me is that the Government’s proposals, which I welcome, should ensure that we all have a safe home in which to live and that any measures to be learned from the still ongoing investigation into this tragedy in my community should be heeded by the Government. I thank the Government for everything that they have done not just at Westminster, but all the way down to local government and on to the emergency services.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). My deepest condolences go out to all those affected by the tragic events in Heysham.
There is a real sense that the current planning system and the Government’s new proposals do not have people at their heart. Newcastle Great Park in my constituency, which already has 2,000 homes, will see more than 4,500 homes once it is complete. Some of those estates have stood for more than a decade now without the kind of amenities that most people take for granted, such as GPs, dentists, public transport links, schools or even local shops. The current system is clearly flawed, with residents feeling that their rights come a firm second to those of developers who seem to increase the size of developments and miss targets for delivery of services and infrastructure with few consequences, and residents pay the price.
The Government’s new proposals will only make the situation worse, reducing local input and giving developers even more of a free hand. I am deeply concerned about the long-term failure to deliver on infrastructure and local facilities, which has been so problematic in Newcastle Great Park; it could be replicated across swathes of Newcastle’s Outer West where many thousands of homes are already being built and thousands more are in the pipeline.
The scale and pace of housing development across the Outer West of Newcastle feel overwhelming for constituents who are contacting me. The Government’s decision to impose a 35% increase on the housing supply in our city is, understandably, causing considerable alarm. I therefore urge the Government not to go down the path of further deregulation, but to look at ways of incentivising more genuinely affordable homes and supporting the installation of infrastructure and community facilities at an early stage of development. New developments must be more than a collection of houses: they must build communities.
Speaking of communities, one of the Government’s ambitions in the Gracious Speech is for us to emerge from the pandemic a healthier, more resilient country, but the reality is that our gyms and leisure centres are under threat of closure after taking heavy losses over the past 14 months. In Newcastle, we are concerned about the future of West Denton pool, which closed when the first national lockdown began and has yet to reopen. There is no lifeline for such facilities in the Government’s legislative programme. The communities that the pool serves already suffer from health inequalities and I worry that we are seeing an emerging perverse pattern, whereby sports and leisure facilities in the areas with the biggest existing health inequalities are the ones at greatest risk of closure. We have seen this pattern emerge up and down the country. The nation’s health is far too important to be left to a postcode lottery. If we want to emerge from this crisis a healthier country, the Government need to invest now in health and fitness for all communities.
So much is missing from the Government’s agenda. There is no meaningful progress on social care reform, despite the Prime Minister’s clear promises. There is a failure to grasp the educational inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic and a real lack of urgency in addressing them. There is nothing in the leasehold reform Bill to support existing leaseholders who have been misled about the property that they bought. The promised employment Bill to extend and protect workers’ rights is absent. This is a Government who neglect social care, education recovery and employment rights, yet they have no problem finding space in their legislative programme for laws that make it harder for low-income and minority groups to vote. That tells us everything we need to know about the values and priorities of this Government.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).
On principle, we need a planning agenda that is community-led, levelling up-led, flexible, thoughtful and environmental. If the planning Bill is about those values, I will support it; those values are good Conservative aims and I recommend them to Ministers and their special advisers. However, I have a couple of caveats. I do not believe that Ministers have made the case for why we need to scrap the current system rather than reform it. We are better off improving what we have. To seek revolutionary change rather than evolutionary change is un-Conservative and more likely to result in failed policy, unforeseen outcomes and, frankly, disenfranchised and irritated constituents.
Specifically, when it comes to the plan to strip away local democracy in individual planning applications, there is going to be considerable disquiet. The plan threatens to give our opponents throughout England a rallying cry of “Save local democracy from the Tories”. That is a very bad position for us to be in. The system is already weighted far too much in favour of developers.
Let me give an unfortunate example from the Island. AEW, a multibillion-pound property firm, bought a site, Ryde ice rink, a few years ago. The firm fell out with the community group that was using it, kicked them out and finished skating on the Island, meaning all the kids have had to go to the mainland. AEW’s tactics have been to sweat our council to allow a change of use—it has gamed the system to make more money by achieving a change of use. Its behaviour has been utterly wretched—the firm is little more than white-collar bully boys who care little about Ryde, my community and the Island more generally. When asked to do something about it, the firm boasts about its exceptionally expensive lawyers—it is part boast, part legal intimidation of Isle of Wight Council and, presumably, me. Under the current system, as imperfect and in need of reform as it is, we can fight these dreadful, arrogant people, in the hope that they will eventually give up, get fed up when they do not get change of use and, frankly, go forth and multiply. I am genuinely worried that under the new system communities like Ryde will not have a voice in what is happening to the property—especially significant property—in their patch, and it is ethically questionable companies like AEW that will profit.
Many Government Members and, I am sure, Opposition Members have a lot of ideas, and I strongly advise the Government and Ministers to engage with us, because we are only too keen to come up with workable ideas that get the planning Bill through and deliver for our communities. In the one minute I have remaining, I will rattle through some of those ideas.
As the excellent Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, we must introduce a “use it or lose it” system for land-banking, because 1 million land-banked properties is a scandal. Secondly, for future development, there must be a meaningful start-by date or the developer loses permission to build. They must start paying council tax on a given date in the future, and if they have not built the properties, they must pay the council tax anyway.
Thirdly, if we are serious about our environmental agenda, we must lift VAT on brownfield sites and slap VAT on greenfield sites. We can then use the VAT from greenfield sites to equal out the equation, equal out the economics, equal out the true environmental and social costs and double down on brownfield sites. Fourthly, we must give councils more permission to make compulsory purchases. There are 600 long-term empty properties on the Isle of Wight alone; we could be using every single one of those. Fifthly, we must provide a legal requirement for brownfield sites.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s constituency is not an area that I know well, but could he tell me what realistic prospects there are for young people to buy their own home there?
Bob Seely
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am aware of what you just said about timing, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will go on for no more than another 30 seconds. There is not enough—we badly need affordable development, and that is what I want to see on the Island. What we do not need is speculative, low-density greenfield development that is not built for Islanders but is built for second home owners, is bad for our community and is dreadful for our visitor economy.
Seventhly, we must ban, except in exceptional circumstances, low-density greenfield development. Let us close speculative loopholes that allow people to game the system and introduce a character test that is applicable for planning applications. Out of respect to others, I will leave it there.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the idea of a renters’ reform Bill with lifetime tenancy deposits and the proposal to scrap section 21 no-fault evictions. It is a real move forward, because the pandemic has been especially hard on renters, who have had to battle poor conditions, illegal evictions and indifferent landlords without proper protections, although I am concerned about the resumption of bailiff action and evictions.
However, the Bill will not help with the money that many people owe. The fact is that the covid crisis has led to greater arrears and a build-up of household debt generally. The most recent figures from the Money and Pensions Service show that 9 million people have had to borrow to buy food and other necessities—for example, rent, utilities and council tax—in the last year, whether that is through credit cards, overdrafts or friends and families. There has been support from the Government, but it has never fully compensated people for their loss of income, and in many cases the debt has simply been deferred. Many in the debt advice world fear that there is a tsunami of debt around the corner, and perhaps now is the time to thoroughly review the debt solutions and bring forward a rationalised and coherent range of options, rather than the current piecemeal and outdated set.
Another thing that is missing from the Gracious Speech and could have helped is legislation to protect access to cash. Cash is one of the best ways to budget, especially for those on a low income. After all, you cannot spend more than you have in your pocket or your purse. The pandemic has seen a move away from cash, with shops refusing to take it and ATMs being shut down in their hundreds. I am really pleased that many retailers have adopted the Which? pledge to accept cash in future, but there may be a case for making cash mandatory for some businesses—for example, those providing essentials such as food and medicine. We need to look at a universal obligation, so that banks are required to ensure access across the whole country.
The shift to online shopping creates other problems. Online scams have proliferated during the pandemic. They are ever more sophisticated and have a devastating financial and emotional effect, and they should be included in the online harms Bill. The Government need to do the right thing by bringing online scams and fraudulent scams within its remit. It is the duty of a Government to protect the public from criminal activity, particularly in these strained and difficult times when more people are online, and it is remiss to do absolutely nothing.
Consumers need to feel that regulators are given proper enforcement powers by the Government, who are on their side. The Government must strengthen competition and consumer policy to make it work better for consumers and give regulators the powers they need to intervene when businesses fail to comply. Building back better means rebuilding all sectors of the economy, not just the housing sector. However, if the economy remains built on a foundation of unsustainable household debt and borrowing and low levels of saving, it is built on sand, and that will never end well.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
I want to start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), who seconded the Loyal Address last week. She gave an impassioned speech on the levelling-up agenda, on improving opportunities and life outcomes for people across the north of England and on more devolution. It was a speech that many of my constituents in Southport, her neighbouring constituency, would agree with, and it was a speech that should make us all redouble our efforts to support the Government in working for everyone irrespective of where they were born.
It is in that context that I welcome the important steps taken by this Parliament to begin levelling up this country while also tackling the covid pandemic, delivering on the will of the British people and leaving the European Union, increasing the size of our police force, tackling inequality, introducing tougher sentences for those desecrating our war memorials and statues, and establishing a £4 billion levelling-up fund and of course the fantastic town deal programme, from which my constituents greatly appreciate having been given £38.5 million to improve our town.
I want to make just three points on safe and affordable homes. First, the planning system is archaic and chaotic and has not really been touched since 1947. It requires reform and that can be achieved through this Queen’s Speech’s legislative programme. If we are serious about levelling up we must reform the planning system. We need to continue to focus on delivering for local people, facilitating a culture of fairness, decency and affordability that will apply equally to renters and homeowners. The Prime Minister and this Government have already started to put our planning system on a much better path, with plans to move to a digital service and for cutting red tape, changing local plans and establishing new frameworks for funding infrastructure, but there is still more work to do to allay Members’ fears that any reform could pave the way to allow controversial developments against the wishes of local people.
Secondly, any reform should welcome conversions above shops. That is happening in my town and I am immensely supportive of it, but if we are to revitalise towns and get this step more prominently on the agenda the Government must step in and ask local councils to develop plans for it. One big problem in my town is that many people would move into these converted homes but there is nowhere to park their car, so facilities should be made available through local councils so people who want to live in one of the flats in town where they would support all the local shops and businesses can park their cars near where they live, not miles away.
Thirdly, we must do more to encourage the right type of housing. Not for the first time, certainly from me and occasionally from the Prime Minister, Members will now hear a championing of Lord Street in my constituency as the basis of the Champs Élysées, but like many great high streets in our country it has seen better days. We want to encourage more people back into town centres, and not just living in flats but in houses as well, so we must empower local authorities to step in and change plans if needed, where they are not in keeping with their surroundings. My town is a grand Victorian town with Victorian houses. That is the type of housing people want in our town centres, and, again, the people moving back into town centres would help to support the local economy, which they would also be passionate about because it is right on their doorstep.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech as a first step in levelling up our country; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister began last week to point the way down that path, and I look forward to working with him and colleagues on the Conservative Benches in delivering for my constituents and the British people.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
A year on from the global pandemic and we have lost so many of our fellow citizens; in Tower Hamlets, in my constituency and across the borough, we have lost more than 518 of our fellow citizens. This pandemic has shown and exacerbated the deep inequalities in our society, with those who face severe levels of overcrowding and who suffer from inequality and poverty being disproportionately affected. That is why it was so important in this Queen’s Speech for the Government to ensure an ambitious programme to protect our citizens, bounce back and recover from what has been the most unprecedented crisis since the second war and the most unprecedented economic hit on our country for hundreds of years—and why it is so deeply disappointing that the Government have not gone far enough to address the crisis in social and affordable housing in our communities.
In Tower Hamlets, we have more than 20,000 people on the housing waiting list. When the pandemic hit, the first thing that I said to the Chancellor when he came before the Treasury Committee was that in areas like mine, where the risk factors are higher because of high levels of health inequality, they are made even greater by the high levels of severe overcrowding, because if infection comes within a household, it is impossible to self-isolate. We have seen that over the past year not only in my constituency but across our city, and across communities where families live with severe overcrowding. That is why it is so important for the Government to introduce proper funding and support and empower local authorities with backing and finance to work with social housing organisations to build.
We need a building programme for genuinely affordable housing and for social housing, but we have not seen that, and the planning reforms will not help the process. We have a Government who are much happier in the pockets of developers, as we saw in the scandal last year about property deals and planning permission, as well as in more recent scandals that we have seen in the papers. We need a Government on the side of the public to build homes that are safe.
That point takes me on to the cladding crisis. At the forefront of any Government’s responsibilities should be the duty to protect their citizens from the likes of the Grenfell fire disaster. It was an absolute catastrophe for those who lived in that block. More recently, in Tower Hamlets, there was a fire in a block in New Providence Wharf, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). The Sunday Times reported that it
“was ‘minutes’ away from being another Grenfell Tower.”
Yet tens of thousands of people, not only in my borough but across the country, have still not had their cladding removed or their homes made safe by this Government.
Once again, I call on this Government to get their act together. Four years have passed since the Grenfell disaster, yet we still have fires, we still have the risk and we nearly had another Grenfell disaster in Tower Hamlets. I call on the Government to set an urgent timeline and timetable to get rid of flammable cladding and other risks to people’s homes, and to support Labour’s amendment today.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
One of the things that I am most proud to have achieved in the past 13 years is the introduction of neighbourhood planning, which has been an enormous success for communities. I hope that the planning Bill will resolve the position of neighbourhood plans. I urge the Minister to do that; I know that he has been following the issue. Neighbourhood plans involve the whole community and allow people to participate in the development of their community for the future. They do not produce nimby charters; they produce plans that take a look at what is involved as a stake in the future and produce affordable housing. They produce more housing than the district councils had allocated to those communities. In every way, they achieve a win-win.
I am aware of the enormous time that it takes to produce neighbourhood plans. I have tried over the years to simplify the process, but in many cases it is district councils that make them more complex than they need to be. Many district councils simply do not want to give up power, but in my experience—my constituency has more neighbourhood plans that people might imagine—people have interest and experience that can be of great value in the production of a neighbourhood plan. One district council told me that it simply did not believe in them, and that it gave little encouragement to communities to produce them. Another said, “Well, if we produce another local plan, then all neighbourhood plans are null and void.” That is completely the opposite of what is the case, as neighbourhood plans need to agree only with the strategic aims of the district council plan. Also, neighbourhood plans must be upheld by the Planning Inspectorate; otherwise, there is no point in doing them and no point in putting in all the work involved. It is quite right, and very good, that the Government are strengthening the idea that they should focus on design. That is important, but they should also give back the allocation of sites, because that is crucial.
In another area that is linked to this, we must ensure that the planning system is speeded up, that the cost is driven down and that people have access to it. The way to do that—this could be a useful hint for something to give credibility to the planning Bill—is by recommending the use of mediation as a technique to use. I declare an interest as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I am grateful for the discussion that I have already had with the Planning Inspectorate in which we have looked at some of these issues, and the issue of trying to find independent mediators to do this work has been solved. This is something for the future, where anyone can be involved in accessing this to get a good result for their community.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It really is disappointing that we did not see more ambition from the Government in this Queen’s Speech, when the need for Government action has never been greater. The past year has revealed the cracks in our creaking social care system and also highlighted the immense contribution made by those who work in it. In this National Dementia Week, I hoped that I would be standing here talking about the fact that the Government had finally revealed the plan for social care that they have supposedly been working on for the past two years. I appreciate that this is a difficult task. There are no easy answers, but leadership is about taking those difficult decisions and finally acting on something that we all know requires action, so why are the Government still dragging their feet? They have also failed to deliver an employment Bill to ban inexcusable fire and rehire tactics and to address record youth unemployment.
Turning to the subject of today’s debate, the housing crisis, the proposals to overhaul the planning system risk sidelining communities and eroding protection for green spaces, while offering no guarantees that the housing bill will be genuinely affordable. In Bristol there is a pressing need for new affordable housing. This stems from the fact that it is such a great place to live, not just for the people who have grown up in the city but for the many people wanting to move there. This presents challenges. Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees recently announced that Brislington Meadows, an ecologically important site in my constituency, would be protected from development after being lined up for new housing by the previous administration. As I have said, we absolutely recognise the massive need for new housing in the city, but Labour is also committed to implementing its ecological emergency strategy, which it is developing under its one city plan, and very much with the sustainable development goals in mind. Bristol is really leading the way as a city using the sustainable development goals as a model and a blueprint for future action. It is disappointing that we do not see the Government doing that at national level.
There will be difficult decisions to be made about planning and housing, and about the transport infrastructure that goes with that, but those decisions should be made by local people and by those who have been elected to represent them, not by developers or by their mates in central Government. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) saying that he believed the system was already far too weighted in favour of developers. I think that many people on his side of the House will agree with that.
I am glad to see that the Environment Bill is back, but it does seem to have been making its way through Parliament forever, leaving us without an effective environmental regulator, which was meant to be in place before the end of the Brexit transition period. It is disappointing that the Government have refused to accept amendments to that Bill—for example, to adopt World Health Organisation air quality targets, or to address our overseas carbon footprint and the rampant deforestation linked to supply chains. I hope that during the second part of Report stage next week, the Government will look again at that. I have high hopes that our friends in the other place will significantly strengthen the Bill, but it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity to revise it of their own accord.
The animal sentience legislation was meant to be in place before we left the EU—another Government promise they have not kept. Although I am glad to see that such a Bill made it into the Queen’s Speech, I hope it can be amended before it becomes law to recognise crustaceans as sentient beings. I will probably be the only person who mentions lobsters in today’s debate—it is very on-brand for me, but I do think we have to get the lobsters in there somewhere.
Finally, the Government have shown their true colours with their shockingly undemocratic voter ID proposals. They show the Government’s real priorities—not building back better or greening the economy, but rigging the system in their own favour.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
They say an Englishman’s home is his castle—or a person’s home is their castle, if they prefer—and in this country we have led the way in home ownership for many, many years. What we must now focus on is making that dream a reality for today’s young people and their families.
I remember my father telling me about his own upbringing in the impoverished Meadows area of Nottingham, and the stories of tin baths in the yard and a large family crammed into very small accommodation. In the 1950s, the family moved to newly built Clifton estate—then the largest council estate in Europe. It had well built homes, indoor bathroom facilities and bedrooms suitable for families. Many of the families who moved to the estate are still there today, and I am proud to hail from that community. It was the right to buy and the vision of Margaret Thatcher that encouraged many of those people later to pursue the dream of home ownership, and today the area stands as a testament to the success of that scheme.
Compared with those families who moved in the 1950s, we live in a very different age. As we have heard, the people born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1975. I was born in the 1980s, but I am not quite sure where I fit in there—I probably just missed it. Home ownership does not just give us a stake in society; it provides us with security and gives us something to hand down to our children, to give them a better life. Although some decry the sale of council houses, it should be recognised that if they had not been sold, people would still be living in them anyway, so it does not affect general problems with supply. The fact is that we need greater supply of housing, and that means building more homes, not just for the future but for today’s families.
People in Bassetlaw want to be able to buy a house at an affordable price and have access to the funds needed to finance that. The emphasis nowadays must be on helping people on to the housing ladder. That is why schemes such as shared ownership, Help to Buy and the new 95% mortgages will make such a great difference and help people to realise that dream.
Gone are the days of cheap and nasty buildings, whacked up to meet targets with no regard for infrastructure, building design and quality, or community cohesion. We must learn from the mistakes of the 1960s and ’70s. We must ensure that we build the right sort of housing in the right areas and that developments are not over-intensive, like some we have seen in Worksop, Retford and Harworth. That is why having a good neighbourhood plan that properly takes into account what the community wants enables councils and communities to turn down applications without endless appeals from developers.
We need good-quality family homes. The houses need to be affordable for the right reasons and not because corners have been cut, as they were in the past. Affordable must not mean low standard. The new planning reforms will help to ensure that, as well as help people on to that very British ladder of home ownership.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
We see each other again, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There cannot be a more positive note on which to start my remarks than to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) to her place in the Chamber. She fought a hard campaign and I know she will make her mark in the House on behalf of her constituents.
In trying to stay positive for as long as possible on the issue of the Gracious Speech, let me first acknowledge the work the Government are doing to prepare for COP26, which comes to the city of Glasgow later this year. There is a good positive working relationship between the Governments and the authorities in the city to get the event ready as we welcome the world to the finest city on these islands. All of us want to see it succeed, because the challenge we face is the biggest of our time.
That, I am afraid, is where the consensus ends. The speech, gracious though it was in its delivery, is deeply egregious in its content—not just what is in it, but what is not in it. Let me start with the Government’s proposals to require voters to have some form of photographic identification to vote, chasing a phantom fraud that all of us, including Government Members, know does not exist. A levelling-up agenda that seeks to disenfranchise people who will probably not vote for the governing party is a fraud in and of itself, and should be fought tooth and nail by every Member of this House. Indeed, Conservative Members will note that the right hon. Ruth Davidson, who will be joining the other place, has also called out the Government’s proposals for what they are.
Let me deal with two issues that are not directly related to housing, but which, if the Government do not get them right, will result in their housing policy lying in pieces: work and good, sustainable work. Members will know that I brought forward a Bill in the 2017-19 Parliament to outlaw unpaid work trials. Unfortunately, it was talked out by the Government, but the practice still continues. People are still being abused by loopholes and the Government’s action to clamp down on them has so far been so weak that it has all the performative muscle of a new-born kitten. That is why we are seeing young people in particular being exploited in the way that they are, and it is costing the Treasury up to £3 billion each and every single year. How can Conservative Members of Parliament not see that it is in our collective interests to clamp down on that kind of egregious practice? If people are not getting paid for work, they ain’t paying their mortgage or their rent.
That leads me to a case I want to quickly draw to the attention of the Minister—I know it is not his portfolio, but I know him to be a versatile type—relating to workers in Glasgow who work for Blue Dog and AdLib. Next month marks a year from when they still have not received any full furlough payments from their employer. HMRC confirmed to me recently that those furlough payments have been paid out, but they are still not in the bank accounts of staff members. They are people whose rent, mortgages and bills have not been getting paid. My appeal to the Minister—the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) is aware of the case—is to please take up this case and come back to me in some form in future.
We will have many fights over the course of the Government’s programme in the days to come.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
I note that we, Madam Deputy Speaker, have just entered our 25th year of service in the House. In all that time, I have been clear that there is no more important issue to the residents of the constituency of Reigate than planning. Crucially, the protection of our environment hangs on the fact that we are London’s green belt.
I just want to pose a couple of warnings for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. They might have noticed that in the last set of local elections only the Borough of Reigate and Banstead remains a district or borough council in Conservative control. These cases almost always turn on people feeling disenfranchised and remote from the planning process. Unless things change, it is only going to get worse. There is also the issue—despite our right hon. Friend the Paymaster General’s machine-gunning at the Dispatch Box of the deputy Leader of the Opposition—of the noise around the developer connection with the Conservative party. The delivery of a developer-led system of house provision will haunt us in future if we do not address it.
I want to point my hon. Friend the Minister to the comments made by our hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about enabling a plan-led system. If the local authority is coming forward with its own plans, of course it should not need planning permission. The local authority will have produced a plan, which developers would then bid to build.
Within that, however, we need a more important national debate about where housing is to go and about how we are to deliver levelling up so that we can get good houses, good jobs and good infrastructure in those parts of the country where people have drifted away—provincial towns in the midlands and the north—to seek employment elsewhere. I draw my hon. Friend the Minister’s attention to the excellent article in The Times today by our former leader, our noble Friend Lord Hague. We need to address the levelling-up agenda, and we can do it within the planning system, but if we do not, we will be in the deepest trouble, because we will not be able to deliver our principal political objectives.
I want to make two other points. First, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department to the concern about the building safety fund and how it affects the leaseholders of Nobel House. I have written to the Secretary of State urgently, and I have now had two letters from his colleague, the noble Lord Greenhalgh. Unhappily, the last letter, which arrived today, was in response to my letter to the Secretary of State of 17 December 2020—I did have a previous response to a letter I sent a month later—but this is now absolutely urgent. These leaseholders are in the deepest trouble because of the failure of Avon Estates properly to register a claim for the building safety fund and, indeed, for the waking watch fund.
Finally, on another element of the Queen’s Speech, the welcome ban on conversion therapy lacks any detail on how it will work. The accompanying notes imply that people who are inflicting it at the moment might get protected. We need assurance on that very shortly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Nominations closed at 5 o’clock this afternoon for candidates for the post of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. One nomination has been received, and a ballot will therefore not be held. I congratulate Ian Mearns on his re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Sadly, the Queen’s Speech demonstrated a failure to act on acute social housing shortages, while thousands languish on housing waiting lists. It failed adequately to protect renters as the evictions ban and furlough schemes come to an end, and it failed to act urgently on fire safety and to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of a crisis they did not cause.
On social housing, the reality is that, over the last five years, less than 10% of the amount needed has been built, but the Government had absolutely nothing to say. They should have adopted calls from organisations such as Shelter, which has suggested an investment of at least £12.8 billion a year over 10 years, which would have delivered 90,000 social rented homes a year.
On private renters, of course the Government reaffirmed commitments to end section 21 no fault evictions, but we have been waiting for over two years for that. If the Government honour their promise, that still leaves a glaring lack of protection for all those tenants in pandemic arrears who can still legitimately be evicted. The Government should have set out a package of support for them.
Finally, on cladding and fire safety, we saw nothing: no support for the victims and no remediation deadlines, just the promise of a building safety regulator. Members across this House have repeatedly called on Government to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of a crisis they did not cause. Absurdly, the Government told us that amendments that defined responsibility for the cost of remediating fire safety defects were too complex an issue to go in a Bill whose purpose was to deal with the responsibility for fire safety defects, and it seems they were also too complex to go in the Queen’s Speech. The Government know that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They know that there is no support available at all for interim measures such as increased insurance premiums and waking watches. They know that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay is simply unjust. The Government must honour their moral duty to these victims. They must provide up-front funding to remediate all residential buildings urgently and finally legislate to protect leaseholders and residents from the cost of the crisis they are not responsible for. It is not a complex issue; it is a moral issue, and the Government need to sort it out.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is with some irony that I follow the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and look over the border from Wales. In Wales we look enviously at the Queen’s Speech and many of the reforms that are being made to the housing market, because the housing market in Wales has stalled. At the moment, according to the Welsh Government’s own figures for 2018-19, the housing market is at 35.5% less than when devolution started. For anyone who is in any doubt about the responsibility for that shocking revelation, I remind them that the Welsh Labour party has been in control of this policy area since the start of devolution—for 22 years.
The border in Montgomeryshire is incredibly porous and we do not want the continuing brain drain. We do not want a generation continually moving over the border to England. We need an enrichment of our own communities in Montgomeryshire, and for that we need the kind of reform that we find in this Queen’s Speech. I commend those on the Treasury Bench for much of it.
One thing that I will pull out is renters’ reform. The reaction that we have heard from other Members and from Shelter and Generation Rent rightly highlights that this reform is not just needed but is hugely long overdue. I welcome what is going to happen in England and, again, look very enviously from the Welsh side of the border. In Montgomeryshire many young people are unable to buy their own home. For that to change, we need to build, and at a rate that has not been seen since the beginning of devolution.
I have to confess that Lord Hague, whom we heard referenced earlier, is a constituent of mine. Sadly he cannot vote because he is in the other place, but I very much welcome the fact that he resides in Montgomeryshire. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who, in his op-ed, really encapsulated why Government Members need to support this Queen’s Speech. There is a generation who have not had access to capital. If we are to defend the notion of capitalism and all the ideas of the good and the great that we represent, we need to build. We need to enable renters to turn into buyers and generations to have a real renaissance in their housing community. I commend those on the Treasury Bench and ask that we see these measures in Wales soon.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Much has been made of this Queen’s Speech but it does not meet the challenges of post-pandemic Britain and continues to illustrate the weak foundations of public services after more than a decade of austerity, which impacts on my constituency. My constituents are frankly sick and tired of this Government failing to address historical inequalities after 10 years of austerity that impact on education, jobs, health and social care, housing and economic recovery in my constituency in a post-covid world.
Speaking of the world, the Queen’s Speech also fails to address the international challenge and our having a foreign policy that rises to the challenge we are seeing played out on our screens today. We sit here in the mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons, living under the rule of law, upholding fundamental freedoms for all who live in our green and pleasant land without any fear and without having our rightful connection to it denied. Palestinians do not live in the same security; rather, they live in constant fear of being forcibly dispossessed from their ancestral homes by the Israeli army. They have been abandoned by the international community, and they have been abandoned by us.
This weekend was the 73rd anniversary of what the Palestinians call the Nakba—the catastrophe; the day that marked the beginning of their dispossession in 1948. That dispossession continues—by bombs, by mob lynching, by expulsions, all against innocent Palestinian civilians. These crimes are the root cause of the tragic violence we are seeing across the Holy Land today. When this Government urge the restoration of calm in Palestine, they must remember that Palestinians have been robbed of their calm for 73 years, with the occupation’s checkpoints, the siege in Gaza and the various types of discrimination against Palestinians across the Holy Land.
Israeli human rights groups such as B’Tselem, international groups such as Human Rights Watch, and others have concluded from painstaking analysis that the Israeli Government stand guilty of the internationally defined crime of apartheid. I ask: how should that affect our relationship with Israel? This is not a conflict with two equal opposing sides; rather, one people dominates the other through illegal occupation, siege, dispossession and discrimination.
If we claim that there are two equal sides, why is it that we recognise only one while we have yet to recognise Palestine? Israel is the occupier of the Palestinian Territories, not the other way round. Israel has placed Gaza under siege, not the other way round. Israel is dispossessing Palestinians with illegal settlements, not the other way round. Israel applies policies of apartheid, not the other way round.
The just and peaceful solution we all seek will not be possible until the UK and its allies recognise this imbalance and take effective action to address it. The violence will not end until impunity does. The Government’s support for a ceasefire in Gaza is welcome and vital to preventing further needless loss of life, but there will be no sustainable and just peace in Palestine and Israel until all are equal and accountable before the law.
The Government must therefore urgently support the following actions: an independent investigation by the International Criminal Court into the situation in Palestine; a special session of the Human Rights Council looking into potential war crimes and accountability based on human rights; a review, in line with our own laws, of all licences issued for arms and equipment used by the Israeli security forces that may be used, directly or indirectly, to commit acts of internal repression, external aggression, including de facto annexation, or violations of international humanitarian law; and an end the empty words of a two-state solution while recognising only one state; and, finally, recognition of the state of Palestine.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Back to housing, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech last week and remain very enthused by what lies ahead in the Planning Bill. There is no question but that the UK needs to build more affordable homes. In my humble opinion, we should all aspire to a much higher rate of home ownership so that everyone can take an equity share in their future. Having a place to live that we call home is surely one of the most fundamental rights that we have.
The Government are really investing in this. We have a new £11.5 billion affordable homes programme, a new mortgage guarantee scheme, discounts for first-time buyers, the abolition of section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 on no-fault evictions, the extra £140 million in discretionary housing payments, plus much more. It is a good news story.
However, the thrust of my argument today is that while there is a clear need for new housing, it needs to be in areas that have the capacity to absorb it. To put it bluntly, it cannot be at the expense of the quality of life that our constituents enjoy, notably in the south-east, and it must not include building on the green belt, eroding what is left of our open spaces or ripping the heart out of our rural communities. I therefore urge the Government to take note of what my constituents in Bracknell and Wokingham are telling me.
In Bracknell Forest, a total of 1,688 new houses were built last year, a 123% increase over the previous year. Of those, 404—23% of the overall target—are affordable homes, with 125 for affordable home ownership and 279 for affordable rent, as well as 107 new houses for the elderly. So we are doing it, but it is wrong that councils should be forced to build on whatever scraps of land are left over. It is a similar picture in Wokingham, where the council was almost powerless to stop the activities of speculative developers.
I therefore urge the Government please to consider the following. The ripping up of the Lichfield table was a welcome step, but I would now propose a new formula that focuses on residual land availability as a percentage of the total area. If there is nothing left in a constituency except for residual farmland, golf courses or school playgrounds, do not build on it. We must also build on urban and brownfield sites, and we should build up, not out. Areas such as the midlands, the north-west and the north-east are full of such potential development sites and investment is needed there.
I am led to believe that up to 1 million homes across the UK are currently unoccupied. Councils must make the best use of them. Permissions for a further 1 million homes have already been granted too, so let us do this with a time limit. We also need extra protections for farmland, so let us please impose punitive and progressive taxes on those who seek to build on what is left of it in our constituencies. To be frank, the net zero argument is daft. If we concrete over trees, fields and hedgerows and then plant a few daisies, do not be surprised if the oxygen stops flowing.
We must allow our councils to honour existing local plans and not have extra targets forced upon them. We need to allow them the autonomy to say no and give our communities a proper voice. Democratic consent must therefore be implicit in any new Bill, and it must not become a weapon for the big state. Finally, there is no moral justification for concreting over our green and pleasant land with yet more dark satanic mills. Not only will we continue to haemorrhage loyal voters who have simply had enough, as we saw last week in the council elections, but we will never get that land back, so let us please ensure that the Planning Bill becomes what we would wish it to be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to accommodate all speakers who have applied, after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. According to Shelter, a quarter of a million people were homeless and stuck living in temporary accommodation at the start of the pandemic, and more than two thirds of all homeless people living in temporary accommodation are in London. That equates to one in every 52 people living in the capital. In Lewisham, there are currently 10,000 people on the housing register, 7,739 people are living in temporary accommodation, and we have waiting times of up to 10 years for a two-bedroom property and 22 years for one with four bedrooms.
One of my constituents, a health worker in the NHS, was placed in temporary accommodation with her three children, aged between three and seven, nearly a year ago. She said:
“We have a single room with a door, a kitchen and a toilet. My 2 girls share a single bed and I share the other with my 3-year-old son. I work with covid patients and living in a single room with my kids does not allow me to isolate if and when I need to”.
Another constituent, who has been on the housing register for five years, lives in a two-room hostel with shared facilities with her four children. During their time at the hostel, a shotgun was let off by a neighbour and they have endured other antisocial behaviour. They have also dealt with disrepair such as broken windows and cockroach infestations. The family are at breaking point. Another constituent, living in the private rented sector with her 12-year-old and 22-year-old with mental health conditions, is facing a section 21 eviction after eight years, having raised numerous complaints of disrepair.
The daily anxieties that my constituents are facing are unconscionable. Far too many lack even the basic security of knowing that there will be a roof over their head and a safe place to sleep. Since 2010, there has been a 78% increase in the number of children living in temporary accommodation. Lockdown and home schooling has been hard enough for most of us, but when someone lives in poor conditions with no space to learn or play it becomes unbearable. This Queen’s Speech could have been an opportunity to offer hope to my constituents that many of those problems would be fixed.
The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto promised to ban section 21 evictions, yet in the Queen’s Speech this commitment has been watered down from a renters’ reform Bill to publishing a consultation on a White Paper. It looks like this commitment has been pushed into the long grass, but my constituents cannot wait any longer. Equally, the Queen’s Speech did not include a Bill to improve regulation of social housing, despite a Government White Paper on the subject last year. The paper put forward a new charter for social housing residents to ensure that they are safe, live in good quality homes and have access to redress when things go wrong, yet it is now nowhere to be seen.
Finally, we will never really tackle the problem without commitment to investment in a new generation of social rented homes that are genuinely affordable for families on low and average incomes. My constituents desperately need this, and until it happens thousands of families will continue to go to sleep at night not knowing whether they will ever have anywhere that they can truly call home.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The crisis of unaffordable housing is shredding our social contract. What are we actually offering some of our young people today—£50,000-worth of student debt and a room in a shared house, if they are lucky? In the new town of Charlton Hayes in my south-west constituency of Filton and Bradley Stoke, a new build three-bedroom terraced house now costs more than £330,000. In 1995, the average house price in my constituency was £53,000, which was approximately 2.75 times the average annual salary. Now the average house price is about £293,000, which is more than nine times the average salary. Of course I welcome the Government’s commitment to build 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s, but it does not go far enough; we need to be bolder and more ambitious.
Shelter has said that we will need 2 million more social homes in 10 years to match the growing need. I welcome the £12 billion of investment in affordable housing over the next five years, and the unlocking of £38 billion of public and private affordable housing investment. Moves to speed up the planning process will also help, but the manifesto on which my party fought and won the 1951 general election stated:
“Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health and education are all undermined by overcrowded homes. Therefore a Conservative and Unionist Government will give housing a priority second only to national defence.”
I could not agree more.
At the launch of our 2015 manifesto, David Cameron said that
“Conservatives have committed to building a property-owning democracy for generations”.
However, analysis by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that in the decade following 2010, the fewest new houses were built in England since the second world war. The same could have been said for the 2000s, the 1990s and probably every decade before that for the past half-century. The inability of Governments of all political persuasions in the past few decades to address the housing crisis means that the simple laws of supply and demand push house prices even further.
I have to say that too many colleagues across the House have made a virtue of opposing much needed housing development anywhere in their own areas. How many hon. Members churn out leaflet after leaflet making pronouncements that we need affordable local homes for local people, but then oppose just about every single planning application in their constituencies, using excuses like, “They’re the wrong type of houses” or “They’re in the wrong place”?
In the post-war era, Britain faced a similar housing crisis and a Conservative Government solved it. Harold Macmillan oversaw a programme that built 2.8 million homes in the 1950s and 3.6 million in the 1960s. That is the sort of ambition that we should have today.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
“Build back better” is not just a simple catchy headline. Quite rightly, the Prime Minister and the Government have created the expectation that we will build back better, and in time the great British public will judge whether they believe we have achieved that aim.
Today’s subject for debate is “Affordable and Safe Housing for All”. A significant measure of our commitment to build back better will be how well we have driven down the harmful emissions of the built environment. It was a Conservative Government who set in law the commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and only recently this Conservative Government strengthened that commitment with a pledge to reach a 78% reduction by 2035—just 14 years from now.
Housing accounts for 14% of total UK emissions, so I am glad to make the case in this debate for stepping up our efforts to drive harmful emissions from our homes. We must start by including in the planning White Paper tangible and ambitious measures to deliver environmentally friendly protections and climate change mitigation. They must be part of a legislative framework that determines the quality and efficiency of new homes. We need to strengthen energy efficiency standards and we certainly need to review how energy performance certificates are organised—if you have ever tried to get one, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that it is an absolute nightmare.
We need strong assessment of the environmental impacts of the built environment. We need to bolster the national planning policy framework and drive up the requirements for net-gain biodiversity. Basically, in my view, the build back better White Paper must in effect become the green Bill. The Government and the Queen’s Speech have set out a commitment to support growth through significant investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation, and to pursue growth that levels up every part of the UK to enable the transition to net zero. The Committee on Climate Change has already made its message clear, saying that
“the 2020s must be the decisive decade of progress and action on climate change”
including by taking on the significant task of
“renovating and decarbonising the UK’s…homes.”
We must turn to fixing the problem rather than keep building on it. There is no better way to do that than by transforming the house building sector to ensure it has a highly skilled, highly motivated workforce that leads the world in developing and building homes that are great to live in, cheap to run and carbon neutral. To achieve this, a concerted cross-departmental effort must be made to ensure that planning rules accept only the greenest homes; that construction colleges shift towards teaching the latest methods and technologies, harnessing young people’s interest in the environment; and that building companies large and small have every reason to take on and train apprentices to build the homes in which we can be proud to live.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I want to talk about my constituency, which has been in the news recently, and the problems it faces. There are many intergenerational households in my constituency, and they are often overcrowded, not out of choice but because people cannot afford housing in the private sector and there are long waiting lists for social housing. Many of them are on the minimum wage, on zero-hours contracts and in insecure work, and most are unable to work from home. They are the factory workers, kitchen workers and hospital workers. Many do not have cars and have to use public transport.
It is not uncommon for many people to occupy one house—perhaps six people living in a two-bedroom house. If one person gets infected, how are they supposed to self-isolate in that house? For those and many other reasons, it has been quite hard for many people to self-isolate. The Government say they have provided money and support, but that is not correct—certainly not in Bolton, because the rules are so vague and unclear and access to money and support has been an extreme nightmare for my constituents. In fact, it was recently reported that Tory-controlled Bolton Council was found to have the lowest rate of uptake, as the council had made it exceptionally hard for people to access support.
I have raised this issue for many months, but to date nothing has been done. Instead, we hear Ministers talk about the issue of vaccine hesitancy, trying to blame my constituents for the issues we have. Let me explain: the vaccine roll-out in parts of Bolton that are in my constituency was done differently from how it was done in other places. We started with one vaccination centre in the town centre, with around five vaccinators. That was supposed to cover six sevenths of my constituency—a massive area. Some people have to take three buses to get to the town centre.
I raised this issue with the powers that be and the people involved in the vaccine roll-out—I mentioned the locality, the issue of accessibility and the fact that vaccination rates were low because of that. I asked for two additional fixed vaccination centres in my constituency, but that has not yet happened. Over the weekend, we had a temporary vaccination site which was able to vaccinate around 5,000 people. That shows that there is no vaccine hesitancy; the problem lay in the original roll-out.
I am not trying to criticise or blame anyone. Everyone has been working really hard in the NHS, and I pay tribute to all the volunteers who have been acting as marshals, the St John Ambulance brigade and everyone else who has been involved in rolling out the programme. But we have to remind Ministers that their words carry consequences and have effects. I have already had emails from constituents saying, “Well, many of us British people did not go abroad, and therefore your people are causing the infections.” These kinds of comments must be made very carefully.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in response to the Queen’s Speech, which laid out an ambitious and exciting programme of legislation. It is a Queen’s Speech to build back better from the pandemic, and it is the literal sense of building that is an intrinsic part of the theme of today’s debate.
A property-owning democracy is at the core of what we as Conservatives believe, and I wholeheartedly share the Prime Minister’s desire to move from generation rent to generation buy. I well remember the day I bought my first flat. It was the realisation of an ambition and the culmination of working hard and saving harder, but for too many young people today, this dream is beyond reach. In my constituency, house prices are now more than 10 times earnings. Despite many thousands of new homes being built already, in the past five years, Aylesbury has seen prices rise by 27%. The market therefore clearly calls for a greater supply of housing, but it is important that local development always reflects local circumstances and listens to local voices. I am grateful that Ministers did indeed hear the concerns of local people over the previously proposed algorithm, and I am confident that they will do so again as they move forward with the planning Bill.
The consultation that has already taken place contains some bold and praiseworthy ideas. I will certainly welcome proposals that could be used sensitively to redevelop and renew town centres such as Aylesbury, becoming places where people really do want to live, work, visit and invest. Carefully thought through densification and regeneration can undoubtedly help to reinvigorate towns and at the same time preserve our precious green belt. I am particularly pleased that the planning Bill will ensure that infrastructure is delivered at the same time as new houses, not years after. Anyone trying to drive through Aylesbury will agree that that is a long overdue change.
I have one small suggestion for my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department, which is to consider the issue of empty commercial buildings that are all but abandoned by absentee owners—often overseas companies sitting on the land for its potential capital growth over decades but with no interest in a sense of place or community now. Aylesbury, unfortunately, has a few of those structures. They spoil the streetscape and are an impediment to ambitious and imaginative plans for development. Those sites could be much better used. The buildings could be repurposed for hospitality, retail or housing, or they could be demolished to create further brownfield sites. I hope that the ministerial team will look into ways of enabling that to happen.
The people of Aylesbury are far from nimbys. We already expect some 16,000 houses to be built in the next 30 years, but those developments must be right for residents, both new and old. Aylesbury garden town can help to fulfil that as a project, because it is not about bricks and mortar; it is about creating communities.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) [V]
Housing has become an increasingly expensive commodity, consuming an ever larger proportion of a family’s disposable income. Many people in this country no longer have the prospect of being able to buy their own home, and private sector rental costs have grown out of all proportion to incomes, especially in our large cities, and most of all in the capital, London.
Five years ago, I co-authored a report with my friend Simon Jose entitled “Building Homes for Britain”. In that report, we proposed that local authorities could work regionally to build huge numbers of new homes based on the German passive house model. These houses are built in factories not too far away from the sites in which they will finally be based. Their most important element is the energy they save, which can help to reduce consumption by up to 90%.
Simon and I proposed using a national housing investment bank to help fund these new housing developments. The bank would be set up by statute, and the taxpayers’ money needed to fund the building projects would be match-funded by some of the UK’s largest pension funds—organisations that we spoke to and that were very sympathetic to the idea. Let us imagine for a moment a future where mass house building, managed responsibly and ably by vastly experienced local authorities, not only delivers the affordable homes that this country so desperately requires, but saves its tenants a huge sum of money every month in reduced energy bills and much lower rental costs. Suddenly, some of the UK’s most hard-pressed families, particularly those who have been hit hardest financially by the pandemic, would have considerably more disposable income available, and the construction work itself would ensure increased economic activity and employment.
Our report showed that for every £1 of taxpayers’ money invested in housing construction, the economic output equals £2.84 in local activity, and that would have a multiplier effect across the whole of the UK economy. More apprenticeships and construction jobs would be needed, thus helping to create work in relatively well-paid sectors and encourage more young people into training and education within the construction industries.
In total, our report forms the basis of a blueprint for housing regeneration. It is not about construction for profit, but about construction of homes based on need. If we truly want a more stable, more prosperous society, which will give every citizen the opportunity to live in a decent, affordable home, it seems to me that the Government, even this current Conservative Government, should adopt our ideas and get on with building the homes that Britain really needs.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I warmly welcome last week’s Queen’s Speech, which helps to meet the challenges of recovering from this pandemic while also delivering on our 2019 manifesto commitments. More importantly, it aims to improve people’s lives on a day-to-day basis. Whether it is backing our NHS, supporting our police to protect our communities, or improving our infrastructure, this Queen’s Speech and this Government show that they are committed to delivering the people’s priorities.
Our challenge in Bolsover is to try to change our local economy so that we have skilled jobs and a skilled workforce to meet those jobs. There are huge elements of the Queen’s Speech that help us move in the right direction—whether it is the skills and the lifetime skills guarantee; whether it is the freeport, which is bringing £1 billion of investment just down the M1 to the east midlands; whether it is on infrastructure and connectivity; or, indeed, whether it is on affordable housing. Bolsover has been a location for many houses that are worth £400,000 or £500,000, but that is astronomical for people who are on the average wage in my constituency. Unfortunately, we cannot improve an area in a sustainable way without having jobs, housing and education side by side.
There are too many young people in my constituency who cannot get on the housing ladder. As we increasingly move towards an ageing population, it will be incredibly important that these communities are sustainable, that young people are able to live near their parents, and that they are able to send their own children to good schools locally. I really welcome the fact that we are making affordable housing a central part of what we are doing as a Government, because without that, communities such as South Normanton, Clowne, Shirebrook and Bolsover will not be sustainable over the coming years. We already have fantastic communities in my constituency, but our challenge is to build a better Bolsover where every young person can fulfil their potential to get a good job locally and buy their own home. This is not about Westminster giving us free gifts or giving us anything; it is often about working locally and it is good to know that this Government have our backs when it comes to our local endeavours.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last Monday, a mere 80 hours after polling stations had closed, a leaflet fell on our doormat. Even though consent is already in place for 4,000 homes, which is more than necessary, it was the start of a consultation, a new local plan for Warwick and Leamington and the wider area. So many constituents in Bishop’s Tachbrook, Barford, Budbrooke, Hampton Magna and Hatton in my constituency will be rightly alarmed by what is being proposed, because it will be underpinned by the new planning Bill, which is nothing short of a developers’ charter.
Let us be honest: the Queen’s Speech did not present a realistic plan to fix the housing crisis. After all, we have seen an absolute reduction of 200,000 social rent homes since 2010. Where were the proposals to build more council housing and the 150,000 social rent homes that are needed and have been called for by Shelter and by Opposition Members? Since 2010, Warwick District Council in my constituency has built only 21 council homes. Where was the security for private renters? The Government promised better protection, but the renters reform Bill has been kicked into the long grass. Where was the ambition to invest in existing council housing stock or to address some of the considerable inequalities that have been exposed in the past year?
What pains me so greatly is that in this year of COP26, the Government lack ambition to build zero-carbon homes. We are five years on from 2016, the date by which the last Labour Government promised to introduce them. Five lost years, 1 million zero-carbon homes that would have been delivered by a Labour Government—just imagine.
I will leave for another day topics such as higher education, but in the few seconds that remain, let me highlight a few other major issues in the Queen’s Speech—a Queen’s Speech with barely a full sentence on social care, perhaps the greatest challenge of our times along with climate change, which received little more. That point brings me to the need for a network of 2 million electric vehicle charging points, as highlighted by the National Infrastructure Commission and Sir John Armitt. Today, we have just 23,000 public EV charging points.
The Queen’s Speech failed to recognise that commuting has changed forever. Instead, it favours iron rails over fibre-optic cables. It promises freeports, the emperor’s new clothes. It promises, or claims, a jobs miracle, but it is a jobs mirage—low-paid, insecure work, zero-hours contracts, a gig economy. Finally, there is voter ID and the suppression of public protests. No wonder Her Majesty looked so ill at ease delivering her Gracious Speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will just caution the hon. Gentleman that in this Chamber we do not mention Her Majesty’s opinions on any political matter at all. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was being careful in the way he said that remark, so I will not reprimand him any further, but just for the advice of new Members who might not have listened to a Queen’s Speech debate before, nobody has any idea whether Her Majesty likes any policy or not.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I must say that the Government side of the House absolutely agrees with what you have just said, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was almost a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) until that point in his speech, but I venture to suggest that the environmental achievements of this Government dwarf anything attempted by any Labour Government.
This Gracious Address was a Queen’s Speech for the next generation. The draft Online Safety Bill will protect our children online and make sure that what is illegal offline is also illegal online. The Environment Bill will protect our children’s environmental heritage. There was a commitment to recover our public finances so that we do not leave the next generation in unnecessary debt. The planning Bill has the heavy responsibility of balancing a commitment to build the homes that the next generation absolutely need with protection of the green spaces that are absolutely our children’s inheritance, too.
The importance of green space has been well rehearsed from a health and mental wellbeing perspective, but green spaces will also be very important in achieving our environmental targets; they capture carbon, are important for air quality and provide space to prevent flooding. Protecting the green belt will be vital in meeting our very ambitious and important environmental targets.
The White Paper that the Government produced last year was a clear step in the right direction in striking that delicate balance. Local plans will be at the heart of trying to strike the right note, protecting the green spaces that local people love while developing the homes that we need. I am glad that they will be streamlined so that we can stop the ridiculous situation in which we found ourselves in Sevenoaks: our local plan, which was supported by local people and would have delivered hundreds of homes, was thrown out by the planning inspector on the basis of a tiny technicality. That was absolutely absurd, so I strongly support the Government in what they are trying to do to streamline the process.
I also support the traffic light system being put in place, which will offer protection to the green belt. We must ensure that this is reflected in the housing targets given to local areas, because although we absolutely must and should build, we need to show flexibility so that we can protect our green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are as much our children’s inheritance as are decent homes to live in.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Housing is pivotal in any society at any time, but it is critical in one devastated by covid. As a coronavirus recession beckons and climate change threatens, it is more pivotal than ever. Housing is a devolved matter, but factors and levers remain reserved to Westminster and are therefore critical for the ability of the Scottish Government and Scottish local government to respond.
There are three clear reasons why housing is critical. First, homelessness, couch-surfing and overcrowding are all increasing. Secondly, construction and economic stimulus are essential to create jobs and boost business. Thirdly, with the increasing challenge of climate change threatening, we require to act; and not just prepare for COP26 as a conference, but prepare to act as a society.
Some progress has been made by the Scottish Government. Ending the sale at a discount of council housing was long overdue. That has driven a change from social rent to welfare housing when renting should be a matter of choice, not something forced on people as a result of financial necessity. The Scottish Government have made a commitment to building 10,000 new homes for social rent per annum over the next 10 years. Frankly, that is underwhelming. We require to be building tens of thousands per annum, not 10,000.
Much more requires to be done, and that takes money. That is what this Queen’s Speech is missing, because the Scottish Government will require the funding and borrowing powers, all of which they are denied. The election has taken place in Scotland, and we can argue over the outcome of the mandate, but what is clear is that the status quo of the United Kingdom was yet again rejected by the people of Scotland. Therefore, they should have the right, through their Parliament, to take steps to provide the housing they require for their communities, and they should be able to have their Government access the funds that are necessary and that are there.
That is not just about addressing the housing crisis that exists, even in my own constituency, which has seen an increase in population and a decrease in available stock; it is about creating, as President Obama said, shovel- ready projects so that we can keep people in work. We require to create jobs. We require to boost business. As COP26 beckons, we have to recognise that the purpose of building new houses is also to retrofit old ones at the same time. It is not just a matter of addressing fuel poverty, which remains a significant problem in Scotland, even as we are coming into better weather; it is also about ensuring that our properties are fit for purpose for achieving net zero, so that we can meet the challenge of climate change.
It is for those reasons that we require to build homes, and in order to build homes the Scottish Government need the power to borrow money so that they have the cash to spend.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate on the Queen’s Speech, and what better matter for me to speak about than housing, considering that the second office of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently in the process of moving to Wolverhampton? That news has been met with great delight across the city. I recently had a meeting with the local DWP, which is already recruiting for setting up the new MHCLG office. It is a credit to James Attwood and his team at the DWP, who are passionate about making sure that we get more people in Wolverhampton into jobs.
Why is that so important? Wolverhampton is looking to be at the forefront of brownfield-first development. We now have the National Brownfield Institute in Wolverhampton, and we want to pioneer new technologies, through modern methods of construction, to help protect our green belt but also ensure that we get affordable housing. We have just over 10% of green space in Wolverhampton, and we want to make sure that we keep it. We have prominent campaigns, such as Save the Seven Cornfields, the Lower Penn group and the Wolverhampton Environment Centre, which are trying to protect beautiful areas in and around Wolverhampton. They are a lifeline for so many people in our city to enjoy nature, but we also need houses. The argument always come back, “We don’t have enough brownfield”, but that is categorically not true in Wolverhampton, where we have a lot of brownfield sites, empty retail space and a large city centre that can be filled with a lot of residential accommodation. We are delighted by the towns fund, the future high streets fund and investment into our city, but more needs to be done to see a transformational shift of private investment into the city to help build those houses.
To summarise, this is very simple: we need more housing, especially affordable housing; we have an abundance of brownfield sites or underutilised buildings within our city; and we need to protect the small amount of green belt that we have. So I will fully support these planning reforms, because they provide all of that for Wolverhampton, to ensure that our city goes from strength to strength, keeps the green belt that we love so much and also provides the affordable housing that we need in our city.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Queen’s Speech has failed to meet the everyday challenges facing my constituents in Edmonton, who want safe, affordable homes, well-paid jobs, and funding for the public services they rely on. Though many across the House like to paint London as the hub for middle-class metropolitan elites, nothing could be further from the truth: the unemployment rate in Edmonton is almost 12%, compared with the national average of 6.3%; 39% of my constituents are paid below the real living wage; in the Edmonton Green and Lower Edmonton wards, almost half of the children grow up in relative poverty; and Edmonton has one of the highest rates of unaffordable housing in the country. If the Government truly want to level up, they must act now to reduce inequality across the entire country.
The Government claim to be the party of aspiration, so I looking forward to hearing what they are going to do to close the gap in racial wealth disparities in home ownership, especially in London. I therefore put to the Minister three priorities from my constituents. First, what are the Government going to for my constituents living in Methven Court, Prowse Court, Brickland Court, Geary Court and Golden Lion Court, who remain trapped in unsafe buildings? If the recent fire at New Providence Wharf showed us anything, it was that we need a comprehensive building safety fund, fully funded by the Government and industry, that applies to all high- rise buildings, irrespective of height or tenure and which covers all fire safety defects and associated costs.
Secondly, half of my constituents rent privately, and there was nothing in this Queen’s Speech for them. They face a rent debt crisis, with arrears that built up during the pandemic but with no offer from the Government for rent relief. The Government must therefore act now to provide rent relief, scrap no-fault evictions and give the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the necessary powers to introduce rent controls in the capital. Finally, the Queen’s Speech said nothing about the huge shortfalls in funding that face local authorities. Since 2010, this Government have cut Enfield Council’s budget by an estimated £178 million, and the council expects to see income drop further, by £68 million, as a result of the pandemic. The Government need to reverse those cuts and reinvest in our public services.
In conclusion, we are emerging from the worst recession for 300 years and the worst public health crisis in a generation. The Government should have seized this moment to deliver the safe and affordable housing my constituents need, and not make it harder for them to vote.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Let me set the scene. The Friday before Christmas, I was stood in the road with rain and hail lashing down. It was pitch black, at half five in the evening. A gentleman was stood in front of me with a hi-vis jacket, a pair of Wellingtons and an umbrella. He handed me a pair of keys, because I had just purchased my first house, in my early 30s. We were moving in, and despite the weather and the very stressful day, which I would never like to share with anybody, I would like that experience to be felt by so many people across my constituency, especially those of my generation. It is very important, and the measures in this Queen’s Speech, particularly the proposed housing legislation, will enable a set of circumstances where more people can get on to the property ladder and experience the benefits of a property-owning democracy.
I appreciate that some people become very anxious about planning applications for housing. That is primarily for two reasons: first, because of the protection of green open spaces; and secondly, because of the strain it can put on local resources. That is why it is shameful that Labour-run Birmingham City Council has had a commitment to building on 8 hectares of green open space and parkland every year; it has been allowing housing estates to sit empty for years across the constituency, in particular in Gildas Avenue in Kings Norton, while building on green open spaces. That is why, along with local campaigners and councillors, I have been doing what I can to make sure we get brownfield sites back into use as quickly as possible to give young people like me the opportunity to own their own home.
I was grateful that the Government’s White Paper mentioned Bournville because I am very lucky, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), to represent part of Bournville. It is a beautiful suburb, and if we can replicate around the country what the Cadbury family did in that area of Birmingham the Government will be doing very well in their ambition to build good-quality decent homes.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of procurement, which is addressed in the Queen’s Speech. For many years the boiler in the Hollymoor centre in Frankley Great Park was broken. Councillor Simon Morrall, working with the community group, got some quotes from private sector contractors. Their contractors said it would cost between £60,000 and £90,000 to fix the boiler, but unfortunately the city council had to go through its approved contractor system and costs then spiralled to £450,000. That shows why I am so passionate about this issue: taxpayers across the country have been ripped off for so long with many contracts that go out for procurement. We need to sort this problem out so that taxpayers get value for money.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), and I too remember buying my first home; it was quite a few years ago, but I am sure we have all had that experience of getting the keys for the first time and knowing what it is like to be on the property ladder and faced with a 25-year mortgage.
I want to start by welcoming the intention to update the country’s planning system to deliver the high-quality, sustainable, affordable homes that communities really do need. Getting on to the housing ladder is difficult, and many of the initiatives introduced by this Government —changes to stamp duty, first home schemes, Help to Buy—are designed to make it more accessible, but the reality is that the average house costs almost eight times the average salary. In Warrington, the average price of a home has gone from £140,000 a decade ago to £210,000 today. So we must consider affordability in what we are doing. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we all aspire to see our children and grand- children owning their own home, so I am very supportive of the Government’s mission to reverse the fall in home ownership and to give young people an opportunity to benefit from getting on to the property ladder.
The time limit is short, but I want to briefly talk about a couple of issues. First, on getting the 1 million approved homes built in developments that have been agreed but have been land-banked by developers, we need construction to start, particularly as many of these schemes are in areas where there is a significant shortage of new homes. That has to be a priority for Government, and if developers do not move forward within a time limit, they should not expect future permissions to be granted.
Secondly, I have looked carefully at the way councils base their housing needs, and it really is important that the Government are as certain as they can be on economic needs assessments. I am sorry to be technical here, but are we using the right data to project into the future? Covid has shown how behavioural needs and habits change in a very short space of time, and some of the projections will be based on population forecasts from 2014. Given that local plans will count for a further 20 years, anything we can do to update population forecasts should be considered; we should be using the latest census data from 2021.
During the local plan-making process, we also need a clear focus on prioritising brownfield and regeneration sites. In Warrington, our town centre is in a perilous state. Rethinking planning gives us the opportunity to redefine this space close to jobs and transport links, but where the local council has an opportunity to redesignate green belt—we know that this is something developers will push for—we need to ensure, in the plan-making process, that developers are challenged by planning inspectors to ensure that regeneration and brownfield sites are a priority.
Finally, I really want us to look very carefully at the way that we reform leasehold. There are so many in the leasehold sector who have been affected by long-term leasehold decisions, and this is something that the Government can do much more on.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to contribute this afternoon. I want to address two areas; the first is my deep concerns about the Government’s planning Bill in the Queen’s Speech. I would like to reiterate the points made by our Front-Bench team and, in particular, to highlight some local issues in Reading and Berkshire, which one of the other Berkshire MPs here has hinted at.
I am afraid that the planning Bill, as it is set out at the moment, looks as though it will sweep away 70 years of relatively sensible town planning, which started with the post-war Government’s Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That is a system that has given local people and local councils, as other Members have mentioned, the right to have a say. I personally would like to see councils and local residents’ groups having more of a say and big developers having less of a say. However, sadly, the Government’s approach to the problem seems to be, rather than to listen to local people and, indeed, local authorities or other valid stakeholders, such as some of the countryside or planning groups, to listen to large developers and to redesign a system that has been quite accurately described, in my view, as a developers’ charter.
I want to run through three specific problems that have a very direct effect on Reading and the neighbouring area of Berkshire, in other towns such as Woodley, and further afield. First, the pressure on out-of-town land—the development of green sites—in our area is enormous. We currently face a number of proposals on the outskirts of Reading that are completely unsuitable, will lead to large amounts of extra car traffic, pollution and congestion on already crowded roads, and will not necessarily solve our housing problems.
Secondly, we have the issue of unwanted development by irresponsible landlords in and around the town centre, with houses in multiple occupation over developed sites, residents overlooked, and people’s back gardens taken for unnecessary development. As far as I can see, the Bill does not address these issues. In fact, it makes it easier for unwanted developments to take place because it grants developers carte blanche.
Thirdly, as other Members have mentioned, including the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), there is the issue of brownfield. I am lucky to represent a town that has an ample supply of brownfield—enough in its local plan to provide all the housing that is needed in the borough of Reading until 2036. At present, we have difficulties getting that developed because of delays with developers and other issues such as contaminated land. I cannot see how the proposal from the Government to give developers yet more power and more influence on the planning process will actually address the very serious problem of developing brownfield, which is so important if we are to regenerate cities and towns in a constructive way, as other Members mentioned. So I urge the Government—the Minister is, I hope, taking notes—to rethink this proposal completely.
Secondly, I would like to raise some deep concerns about fire safety and mention correspondence that I have had with one resident that illustrates the scale of the problem. While the Government have made progress on Grenfell-style cladding—I do acknowledge that—a huge number of other related problems have not been addressed. I will give an example of just one typical block in Reading town centre: £150,000 of work is needed on fire safety doors, compartmentalisation and fire extinguishers. Please can we have some urgent action on this?
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
At the heart of the Queen’s Speech was a commitment to our nation’s recovery and to building back better, greener and stronger. Planning reform is fundamental to achieving that, and I welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that reform will focus on ensuring that homes and infrastructure can be delivered more quickly and, crucially, that local plans will now be able to provide more certainty on the type, scale and design of development permitted on different categories of land. Beautiful villages such as Wymeswold, with its concentric circles of development over centuries and little nooks and crannies of growth over time, need to be able to maintain their character while some growth takes place.
Since becoming an MP, I have advocated more power being transferred from developers and officials such as the Planning Inspectorate and put into the hands of local communities, and local plans becoming, in effect, the tender document of local residents, instructing the market on what local people want and what will work for their community. Grown-up conversations need to take place at local level, recognising that we need housing development but equally recognising the needs of local people and the communities in which they live. For too long, developments have been imposed on communities by the lack of a five-year land supply, or by taking surplus housing numbers from adjoining places—from Labour-run Leicester City Council, for example—into Sileby, Barrow and Shepshed. That needs to change. Linked with a 30-month timeframe to produce a local plan, that will transform the current set-up of delay, repetition of action and the inevitable outcome of piecemeal development, which often carries with it local criticism, to the unwarranted detriment of local planners, whose expertise is not currently recognised.
The average house price in Loughborough is nearly £199,000, but median earnings are £31,000—a house price to earnings ratio of 6.4. That is not an easy target for young and first-time buyers and those on low incomes. We need local people to be able to afford to stay in the area where they grew up, so I was delighted that, alongside planning reform, the Government last week reaffirmed their commitment to helping more people own their own home through the affordable homes programme, the new mortgage guarantee scheme and first homes programme. Furthermore, if the focus is put on turning empty floors above shops into affordable homes, we can also help to create a strong customer base for our high streets and town centres and so aid recovery while protecting our essential green spaces and areas of separation between settlements.
On the subject of rental reform, we have a thriving lettings market in my constituency, thanks in part to our large student population. While the vast majority of landlords provide safe accommodation and treat their tenants well, from time to time I hear of tenants who are in distress because they are living in unacceptable conditions, or their tenancy is cut short. I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans on housing and planning in greater detail over the coming months.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Gracious Speech.
Ensuring affordable housing for all really is a case of a tale of two Governments. It is not a competition—I wish the Minister and the UK Government well in tackling the housing crisis in England—but the Scottish Government can be judged on our actions and successes, and I suggest that there are some examples to take on in tackling common endeavours.
Since 2007, we have put housing and homelessness at the heart of policy. There is much to do, but much has been achieved. On buying, our first home fund has helped 11,000 homes to be sold and our open market shared equity scheme and our new supply shared equity scheme have helped thousands more to buy their first home. Since 2007, we have delivered 96,750 affordable homes, and we have just been re-elected on a manifesto to build 100,000 more by 2032.
During covid, we have proven to the citizens we all serve that homelessness need not exist. It is a question of political priorities and funding them properly. Since August 2018, the Housing First initiative in Scotland has helped 832 people to access permanent housing. It is a wonderful scheme, which I commend to the House.
But it is poverty that drives homelessness, and the Gracious Speech makes it clear that the UK Government are more interested in fighting culture wars than in fighting poverty. Poverty drives homelessness. Poverty drives precarious employment. Poverty blights the lives of millions across these islands, and this Government also can be judged by their actions. Freezing local housing allowance and continuing the bedroom tax will hurt the poorest hardest. The Resolution Foundation has found that 450,000 households are in rent arrears because of covid. This Gracious Speech offers them nothing in their continuing plight.
The Scottish Government can do much and have done much, but they can only do so much when 85% of welfare expenditure is controlled by this place. We want those powers and we want those budgets. We want all the powers of independence, not for the flags and the anthems, the old songs and the old stories, but because of what we will do with those powers. My party has concluded that independence within the European Union offers our best future, and we have just been re-elected as the national Government of Scotland with 85% of the constituency first-past-the-post seats. The fact that we have a mandate for an independence referendum is undeniable. The people of Scotland will get to make their choice between two Unions, and I am confident about standing on the SNP’s record of achievement and our aspirations for the future.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, especially as it gives me the chance to extend a welcome to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which will set up its new headquarters in Wolverhampton later this year. Establishing a Ministry in Wolverhampton, along with a new Government taskforce into modern methods of construction, is a clear example of the Government’s commitment to level up opportunity across the UK. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) that it is already creating jobs in the city. It also brings a much bigger boost of anchoring the home-building industry in Wolverhampton. I assure any MHCLG staff considering a relocation to Wolverhampton, or indeed any businesses in the industry, that they will find a very warm Wulfrunian welcome.
The Government have set themselves a huge challenge to improve the planning system, and I commend their aims to ensure that we build beautiful neighbourhoods that add to people’s quality of life, protect our green spaces, and make the dream of home ownership a reality for many more people. Over the coming years, we need to be innovative and imaginative to meet our housing need. Modern methods of construction will play a key part, as will rethinking city centres. We also face the challenge of an ageing population and ensuring that housing for older people ensures independence and quality of life well into our later years.
As time is short, I will turn to brownfield policy. For Wolverhampton and the Black Country, it is critical that we get brownfield policy right. Our marvellous West Midlands Mayor Andy Street has been clear that it is key to meeting our housing need for the west midlands. Although I welcome the introduction of local plans with the opportunity for restricted land designations for green space, we have issues at the borders of the Black Country. My northern border in Wolverhampton North East is with South Staffordshire, and that beautiful green belt land is under threat to meet the additional housing numbers from the Birmingham and Black Country plan. We must ensure that the cart does not come before the horse. The worst outcome is that we build on the green belt to meet targets and then in a few years discover that those targets could have been met through other options, such as brownfield.
The brilliant work being done to make more and more brownfield land viable for housing is a game changer, and I ask that we review and make a new estimate of the number of homes that can be built on brownfield land in the west midlands over the next decades. As time is short, I finish by commending the Government on the aims set out in the Queen’s Speech. I also thank them for the investment in the National Brownfield Institute in Wolverhampton and for brownfield sites in the Black Country. That is absolutely the right way forward.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) to her new position. She is already doing a great job. Today, I will speak about the housing crisis that affects far too many of my constituents. The crisis takes many forms: families living in cramped, overcrowded accommodation; renters struggling with sky-high rents in the private rented sector; leaseholders trapped in dangerous flats with the Government letting them down; and people priced out of their local areas and struggling to save enough money to buy. Too often my constituents are at the sharp end of the crisis. The Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to begin to solve those problems—to build more council homes and make safety a priority for all, to end the leaseholder scandal, and to properly regulate the private rental market.
Instead, the Government are choosing to introduce a Planning Bill that will take power away from local communities and hinder, not help, efforts to build more social housing. The Government’s failure to invest in social housing means that, according to Shelter, 10 times as many new social rented homes were delivered through section 106 obligations as through Government investment. The Planning Bill will greatly reduce the scope for local authorities to insert those obligations into planning applications, meaning less social housing despite the scale of the housing crisis that we face. Instead, the Government need to give councils the powers and money to build more social rented homes as soon as possible.
The absence of a social housing Bill is a huge gap in the Queen’s Speech. It is now nearly four years since the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower. In the aftermath of that appalling event, I was involved in community engagement on behalf of the Mayor of London. I heard at first hand from those in the community who had been repeatedly ignored as they raised concerns about the safety of their homes. I pay tribute once again to the dignity and courage of the bereaved and the survivors.
In the years that have followed, the Government have repeatedly promised to reform the social housing sector. In the document accompanying the Queen’s Speech, they say:
“We will also continue to develop reform of social housing regulations and look to legislate as soon as practicable.”
But we simply cannot wait any longer. We need action now. The failure to include safeguards for social housing tenants and leaseholders in this year’s Queen’s Speech is simply unacceptable. I do welcome the building safety Bill, but this is yet another missed opportunity to help hundreds of thousands of leaseholders, who are being forced to pay to correct a problem that is not their fault. I urge the Government to listen to the growing consensus from across the political divide.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
We need more homes, affordable and safe, but homes built in the right place, and it is vital that we take a brownfield-first approach. I want to focus on the hard work of shaping places. That way, colleagues who insist that their own constituencies would be wrong for new housing can instead support the necessary investments to address the viability constraints faced in many cities, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that are happy to build.
Just to put this into context, despite the viability challenges last year, Stoke-on-Trent built more than the average London borough, and 99% on brownfield sites. The decades of decline we saw under Labour have ended. Stoke-on-Trent is on the up, and according to projections from the World Population Review, it will hit a new post-war population peak towards the end of this decade. It is vital that we receive investment to help deliver new homes and overcome the current constraints of a relatively low-value market.
The Government’s levelling-up fund and brownfield fund are hugely welcome, and Stoke-on-Trent must receive its fair share. This support will enable us to overcome the remediation of the most challenging sites and convert empty town centre properties to new uses. This is particularly important for Longton to build on the work of the heritage action zone and the nearly £1 million PSICA—partnership schemes in conservation areas—scheme set up by the city council and Historic England. Further investment locally is likely to realise significant results and leverage private investment on top.
Although values remain relatively low, we are seeing strong growth, and Zoopla recently reported Stoke-on-Trent as being in the top five busiest housing markets. In some tenures, the Stoke-on-Trent market is relatively untested, but when new types of development do happen, developers have consistently been surprised by how high demand has been.
Affordability is less of an issue. It is certainly not a non-issue, just less of an issue in north Staffordshire. I do not in any way want to underplay this, however. In parts of my constituency, such as Newstead and Blurton South, the average property price is 7.9 times the average salary, as reported by the Stoke Sentinel, but this is more of an issue of low wages. Stoke-on-Trent has one of the lowest-paid workforces in the entire country. That is why it is also hugely welcome to see the proposals for the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, helping ensure our workforce have the skills they need to access better-paid work and get on to the housing ladder.
We also desperately need to mitigate past transport planning mistakes. Indeed, this was raised only last week at the launch of our city forum. It should be not just an afterthought to development. In particular, it is vital that the Government support our bids to reopen the Stoke-Leek line and to reopen the station at Meir. It will also be essential for north Staffordshire to receive bus funding.
There is a real opportunity to level up towns and cities so that they become increasingly the right place for affordable and safe new homes. With the right support from Government, cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, with multiple hectares of brownfield land, can be the key part of meeting the Government’s housing needs and building back better.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to speak in today’s debate.
“A home is where the heart is”
is a quote many of us know well. A home is supposed to be a special place. For some, this is true, but for others their everyday home experience is quite miserable. For instance, last month a constituent wrote to me in desperation about the fire safety Bill. Her building is under 18 metres in height, and it has been deemed to have flammable cladding. She has been unable to get an EWS1 form—a form she needs to satisfy mortgage lenders about any potential risks from the spread of fire or non-compliant materials within the external frontage. My constituent has been trying desperately to sell her flat for over a year and a half, and she has come to the disheartening conclusion that it is simply unsellable. She tells me:
“This hardship is having a huge impact on my mental health. I am unable to sleep and am suffering badly. I am struggling to work due to this stress.”
My constituent is an NHS worker. She has been playing her part during this pandemic and has been pivotal in saving lives. She, like so many others in her situation, needs help from this Government to keep her safe and to improve her quality of life. I am sure that people listening to this debate will agree with that.
Too many people and families in our country are faced with risky situations, living in risky homes and feeling at risk of harms such as dangerous cladding and no fire safety measures, energy plans that are overpriced and ineffective, and being stuck in overcrowded homes or unable to find shelter at all. Young people, women and men, can often find themselves homeless when leaving prison, or being placed in houses in multiple occupation. All these problems are avoidable. The local housing allowance remains woefully inadequate and it continues to be difficult for people to find affordable accommodation of good quality.
This year’s Queen’s Speech is just more evidence of the Government’s refusal to carry out their duty of care for the country. What we have seen from the Government is 11 years of poverty-inducing policies, with cuts to public services and cuts to the third sector. We have seen, and are seeing, a rise in food banks, and that was the situation pre-pandemic. Post-pandemic—we are still going through it—things are even worse. Young people and families earning a decent wage cannot afford to buy their first home. New, wonderful green homes are needed, along with support to get on to the market. The Government must prioritise safety. Fixing the problems in housing from the fire safety scandal to the rise in homelessness, improving the quality of life and responding to the climate crisis are all part of building back better. I support the Labour amendments.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s ambition to build homes, including affordable homes, to help first-time buyers and to enable extended families to live close to each other, strengthening our social fabric and allowing key workers to live near to their place of work. I welcome the commitment on locally decided design codes that builders will have to abide by, on tree-lined streets and on building net zero homes. Building back beautiful; building back greener.
However, it is important that I take this opportunity to put on record the concerns of my constituents over planning and infrastructure. We need to put in place either penalties or incentive schemes to ensure that developers build out their planning permissions. The penalty currently falls on the local authority if it cannot meet its five-year housing supply. In the Waverley part of my constituency, my villages of Alfold, Cranleigh and Ewhurst continue to be inundated with homes on pristine green fields miles away from decent transport links, with crumbling water infrastructure and on flood plains. This is not alleviating the concern but creating additional worry for my constituents, who want to know what protection Ministers can give them when neighbouring villages have greenbelt protection. They also want to know why they have to take the unmet need from neighbouring councils.
In the Guildford part of my constituency, the local plan is controversial. It has a brilliant regeneration site in the Weyside urban village, but the additional 14,000 homes cannot be provided as there will now be no increase in road capacity for the A3 through Guildford that was promised. I am pleased that, after a concerted effort by my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), Conservative councillors and me, the current administration have finally agreed to review the local plan. This is why I am calling for the A3 to be tunnelled under Guildford, taking traffic out of Guildford and improving air quality. Guildford will likely be zoned for growth, which should bring funding for big infrastructure projects such as my tunnel, but we are the party of localism who brought forward neighbourhood plans, and my constituents need to understand how the zoning system will strengthen local democracy and accountability and not erode it, as they fear. I thank my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister for their proactive engagement since I was elected, and I know that they will continue to engage in the months to come.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
What we needed to hear from the Government was a plan to build our way out of the pandemic. Instead, we have heard a litany of missed opportunities.
On housing, we have a mounting crisis. We need new sustainable homes that working people can afford. We need to tackle the scandal of homelessness and ensure that support services are available. In Slough, because of funding cuts, we had already lost our citizens advice bureau. Now we are losing our local Shelter headquarters, too—lifelines of support for so many. In the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, we urgently need to tackle unsafe cladding. We needed a plan for housing. Where is it?
On education, a generation of children have had their education disrupted. Children without computers, wi-fi or desks have been held back. University and college students have seen academic life torn to shreds, facing uncertainty about their futures. We needed a plan for education and young people. Where is it?
We needed a plan to rebuild the jobs market to make work pay, to make jobs secure and to recognise the seismic changes to the world of work brought about by technology and the pandemic. We needed to hear the Government’s plan to end fire and rehire. Where is it?
We needed action to support those on universal credit who face a real-terms cut to their income. They will be made destitute by the £20 a week reduction and they need a lifeline. Nothing from Ministers—another missed opportunity.
We needed a plan for the NHS to properly reward NHS workers, not punish them with a pay cut. In fact, health and social care workers missed out on a combined staggering £400 million by earning below the living wage. They deserve much better.
What about transport? We needed a plan for green transport. We need answers on the issues with Hitachi trains. Slough constituents want action on the western rail link to Heathrow, which again seems to have been kicked into the long grass. We must do more to support the aviation industry, which has long supported the livelihoods of so many in my Slough constituency.
And don’t even get me started on the mere nine words the Government could muster on social care! Where is the Prime Minister’s long-promised, oven-ready plan for social care?
In conclusion, the Queen’s Speech presented the perfect opportunity to transform our public services and rebuild our economy to create the jobs and build the homes we so desperately need. Instead, we have a Government Queen’s Speech which lets down the people of Slough and our nation.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to be called to speak in support of the Queen’s Speech. There is much to applaud in the Queen’s Speech and we have a very ambitious programme. Today I would like to concentrate my remarks on the particular aspects that will make a difference in my constituency of Great Grimsby.
I am very pleased that there will be a modern Planning Bill in this Session. It is so important that we can build and deliver new homes and infrastructure much more quickly.
I am also pleased that the levelling-up White Paper will soon be published. I often hear representatives from Opposition parties deriding levelling up. They say it is meaningless and just a gimmick. Well, I would like to explain to them what levelling up means.
Since the war and until I was elected in 2019, Great Grimsby was a Labour-voting constituency. Until May 2019, the council had been in Labour hands. What had been the result? The result was years of neglect and decline, and no focus on helping to improve residents’ skills and outcomes. Labour had no local vision and no effective leadership. All that is now changing. I am here to champion Great Grimsby: to support the people of Grimsby to achieve their potential, and to ensure that businesses know that my constituency is a great place to come and invest. That is what levelling up means: improved skills, more jobs, affordable homes and safer streets.
Let me refer to one area of my constituency in particular that I am working with: the East Marsh. The people of East Marsh voted to see change. They want increased home ownership. They want to acquire the skills to enable them to get better jobs in the area. We have a lot of hard work to do, and I am working with the residents of the East Marsh to help them level up their area. The community tell me that no Labour MP or Labour councillor has ever engaged with them. Well, now their Conservative MP and Conservative council are working with them, and together we will level up.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to address Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. This Gracious Speech was an opportunity for the Government to once and for all tackle the appalling housing crisis facing so many across the country and in my constituency. The planning regime is too often stacked in favour of housing developers and property speculators, rather than tackling the acute needs of many of my constituents, which could be met through real social and council housing. Coupled with the disastrous legacy of right to buy in east London, we have an untenable situation, with thousands of homes now in the hands of private owners exploiting their tenants, rather than those homes going to those who need them.
We have across our country one of the worst housing crises in living memory, with millions of homeowners and tenants suffering from dangerous and substandard properties coupled with skyrocketing rents, while young people looking to get on the property ladder face insurmountable obstacles to home ownership. Four years on from the Grenfell tragedy, far from addressing the cladding scandal, the Government have financially crippled tenants by forcing them to pay for protective housing materials that should be a fundamental human right. There is not a single Bill in the Queen’s Speech that either addresses the root causes of the housing crisis or tackles its worst excesses—for example, by preventing the looming wave of evictions and homelessness or reforming the private rented sector—or deals with the ruinous cost of remediation works on buildings with unsafe cladding.
This crisis has been deeply felt in my constituency of Ilford South and right across the Borough of Redbridge, where more than 13,000 households are on the council housing waiting list—the third highest figure in London. That is exacerbated by the fact that in 2019, just 306 affordable homes were built in the borough, despite families being forced to wait on the list for years. For example, those who need a three-bedroom house in Ilford will have to wait 12 years. Furthermore, significant numbers are forced to live in squalid and cramped conditions. It is little wonder that almost 20% of all cases raised with my office by my constituents since I was elected to this House relate to housing—it is by far the most of any issue.
Across our country, more than 11 million people live in properties that have unsafe cladding four years on from the Grenfell tragedy, and that is nothing short of a national scandal. In Ilford South alone, more than 100 constituents have written to me, mainly from Raphael House, Centreway Apartments and the Paragon building, who have had their life savings wiped out because their freeholders have them over a barrel for enforced remediation and waking watch costs.
That is why Labour tabled a motion earlier this year to force a vote to end the cladding scandal. Disgracefully, not only did the Government not bring forward such a measure in the Queen’s Speech, but Government Members voted against protecting homeowners from fire safety costs, which are estimated to run to £10 billion nationally. It is high time that this Government made good on their failed housing policies, stopped cosying up to Tory party donors who are housing developers and instead tackled the problems in the genuine and serious way that my constituents need.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to meet the profound challenges we face after the pain and turmoil of the last year, to address the deep-seated inequalities embedded in our communities throughout a decade of Conservative rule, and to create a plan to rebuild our country, secure the economy and create jobs for today and tomorrow across all parts of our country.
But this Government’s plan was a lost opportunity—a lost opportunity to take steps to invest in and create the secure, green, well-paid jobs of the future and the here and now; a lost opportunity to deliver for families and boost communities such as those in my constituency, from Pontprennau to Tongwynlais; and a lost opportunity to put a plan in place to enable young people across the country to thrive and build the skills they need. That is what my constituents in Cardiff North wanted to see. There was nothing on welfare security beyond this autumn, when business support and the uplift in universal credit will come to an end, and nothing for the excluded 3 million, who have been continuously let down by this Government.
The Government’s plan offers nothing to end scandalous fire and rehire tactics. The Prime Minister told me in November that these were, in his own words, “unacceptable” and that his Government would seek “redress”. That sums up this Prime Minister and his Government’s proposals for the country—always hoping, never delivering, and never addressing the many systemic issues raised in this House, from jobs to health, levelling up and climate action. Always heavy on the spin but light on action.
Rhetoric does not put food on the table for my constituents. It does not create secure jobs that allow people to raise a family without having to take on a second or third job. This Tory Government’s plan neither relieves nor frees people from indignity or inequality. It does not speak, either, to people’s hopes and aspirations to thrive and succeed on their own terms, or to the country and the conditions they want for themselves, their children and the future of their communities. What a wasted opportunity.
Instead, I look closer to home, back in Wales, at the fantastic job that the Welsh Labour Government are doing, with 150,000 jobs protected over the past year, 100,000 proper apprenticeships created, rail back in public ownership, and the public investment of Dŵr Cymru in customers, not profit. I look at a Welsh Labour Government who are delivering free school meals during the holidays, no questions asked; the abolition of prescription charges; the most generous childcare offer across the UK, and the promise of more. What we needed in this plan was real, transformative change that challenged the baked-in inequalities and provided a real way forward.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
We have enjoyed a very interesting debate, with good contributions on all sides, and I thank all my colleagues who have taken part.
The Government have trumpeted the proposed planning reform Bill as a flagship in their legislative programme, but it is a flagship that may yet be scuppered in the docks, because it is nearly as unpopular on the Government Back Benches as it is on our side. There are certainly real problems with the current planning system that need to be addressed. We are not building the level of genuinely affordable housing the country needs, the Government abandoned the Labour Government’s target for net zero housing emissions by 2016, and public trust in planning is declining because the current process is neither fair nor particularly democratic. Communities are frustrated because they feel powerless to influence planning decisions that affect their own neighbourhoods.
However, the Government’s planning reforms not only fail to address those concerns but actively make the situation worse. Changes they have already introduced to permitted development are deregulating the existing system, so councils and communities no longer have the power they need to develop town centres in ways that work for local people, deliver good homes or support the local economy. It is astonishing that the Government ignored the results of their own consultation on permitted development, which roundly condemned the proposals because they disproportionately benefit property interests over local communities and ignore the need for higher standards in housing development.
The planning reform Bill compounds all that with a renewed assault on local democratic control of planning and regeneration, as we have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber this afternoon. The Government are attempting to sell the Bill as the solution to a problem that does not really exist. Ministers say that the planning process is too slow, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others have already told us, the problem with getting homes built is not the planning process but developers who do not build the homes once they have got consent for them.
According to the Conservative-led Local Government Association, over 1.1 million homes that received consent in the past decade have not been built. That is over half of all homes that were approved by council planning departments. The Government have done nothing in an entire decade to incentivise developers to get on and build those desperately needed homes.
One of the problems—we have heard about it from Members on the Government’s own Benches today—is land banking. That is where a developer who gets approval for an application, an outcome that increases the value of the land, then sits on it and waits for land values to rise with a view to selling it on at some future point. It is a lucrative way to make money without the cost of actually building the homes. Instead of a planning Bill that will do nothing about that we need new measures that will incentivise developers to get shovel-ready new homes built far more quickly.
If the Government’s planning Bill is not really about building more homes faster, what is it for? Let us have a look at what they propose to do. Planning will be taken away from democratically elected local councils and handed over to development boards appointed by Ministers in Whitehall. It is very likely that these Conservative quangos will be stuffed full of developers greedily eyeing up local neighbourhoods.
The boards will zone areas for future development. As we have heard this afternoon from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and others, residents living in areas designated for growth or renewal will be astonished to find that they no longer have the right to object to individual planning applications on their own doorsteps. They will have no right to object to tower blocks at the end of the road, to the concreting over of precious green space or to oversized developments that will overburden local infrastructure such roads, GP surgeries or public transport.
The Bill will lead to more situations such as Westferry, in respect of which the Secretary of State admitted breaking the law to help a Conservative party donor to dodge £40 million in tax, as he pushed an application through in the teeth of opposition from the local community, the local council and officials in his own Department. If the Bill goes through, the safeguards that protect local communities will no longer be in the Secretary of State’s way. Residents will be gagged from speaking out while developers will have the right to bulldoze and concrete over local neighbourhoods pretty much at will. It is Westferry on steroids.
The Bill is nothing less than a developers’ charter that silences local communities so that developers can profiteer at local people’s expense. So why are the Government doing this? We have heard this afternoon from their own MPs just how unpopular the changes will be with local residents. The answer is, I am afraid, all too plain to see: according to analysis by openDemocracy, donations to the Conservative party from major developers have increased fourfold since the current Prime Minister assumed office. All that cash was not given altruistically; it was a down payment in expectation of a return. Residents will lose their right to a say over their own neighbourhood so that the Conservatives can reward the developers who increasingly bankroll their party. The Prime Minister is paying back developers by selling out communities.
The Government’s proposals have been criticised by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Local Government Association, the Countryside Alliance and even the National Trust—and no wonder, because what the Government advocate is not how good development works.
I had the privilege of chairing one of the country’s biggest regeneration projects, which delivered more than 5,000 new homes. I know from that experience how regeneration works for everyone only if it is a real and strong partnership between councils, communities and developers. The best developers know that, too: they do not want to develop in the teeth of local opposition; they want to work with the local community and build something that enhances the local area. Good regeneration is about not just bricks and mortar but people. Regeneration cannot be something that is done to communities without their involvement; it must be done with them.
The Government’s proposals on planning entrench sleaze. They are anti-democratic. They further undermine confidence in the planning system. They promote low-quality housing and fail to act on climate change. They do not deliver the level of affordable housing that this country so desperately needs. The Government must think again: if they persist in this brazen attempt to sell out communities to the wealthy developers who bankroll the Conservative party, they will deserve to reap the political whirlwind that will surely follow.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We have had a spirited debate. We have also had a sombre one when hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). I am sure that the hearts of all in the House go out to that little boy, George Hinds, and his family and the community in Heysham for the terrible tragedy that they have suffered.
We also heard from 58 other Back-Bench Members of the House. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) on their plug for the National Brownfield Institute, which I shall be visiting on Friday, as a physical manifestation of our commitment to brownfield first. The national planning policy framework says “brownfield first”; our fiscal stimulus, the £400 billion that we put into brownfield regeneration, financially demonstrates it; and we have instituted practical regulatory levers through our permitted development rights with controls changes to ensure that gentle densification using brownfield sites can most effectively occur.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) not so much on his speech, because it was as predictable as it was inaccurate, but on hanging on to his job on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that the deckchairs on Labour’s Titanic are much sought after, and we congratulate him on hanging on to his. He will make a magnificent and, I am sure, very loyal understudy to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).
At the heart of this Government’s pledge to unite and level up our country is an unwavering commitment not just to build back from the pandemic but to build back fairer, safer and better, and to build back more beautifully, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) both eloquently made clear. That commitment underpins our planning Bill as laid out in the Gracious Speech: a sensible transformation of our 73-year-old planning system helping us build those new homes and the vital infrastructure that communities need.
The simple truth is that our planning system has not been delivering the homes that we need for many years. It can take seven years to agree local housing plans and five years before a spade cuts the ground, and after all that time, and often after a great deal of local concern, nine in every 10 applications get approved anyway. It is also too slow, too complicated and too exclusive, and it needs to change. We will end the glacial pace of planning by mandating every council to have up-to-date local plans, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). With local plans providing greater certainty, more local people will be better engaged to have a say about the design of their neighbourhoods—what is built, where it is built, what it looks like and what infrastructure is required to support it. We will replace our old, analogue planning system with new, map-based systems fit for the digital age, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) asked.
I have heard very clearly the views of many Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland), to name but a few, about the importance of providing good and effective incentives to make sure that developers build out the permissions that they have. We will ensure through our reforms that such incentives are available and that they work.
I am also committed to neighbourhood plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) raised. We want to make sure that they are rolled out into areas that are less rural, and into areas that extend further north where we do not see enough of them, so that they can be effective levers for local people to plan additional homes in their neighbourhoods.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) rightly mentioned, we will never solve the generational problem of demand outstripping supply without dramatically increasing the number of homes built each year. We made good progress before covid-19, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear: in the year to 2020, approximately 244,000 homes were built—the seventh consecutive year in which net supply increased. That is a fantastic foundation for us to build towards our ambitious target of delivering 300,000 homes a year.
That progress is underscored by the £12 billion that we are investing in affordable housing—the highest single funding commitment for more than a decade, which will deliver 180,000 new affordable homes, of which 32,000 will be for social rent. Approximately half of those properties will be available through our new shared ownership model, allowing people to buy additional shares in their home, because two thirds of people in social housing aspire to buy their own home. It is this Government who will help them to realise their ambition.
Building back fairer means creating a true property-owning democracy in which everyone has a stake in their own home, their community and their country. That is why the Chancellor implemented the stamp duty holiday and extended it earlier this year; why we have brought forward the new mortgage guarantee scheme, helping thousands of first-time buyers; and why last Thursday we reached a milestone in turning generation rent into generation buy when the 300,000th Help to Buy home was sold to Sam Legg from Asfordby, who is just 19 years old. He was able to buy his first home with his partner Megan—something that, in Sam’s words,
“would not have been possible without Help to Buy.”
This Government are proud to be backing Sam, Megan and millions of people like them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), in realising their dreams of home ownership. We did it through Help to Buy and we are doing it through the right to buy and through our first home scheme, which will help first-time buyers to purchase their new home in their local community with a discount of at least 30%, and in some places up to 50%.
That is levelling up in action, extending home ownership and the prosperity that it brings to as many people as possible in all parts of our country, because we are proud of our country; we like our people. We do not despise it and despise them, as the Labour party always seems to. We want to put up homes for people like Sam and Megan so that they have a future. The Labour party wants to pull down statues to heroes like Churchill because it is fixated on the past.
We must recognise that there are some people who have found it difficult to get on with their lives. Nearly four years have passed since the tragedy of the Grenfell fire, and we owe it to the victims, the bereaved and their families to ensure that this country has one of the most rigorous and robust safety regimes in the world. The Gracious Speech confirmed that we will soon introduce the building safety Bill, delivering the greatest improvements to building safety in a generation.
Crucially, the Bill will place clear legal duties on those who build and manage new homes. It will establish a building safety regulator with robust enforcement powers, which will oversee new building work to ensure that risks are properly managed. First and foremost, we will put residents at the centre of the new system by creating a statutory residents’ panel.
The Bill will also restore confidence to leaseholders. We have always made it clear that building owners and the industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. Where they have not stepped up, we have stepped in, investing £5.1 billion to remediate unsafe cladding on high-rise buildings. We have also instituted a generous finance scheme to support remediation on lower-rise buildings. It is an absolute priority of the Government, and we will bring forward our proposals for this as soon as we possibly can.
Ours is an unashamedly ambitious agenda set out in the Gracious Speech. We will build back fairer and safer and better. We will confront the building safety issues that no Government have dared to tackle and we will create a robust world-class system. We will level up communities the length and the breadth of our country. We have the overwhelming support of the people across the country from Accrington to Asfordby, from Hastings to Hartlepool, with the people behind us and the future before us. Brick by brick, home by home, we will build back Britain better.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 2 and 3 together.
Financial Assistance to Industry
Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Paul Scully relating to financial assistance to industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.
That the Motion in the name of Grant Shapps relating to financial assistance to industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Employment
That the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 17 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Food
That the draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 23 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 18 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Damages
That the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 25 February, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)
That the draft Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 11 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Plant Health
That the draft Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 25 March, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Adjournment: Whitsun and Summer
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House at its rising on Thursday 27 May 2021, do adjourn until Monday 7 June 2021; and at its rising on Thursday 22 July 2021, do adjourn until Monday 6 September 2021.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Petition
Anderson School (Chigwell)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [R]
I am grateful to be given the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to raise a matter about which I have been concerned since before I was elected to this House. For the sake of the record, let me say that I was a district councillor and a county councillor for Chigwell in Essex, in the constituency of Epping Forest, before I was privileged to join these Benches. The Anderson School is a specialist school for autistic children and young people situated in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing). Again, for the record, let me say that I became a governor of the school for a short period to actively help turn around its future. It was appropriate for me to stand down as a governor when I was selected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for South West Hertfordshire, and it remains one of my few regrets that I had to relinquish that role when I moved to Hertfordshire. I know that my right hon. Friend has consistently shared my concerns. She has been in correspondence about this matter for well over a year with Essex County Council, the Anderson Foundation, the National Autistic Society and the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Berridge of The Vale of Catmose.
The matter has become sufficiently serious to require the attention of the House because if the National Autistic Society is permitted to go ahead with its plans to hand over the school buildings to the London Borough of Redbridge, the Anderson School as initially imagined will be destroyed, and with it the hopes and dreams of many autistic young people.
The Anderson School is not an ordinary special educational needs establishment. It was designed and built for a very specific cohort of people, for whom Essex County Council had identified a need that could not be met in any other school. It is not an exaggeration to say that the school is a pioneer in the provision of opportunities for autistic children who have the potential for high academic achievement but whose mental health issues would make it impossible for them to flourish in a mainstream school. I am led to believe that most of the children who attended the school were heading for university, college or meaningful paid employment. It is the only school of its kind in the area—indeed, it is one of very few in the whole country. It is about to be destroyed because of a series of unfortunate decisions taken by the National Autistic Society.
The Anderson Foundation, a charitable foundation, raised the funds to build this pioneering school on the land of the former Tottenham Hotspur training ground at Chigwell. The land on which the school is built is green belt, and the protection of green belt is very important to the planning authority, Epping Forest District Council, situated as it is between the urban sprawl of London and the Essex countryside. Strict conditions were therefore attached to the granting of planning permission, in the form of a section 106 agreement. That agreement specifies that the school is to be operated for children and young people in the very specific cohort that I have described.
The Anderson Foundation collaborated with Essex County Council, specialist charities, engineers and constructors in the design of the school, resulting in state-of-the-art, first-class provision. Once the school was occupied, its ownership was transferred to the National Autistic Society, which paid the Anderson Foundation £6 million. That is approximately one third of the actual value of the land and buildings, so the NAS benefited from a gift of some £12 million. The NAS was thus given a wonderful opportunity to run the school for the benefit of these highly achieving autistic children. In my view, it failed.
The Anderson School opened for its first pupils in September 2017. Within a year, safeguarding and staffing issues became obvious. Several colleagues have received complaints from their constituents about the way their children were treated while in the care of the NAS. Ofsted carried out an inspection in March 2020 and deemed the school to be failing, and in April 2020 the NAS closed the school. The incompetence of the NAS in not in question; it admits its failings and it admits that it could not run the school as it ought to have been run. It was decided that a new provider should be sought to run the school, and that such a provider should be put in place as quickly as possible, in order to restore the opportunity that had been lost to the Anderson students.
The power to appoint a new provider appears to lie with the NAS, because it owns the school. My colleagues and I question that assumption. It is difficult to understand why the Department for Education considers it acceptable that an organisation that, by its own admission, was a failure at operating a school should be considered fit to be the sole judge of who should succeed it as provider. If the NAS was not fit to run the school, in my view it is not fit to decide who should run it next.
The NAS put the contract for operating the Anderson School out to tender approximately a year ago. The tender process was carried out under a veil of secrecy, with neither Essex County Council nor the Anderson Foundation consulted. The NAS refused to disclose which organisations had submitted a tender, claiming commercial confidentiality for the tender process. It chose a preferred bidder but refused to disclose its identity, again claiming commercial confidentiality. I was shocked to discover that the preferred bidder is the London Borough of Redbridge. The NAS has chosen the London Borough of Redbridge. The NAS deemed it to have offered “best value” because it was a government body, and therefore a very good tenant, and was willing to pay the significant rent requested.
The problem is—this is the point that I believe has been totally misunderstood by ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education—that the London Borough of Redbridge does not intend to operate the Anderson School for academically high-achieving autistic children. What Redbridge wants to do is to use the buildings at the Anderson School to decant the children with a wide range of special needs, some of whom are autistic, from two existing special needs schools in Redbridge—in other words, we will lose provision in the area. We can all understand the position of Redbridge. It has been presented with a golden opportunity. It can move its children, who have a range of complex special needs, from the old school buildings that it currently operates into the new building in Chigwell.
The land on which the two current schools stand is prime development land. Redbridge desperately needs to build more homes for its residents. In one fell swoop, Redbridge can rehouse its special needs schools, make a potentially large profit by selling the land and provide much needed additional housing. Who can blame it for using this financial strength to outbid everyone else for the use of the Anderson School buildings? Redbridge’s motives may be admirable but it should not be allowed to pursue its plans by destroying the Anderson School.
It is simply unacceptable that the NAS should be allowed to hand the Anderson School over to Redbridge. The NAS has openly told officials at the DFE that its intention in handing the school over to Redbridge is to secure the best financial return for the charity. We all appreciate that, as a charity, the NAS has an obligation to fulfil its charitable purposes and to maximise its financial resources, but which comes first? It surely cannot be right for the NAS to sacrifice the Anderson School by handing the buildings over to Redbridge simply to maximise its profits. Making money for the charity is surely a means to an end, not an end in itself. The NAS is not fulfilling its charitable purpose. It is letting down the academically high-achieving autistic children it ought to be serving.
To put it simply, if the plans of the NAS to enter into a contract with the London Borough of Redbridge are allowed to proceed, the buildings will still bear the name of the Anderson School, but the Anderson School will no longer exist. It will have been destroyed by the incompetence and the avarice of the NAS.
In a letter dated 6 April to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Berridge, stated that the Department for Education was satisfied with the current plans of the NAS and that the NAS
“is now in a position to offer a lease to the successful party”.
That is simply not true. The NAS is not in a position to offer a lease to Redbridge because Redbridge cannot, and will not, comply with the terms of the section 106 agreement. Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council have refused to amend the section 106 agreement. They are adhering to the principle that planning permission was granted specifically for the purpose of educating a narrow cohort of autistic children. It was not granted for the purpose of educating special needs children in general.
The Minister’s colleague goes on to say in that letter that Redbridge is
“unable to operate any provision on the former Anderson site until the Section 106 agreement is amended”—
“until”, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister’s colleague did not say “unless”—she said “until”. The DFE has made the assumption that the NAS will be able to appeal against the decision of Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council not to amend the section 106 agreement. Such a stance is not only arrogant in the extreme; it is undemocratic.
Epping Forest District Council and Essex County Council are democratically elected bodies that act in the best interest of their whole community. It is simply wrong for the NAS, the Minister’s Department and the London Borough of Redbridge to cast aside their concerns, to ignore the aims of their education policy and to override their decisions. The section 106 agreement was put in place only a few years ago for a very good purpose. It should not be overturned simply to maximise the financial position of the NAS. It is scandalous that a newly built school has been left lying empty for a full academic year. It is appalling that the NAS plans would reduce the general capacity of special educational needs education in the Essex area by 78 school places. It is tragic that simply in order to maximise its own financial advantage the NAS wants to hand over the Anderson School to Redbridge Council.
Redbridge simply wants to use the buildings. It would completely destroy the ethos and the purpose of the Anderson School, and with it the hopes and dreams of the children it was built to benefit. I fully understand the limitations of the Minister’s powers to take action in this matter, but I implore him to intervene in whatever way he can to break the impasse between the various organisations involved in this terribly difficult situation, and to help to restore to the autistic children for whom it was built the opportunity of a bright future, which was the vision of the Anderson Foundation.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) on securing this important debate about the closure of the Anderson School in Chigwell, an independent school for young people with autism. I have listened very carefully to his powerful speech and will ensure that the very serious points that he makes are taken on board by the Department.
As my hon. Friend said, the Anderson School opened in 2017 and was approved for 55 pupils, aged between 11 and 19, whose special educational needs relate to autism spectrum disorder, but who are of broadly mainstream academic ability. The cost of the site and the building was funded by the Anderson Foundation and gifted to the National Autistic Society. At the Anderson School’s first inspection in May 2018, Ofsted judged the school’s overall effectiveness as requiring improvement, with two independent school standards relating to teaching and to leadership and management not being met. In accordance with the Department’s procedure, the school submitted an action plan to the Department setting out how it was going to address the unmet independent school standards. That plan was not considered acceptable in July 2018, and subsequently a new plan was accepted in December 2018.
In October 2019, the Department commissioned an additional Ofsted inspection to assess progress against the agreed action plan. The school did not meet all the standards expected, with Ofsted reporting that the standards relating to welfare, health and safety of pupils, and leadership and management were not met. A further action plan was submitted, but was deemed not to be acceptable in January 2020. Ofsted undertook a final inspection of the school in March 2020, as my hon. Friend said, and found the school to be inadequate. At that stage, before further regulatory action could be taken, the National Autistic Society announced the closure of the school, effective from the end of the summer 2020 term.
Following a thorough consideration of all the complaints from parents that have been submitted to the Department, the Department concluded that in the main the complaints appear to have been investigated appropriately at local level. Essex County Council has shared with the Department the results of its investigations and most of the complaints received triggered no further action, as they did not meet the appropriate thresholds. The conclusion was that two incidents were considered to have the potential to warrant referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency. That is consistent with Essex County Council’s re-examination of the complaints.
The Department is satisfied that there is no evidence in the complaints that we have seen to suggest that the problems at Anderson School were systemic to the National Autistic Society’s proprietorship rather than localised to the school itself. The National Autistic Society runs seven schools, four of which are independent. Of those, one is rated outstanding, five are rated good, and one is as yet unrated as it opened only in January 2020. Although the National Autistic Society owns the site, it will no longer be the education provider. It is in the process, as my hon. Friend said, of determining who is awarded the lease in line with its charitable obligations. The body that acquires the lease will have to go through all the standard relevant approval mechanisms before opening new education provisions.
I assure my hon. Friend that Department officials have been in regular contact with the National Autistic Society since the decision was taken to close the Anderson School and following representations from Essex County Council about the future of the site, although now that the school has closed the Department’s role is legally very limited. It is for the National Autistic Society to award the lease in a way that is consistent with the law governing charities, planning laws, and agreements with the original provider of the site. In conversations with the National Autistic Society, officials have received assurances that it has sought the necessary technical and legal advice on the process for awarding a lease and has been assured that it was fully in line with charity law and guidance issued by the Charity Commission.
The Department for Education is the regulator of independent schools in England. The Department registers independent schools, it sets the independent schools standards that those schools must meet, and it acts when schools fail to meet those standards. Due diligence checks are carried out on the proposed proprietors of any school; as part of that process, Ofsted is automatically commissioned to inspect the school prior to its opening and to come to a judgment on whether the school is meeting the independent schools standards. That is a rigorous process to ensure that the school meets the statutory requirements set by the Department. All owners of registered independent schools must meet all the standards at all times.
Registered independent schools are inspected on a regular cycle by inspectors from Ofsted or the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and the Department can commission additional inspections—for example, when there is a serious complaint or notification of a serious incident at a school. If the Department considers that any of the standards are not being met by a school, it may issue a notice to the proprietor of the school requiring the production of an action plan. If the school does not submit an action plan, or if the plan is rejected or inadequately implemented, the Department can take enforcement action, which means either imposing a relevant restriction on the proprietor of the school, or removing the school from the register of independent schools. It is always our aim to safeguard the education and wellbeing of children, so where schools do not meet the standards they must improve quickly or face enforcement action, which may result in closure.
Although the Department does not have a claim on the school site or a role in determining which provider the National Autistic Society chooses to award the lease to, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is working closely with Essex County Council through new free school provision to ensure that there is suitable and sufficient special educational needs provision in Essex. That includes two proposed free schools specialising in meeting the needs of pupils with autism spectrum disorder—Chatten Free School in Whitham, opening in September 2021, and The Hawthorns in Chelmsford, which is working toward opening in 2022-23. A new independent special educational needs and disabilities provision school opened in April 2021, The Tower School in Epping, which also offers additional places for children with autism spectrum disorder in Essex and the neighbouring area.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for calling this important Adjournment debate. As I said at the start of my response, I will ensure that his concerns and those of other right hon. and hon. Members are reflected on by the Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (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 |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Hywel Williams |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (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 |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Hywel Williams |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (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) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (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) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Caribbean Development Bank (Tenth replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2021
Draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Tenth Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021.
Nigel Adams
There is no greater pleasure than serving under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The two orders will permit the United Kingdom Government to make financial contributions up to the stated values to two multilateral development banks, namely the Caribbean Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank. I will set out the case for supporting those institutions and provide more details on the orders and the impact that our contributions will have.
The MDBs are at the heart of the international development system. They are important partners in delivering the UK’s development, prosperity and security objectives as a force for good in the world. The Caribbean and Asian Development Banks have deep local knowledge, and are highly trusted by the Governments who borrow from them. They play a key role in supporting nations to become more self-sufficient through economic growth and increased resilience, including by strengthening cross-border trade and regional integration. They also contribute to solving global challenges, such as climate change and health crises. Our proposed contributions to those banks demonstrate the UK’s deep and ongoing commitment to the multilateral system, as set out in the integrated review.
The first order under consideration permits the UK Government to provide up to £21 million over four years to the tenth replenishment of the special development fund, or SDF. The SDF is used by the Caribbean Development Bank to provide grants, low-interest loans and technical assistance to the Caribbean region’s poorest countries. The UK is one of the founding members of the bank, which is an important partner in the region. Nine of the 11 countries that receive SDF financing are Commonwealth nations.
Caribbean states are highly vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters. They are also heavily dependent on the tourism sector, which has been especially hit hard by the covid-19 pandemic, having accounted for 15.5% of GDP and 2.4 million jobs in 2018. Funding from the SDF will play a critical role in supporting economic recovery and strengthening resilience and preparedness for future crises. Over the next four years, 180,000 students are expected to benefit from educational projects, and more than 60,000 households are expected to have improved sanitation and water supply.
Negotiations for the tenth replenishment of the SDF concluded in February. Through the negotiations, the UK secured an agreement from the bank to set its first-ever climate finance target: to use 25% to 30% of its own resources for climate change mitigation and adaption. An overall financing envelope of $383 million over four years was agreed. Our pledge will maintain the UK’s position as the second largest donor to the SDF, with a burden share of 14%.
The second order under consideration permits the UK Government to provide up £117,640,000 over four years to the twelfth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund, or ADF. The ADF is used by the Asian Development Bank to provide grants and technical assistance to the poorest countries in the region. The UK has been a member of the bank since it was founded in 1966 and has contributed to every replenishment of the ADF since its establishment.
As set out previously in the House by the Foreign Secretary, the Asia-Pacific region is critically important to the UK. The Asian Development Bank is a key partner in that context. I met the bank’s president, Asakawa, only last week to discuss the bank’s work on climate change and financing for covid-19 vaccines. I also had the pleasure of meeting him in Manilla last year, where I heard first-hand about the bank’s economic response to covid-19.
Prior to the pandemic, the Asia-Pacific region was making good progress on sustaining economic growth and poverty reduction. However, many countries continue to face significant challenges. For example, at least 10% of people in the countries that receive grants from the ADF live in extreme poverty. Many of the countries supported by the ADF are small island developing states in the Pacific, whose reliance on tourism has led to significant economic setbacks as a result of the pandemic. They are also highly vulnerable to climate change. For example, rising sea levels could result in Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands becoming uninhabitable by 2050.
The ADF also provides significant levels of funding to fragile states, including Afghanistan. That funding is critical for ensuring stability and security across the region.
Over the past four years, the ADF has funded the construction of more than 1,000 km of roads. It has supported more than 900,000 women and children to benefit from new and improved infrastructure, and strengthened the resilience of more than 1.7 million people to climate change and natural disasters.
Negotiations for the twelfth replenishment of the ADF concluded last September. Through those negotiations, the UK secured important commitments, including an increase in the share of resources used for climate mitigation and adaptation from 23% to 35%, in direct support of our COP26 goals. An overall envelope of just over $4 billion over four years was agreed, and 42% of that will be financed by the bank’s own resources, with the remainder covered by pledges from donors. The UK’s pledge will maintain our position as the second largest non-regional donor to the ADF, with a burden share of 5.4%.
In conclusion, the Caribbean and Asian Development Banks remain important strategic partners for the UK. Our proposed contributions to the SDF and the ADF will allow those banks to support vulnerable countries to recover from the pandemic crisis, tackle climate change and reduce poverty. Those contributions will also strengthen the UK’s influence over those banks, which are well aligned with our objectives and values. They will support the delivery of the sustainable development goals and our ambitions as president of the G7 and COP26, and as Chair of the Commonwealth. I welcome this opportunity to hear Members’ views on the orders, which I commend to the Committee.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The Opposition support the transfer of funds to the Asian and Caribbean Development Banks, but I have some questions and points to put to the Minister.
We welcome the funds to the Caribbean Development Bank. Helpfully, the explanatory memorandum has set out what the sums of money will do. However, four years ago, during the previous replenishment, Ministers made it clear that they were approaching the bank with a degree of caution, and as such a quarter of the money was set aside as a performance incentive. Can the Minister explain whether those performances were met, that the money was disbursed and, looking to the future, does the new agreement contain any performance incentive? Given that the order provides for an increase on the previous replenishment, if only modest, can the Minister explain if that is part of a more concerted shift in priorities?
Funding to support the UK’s priorities, such as poverty reduction, girls’ education and climate change are welcome, particularly given the scale of the Government’s cuts to aid more generally. It would be useful to know from the Minister what specific improvements he intends the funds to achieve. How does that compare with previous contributions?
We know that a Department for International Development review into multilateral development in 2016 said that the Caribbean Development Bank, especially its special development fund was
“still performing well below the standard DFID expects, and below its own targets”.
It cited concerns about transparency and project delays, and said that a DFID team would be embedded in the bank to support future delivery and oversight. Now that DFID has been disbanded, can the Minister tell us how the UK will use its influence to ensure that the progress and development outcomes of the bank continue to be carried forward to future years and directed towards the world’s most marginalised?
On the draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021, we welcome the fact that funding will be used to support countries to meet international climate goals, such as the Paris agreement. Those are important objectives, because we know that many Asian coastal cities are exposed to flood and typhoon risk—caused by dramatic increases in heat and humidity. That means that, without adaptation and mitigation, societies and economies will be increasingly vulnerable to climate risk.
DFID’s review into multilateral aid in 2016 was positive about the bank, and judged that it performed well on risk management, anti-corruption and transparency. However, it highlighted a few areas of concern, in particular, it said that the bank could do more to ensure that poor and vulnerable groups benefit from its programmes and to support projects in fragile and conflict-affected areas. What have the Government done since the last replenishment to ensure that the bank improves in the areas where it fell short, and do they have any plans for further such reviews?
I was surprised to see mention of
“more resources for…girls’ education”
given that that long-term DFID commitment was recently reversed when it was discovered that the Government intend to make cuts of 40% to the UK aid budget for girls’ education. Does the Minister share my concern about the far-reaching consequences of that for the world’s most marginalised children, especially girls, at a time when they most need our support?
Both replenishments are increases made at a time when the aid budget for bilateral projects and programmes is being slashed. That seems to contradict a letter sent by the Foreign Secretary to the International Development Committee, which said
“bilateral programmes, with their advantages of effectiveness, local ownership and strategic impact will be the default”.
Can the Minister say whether that is still the position of the Department?
In the light of the Government’s devastating cuts to the aid budget, will the Minister consider reversing that decision or put it to a vote in Parliament?
Nigel Adams
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. As the world recovers from the covid-19 crisis, strong regional financial institutions, such as the Caribbean and Asian Development Banks, have never been more needed. Our contributions to the SDF and ADF will support the delivery of the UK’s development, prosperity and security objectives. As well as funding key development projects, those contributions will also reinforce the UK’s influence over the banks, which will allow us to drive them to be as efficient and effective as they can be. By supporting the orders, the Government maintain and further the UK’s position as a global leader in international efforts to achieve sustainable poverty reduction, climate resilience and international security.
The hon. Lady asked whether the recent temporary changes to the official development assistance budget will be reversed, and the answer to that is no. Those are temporary measures, and I assure that we will remain a world-leading aid donor and across Government we will spend more than £10 billion this year to fight poverty, tackle climate change and improve global health. The portfolio agreed by the Foreign Secretary will focus our investment and expertise on issues where the UK can make the most difference and achieve maximum strategic coherence, impact and value for money.
We will sustain our commitment to the world’s poorest people and, as the third biggest international donor, the UK will spend more on international aid in 2021 as a proportion of our national income than the majority of the G7. As the recent Statistics on International Development show, the UK is already one of the largest donors to the international covid-19 response. We have made £1.3 billion of new public commitments to counter the health, humanitarian and socioeconomic impacts of covid.
The hon. Lady asked how we assess the effectiveness of MDBs. We conduct annual reviews of all of our MDB contributions. The ADF and the SDF scored an “A” in 2020, which means they are assessed to be meeting expectations in terms of their outputs. The ADB was independently assessed by the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network in 2018 and was rated “highly satisfactory” or “satisfactory” across all eight organisational performance measures. A mid-term review will take place next year, when the banks will report on progress to all donors. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office uses our country network to assess bank impact on the ground and to identify improvements where they are needed. The hon. Lady should rest assured that we hold the MDBs to account on budgetary efficiency and we take a strong line on staff and board member compensation, which drives for further efficiencies. The 2017-18 Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network found ADB’s administrative expenses to be cost-effective and transparent compared to other MDBs. That oversight and scrutiny does work.
The CDB has higher administrative costs relative to its operations, which is partly due to its smaller size compared to other MDBs, but those costs have fallen significantly in recent years, and we expect that improvement to continue as the CDB continues to seek further efficiencies.
I commend the orders to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021.—(Nigel Adams.)
Draft Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard would be most grateful if Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 22 March this year. This statutory instrument was brought forward using powers under the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020.
The trade and co-operation agreement that we secured with the EU requires that new and efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements be developed between the connected UK and EU markets. The new arrangements were a key objective of the UK during the negotiations for the agreement. Efficient cross-border trade can lower bills for UK consumers and support our decarbonisation and security-of-supply objectives.
The agreement sets out the principles for the design of the new trading arrangements, but the detailed technical procedures still need to be developed by the transmission system operators. Those, collectively, are the companies that own and operate electricity interconnectors that connect the UK to neighbouring markets, and the electricity system operator that runs our onshore electricity network. The development of the new arrangements will need to take place in co-operation with the relevant electricity market operators, which are organisations that operate marketplaces for the buying and selling of electricity.
The agreement details the timeframes for transmission system operators to develop technical procedures for the new arrangements, noting that new arrangements should be made operational by April 2022. It is therefore important that the development of the new arrangements takes place quickly and efficiently. To support that development, this draft statutory instrument imposes duties on electricity transmission system operators in Great Britain, with the co-operation of relevant electricity market operators, to develop the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements for the day-ahead market period.
The instrument will also grant the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets the ability to regulate transmission system operators and relevant electricity market operators in their development of the new trading arrangements, to ensure that they meet their obligations under the regulations. The instrument will further enable Ofgem to make decisions on the allocation and recovery of costs incurred in the development of the new arrangements.
The new arrangements will also be used for trade between Great Britain and the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. Energy is largely a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but my Department has developed the draft instrument in close collaboration with officials in the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation. Input from our colleagues in Northern Ireland ensures that the instrument will support a UK-wide approach to the development of the new arrangements.
It is estimated that the new, efficient trading arrangements could bring significant benefit to consumers. Any delay will of course come at a cost to consumers. Therefore, it is important that the draft regulations are approved to ensure that the transmission system operators develop the new arrangements within the timeframe set by the agreement, so that the benefits can be realised as early as possible. The instrument is one part of a programme of works to deliver the new arrangements.
On 3 February 2021, the Secretary of State provided guidance to those organisations to encourage early action to support implementation of the agreement, while the draft regulations were still being prepared. This instrument follows that guidance to provide a regulatory underpinning for the initial development of the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements.
Since this statutory instrument was laid in both Houses, the numbering of the provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement has been updated following the final legal revision process. A correction slip has been laid in respect of the draft instrument to update the cross-references of the agreement.
If required, the Government will prepare further legislation for the operation of the new trading arrangements, once they are developed. I assure the Committee that such legislation will be laid before Parliament to ensure that it, too, may be scrutinised appropriately. Therefore, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have no issue with the thrust of the proposals in the draft SI. They are sensible in terms of the regulation and ordering of the passage of electricity both ways through interconnectors, so that the UK can trade across interconnectors, and all the countries associated with them, coherently. I might add that, of course, not all UK interconnectors go to EU countries. Although the arrangements are essentially a partnership between the UK and EU countries, one interconnector goes to Norway, which is not a member of the EU. I understand, however, that it falls within these rules as they stand for the purpose of its end of interconnectors for the future.
This SI, however, is shrouded in such a huge mosquito cloud of acronyms that it is difficult to understand exactly what is going on. I think I understand what the proposals purport to do overall, and I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions, on the basis of my understanding, about how other actions the UK may now be undertaking fit in with this particular proposal. To give hon. Members a brief example of what I am talking about, I shall take a paragraph at random from the explanatory memorandum, which states:
“Ahead of this, the United Kingdom secured the TCA with the European Union. Title VIII (Energy) and Annex ENER-4 of the TCA set out requirements for the development of new cross-border electricity trading arrangements at the day-ahead market timeframe that are distinct and separate from those established under CACM.”
I am sure we are all clear about that, are we not. What I take from that paragraph, and the rest of the explanatory memorandum, is that this SI is about cross-border trading. It is about ensuring that cross-border trading is regulated and organised in a way that is not only advantageous for prices, but is advantageous for the judicious use of capacity in interconnectors. It organises the day-ahead market in a much better way than would be possible were, for example, people to be auctioning both capacity and flow on different occasions.
As I am sure hon. Members will be aware, if a flow is secured, but not capacity, and capacity is then squeezed as the day-ahead market comes to closing point, the prices will go up substantially; what seemed to be a good deal from an arbitrage point of view then turns out to not be the case. In the long term, that can lead to the production of electricity at disadvantageous prices as an alternative in-country, when an interconnector arrangement would have been better, all things considered.
In those terms, the regulations seem a very sensible and wise move to take, as they essentially align the UK with arrangements across the EU, both in terms of its capacity considerations and arrangements for electricity flow. I think that is a good thing, and clearly the Government do as well. However, we need to understand that that means that interconnector traffic will now not simply be a question of deciding how much capacity—how much flow they can get down it—someone can use in their interconnector, possibly at the cost of other interconnectors in operation, but will actually be subject to a co-operative arrangement, so far as interconnector practice is concerned.
Assuming that is the case, I am concerned about what the UK will do about its interconnector exemptions policy. As I am sure hon. Members will know, someone could avoid the obligations that came along with the previous interconnector cap and floor regime, or those sort of regimes, by proposing to exempt an interconnector from all those rules and regulations and joint trading arrangements. In the instance of cap and floor, interconnector operators get a minimum amount of income for their capacity and flow, but they have to give income back beyond a certain point, so they have a stable investment environment; but if they want to make a lot of money out of an interconnector and wish to take the downsides with the upsides, they may apply for an exemption in order to—so they may think—make their interconnector work to their advantage.
The exemptions regime, which was previously conducted on both sides of the interconnector end jointly, has now come to an end, obviously, with the UK leaving the EU. Previous hearings on exemptions, which were carried out jointly by the UK and its EU partner states, have now come to an end, but the UK has not yet established its own exemptions regime, so far as I understand it. That is potentially important, because what a UK exemption regime will look like could be very important to the extent to which interconnector operators consider that they should reasonably be bound by the provisions outlined in the draft regulations—regulations which, as the Minister said, are subject to a number of detailed, technical further considerations to work out exactly how the scheme will operate and what its ins and outs are likely to be. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, although a specific UK exemptions regime is not in place at the moment, work is under way to put one in place in the not too distant future. I assume that to be case.
That question is not academic, because at present, there are no fewer than four interconnectors either operating or proposed to operate between the UK and France, the total capacity of which actually comes to more than the total amount of interconnection that the UK has at present with all other EU states. One might say that the passage of interconnection between the UK and France is very crowded. We are potentially in a position in which the only way to make money out of an interconnector between the UK and France is to, as it were, eat the lunch of other interconnectors, rather than by actually operating according to the sort of rational arrangements set out in the draft regulations. Two of the interconnectors that are either operational or proposed between the UK and France are either applying to be exempt or are exempt, and two are not. Depending on the UK’s exemption regime, those non-exempt interconnectors could have their lunch eaten much more efficiently by those exempt interconnectors in the future. Alternatively, they may even work together at a lower possible income level, but nevertheless under a organised and co-operative arrangement that actually secures the two-way traffic in the most felicitous way for both countries—not necessarily in the interest of any one interconnected company, but in the interests of those countries.
Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made on the UK exemption regime? Will it be aligned with the provisions in the SI, or does the Minister have plans to make it far less collaborative and co-operative than the regulations before the Committee suggest?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his valuable and insightful contribution. To confirm, Norway is not included in the regulations—separate discussions are ongoing with them at the moment, which, unsurprisingly, look very similar. I am happy to keep him updated in due course on how those are progressing.
On the question of the exemptions regime, the best answer that I can give is probably, “May I come back to the hon. Gentleman on that ongoing area?” I am happy to write to him with more details in the near future. He challenged me last time on a particularly tricky question, which I think we managed to fulfil, and although this is less tricky, I would not want to give him insufficient information today—I would rather write and provide him with the full picture so that he is reassured in due course.
The regulations will oblige our transmission systems operators to develop now and at pace new efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements. As I said, those are really important to supporting our decarbonisation, our security-of-supply objectives and, crucially, to providing economic benefits to all our customers. The new regime should be operational by April 2020. That is quite a challenging deadline, but adherence to it will enable us to realise as early as possible those benefits to consumers of the arrangements. We are very minded that we have a clear set of deadlines to meet to help everyone to get to that point. On that basis, I recommend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2021 - (18 May 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. First, let me ask you to switch any electronic devices off or to silent mode. I remind you that Mr Speaker does not allow tea or coffee to be consumed during sittings of this Committee. This is really difficult, but you have to try to observe the social distancing arrangements and sit only in the places that are marked. I ask you to wear a face mask when you are not speaking, unless you are medically exempt. Space is a bit tight in this room, so people just have to observe social distancing and try to make it as easy for people as possible as they are moving around.
Today we will consider, first, the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions, before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take all those matters without debate. Before we hear evidence from our first panel, we will have a short briefing from the Parliamentary Digital Service on cyber-security, which is of particular concern to members of this Committee because we are dealing with matters relating to the police and criminal law. The programme motion was discussed on Monday by the Programming Sub-Committee for this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 10.30 am The National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 11.25 am The Police Superintendents’ Association; The Police Federation of England and Wales Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 2.45 pm The Centre for Justice Innovation; The Centre for Social Justice Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 3.30 pm Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 4.15 pm Local Government Association; The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 4.45 pm Doughty Street Chambers; Garden Court Chambers Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 5.15 pm Youth Justice Board Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 5.45 pm The Bar Council Thursday 20 May Until no later than 12.15 pm National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders; Unlock Thursday 20 May Until no later than 1 pm The Victims’ Commissioner Thursday 20 May Until no later than 2.45 pm The Children’s Society; Community Justice Scotland Thursday 20 May Until no later than 3.30 pm The Association of Youth Offending Team Managers Thursday 20 May Until no later than 4.15 pm The Law Society Thursday 20 May Until no later than 5 pm Howard League for Penal Reform; Criminal Justice Alliance; Women in Prison; Sentencing Academy Thursday 20 May Until no later than 5.45 pm Professor Colin Clark, University of the West of Scotland; Amnesty International UK; Liberty
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 May;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 May;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 June;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 June;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 June;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 June;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 June;
(j) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clause 11, Schedule 2, Clauses 12 to 42, Schedule 3, Clause 43, Schedule 4, Clauses 44 to 47, Schedule 5, Clauses 48 to 51, Schedule 6, Clauses 52 to 66, Schedule 7, Clauses 67 to 73, Schedule 8, Clause 74, Schedule 9, Clauses 75 to 97, Schedule 10, Clauses 98 to 100, Schedule 11, Clauses 101 to 127, Schedule 12, Clause 128, Schedule 13, Clause 129, Schedule 14, Clauses 130 to 134, Schedule 15, Clause 135, Schedule 16, Clauses 136 to 156, Schedule 17, Clauses 157 to 161, Schedule 18, Clauses 162 to 168, Schedule 19, Clauses 169 to 171, Schedule 20, Clauses 172 to 176, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 24 June.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I are both delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I welcome to the Committee my hon. Friends, on the Government Benches, and hon. Members across the room. I am sure that we can expect some lively debates in the days and weeks of scrutiny ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Victoria Atkins.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to members by email and made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Victoria Atkins.)
The Chair
If everyone is agreed, we will go into a private session for the briefing on cyber-security and to discuss the lines of questioning. Time is very tight, so we will allow five minutes for the presentation and, if there are any obvious questions, a few minutes for that. If people have things that they want to follow up, I ask them to do that separately with the PDS; otherwise we are just eating into the Committee’s time.
The Chair
I want to check how members of the respective parties want to handle the questions. We have our first panel until 10.30 am; they will all be giving evidence by video today. It is slightly harder since we are not sitting in our usual formed lines, but my assumption is that I should simply alternate between members of the respective parties and allow enough time for the Minister and the Front-Bench spokespersons to come in towards the end. Are you happy with that?
The Chair
Obviously, you can either use the questions that are on the brief that you have been given, but there is no objection to your asking your own questions. However, the questions must relate to the content of the Bill; we do not want any flights of fancy from anyone. I hope that makes perfect sense.
Also, if anyone has anything that they need to declare, I hope that they will be kind enough to do that.
I think that covers all the preliminary business. I am conscious that it is difficult to be called with the arrangement in the room, so if you want to be called, just indicate that to me. And if you are sitting at the back, there is a microphone there, so that you will be heard properly. If anyone is having any terrible difficulties, let me know.
Otherwise, if you are happy to proceed, I will call the first panel of witnesses: Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and Chief Constable BJ Harrington, the NPCC lead for public order and public safety.
Examination of Witnesses
Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt and Chief Constable BJ Harrington gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: For myself, Chair, all I will say is that throughout the construction of the Bill, all my respective leads have worked with the Home Office officials, to try to make sure that our views have been incorporated, so we feel that we have had the opportunity to be engaged throughout the process. I do not think that I really need to say much more than that at this stage.
Chief Constable Harrington: I am one of those respective leads, so I have had plenty of opportunity to inform the Bill.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: We are always concerned about any officers that have to routinely undertake the kind of work in which there will undoubtedly be an impact on the officer’s welfare. We have a range of wellbeing work that we do, including a specific wellbeing service, Oscar Kilo, that looks after all aspects of wellbeing, particularly mental health wellbeing, which has become one of our priorities in recent years. When you get into specific roles such as the one that you identified there, there is training and assessment for officers who go forward and undertake those roles. There is also regular checking and assessment of those officers so that they are looked at again, spoken to and monitored for any of the specific impacts.
As you have identified, there is a range of roles that we now have officers undertaking that are by their very nature distressing, and of course we recognise that kind of repeated exposure, so there is psychological testing and support provided to those officers. In particular roles, that will incorporate routine and regular checking to ensure that the officer’s welfare is fine. That fits within the much broader work that we undertake more generally on wellbeing, and, as I say, particularly and increasingly mental health wellbeing.
Sarah Champion
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The reality is making that work. An issue that we undoubtedly have around wellbeing and the occupational health service provision is the restricted amount of capacity. That is one of our challenges. In all circumstances, where we want to refer officers or staff for support, one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support. Although there is a positive in the concept of providing more universal support, it would have to be balanced with being able to actually provide the capability and the capacity to do that effectively. That is one of the challenges we face.
The Chair
Chief Constable Harrington, do you have anything to add?
Chief Constable Harrington: Like Martin said, we have some systematic processes for those who engage in high risk areas. Some of the capacity issues are dealt with by our trauma incident management response, which enables supervisors and peers to recognise, debrief and spot the people who need further and greater intervention, and almost to triage that response following any kind of traumatic incident, particularly in the cases that have been referenced.
The Chair
I call Robert Goodwill. By the way, Members are free to take their jackets off if they feel so inclined.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: BJ, I will probably let you take that one first.
Chief Constable Harrington: First and foremost, all police training and all police responses to public order and protest, and those important freedoms that you referenced, are in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Of course, there is always the balance between the positive duties to ensure that people can express those rights, and those negative duties, ensuring that we infringe on those rights only when that is proportionate and necessary. I think the point is around getting the balance right in protecting the rights and freedoms of those who are impacted by that.
We asked for some of the changes that are incorporated into the Bill, including more currency around the powers in the Public Order Act 1986 as was. Protest and assemblies have changed since that time. There are issues such as when does a procession become a static assembly, and an assembly become a procession? There is the consistency of what the police can do, always within a landscape of balancing the competing rights of those affected and those who wish to express their rights. There is also the need for real clarity for both the officers who are required to make difficult decisions, balancing objectively and proportionately what they need to do, and for those who wish to express those rights or to have them protected.
We think that the proposals to align sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 really do bring that currency to what we see and how people protest, assemble and march now. There will also be consistency so that people can better understand. Of course, things like the public nuisance elements allow us—the police—to anticipate better where there will be significant or serious impact. “Significant impact” is the phrase we would want to see. You have seen and referenced some of that significant disruption to people whose rights are infringed by others. We think that the changes bring currency and consistency and, overall, greater clarity for all those who have to police it and those who take part.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: From our perspective, we asked for the consistency between those two sections, and that is included. We asked for, and would like to see, particularly serious disruption—a very high threshold—to become more like significant impact on the community. Of course, we can prove disruption, and it is also about whether the impact is on, for example, a small business, an individual, a neighbourhood or, indeed, a large institution or Parliament itself. We asked for that, and we think the Bill starts to address that.
In terms of the powers and the response to that, the tactics and things, whether that is the use of force, that we apply—you referred to water cannon available to other police forces and other countries—always need to be in that balance and, of course, proportionate and necessary to achieve that legitimate aim. But the proposals give us greater clarity to be able better to balance those competing rights, which are always tricky and difficult and always require judgments about those who are affected by it and those who are expressing their rights, and there will always be opposing opinions. I think the Bill broadly gives us that extra power.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: If I may reference Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services’ survey of the public, where there is serious disruption, the public are very supportive of the police being active and preventing that action taking place. I think the public will perhaps always step in when they see a significant impact on them, or in terms of the lower elements, where it is just frustrating perhaps or just annoying. I think the public in the survey showed that they are more tolerant of that.
It goes back to the previous questioner’s point: in the police service, we guard the freedoms of expression and assembly very carefully, because they support police legitimacy in terms of the police being the public, and the public being the police. So I think the Bill gets the balance right. I think the public will always be concerned where people are climbing on top of tube trains, which is simply dangerous. That will always be a case where the police or the public would want to intervene.
The Chair
Is there anything you want to add, Mr Hewitt?
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Not really. We police public order and protest in a particular way, and I am very proud of the way that we police that. As has just been said, it is always a challenge to balance the different rights, responsibilities and risks, and that is what our commanders do routinely. What the provisions in the Bill give us is greater consistency and clarity, which is really important for the commanders and the officers on the ground, but equally for people who are seeking to protest. This is an environment that changes and shifts, and the Bill gives us extra certainty and clarity in terms of dealing with situations as they arise.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Police training already clearly plays a large part in our obligations, positive and negative, under the Human Rights Act, and we make those judgments around balance now—the protection of rights and freedoms of others, versus the rights of assembly and freedom of expression that are so important. It is a core part of our training, from senior commanders through to police constables and every rank and grade in between. We already balance those competing rights.
In terms of preparation, we engage with protest groups where we can and where they wish to engage with us. We try to understand what it is that they wish to achieve through their protest, and we then try to speak to those who would be impacted on—you used the example of people in a shop—to understand what they need. We try to strike a balance that allows both of those rights and freedoms to be carried out and realised. Sometimes there is conflict in that, because some might seek to obstruct one or the other. That is when police commanders and officers have to make those judgments, but it is always about how they balance those rights in a way that is proportionate and necessary. Of course, any restrictions that we place on those rights must always be prescribed in law, and that is what we say the provisions in the Bill allow us to do more clearly for all involved.
Maria Eagle
Q
“entire classes or types of protests”
will be prohibited and that the bar for what will constitute significant disruption to the community, which is a woolly phrase—what does that consist of?—will be set at a low level, which will infringe on people’s rights to protest peacefully. What do you think about this, and what is your understanding of the definition of serious annoyance?
Chief Constable Harrington: The vast majority of protests across the country are largely unpoliced and take place without police intervention, and we use our current powers under the Public Order Act to impose restrictions relatively infrequently. Over the past year, I do not think it has been more than 20 times, although some of those have been high profile and have obviously been challenged in the courts. These are not powers that we seek to use frequently, and they are well considered. Of course, they are subject, and have been subject, to challenge in the courts, both through judicial review and subsequently when people have been prosecuted for breaching the conditions in relation to that.
On serious annoyance, we think serious disruption is a very high bar. We asked for “significant impact” on the community, to take account of where it may not be serious but is perhaps significant to a business, an individual or a school, or to the operation of someone’s life and freedoms. On serious annoyance, we need to see what Parliament’s decision on the definition of that is and to interpret that accordingly, always coming back to how we interpret the law in a way which comes back to the fundamental freedoms and those fundamental obligations on policing, which is to get the balance right between those who wish to express those rights and those who are impacted by them. We will have to see what Parliament decides and whether it is able to give us some clarity about what that means, so that we can make those judgments in an informed and lawful way.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: I have policed many protests over 27 years in London, and headed up public order for the Metropolitan police in a previous job, so, yes. There are lots of cases—Redmond-Bate and others—that would suggest that protest is annoyance and disruptive. This is the balance. We come back to the point: where does that level of disruption become, in our view, a significant impact on a community? That is the balance of judgment that we have to make. If that stops the operation of a business—a hospital perhaps—or stops thousands or tens of thousands of people commuting to their jobs each day, our argument would be that that tends to trip the bar to say that that is not proportionate and the balance is out of kilter there.
Equally, we have to take into account that there will be some annoyance and there will be some noise, but that is the judgment call that commanders have to make, balancing those and taking the evidence or the information from those affected by it. We would very much welcome from Parliament guidance and a steer as to what that would mean and what the levels are—if you excuse the pun—because that is how we can then make sure that we balance those rights lawfully and proportionately.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Some are very, very noisy, with drums, cymbals and bands, and others—certainly that I have been involved with—have been absolutely silent, because of the nature of those protests. Noise is one element which can disrupt, but so also is the presence. So there is a whole variety of different protests, but, yes, many are noisy.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: The presumption is that people have a right to assembly, and we would only impose conditions on those where we think that there is serious disruption, serious disorder or the likelihood of serious damage, or they are there to intimidate people. As the law suggests, we have always said that, in terms of serious disruption, that bar is very, very high, and we would like to see “significant impact”.
We use these powers currently very rarely. We allow and facilitate many protests, and sometimes to our criticism. Police commanders are criticised for getting the balance wrong because one or other side, or opposing views, think that it should not be allowed. I cannot say that every protest will always be allowed, but I think individual commanders will make informed, balanced judgments based on the information, always seeking to get the balance right, with a presumption that is set out in the Human Rights Act that we will facilitate a peaceful assembly, but always balancing that against the protection of rights and freedoms of others.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: As I said, we asked for greater consistency in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act. For the Committee’s benefit, for a procession, we can impose conditions such as appear reasonable to the senior commander in the circumstances—whatever range of conditions. For an assembly, we can only specify location, duration and maximum numbers. As I said, the point is when does a march begin and an assembly stop? You will have all seen that in your own experience.
We asked for greater clarity around public nuisance and for that to become a statutory offence, rather than a common law offence. We think that gives commanders and the public greater clarity and understanding. We think that is an important power that will allow us to deal with some of the more serious disruption to communities that perhaps might be planned.
We also asked that, where we have talked to individuals and gone through breach of the conditions, whether in advance, through publication, through engagement or through the five-stage appeal before we use enforcement, and where we have done everything we possibly can, often videoing officers speaking to or giving a leaflet to someone who we say is breaching, that the presumption be shifted, as they ought to know, because we have done everything possible. We have asked for those kinds of powers, and they are reflected in the Bill.
The Chair
I will come to Allan Dorans in a second, but in the interest of balance we will go first to Antony Higginbotham first.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Social media has been a game changer in many ways. We still get organisers who come forward and people who say they want to march from A to B. They will organise around that; they are what I call a traditional protest march.
But, as you rightly say, we can have protests or assemblies that are organised in a matter of hours—sometimes minutes—and the use of social media can change those protests and make them more dynamic. Hence, the currency around that, because something was advertised as an assembly at a particular point, but, very quickly, through social media, everyone is off to another point, and it becomes a march. We think that is really important, and the powers help us because we can be really clear about imposing proportionate, lawful and necessary conditions, if the threshold is met, on the whole of that protest, whether it walks or stands still. Then everybody can be clear about what they do.
In terms of social media, we have adapted very quickly, I think. You will regularly see police officers in our police liaison team trying to engage with organisers. We will see approaches through a whole range of social media platforms. Sometimes, as it is people’s right not to engage with us, you will see senior officers making very clear appeals and clearly setting out through social media what, in the policing judgment, is acceptable or not acceptable, in order to make sure people are clear about where they may or may not be breaking the law if we impose conditions.
So we have adapted to that and we continue to do that. Through events, you will see that we continue to do that for those events. We also use social media to understand the impact on those affected, so that we can either protect property or protect the rights and freedoms of those who may be affected.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: It is the ability to communicate quickly, to change their focus of protest very quickly and to divide and split up—it is just that it is dynamic. We see that in a social context—“I’ll meet you here” or “I’ll meet you there.” That is the same thing in protests.
I think you hit the nail on the head about what we are asking for around consistency and currency, allowing the powers that we use—again, proportionately and with all the balance and the constraints of the Human Rights Act—to be really clear, so we can say, “What is the impact of what this group propose to do? How do we best balance that?”
Then, if we think the threshold is met, we can impose conditions that allow us to be really clear about what we are trying to achieve. To the point you made earlier, we then need to communicate that very clearly to those involved so that they have every opportunity to express their rights, understanding what the rules and thresholds are for when the police would intervene.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: We are very careful with the use of closed online groups. The open-source platforms we use are exactly that: open source. Our communication with protest groups is open, as is their conversation with us. I think we are very careful; our access to those would be about criminality, and that is not what we are talking about here in terms of our use of those powers. This is not to limit or criminalise protests; it is to balance those rights of disruption with competing rights.
Seeking access to closed groups would always be at a very high threshold we would consider only with criminality. We do that in other arenas, and we have good powers and good co-operation in order to do that. We would not seek that routinely as part of policing protests or public order. As we have seen over the last year—even this last weekend—there have been largely peaceful protests. My view as the national lead is that we would only seek those powers where protests end and criminality begins, but I think they are well catered for elsewhere.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The first point I would mention is that there will be pilots for the serious violence reduction orders. We have been and will continue to work very closely with the Home Office to make sure that we fully understand the impact of such orders. There is no doubt that there are people who are more violent and have a history of violence, and we do a range of things to try to reduce the number of violent crimes. Our concern is to make sure that there is no disproportionality in the way these orders are used, so we are really keen to work very closely with the pilot site to assess how this can be another tool—and it is just one further tool—in dealing with street violence and violence among younger people.
We do think there is an opportunity for certain individuals to become subject to this sort of order, but we want to work with the pilot site to see how we can make that work; how we can make it an effective tool that does not cause more challenges with particular parts of the community.
The Chair
Thank you. I want to try to squeeze in one last Back-Bench question—Hywel Williams, could you make it brief, because I want to get to the Front Benches.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Potentially, that presents a challenge. The four Welsh forces work extremely well with Welsh Government, and—obviously—with local authorities in the individual force areas. There is always going to be a challenge when people are potentially in different legislative places. We have been dealing with that in many senses in our response to the covid pandemic for the last 14 months or so: we have very deliberately responded as one UK police service, but on almost all occasions there have been slightly different regulations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and, for that matter, Wales. That presents a challenge to policing, but I know for a fact that the four forces in what the National Police Chiefs Council would describe as the Welsh region work incredibly closely with the Welsh Government and with local authorities in the individual areas. We work effectively and collectively as one UK police service. I am confident that we will be able to bridge those gaps if they exist and deal with the challenges, but those challenges nonetheless do exist when we are potentially in different frameworks.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
I have some quick-fire questions first concerning several other issues in the Bill that we do not have time to go through in detail, so do not feel that you have to give long answers. On the police covenant—that we welcome—would you have liked to see other police officers included in the primary legislation, such as the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police? That question is to Martin.
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: As I say, we work as one police service and we really have done so over the last 14 months. Potentially, that would be a positive thing. We are working closely with the Government. I have set up a shadow police covenant board which has all the representatives of the organisations: staff associations, unions, police and crime commissioners, and the NPCC. We are working really closely with the Home Office officials who are putting it together. My view is that we operate as one UK police service, and it would be helpful if that was likewise.
Sarah Jones
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: There could be some potential to that. We have, as you know, been alive to the issue of exploitation, particularly in the guise of county lines. We have used other legislation to prosecute the criminals exploiting those children. It is clear, though, that it is a phenomenon. That is why the requirement to share information is important: so that we identify all the risk factors as we collectively try to reduce violence. It may be worth considering a specific definition, but it is well understood in policing. That aspect is part of how we try to deal with those issues— particularly but not exclusively county lines.
Sarah Jones
Q
“The solution to unauthorised encampments lies in the provision of sufficient lawful accommodation accompanied by closer working between the police, local authorities and all other public services.”
Will you expand on that view? Why did you come to that position? These are really quick-fire questions, sorry.
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: This is a really challenging area for policing, and it provokes strong views on all sides. The police often find themselves in difficult situations when dealing with these issues. Our group, which worked very closely on this issue, strongly believes that the fundamental problem is insufficient provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers to occupy, and that that causes the relatively small percentage of unlawful encampments, which obviously create real challenges for the people who are responsible for that land and for those living around. Police still get involved at the moment. The view of our group is that the existing legislation is sufficient to allow that to be dealt with, and we have some concerns about the additional power and the new criminal provision and how that will draw policing further into that situation. Really, our point fundamentally as the NPCC group is that the issue here is the lack of provision that theoretically should be made, which means that we have this percentage of Travellers who are on unlawful spaces and you end up in the situations that we end up with. Our view is that the current legislation is sufficient to deal with that issue.
Sarah Jones
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: I think we all understand that the volume of digital evidence that is required for almost every investigation has grown and grown as all of our lives are lived more digitally. That has created real pressure on the time limits of investigations and our ability to gather the evidence that we need to take an investigation forward. We have increased the capability. It is partly about equipment and having the right equipment to be able to extract digital evidence. It is also about having officers and staff who have the right capabilities to assess that evidence and produce it in an evidential form.
There is no doubt that that is a growth area, and all sorts of discussions are going on between us and Government about increasing our capacity and capability for that. However, the flip side and the really important point is making sure that what is being done is lawful, proportionate and necessary. Again, that side of the work is equally important.
This is never going to be about randomly extracting data; this is about extracting the data that is required to conduct a proper investigation, provide evidence and decide how something goes forward and, really importantly, doing that in a timely fashion. As we all know, there are real concerns about the timelines for investigations and prosecutions, and one of the key factors in the delays in those processes is the extraction and analysis of digital forensics. So we need the legal framework to allow us to do that properly and we then also need the resourcing and the capabilities to do it within the right time limits.
The Chair
Can I remind you, if Mr Cunningham is coming in, that you are in the last two minutes of your time, so how you use it is up to you.
Sarah Jones
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Of course, there is a process by which we have to react to highway obstruction. It does not allow us to assess impact on hospitals or access for emergency vehicles. There is clarity between what is a procession and what is an assembly, and we can apply such conditions as are necessary, with all of the balancing around what could be a march or an assembly or both. If you take Parliament square, sometimes people will rotate around it. I know there is particular interest in St Thomas’ Hospital with Westminster bridge, for example. The ability to have consistency allows police commanders, where required, depending on the size and nature of the march, protest or assembly, to be clear in advance about where emergency vehicles will be allowed to get through.
I use Parliament square as an example because it will be evident to members of the Committee and easy to describe, but the same issue might arise elsewhere. The process enables us to be clear in advance where that threat is posed or, at the time, to be clear and able to communicate that. With highway obstructions, there is a need to negotiate, discuss and decide whether there is lawful authority and if an emergency vehicle is trying to get through, that takes time and it will not be effective.
The Chair
Thank you. I have got to switch to the Minister, Victoria Atkins. If there is time, I will come back to Sarah Jones.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: That is right.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Yes, I welcome that very much. In some senses, that was previously there. When you look, in particular, at the work that has been done by violence reduction units in the past year to 18 months—a couple of years, in fact—getting all the relevant agencies in the local area to focus on and prioritise reducing violence, and play their part, is the way to reduce levels successfully. We can never do that purely by enforcement. This is a really important opportunity to bring all those groups together and focus on violence in their local area.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The fact that it is a partnership is really important as well.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: We did ask for public nuisance to be made statutory. A Law Commission report from 2015 clearly set out more broadly some of the benefits of doing that. The report refers to:
“serious distress, annoyance, inconvenience or loss of amenity; or is put at risk of suffering any of these things”.
The measure would be for more unusual kinds of protest activity that are not a march. Historically, people have hung off gantries of cranes, where there is serious inconvenience and loss of amenity.
Importantly, making it statutory establishes two things. First, the rules are very clear to those who have to use and understand the legislation. The common law is good, but it is steeped in decided cases and judgments that are often difficult to extract for non-lawyers. It allows Parliament to be clear about what the phrases mean, and to give guidance to policing and the public on what is intended. From a policing perspective, where we have intelligence or information, it allows us to act in advance to prevent some of those issues, where proportionate and necessary. That is the difference that it makes. We are working from the Law Commission report in 2015, which states a number of benefits. We see those as very important for those reasons.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Yes, that is the Law Commission’s summary of what that should be. That is where that phrase appears. We welcome the clarity; making it part of statute allows for phrases such as that and others to be clearly defined for us and for the public.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: As I alluded to, it is critical to have a clear code of practice and framework to ensure the extraction to be proportionate and necessary for that investigation, and to be very clear about timelines, how that will be done and how the victim—or the complainant—will be treated throughout. This has been a very challenging area for us. Having that certainty and clarity of the guidelines will help to ensure that everybody understands the process. As I said, the ability for us to do that as quickly as we can, to deliver the evidence we need, is really important to maintain confidence, as you say, for people to come forward, and to maintain those complainants throughout the process, to reduce the attrition levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
I have two brief questions. The first relates to the proposed increase in the penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. Does the police service welcome that change? Do they think that it will potentially deter people from attempting to assault officers in the discharge of their duties?
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Yes, we welcome that change very much. It is sad to report that we have seen a steady increase in assaults on emergency workers, primarily police officers. In the month up to 14 March this year, there was a 19% increase on the previous year in assaults on emergency workers, predominantly police officers.
We have done an enormous amount of work in the service; we did an officer and staff safety review process, which is working to improve the safety of our officers and staff. We have worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been supportive in achieving charges where officers or staff are assaulted in the course of their duties. I think the increase in the sentence is positive, provided, of course, that those sentences are handed down when people are found guilty at court. We are supportive of that, because it demonstrates the seriousness and the importance of the fact that, although our officers and staff protect the public and do dangerous things, they should not expect routinely to be assaulted.
Chris Philp
We completely agree, thank you. My final question relates to out of court disposals. There are proposals in this Bill to simplify the number of out of court disposals from six to two. That has been trialled, I think, in three forces over the past few years—
The Chair
Order. Minister, I am very sorry to interrupt you, but we are out of time. We will have to save that question for another witness or another occasion. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the Committee’s allotted time to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Apologies, Minister, but we are on a pretty tight schedule.
Examination of Witnesses
Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths and John Apter gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear from Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales, and John Apter, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Can I ask you to introduce yourselves for the record, please, gentlemen?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Good morning. My name is Paul Griffiths, and I am president of the Police Superintendents’ Association. We represent more than 1,300 senior operational leaders across England and Wales, and other non-Home Office forces and Crown dependencies. Our main priorities are to influence national strategy and to protect our members if they are at risk or from a wellbeing perspective.
John Apter: Good morning. I am John Apter. I am the national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and we represent 130,000 officers across England and Wales—across all 43 Home Office forces —from the rank of constable up to and including chief inspector.
The Chair
Thank you. I think we will try to follow the same pattern as before. I will try to get Back Benchers in first, and then I will allow about 10 minutes each for the Front Benchers.
Sarah Champion
Q
Can I ask of our witnesses the same question that I asked of the chiefs? In the police covenant, would it help and support your members if there were mandatory provision at the very beginning of training and all the way through to support you on a psychological level? I am very aware that you are the first people on many occasions to see some hugely traumatic situations. I am particularly thinking, on child abuse, of the amount of time that police officers have to invest in seeing some pretty horrific things. Should we put in the police covenant mandatory training and support for officers to deal with that trauma?
John Apter: I am happy to start. Thank you for the question. The police covenant is very close to my heart, and it is something that the Police Federation has campaigned for. Absolutely, it needs to be meaningful and tangible, and it needs to have a benefit for those it is there to support—not only officers, but staff, volunteers and retired colleagues. Mr Hewitt said earlier that much has been done about wellbeing in policing over the past few years, and I support that.
We have come an awful long way, but we have not gone far enough. One of the frustrations that my colleagues have is the inconsistency within forces. I have had this conversation with the College of Policing, and part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support. The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training from the start of somebody’s service to its conclusion and beyond.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I echo John’s view on this. There has been a rise in some of the challenges that officers face—even our members—in terms of psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and so on. In my role as president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, and as a trustee of the police charities that help and support in these issues, I have seen a rise in some of the challenges that officers face—not only those on the frontline, but my members who are senior operational leaders.
The service has come a long way with the frontline review, the officer safety review and a rise in our focus on wellbeing as a consequence of some of the challenges we have faced over the past decade. Do we need anything additional in the legislation in respect of that? There is a need for consistency across occupational health standards, but I think that could be achieved through the programme management rather than through legislation. There is a real focus in the service now, through Oscar Kilo and wellbeing, the NPCC, and staff associations in this area, and we are working closely together, so there is a golden opportunity with the police covenant to best serve and support officers and staff across the whole country.
Sarah Champion
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It is hugely important for us to be victim-orientated in our policing services. We have really focused, over the last 10 to 15 years, on vulnerability issues and the significant vulnerability areas of policing, through the College of Policing and the NPCC drive, and we have identified victims, both online and in the physical space. That is a clear focus for us as a service: how best to serve victims.
In many of the initial contacts with victims, we provide a very good service and there is very good feedback, but over time, with the pressures that we are under, that sort of connectivity, and the confidence and trust that victims have in policing, can get strained because of the lack of contact. That is not to say that things are not going on, but we have to work within a system—particularly through the criminal justice system, which is also under strain—where we have to work with victims as best as possible, to deliver the best possible service.
In terms of our service delivery to victims, not only are our tact and diplomacy important in the way we deal with them, at the incidents or wherever they report matters to us—whether current or historic—but there is almost a path by which we have to keep connected to those individuals to provide them with the best possible service. I think that is key for us: that connectivity, drive and support through all the criminal justice processes.
Sarah Champion
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We have the increase with the additional 20,000 officers who are coming in. It is my hope and expectation that we can actively deploy them to support victims, along with the other challenges and demands that we have. Do we ever have enough police officers? No. There are always things that we want to do, and we have the same ambition as society: to do the very best we can and do as much as we can. In that sense, we never have enough, but in terms of our ability to deal with some of the demand, the increase in resources is very welcome, and hopefully, we will be able to provide a better service to the whole public, as much as our focus around victims.
Sarah Champion
Q
John Apter: I completely echo and support Paul’s comments—he and I work very closely together on this. My colleagues want to do the best they can for victims of crime. What I would add to what Paul said is, “Let us not forget the victims within the service.” You heard from Mr Hewitt that assaults on officers, staffers and other emergency workers have increased by 19% during the pandemic—some horrific levels of attacks—and very often, my colleagues say that they feel they are treated as a second-class victim.
I think we have done enormous things to improve that over the years. A project called Operation Hampshire, of which we are particularly proud and which is being led by the Met, is improving the quality of service that victims within the service get. If I were to add to my ever-increasing wish list on the legislation, I would say that yes, the victims in the public must get the best service possible, but I want to see that same level of service—not better, but the same—extended to my colleagues and members of police staff, because all too often, they feel that that is not the case.
Mr Goodwill
Q
John Apter: This is a longstanding problem for policing and actually for all the emergency services. What we have seen far too often was highlighted in a case in the Hampshire constabulary, when a traffic officer—a roads policing officer, who was fully trained—was engaged in the pursuit of someone who had stolen a vehicle after quite a nasty burglary. It was a textbook pursuit; nobody was injured and we caught the baddies at the end of the pursuit. However, that officer and his crewmate were prosecuted for dangerous driving and they ended up in Crown court. The reason is that the law, as it is currently, does not recognise the training that the officer has received or the purpose to which the vehicle is being put. That puts my colleagues in a very vulnerable position.
So we have been campaigning for many years to try to redress the balance. I want to say on the record that this is not about the Police Federation saying that colleagues can drive as they wish without any fear of scrutiny; some people may have to face prosecution or inquiry. But far too many of my colleagues are prosecuted for simply doing what they have been trained to do.
All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.
We expect police officers and indeed other emergency drivers to get to a particular place as quickly and as safely as they can. The law fails to protect them at the moment. So, yes, we are seeking those changes. I am really pleased to see the Bill but there are some amendments that we want to see, and we are working closely with the shadow team and the Home Office to see if we can bring about those changes, to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose and protects the officers who deserve to be protected.
Mr Goodwill
Q
I guess that with an ambulance and a fire engine, it is less nuanced, but with the police you would not necessarily know until you get to the scene whether life is at risk and whether it is necessary to speed there.
John Apter: Indeed, and the training has certainly evolved. The emergency response and the pursuit training for police drivers has evolved over the years, and the training certainly brings in the judgment—it is all about the information that the officer will receive.
I was a roads policing officer for many years. I was trained in response and that judgment is so important because very often at the end of a pursuit or an emergency drive, it is the driver who is responsible for their actions—nobody else. So, yes, you can only deal with the circumstances that you are presented with and you have to risk-assess in that moment. It is a fine balance.
However, I would say, and I genuinely believe, that we have the best driver training in policing in the world—I really do believe that. Our driving standards within policing, with the emergency driving, are exceptional. We just need that element of protection, but it is not to say—I have used this phrase before—that I condone a wacky races culture. That is not what I am supporting. It is about balance.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: The only bit I would add is that there are circumstances where officers still have to exceed the speed limit as part of their duty. So it would be quite important for us to consider surveillance officers, those doing diplomatic escort and so on, where their driving may leave them in a position where they are under investigation, and it would be reasonable to have the same standards applied to them in the circumstances that could prevail.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I know that you have had extensive evidence on this from Chief Constable Harrington as the NPCC lead. Our members play a significant role in protest, whether they are silver or gold commanders, depending on the size and scale of the protest. One emerging trend that has caused them great difficulty has been the change in tactics with some of the protest processes, such as protesters gluing themselves on to certain items involving vehicles—locking on. That change in their movement and the inconsistency have caused our members considerable challenges in terms of how best to interpret the law and apply it in a necessary and proportionate way, so there is support in terms of providing consistency for some of the challenges that they face as the operational public order commanders.
In terms of some of the definitions around “serious disruption” or “significant impact”, we will obviously wait for that to be clearly defined by Parliament, but the training mechanisms that are in place for our public order commanders and public order teams are really significant, are quite detailed and do allow them to really play through and work through some of the judgment calls they have to make, and some of the judgment calls may have to be made within seconds, so some of the changes and amendments do gain support from us.
Maria Eagle
Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?
John Apter: These were changes that the Police Federation had not particularly called for, but what I do support, especially after listening to Chief Constable Harrington, is the view that we need to evolve the Public Order Act. Protests have evolved over the years. The way individuals react and, very often, confront police officers has dynamically changed. The vast majority of protests we do not hear about: they are unremarkable; they are peaceful. I do not think you will find many police officers, if any, who do not support the right of peaceful, lawful protest. But we have to evolve; the legislation must evolve to be dynamic, as the protesters are. Very often, we see on our television screens so-called peaceful protests, which are hijacked by those with an agenda to cause violence; we see this time and again. So while the Police Federation has not called for this particular part of the Bill, we are supportive of an evolution of the Public Order Act to make sure that it is fit for purpose but still allows lawful protest and gathering—bearing in mind the pressures on policing at the same time.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I think the relationship between the public and the police has never been more tested than it has been in the last 18 months. Some of the work and effort that has gone into public relations at a time when we have had to police—some of the laws that have been put in place for the covid restrictions have really put a strain on the relationship, in terms of how we balance peaceful protest with trying to maintain the health regulations that are in place. The relationship that we have with the public is fundamentally important to us, and some of the polls that have come out show that there is significant trust and confidence across the public in general. We recognise there is certain strain with certain communities, but in the main we do have public support. Knowing that that relationship is so strong and knowing about the use of the Human Rights Act in everything that we do in terms of policing should provide the public with the necessary reassurance that we police in an appropriate, lawful and necessary way, and we will continue to do so.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: One of the most important factors that has emerged over the last 18 months and that is a fundamental part of many of our police command issues—whether that is public order, investigations or firearms—is effective communication with the public, so that there is a clear understanding about what they can and cannot do, what we can and cannot do, and how that relationship evolves. We want to facilitate peaceful protest, because it is a fundamental part of our liberal democracy. That is golden to the public, and it is golden to policing as well, but how we balance the human rights of all the individuals, including the ones who are impacted by protest, is a really difficult and challenging balancing judgment that needs to be made by police commanders. From my perspective, a lot of this is about effective communication on what is lawful and what is not lawful. We need to make sure that liaison is in place where there are leaders in relation to the protest issues, so that we can plan in advance, facilitate it is as best as possible and continue as we have done in many veins, in terms of making sure to the best of our ability that people can protest and not be impacted either way.
Maria Eagle
Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?
John Apter: Obviously, the relationship with the public is integral to our style of policing and for the communities, and it has been tested. Paul is right to say it has been tested to the limit in some places over the past 15-plus months. The overarching issue with the Bill, and on protest, is one for the NPCC and, as Paul says, for the commanders, but when relationships break down, it is my colleagues—my members—who feel the brunt of that out on the streets. Of course, when we are policing protests or any sort of activity where there is high emotion and where there will be an element, in some cases, who will be intent on violence no matter what we do, we have to react accordingly. But communication is key, accepting that some will not want to be communicated with; they will not want to hear the message. The relationship is so important—I cannot stress that enough. I agree with Paul: despite the challenges over the last year-plus, the relationship with the vast majority of the public is still very much intact and still very positive.
Maria Eagle
Q
John Apter: I think the problem that we found with the coronavirus legislation was that it was unprecedented. I remember when the legislation was brought in—it was unbelievable. It was almost like watching a film being made. I have been a police officer for more than 28 years, and I would never have dreamt that we would be policing in the way that we were asked to police. If that is how policing felt, you can only imagine how the public felt, and we had to evolve. There were multiple changes of legislation that were not always as clear as they could be, and I understand why. I understand why the legislation had to be rushed through, but that came with problems, because my colleagues did not always know what was fully expected of them but nevertheless did their best in the most trying of circumstances. With the Bill, Parliament can inspect and go through the processes in a timely way, so I hope on behalf of my members that whatever the Bill looks like at the end of the process, it will offer clarity and guidance, and that people will completely understand what is expected of them, both within policing and for the public. I have hopes, and Parliament will do what it does on scrutiny as the Bill goes through that process.
The Chair
Mr Griffiths, is there anything you want to add?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I was just going to add that when some of the health regulations were introduced at pace, at speed and at scale, there were moments when there was a lack of consistency across the country, but that was gripped by the police service with the four Es approach. The reality is that applying consistency through this legislation will aid public order policing across the whole country. As we move forward and develop, in line with the legislation, we will do what we always do, which is to increase our communication, and review and adapt accordingly, to best facilitate peaceful protest.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
John Apter: I declare that I was a special constable before I was a regular officer. I am passionately supportive of our special constable colleagues. I have always thought it was an injustice that special constables could not, if they wished, be a member of the Police Federation, as the representative body of police officers.
When I was a special many years ago, over on the Isle of Wight, I was not allowed to drive police vehicles, generally I was not out on patrol on my own and I certainly was not allowed to be a specialist in any field, but I did feel part of a team and I contributed. The special constabulary, thankfully, has evolved considerably over that time. Special constables are response drivers. They stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues. They have exactly the same powers and they carry exactly the same risks.
I have always thought, even when I was a special, that it was wrong that they were not allowed in law to be members of the Police Federation. The Police Federation has been pushing for this measure for a number of years now, not always with the support that we have now to get it where it is in the Bill.
When the Bill goes through with special constables able to be members of the federation—fingers crossed they do—special constables will feel included. I speak to many special constables, who often feel that it is wrong that they are just not included or considered. That is going to change because of the Bill. They will have the same legal support and welfare support. They will be treated as equals alongside my colleagues. It is absolutely right and proper that special constables have a credible, loud voice alongside the representation of other colleagues. This measure is long overdue; I believe passionately in it and I am looking forward to it being in the legislation.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We really value the contribution of special constables and other volunteers through our networks across the country. In terms of their contribution to policing, what they do is quite significant. Some of the work that they did through the covid crisis continues to amaze us. It is a valuable contribution. They epitomise the relationship between the public and the police.
I have always had a close working relationship with ASCO, the representative body—the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. This legislation is an enabling opportunity for special constables. It is right and proper that they get protection and support. I have raised issues about funding and true representation, but the legislation has support in terms of its enabling role. Those other reservations about best protecting the rights and so on of special constables are true and dear.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
John Apter: I am really pleased to see these measures in the Bill. The violence that my colleagues face is unprecedented. It increases year on year. As Mr Hewitt said earlier, we have seen a 19% increase in assaults on emergency workers during the pandemic—predominantly police officers. The level of violence has increased also. I have been a strong campaigner, and it is not only about a suitable deterrent in the courts. It is also about better training, better equipment, better support, welfare support, and treating police officers and police staff who are victims of an assault as a victim should be treated, which has not always been the case.
I have only one issue with the legislation. There must be a deterrent, but the increase in sentencing will mean nothing unless the courts actually use their powers. On the sentencing guidelines and what we have seen in recent years, I and my colleagues who are victims would say that perverse sentences have been handed down to people who have been extremely violent and inflicted nasty injuries on police officers or police staff, and they have walked away from court. I completely appreciate that it is case by case and the sentencing guidelines need to be followed. In the cases that I have examined, the sentencing guidelines have been adhered to, which tells me that the sentencing guidelines, certainly for assaults on my colleagues, are not fit for purpose. I absolutely support the increase in sentences, but we have to have a real fundamental review and a sensible conversation about sentencing guidelines as well. That is something that I would like to see pursued.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Naturally, because of the role and responsibilities of our members, thankfully, in one respect, we do not encounter direct risk in that sense, but I regularly get feedback from our members about the risks to the people that they lead, and it echoes John’s point around the rise in assaults on police officers and other emergency services. We have seen a 19% increase in the March period compared with last year. We are very grateful to Parliament for considering the increase in the sentence for assaulting emergency workers, but we are under no illusion that this is only one part of the jigsaw. We need to work with not only other criminal justice agencies to best represent, show and demonstrate the impact of this across society, but internally, in terms of our kit, equipment and training and also our development around tactical communication. We need to strengthen that ability to defuse situations by word rather than force. So there are many aspects to this, but we fully support Parliament’s consideration of extending the sentencing available.
The Chair
We will go to Mr Dorans. This had best be the last question before I go to the Front Benches.
Allan Dorans
Q
John Apter: That is a really important question. If you go back 10 years or so, my colleagues would say very little. Some forces were better than others, and that is chief constable-led. If a chief constable has emotional intelligence and those values about how people really matter, that trickles through the organisation, but that has not always been felt. There has been a sad lack of consistency when people are in specialist posts that expose them to trauma. I can give you a lived experience. For many years I was a family liaison officer dealing with trauma every single day, knocking on far too many doors and changing people’s lives, and not for the better. That was many years ago, about 10 years ago, but my force at the time, Hampshire Constabulary, was very innovative and gave us annual check-ups—welfare and psychological check-ups. We had welfare officers in the force. We had a lot of support, but then with austerity, unfortunately, some of those measures were removed and the force was a poorer place for it. That was typical across policing.
We have moved forward in such a positive way. I am often criticised by my colleagues because I talk up the good work going on—whether it is Oscar Kilo, the national police wellbeing service; the Coventry police, which are doing really good work in this area; or the Police Federation, where we have invested heavily on a welfare support programme for our colleagues—but it is not always felt by all our members. Getting that message out to people about what is available and how to access it is a postcode lottery across policing. We need that consistency.
We need occupational health to be benchmarked to a certain standard. I know we are going to have a chief medical officer—hopefully for policing—which I hope will bring that consistency. That is where the covenant can have some good legislative teeth to say to forces: “This is not a nice to have”. We can’t talk all day about looking after our people and say: “Put a post-script about wellbeing and the job is done”. It is much more than that.
That is not to say that is the norm. I don’t believe it is now, we have come a long way, but the covenant must show its teeth. It must be brave and make sure that that consistency is across all policing to support my colleagues, certainly with their mental health. We are seeing a crisis in mental health in policing that we have never seen before. It is a real significant concern: a continuous exposure to trauma. Officers are being exposed to levels of trauma that are unprecedented—more than people have seen in the military. This is based on evidence from the charity, Police Care. Something has to be done. Things are happening, but the covenant is a great opportunity to pull that all together.
The Chair
Chief Superintendent.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Picking up on mental health and trauma impacts across the police service, we are also starting to see police charities supporting these areas. There has been a 36% increase in inquiries to the police charities compared with the previous year, the vast majority of which are mental health concerns. There is clear evidence of the impact of trauma on police officers and staff. We recognise that everybody will experience some trauma in their life, but the exposure for police officers is quite significant.
We then have to look at what is the best thing that we can do. There is a whole array of things that we can do: providing appropriate space for debrief, increasing communication, and occupational health support. There is a whole catalogue of things, but I would class those as probably falling under what I would describe as the programme management, rather than any legislative concerns.
There are two matters I would like to raise on the police covenant. The first is the important role of independence within the processes, so that we get an independent view. Our employment rights are restricted—naturally so, we would not contest them, because of the nature of our role and responsibility in society—but measures that can be put into place to provide independent support, guidance and oversight are really important, so I stress the importance of independence in the system.
I would also like to raise the issue of mental health concerns and seeking the police covenant as a way through helping and supporting. Unlike the Police Federation, the Superintendents’ Association goes beyond the 43 Home Office forces. We support other police forces, including British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which at the moment are not directly covered by this legislation. I would like to emphasise the importance of the whole police family and make a plea to consider as part of the legislation those wider non-Home Office forces that play an integral part in UK policing.
Sarah Jones
Q
You have just made exactly the point that I was going to ask you about, on the importance of the police family and the wider family as part of the police covenant. Can I push you both a bit on the notion of independence from the Government when we are looking at the covenant? What could that look like? Would there be a benefit of some oversight from policing bodies, perhaps chaired independently, on the covenant report that is produced by the Home Secretary? Would you both welcome that?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It has always been my perception that a police covenant is almost the sector asking the Government for additional support or assistance, or to rule out any adverse impact on police officers, and for the Government to play their role across all other public agencies to try to level the ground and make sure everything is fair and supportive for policing.
The NPCC has employer responsibilities, which are sometimes in statute and are sometimes just its moral code for how to look after staff, so the way it is constituted in terms of how this flows is really important. My fear is that it would be left in a situation where the Government would direct the NPCC on how to support its own police officers, staff and volunteers. It is incumbent on Parliament to consider how best to get some level of independence, in terms of the oversight, and echo the responsibly to work across Government in terms of supporting the police covenant and all officers and staff.
John Apter: I want to touch on something that Paul said to a previous question. It is important that the Police Federation’s views are noted. This is about who the covenant actually benefits. Paul is right that we represent the Home Office forces, which are the big chunk of who the covenant legally covers, but we work incredibly closely with the non-Home Office forces, Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is really important that we are all treated equally within policing. We do not want the benefits that the covenant hopefully brings to be diluted in any way for any part of policing. I completely support and echo what Paul says.
On the independence—absolutely. When we were pulling together our concept of the covenant—obviously we want it to be very far reaching, but we accept that we have to start somewhere—one of the things that I was insistent on was that it must be enshrined in law; it must mean something. It is a positive step for the Home Secretary of the day to report to Parliament on a legal framework. It is right that the Home Secretary of the day has that responsibility.
When we talk about oversight, I do not want the covenant to become wrapped up in bureaucracy and red tape. If it is, nothing will be achieved and nothing will get done. Within policing, we have some strong views about the need for it to be independent. That is not to say that the Home Secretary, the policing Minister and the Home Office have not been incredibly supportive. They have, and we could not have got this far without that support, but in order to make the covenant meaningful for our members, retired colleagues and volunteers, I think that level of independence on the oversight programme, the oversight board and the delivery board, which would then lead in to the Government, is really important. We fed back those views collectively as policing. It is not just the federation calling for this; collectively, we all believe very strongly in it.
Sarah Jones
Q
Can I ask Paul about pre-charge bail? What are your thoughts about breach of bail, which we have talked about previously? We are finding our way through that with this piece of legislation. How do you think that would work in an ideal world?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I should probably start by saying that we did voice some significant concerns in 2016 about some of the changes that were coming in and highlighted this at the time as a joint letter between the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We worked with the changes that Parliament instructed, and we are grateful for the recent amendments that may come through the Bill in terms of timeliness and some of the issues that have been challenging us over the last four years.
We are supportive of the vast majority of it. The one area where had some concern was on the breach of police bail, where bail conditions are imposed and then suspects continue to breach those bails. Of course, those bail conditions would be there to protect victims or even the wider public. It could be extremely useful to us for that to be an offence in its own right. I note that there is an introduction to prevent the start of the custody clock, which was another risk that we thought may come from somebody who would consistently breach their bail, risking an impact on the investigation custody time limits for other aspects for which they were under investigation. The Bill suggests that three hours is sufficient to deal with that breach of bail, and that seems appropriate, but it could be beneficial to the police service for that to be an offence in its own right in terms of processing individuals for such breaches.
Sarah Jones
That is really helpful; thank you. Shall I go over to Alex? I am aware of the time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We have not been called to provide any advice or consultation on that. Could I get back to you in writing on that one? I would probably have to do more research.
The Chair
Do you have anything to add, Mr Apter?
John Apter: I am afraid I will have to give the same answer.
Victoria Atkins
Q
John Apter: I think we are pushing on an open door. Policing has changed significantly over the past decade or so, and it is the same with chief constables, who may previously have been reluctant to get certain wellbeing initiatives into place. There is wholesale agreement that the covenant will be a positive thing for policing.
The issue we have at the moment is that although we know the principles of the covenant, we do not really know what exactly will be in it. Chief constables know me very well, and I, on behalf of the organisation, will be holding them to account, but I genuinely think that it will be a partnership. Perhaps that is naive, but if, as expected, the legislation allows the covenant to be enshrined in law, I will be saying to chief constables very clearly, “This is not something you can cherry-pick. This is in legislation. This is to benefit our colleagues, staff, volunteers and so on. It is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential.” So they will be held to account, but in fairness I think it will be a productive partnership.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Most of them have probably worked their way through the hierarchy of public order command systems, from right at the frontline, following through to supervisory and management roles, but not necessarily in all cases. There is a detailed training command course for public order leads, which embodies everything that you would expect: to understand the tactics necessary when utilising public order, seeking the appropriate advice and guidance, understanding the law and the community, and all the different aspects of decision making that are so important to understand how best to corral a crowd or deal with a peaceful protest.
They will learn how to deal with everything from small, minor protests with just some shouting, to some of the challenges that, sadly, we have seen in the past 12 months, where they have faced attacks by missiles, etc. The training is detailed. I have absolute confidence in some of the public order commanders. We have to understand that they are called to make really difficult judgment calls, balancing human rights of individuals and the recognition of their own staff and the public. They make difficult decisions in a short space of time. It is a credit to them as individuals and to the training processes that allow them to do that.
Chris Philp
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: You are right to clarify that. Unfortunately, we have not been consulted on that particular aspect. If I can provide written evidence, we will explore a response and get back to you.
Chris Philp
Q
John Apter: Absolutely, the risk of a custodial sentence would be a meaningful deterrent, as well as everything else. As I said, it is about the training and equipment that officers and staff have. But I go back to my earlier point: the increase in sentencing will mean nothing if the sentencing guidelines do not allow the courts to use those powers effectively. Far too often, my colleagues feel that the wider criminal justice system lets them down. We need to address that, as well as increase sentences. Yes, I believe that it would be a deterrent.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It is very much welcome and supported. There is a hope that it will be a deterrent. We recognise that any sort of assault on emergency workers has a complex and dynamic number of factors that may cause that situation to arise. We must do everything in our power to eliminate or minimise every aspect of those factors. Hopefully, it will have a deterrent effect, and will send a very strong message from Parliament to emergency workers to say, “You are valued for what you do. We support you, and you should not have that sort of risk when trying to carry out your duties.” We will review the situation over time, to see what the deterrent effect is, but we are grateful for the support that Parliament proposes.
Chris Philp
Thank you. It may be worth you engaging with the Sentencing Council once the legislation passes, to ensure the sentencing guidelines reflect the seriousness of the offence, and that the sentences in practice reflect Parliament’s intention.
The Chair
Now is a good time to draw this session to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2021 - (18 May 2021)
The Chair
Q
Phil Bowen: Hello. My name is Phil Bowen and I am the director of the Centre for Justice Innovation. I would like to make the Committee aware that from July 2020 to March 2021 my organisation had a contract with the Ministry of Justice that enabled me to provide policy advice and challenge to Ministers and civil servants on the community supervision aspects of the sentencing White Paper and the Bill.
Adrian Crossley: Good afternoon. My name is Adrian Crossley and I lead the criminal justice unit and the addiction unit at the Centre for Social Justice. The CSJ is a think-tank that advocates social policy aimed at tackling the root causes of poverty in the UK.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Q
Phil Bowen: Of course. The Centre for Justice Innovation has long been a supporter of problem-solving courts. At their simplest, they bring together specialist supervision and intervention teams with the powers and authority of a court to review progress regularly against a sentencing plan. They generally operate out of existing courthouses and are built from existing resources. We already do work on and support about 11 courts across the UK that use problem solving to manage specific caseloads, including three in Northern Ireland, sponsored by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and four in Scotland. That is in addition to the 14 family, drug and alcohol courts already in existence in England in the public family law system.
As you know from the Bill, the Government propose to pilot three separate and distinct models of problem-solving courts in England and Wales in the criminal court system: a substance misuse court model; a model to tackle domestic abuse; and a model to help vulnerable women avoid short-term custody. We are very supportive of the move, for which we have been calling for a long time. We believe that the evidence base on all three of those models is robust enough that the piloting of them in England and Wales would be useful as a first step before thinking about their further roll-out across the system. We think there is a real chance to reduce the use of unnecessary custody and tackle reoffending, particularly in the substance misuse and vulnerable women models and, in terms of the model to tackle domestic abuse, to really hold perpetrators to account and give victims a sense of safety and involve them in the ongoing supervision of those perpetrators.
Adrian Crossley: Thank you; I am grateful. I am very well aware of the work that Phil Bowen is doing. CSJ also endorses the use of problem-solving courts. They have the potential to be enormously beneficial to defendants sometimes facing serious matters across the UK.
In terms of the scope of the proposed pilots, I think that the chosen three categories—domestic abuse, substance abuse and vulnerable women facing prison sentences—are wise choices. What is best about a problem-solving court is that it draws from real specialist knowledge and experience that can really look behind a problem, understand it and provide practical solutions, so these issues are worth tackling. One point I would note as a matter of caution is that problem-solving courts at their best are fantastic, but they do pose dangers. I am pleased to see that we are starting with a relatively small pilot because it is important to get right the things that sometimes appear to be small. For example, listing cases for problem courts to ensure that they are before the same panel that can continually look at a case and review it, and understand that the team that they are working with and the person in front of them are important.
In our jurisdiction, we have sometimes had difficulty with listing in front of lay magistrates—problems that they do not necessarily experience to the same degree overseas in the US. So there are examples of things that need to be done well and right. I am pleased to see that those three categories have been chosen, because they are worth tackling, and I am pleased to see that the initial pilots are small enough to allow proper analysis and reform as we go along.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Adrian, would you like to go first?
Adrian Crossley: Yes. Thank you. I can entirely see that that concern is absolutely valid. We know from the CSTR—community sentence treatment requirements—model that substance abuse and mental health are both dealt with alongside each other, separately but often in the same hearings. It is an absolutely valid concern. I would also say that as well as substance abuse, there is now a growing need to consider the impact of gambling addiction. That issue is becoming increasingly prevalent in our country. Sadly, over the last 15 years, there has been an explosion in this sort of addiction, and it draws into crime the people who would not necessarily always fall into it.
What I would say—I have said it prior to this—is that problem-solving courts are good if they are done well, and I would hope that we do not get too prescriptive about what kind of person is in front of us and categorise them as a domestic abuse or a substance abuse case. Often people have complex and chaotic lives with lots of different things going on. I would hope that a problem-solving court done well might have a category that they call a substance-abuse court, but be equipped to deal with something such as mental health as well.
I practised as a barrister for some time and I know that often clients, like I had before me, have issues behind what is apparent from the offence, which could go unseen unless probed. I spoke to a colleague earlier today and he explained to me that there are some 300,000 people in the UK right now who are indebted to a loan shark. You will never see the chaos behind someone’s life from a simple shoplifting offence. You need to be able to explore that. If problem-solving courts and pre-sentence reports are done well, in line with the new probation reforms, this should become clear and we should be able to help people with multiple needs before the courts.
Phil Bowen: To add to that, I understand that the current plans in the Ministry of Justice are to pilot those three types of models, but as all the models are drawn up, there is an awareness that people who would be eligible for substance misuse court are likely to have co-occurring mental health needs, and those would need to be addressed at the same time. The substance misuse court that currently operates in Belfast and the drugs court that currently operates in Glasgow recognise the complexity of people’s substance misuse and other needs, and seek to address them.
It is pretty clear, from what I have seen, in existing practice and what the Ministry of Justice is beginning to develop, that there is a broad awareness that it may be a trigger for intervention that vulnerable women are identified as at risk of custody, but there will be a recognition and services targeted at a range of their complex needs, one of which almost invariably will be mental health. That is very much at the heart of what the Ministry proposes, and we support that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Crossley: We welcome the addition of the new statutory duty clause for courts that requires them to consider the welfare and best interests of the child. We think that is a positive part of the Bill. It would be nice if it could go further. Seeing custody as something to keep people safe is not correct, but there is broad support, as far as I can tell, from people with an interest in youth justice for this change. I know some of my colleagues would like it to go further.
Adrian Crossley: I can only add that we have seen a substantial reduction in custodial sentences for youths over the last 10 years or so. We welcome efforts to encourage rehabilitation and use it absolutely as a last resort. I think it goes far enough.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Currently, as I understand, clause 45 would extend those definitions and include anyone aged over 18 who supervises or works with 16 and 17-year-olds. I know from personal experience with my own family that, often, older children at a dance school, perhaps over 18, often chip in to help with tuition and coaching. In some cases, they may even be in the same class at school as a 17-year-old who is part of that dance academy. I wonder whether there could be difficulties in situations such as that. Indeed, we also remove the right to give consent from 16 and 17-year-olds who may find that infringes on their ability to choose who to have a relationship with. Perhaps Mr Crossly might be most appropriate to respond first.
Adrian Crossley: The first point to know is that affording some protection in this area is absolutely imperative. We have seen abuse of trust that has led to not just inappropriate relationships—that is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with sometimes highly vulnerable children who are sexually abused. In order to make an inroad into dealing with that sort of offending, we need to get to the crux of how it comes about. All too often, positions of trust can allow a perpetrator to hide in plain sight—not only that, they make the person who is abused feel partially responsible and incapable of speaking out. The perpetrator recruits the trust of the people nearest and dearest, including their parents.
While I appreciate that there may be some difficulties in the administration of this issue, that will not unnecessarily impinge upon the movement of people and their enjoyment of their leisure, I do not put that value at naught—absolutely not. I do see, at the other end of this, we have a very real risk, which has existed pervasively throughout our society for a long time. I think the extension into the position-of-trust model starts to move away from identifying it as in small pockets of society and to see it as the modus operandi of some perpetrators of crime. I think its broadness is important and the clause as it stands is sufficient.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Adrian Crossley: So much of this, as with any law, is about how it is actually executed on the ground and how the decision-making processes operate. At this stage, when you are looking at the written form of the clause, I can see that there is potential there for consent. The administration of a clause like this relies on good practice, and I would say that these things can be circumvented. You have the same sort of problem with something as controversial as stop and search, where you can see that there may be a very good reason for it but, done badly, it can be incredibly corrosive to society; it can stop people moving around freely. But that does not mean that the legislation itself is wrong. It will come down to how we administer this, and a continual review of that is necessary. But I do accept this: it is not possible for me to say that there will not be friction and difficulty as this clause is administered.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Phil Bowen: One example to offer the Committee is from the public family law system. The Welsh Government and the courts system have just agreed to create a new family drug and alcohol court. The issue is similar, in that it requires a partnership between people in the Welsh Government, local authorities and the courts service.
I certainly know that, as part of the Ministry of Justice’s scoping of where the pilot sites might be, it is very keen to speak with Mayors, police and crime commissioners, the Welsh Government and others about where the most suitable sites are. So I do not think it is incompatible. It certainly will require partnerships and collaboration. That is what exists already in existing problem-solving courts; as I say, it already is going to be a feature of the new family drug and alcohol court in south Wales. So I do not think this is insurmountable. I certainly know there is a strong interest in the Ministry to have discussions with the Welsh Government about whether they think it is appropriate to have one of the problem-solving court pilots in Wales. I think there is still work to be done there, but wherever they exist, they require partnerships between different agencies and both national actors and local actors.
Hywel Williams
Q
Adrian Crossley: Sentencing inflation is a very real problem. For decades now, we have seen incremental rises in sentencing, right across the board. There is a theory that the more we increase the more serious offences tariffs, there is a trickle-down effect; essentially, it pulls up sentencing for lesser offences. We see, for example, sentences for drug offences increase over a 10-year period by about 30%, and for theft by around 22% over the same period. This has a very real effect on people’s lives. It is not just a question of a few extra years—that would be serious enough as it is—it can often be the difference between somebody having a sentence suspended and actually being taken away and put into a cell, so it is a very real problem.
Some regard this as a Bill of two halves with what some regard as very punitive sentencing on the one hand and some very progressive, challenging and, I would say, quite brave proposals for community reform and rehabilitation on the other. A great deal of subjectivity is involved in deciding how much time somebody should serve for very serious offences. I do not see anything necessarily wrong with reviewing how this society deals with very serious offending. If there is an increase in tariff, which we as a liberal democracy think is right, that is fine, but there are real dangers with that. My view is that we are likely to see a Prison Service that is wholly incapable of dealing with the stress of an extra 20,000 people—what is forecast for the next few years—inundated with new offenders who are likely to have very little access to meaningful reform and rehabilitation. That is deeply concerning to me.
If as a society we feel that that more serious offending requires a higher tariff, we also have to address the numbers in prison. The most important thing we need to do is to look at whether people who are currently being sent to prison, perhaps at the lower and medium end of offending, really need to go there. The Centre for Social Justice published a paper last year called “Sentencing in the Dock”. Our position was very clear that modern technology, with GPS tagging and alcohol tagging—I could list a number of requirements that are already rightly in the Bill—could provide a sufficient deprivation of liberty to act as a real punishment for serious offending or medium to low-level offending.
We need to be much bolder about the amount of people we keep out of prison and deal with in the community. We can see clearly that in treating alcohol, drug addiction, mental health problems, literacy and numeracy, you are far more likely to have an effect on those key drivers of crime if you deal with people in the community than if you put them in prison. We could be much bolder in dealing with community disposals. There is a real risk of sentencing inflation here, of a prison population growing out of control and, in my view, of brutalising people who might otherwise be able to reform.
Phil Bowen: I agree with a lot of that. The only thing I would add is that proposals are set out in the White Paper that are being taken forward by the Ministry that seek to strengthen the community justice parts of the system. They include things such as investing in early intervention and prevention, including the improvements to the out-of-court disposals regime, which I think is vital for young people and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in particular.
The nationalisation of the probation service represents a real opportunity to strengthen community sentences and win public confidence in community sentences back from the courts. I also think a strong interest and investment are needed in high-quality treatment for offenders and the more dynamic use of electronic monitoring. While I agree with a lot of what Adrian has just said that some proposals in the Bill seek to increase the use of prison, that takes away money from smarter investments in community justice. I would also like to emphasise that there are things in the Bill that we support, because we think they take forward that idea of smarter community justice.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Adrian Crossley: My view is that definitions usually start their life imperfect and develop with a great deal of expertise from public and experts who understand this issue perhaps better than I ever could. Notwithstanding that, and understanding that there may be a starting point of imperfection, they are useful. In my view, definitions of important criminal principles help real decision makers on the ground make practical decisions that are fair and consistent. Notwithstanding the fact that I see problems with that—we have seen so many different definitions of domestic abuse, which started its life as domestic violence, that it is clear these things are fluid and can develop—I think they have a practical application.
Phil Bowen: I have nothing to add to that. I agree with that.
Sarah Champion
Q
Phil Bowen: I think presumption to all of them is very useful. The other thing that I think is worth underlining is that part of the model of the specialist domestic abuse courts, which ought to operate in every magistrates court but at the moment do not, is that independent domestic violence advocates make sure the victims are asked about special measures and those special measures are put in place. I think there is a delivery and implementation question, as well as a legislative question, about whether the resources are there to help victims of domestic abuse and ensure those special measures are put in. Yes, I think a presumption would be useful, but I think it also requires attention to implementation and delivery issues. Special measures should already be used in specialist domestic abuse courts across our magistrates court estate and, in many cases, domestic abuse victims are without access to those measures, for want of anyone who asked.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adrian Crossley: I endorse pretty much all of what Mr Bowen has just said. I will not repeat what he said, so forgive me, but I particularly want to emphasise the focus that was placed on the reality of actual implementation. I worked for some years as a prosecutor and in defence, and I can say that, very often, lack of special measures is not the result of an omission in thought or some massive procedural error. Sometimes the implementation of special measures and, certainly, the pragmatics of what happens in court are not there and the stress that that puts witnesses through is absolutely huge. Sometimes, we talk a lot about witnesses not turning up or defendants gaming the system, hoping that the stress of waiting for trial is so bad that the witness just will not turn up, but the chaos and confusion that is caused by a broken system that is fixed on the day can be hugely distressing to a witness. I think implementation is important.
That point is not where I was going to go, however. Just for balance, I should say that it is always right that the accused should be able to face their accuser and evidence should be tested properly. Nothing that I have seen that has been proposed, including video examination in chief and cross-examination before trial, gives me any concern that without the right implementation that could not be done well. We always have to have an eye on making sure that the accused has a fair trial. This is important; it is not a nicety. However, the measures I have seen proposed give me no real cause for concern about that. I think it makes a massive difference to the view of the complainant and, unfortunately, it would also make a massive difference to the view of some defendants, who may face the reality of the evidence against them earlier. It may encourage pleas that should have happened earlier.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Phil Bowen: Very quickly, I think the proposal in clause 100, which reduces judicial discretion about imposing minimum custodial sentences, is a regrettable step. I have seen no evidence to suggest that that discretion has been misused. I am not sure on what basis that clause was proposed, and we have been arguing for its removal from the Bill. I see a place for minimum custodial sentencing, but I tend to be against anything that fetters the discretion of judges.
Adrian Crossley: Statutory minimums can have a function when we want to give a standard approach to the severity with which society regards a certain offence. My view, though, is that over a decade or two, judicial discretion right across the board—not just in this clause—has been steadily eroded, and I do not find that particularly helpful in criminal justice. Judges are well equipped to make decisions about what is in front of them, and they are well advised. No guidelines can ever foresee the variety that life can bring you, and my view is that the more judicial discretion there is, the better our criminal justice system is likely to be.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Phil Bowen: In general, we support the move to the two-tier system. It is something that was called for by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as you know, in 2016. Fifteen forces already operate such a simplified framework. The concerns we have are twofold. One is that in consultation events that we have already held with a number of police forces, they strongly suggested that they wanted to retain the flexibility to issue the community caution—the lower tier—without conditions. In the existing framework, they are able to issue a simple caution that does not involve conditions. Police forces want that flexibility, and the new framework proposed by the Government does not allow that in the lower tier.
The second issue, which speaks to previous comments about disproportionality, is that we would strongly argue that it should be possible to offer the community caution—the lower tier of the two tiers—to individuals who accept responsibility for their behaviour, rather than requiring a formal admission of guilt. This is an idea that was raised in the Lammy review and has subsequently been raised in the Sewell report. We think it would be better if that lower tier could be offered to people, who are required only to accept responsibility for their actions. As the Lammy review suggests, that may encourage the participation of people from groups who tend to have less trust in the police and the criminal justice system.
Adrian Crossley: Drawing from the 2014 audit, there are some learnings from the two-tier system, most notably the training of officers so that they can refer people to the intervention that is appropriate and useful, better inter-agency communication, and sufficient time for implementation. Once that is done, our view is that this is a great step forward. We are very enthusiastic about it. This is about intervening and offering help, not just having a meaningless warning. We have spoken to charities that have actively said that these sorts of interventions, which encourage somebody to engage with treatment, can really make a life-changing difference to people. It is unrealistic to expect them suddenly to go into full rehabilitation, but it can make an introduction and open up doors that sometimes people feel are just not open to them. We see that there is real strength in this approach. We have also heard a number of police forces suggest that it would be enormously helpful to them if community resolution remained on the books. Certainly, it is currently the most widely used disposal.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Adrian Crossley: No, not the simple caution. It is a community resolution. It is slightly different and more like a contract with the police force that they can enter into to take the matter further. That is enormously popular with the police right now. Just to be clear, our view is that the thrust of this two-tier system is that there is a condition attached to allow the disposal of tier one and tier two. We think that is a very positive thing.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Adrian Crossley: I think that risk is entirely possible; this is quite well documented. We have to look at ways to challenge that. Phil briefly touched on the “Chance to Change” pilots that are currently being operated, which look at this slightly lesser form of admission.
Our view is that we have to address the mischief here. If there is mistrust in this system, then there are two things that can be done. First, proper independently chaired scrutiny panels can look at the way these are run and the advice that they give to people when they enter the police station. I know that the Government have already suggested that that might be a way of dealing with this.
Above and beyond that is access to legal advice and to legal aid. We are seeing an attrition of people’s access to legal advice. My experience is that when people are properly advised about what is in front of them, when they understand that they are being treated fairly and decently, and when they understand the evidence against them, then they are in a position to make an informed choice.
If it is just a choice about, “Do you trust the police?” then I can entirely see how some communities would have reservations about that and even, when it comes to sentencing, well-founded reservations about pleading guilty. A system that is transparent and provides good training, a good understanding of what they are involved in and, clearly, good legal advice at an early stage, could combat that.
The Chair
I am afraid I have to strike a balance and I have to switch to the Minister, for his questions. I am sorry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
Adrian Crossley: So that I understand the question and I answer it properly, are you asking what merits we would need to see in order for there to be an expansion of minimum tariffs in sentencing? Is that what you mean?
Chris Philp
Or the risks. What are your views about the principles of the possibility?
Adrian Crossley: My own view is that judicial discretion should be king. I have not done any huge research into this, but in my view and from my practice, sentencing guidelines have become very prescriptive and they almost railroad judges into decisions. Judges always have parameters to work within, but what is before the court is often something that is necessarily unique. Minimum sentencing can shackle decision makers who are acutely aware of the facts in front of them.
The only benefit I see is in cases where there are overwhelming public interest concerns that mean that a minimum tariff would adequately address a specific mischief and would undo it. If I were to see that, I would regard that as a pro for minimum sentences. I would need to see an evidence base that that would achieve that.
Phil Bowen: I agree with what Adrian says. In general, a lot of the evidence from, for example, the United States on mandatory minimums is not encouraging, but I see an argument for Parliament identifying particular crimes of concern and putting those in place. We should be clear that the deterrent effect of that is likely to be pretty mixed. The evidence is pretty mixed about whether that kind of thing really does deter future crime, but I can see the public need for the Government to be seen to respond to public desires around particular signal crimes. That is why, although I do not reject them out of hand, I agree entirely with Adrian that judicial discretion is extraordinarily important because judges will know the facts of the case much better than the press or the public watching on.
Chris Philp
Q
Phil Bowen: I think the emphasis in the Bill and the White Paper on flexibility around the use of electronic monitoring is the strongest part of the proposals. What the Ministry seems to be doing, which I think is right, is to encourage probation officer discretion and the flexible use of electronic monitoring powers, both to control people where there is need for further control, and to loosen up things where they are doing well. Part of the problem with electronic monitoring to date has been far too rigid sets of curfews without the ability for probation officers to vary them while people are on community sentences. I certainly support that.
In terms of providing for longer periods of electronic monitoring, I can see cases where that may well be useful. The only note of caution that I would suggest to the Committee is that the evidence base suggests that for younger people—in particular, young adults who live at home and people assessed as low risk—longer periods of electronic location monitoring can have a backfire effect. In other words, it can lead to increases in reoffending. All that really means is that the Bill provides the powers that it does, and it is then the job of the probation service to use those powers as flexibly as possible and in line with the evidence.
Chris Philp
Thank you. I was going to ask about problem-solving courts, but I think that was covered adequately in earlier questions. I think Minister Atkins has some questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Q
Adrian Crossley: This policy actually has its origins in the CSJ. We are obviously very supportive of the serious violence reduction order. Just for clarity, and so I can answer that more fully, this is a post-conviction order. We regard it as being part of the wider system. We do not regard it as a stand-alone solution to knife crime in our country.
We see a very significant increase, not just in possession of weapon offences, but of violent offences perpetrated with the use of a weapon. What is clear to us is that we need to do something about that which is robust enough to challenge the mindset of someone leaving their home with a weapon. We draw from the group violence intervention models piloted in Boston in the US under Operation Ceasefire, which create a sort of pull-push effect. We really want to deter people from being able to leave the home feeling that they are safe walking around with a weapon. They should know that they are much more likely to attract police attention if they are on these orders. At the same time, in the sentencing court, we would hope that the order would be able to include other, positive provisions—perhaps even a knife crime behaviour order. Real intervention, engaging young people and pulling them away from that sort of offending can also have a pull effect away from that kind of offence.
I should say that currently, as it is being piloted, it is only for adults. Our view is that knife possession is pervasive across a number of age groups: it is particularly concerning when young people are carrying knives. We would like to see this scheme really being rolled out, so that we can intervene early when people are younger, to see that we do everything we can to take knives off the street and keep people safer.
The Chair
As it is 2.45 pm, we had better call this session to an end. I thank the witnesses for the evidence they have given to the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonathan Hall QC and Matt Parr gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: My name is Jonathan Hall QC. I am the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and I carried out a review into the management of released terrorist offenders after the Fishmongers’ Hall attack, which is relevant to the evidence that I will give today.
Matt Parr: I am Matt Parr and actually I am not the Chief Inspector of Constabulary; that is Sir Tom Winsor. I am one of the Inspectors of Constabulary; I have been doing that job for almost five years. I think the particular reason that I have been asked to give evidence today is that I have just led a series of inspections, including around protests and the way police look after them; into the Sarah Everard vigil; and then this week into the way that the Police Service of Northern Ireland policed a high-profile republican funeral. So I have been doing quite a lot of work on protesting, and I have had some discussions with the Home Office about the legislative proposals.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Q
Matt Parr: Three aspects of that come to mind. First, the use of social media has clearly enabled the organisers of protests to be significantly more nimble. It means that some of the obligations to engage with the police beforehand can be circumvented, creating really quite significant problems for police commanders in the way they plan for protests.
That is the first aspect, which is reasonably obvious to anyone who has been on or near a protest, namely that there is huge potential for social media to be used—in a good way; I am not saying in a bad way. But its ability to galvanise and organise and inform people to join protests or indeed in the way they conduct them is wholly different to what the police had to contend with 20 years ago.
The second point is slightly more subtle. When we conducted the inspection into protesting, we found that more and more police forces are doing more and more policing of protests, for one reason or another, and they are also finding it ever more difficult to persuade their officers to train to be public order commanders, or indeed to make themselves available to do the lower levels of training, so that they can then help out on the protests.
One of the reasons cited for that is that police officers at protests—not in all cases; the temptation to generalise and to be unfair to all protesters is something that we have to resist here—sometimes get identified through social media. One reason that they are disincentivised from going on these protests and volunteering to train to do them is that they are nervous about being vilified on social media, having been identified beforehand. So that is having a chilling effect for police officers and in fact quite often damages their morale.
One of the things we said about the need to modestly reset the balance in the interests of protesters versus the public, and a remark made about decisions made by gold or silver commanders who are the senior police officers commanding the protest, is that they are often nervous about the backlash on social media of any decisions they take. One of the consequences is that there is perhaps a tendency to default to the balance being more in favour of the protester than otherwise. That was my second point.
My third point is that a cautionary tale came out of the inspection we did into the policing of the vigil following the tragic death of Sarah Everard, and the impact of what is frankly a single still photograph that was circulated very quickly and very widely on social media. That created a backlash, and we ended up with some people, and indeed some public bodies and some unions, calling for the resignation of the Met Commissioner. In that report, we said that the reaction was unwarranted. We all know that there is a danger that people get their news and form their opinions from social media. We trawled through hour after hour of police body-worn video of the same incident and came up with a very different view to what social media—completely under- standably—led people to have. I will start with those three points.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Matt Parr: The Home Secretary asked us to look at five proposals at that stage in November, when she asked me to give an initial impression of five of the proposals going into the Bill. In the end, only four of them went in. We had some reservations, but in general we saw the four proposals—with some caveats, particularly around the fifth one that did not go in—as having the potential to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the policing response to protest. If you want to discuss the details of those, we can do that, but in answer to your general question about whether they would assist the police in getting the balance right in the age of social media, I would say probably yes.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: No, I tried to be as comprehensive as I could when carrying out my review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. I thought long and hard about the additional powers that might be needed, and I am pleased that they are contained in the Bill. I cannot think of anything else. From a detailed, legal perspective I would just say that there are a couple of points of detail about two of the powers, and maybe the Committee will want to question or press on whether further safeguards are needed. I did not draft the powers, of course, and I recommended that they be done generally and they have now been put into statutory language. Overall, I have nothing to add to what is here.
Sarah Champion
Q
Matt Parr: Shall I go first? I am afraid it will be a short answer. We are aware of the issue, and as you may know we do a 43-force inspection of all police forces on a rolling basis. We think that it is a bit early and that we need more time to reach an informed view on the issue, but we will look at it in our next round of inspections.
Jonathan Hall QC: I have a short point to add: I did look at one issue. There are special arrest powers in section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and those powers differ from other arrest powers in that they allow for people to be held for up to 14 days. I did consider whether there should be the power to bail after arrest in section 41 in my first report, but for various practical and technical reasons I thought that was probably wrong. That is the only thinking I have done about that.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I thought there were three key points. First, managing the terrorist risk from released offenders involves practitioners from agencies who are not always good at working together. For example, the probation service and MI5 do not have, historically, an easy way of working together.
Secondly, the likelihood of making really good decisions at the right time, which is what matters, would be increased if there was a shared understanding of risk. That involves greater data sharing, and not just secret data sharing—though that is important—but sharing data from all other sources. One of the good things about the Bill is that it resolves an uncertainty about when data can and cannot be shared. It also requires better understanding in all the agencies about what tools exist. Probation has a really fantastic, powerful tool—the ability to recall risky offenders to custody. That is probation’s power—it is not the police’s or MI5’s—and it is important for MI5 to understand that and to make sure that the person making that decision understood the risk. So a comprehensive understanding of each of those powers is important and, as you know, I recommended a couple of extra powers, which are in the Bill.
Thirdly, there is a particular difficulty in practice of managing people who had not been convicted of terrorism offences but who were of terrorist risk when released. Take, for example, someone who went to prison for a very violent offence and became radicalised in prison—they present a terrorist risk on release. It is quite difficult to get them into the structures that exist for managing such a terrorist risk, but the Bill is going to change that to make it easier—[Inaudible.]
Sarah Jones
You froze. You were saying, “to make it easier”.
Jonathan Hall QC: The Bill will make it easier for MAPPA—the management structures of risk—to apply to all terrorist risk offenders. That is not just people who were convicted of terrorism offences but people who are of terrorist risk when they come out of prison.
Sarah Jones
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I have nothing to say in relation to the power of the police to arrest urgently where there is a breach of licence; that is a really sensible addition. There is a power in clause 159 to apply for a warrant to search the premises of a released offender, and I support that. The point of detail is that it would be possible to apply to a judge for a warrant that would allow you to enter on any number—potentially an infinite number—of occasions. If you think about released terrorist offenders on licence, their licences can last a very long time—for example, 10 or 15 years—so perhaps the Committee may want to think about whether it is appropriate to have a power that would authorise multiple entries into a person’s premises throughout 10 or 15 years. The power of multiple entry under warrant does exist when you are talking about a live operation, and the police find that quite useful. I am not quite sure whether it is justified in the context of this particular risk. That is just one small point of detail, more by way of a safeguard.
Secondly, I recommended and am pleased to see in the Bill a power to search the person of a released terrorist offender. For example, if someone is going to London for the first time, or if a released offender who is very dangerous is going to meet a probation officer for the first time, that would authorise the police to pat them down to make sure they are not carrying something. That is good not only as a deterrent, but as a reassurance. It is reassuring to have that ability, which exists in the context of offenders under civil measures called TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
The only small point is that in the Bill the purpose of searching is
“for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism”.
In other statutes, for example the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the power is to be used for
“ascertaining whether the individual is in possession of anything that could be used to threaten or harm any person.”
When I was thinking about this point, I had in mind patting someone down for a weapon or something of that nature, rather than a personal search to check generally whether they are complying with their licence conditions. Again, that is something that the Committee will probably want to consider—what precisely is the purpose of the search. It may be that the purpose of the search goes a bit wider than is necessary. Those are two relatively small points of detail.
Sarah Jones
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: No, I do not think there is anything in the Bill to address that. The only other bit of the Bill relevant to my area of business is the power to refer an individual who has become dangerous in prison to the Parole Board so that they cease to be someone who is automatically released and can only be released by order of the Parole Board. I think that is sensible. I do not know whether you know that I am doing a review of terrorism in prisons at the moment. The need to be agile and respond to the radicalisation that does sometimes happen in prison is important, so that is to be welcomed. I do not think—unless you can refer me to it—that there is anything that addresses the question of deradicalisation or desistance. I think the truth is that officials will say that it is an ongoing process. I am not saying it will not work with some people, but I would not put all my eggs in that particular basket.
Sarah Jones
Q
Matt Parr: I have got quite a lot of sympathy with what you say. We were very clear in what we said that any reset should be modest. We also said that, because of article 10 and article 11 rights, some degree of disruption is not just an inevitable by-product, it is sometimes the whole point of the exercise of protest, and on that basis, it has to be encouraged. Zero protest is certainly not the aim as we saw it; zero disruption was not the aim either—some degree of it is inevitable. It is just a question of where the balance lies.
I take your point. Some of the things in the Bill we were not asked to comment on. For example, imposing conditions on one-person protests—clause 60 in the Bill —we were not asked to comment on. Some of the specific areas such as access around Parliament—clause 57 and then clause 58 if Parliament moves—we were not asked to comment on, either. There are things that we did not really look at, and therefore I have not got a judge on what effect they might have and what the potential benefit might be.
Perhaps the most contentious would be the third of the proposals that we were asked to look at that widens the range of circumstances in which police can impose conditions on protests: static assemblies or processions. It could be either type. We said that at the moment there are four acid tests. In the disruption one, it was “serious disruption” to the life of the community. As I understand it, the proposal is that that is modified to “significant impact” and so on. Ultimately, these will have to be judged in the courts. It struck me that it clearly aims to set a lower bar. Personally, when I reviewed it, I did not think the bar was necessarily the problem. There is just as much of a problem with educating and training the police officers and making sure they understand how article 10 and 11 rights can be properly tempered. It was a question of training and understanding as much as it was of where the bar was for disruption.
Interestingly—again, I am probably simplifying it a bit too much—there is quite a stark difference between London, which obviously gets a disproportionately large number of protests, and elsewhere. Senior police officers outside London—again, I am generalising—tended to think they had sufficient powers, and senior police officers inside London tended to think that more would be useful. I think that is a reflection of it.
I think yes is the short answer to your question. I think there are dangers and, as ever, the bar for measuring what was significant or what was serious should be a high one. We all recognise that. It should not be done on the flimsiest of pretexts. Again, it would then be open to challenge, and I think police officers would only wish to use it when they were confident.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Certainly most of those convicted of terrorism offences will have some sort of Parole Board referral anyway, so automatic release for people convicted of terrorism offences has virtually come to an end. I spoke—
Alex Cunningham
Sorry, can I stop you there? Can you explain the parole role in this, because my understanding was that it would not actually happen?
Jonathan Hall QC: Let us say I get a determinate sentence of eight years for robbery—no, let us say for fraud, a non-violent offence. I will be released automatically after four years. I understand the clause is intended to allow the Secretary of State to ask the Parole Board to look at me to see if I have become a dangerous offender while in prison. Let us imagine I have been radicalised and all the assessments are that I am a dangerous terrorist offender. The Secretary of State could refer that individual to the Parole Board to make a determination that they should now be treated like a violent or a sex offender. In other words, they will not be released automatically at four years, but would have to apply for parole. That is what I understand the clause does.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Okay. I have to say that I have not looked at the detail. The Parole Board has a role in deciding whether that person should be released.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“Making release from custody discretionary, and contemplating the possibility that the period in custody could be doubled as a result, is not some minor alteration in the administration of a sentence. It is retrospective sentencing by the executive, a form of internment, circumventing the judicial process and all the protections it confers.”
Do you think the changes to automatic release have any constitutional implications?
Jonathan Hall QC: I will confine myself to talking about terrorist-risk offenders. I do not want to discuss anything outside my remit. If you are talking about people who are sentenced to be automatically released as, for example, Usman Khan was, if in the course of their time in custody it becomes apparent that they are very dangerous, it is appropriate to be able to make their case dependent upon the Parole Board.
As the evidence from the Fishmongers’ Hall inquest has shown, Usman Khan came out with a huge amount of risk, as a result of his behaviour inside. Does that have constitutional implications? The current law is that that sort of change, as you know from the emergency legislation that went through last year, is not contrary to article 7. Does it have big implications for individuals? Yes, it does. It is a decision that would have to be taken very carefully. Does it give rise to the risk of a cliff edge? Yes and no. As you know from the Usman Khan case, they had to be released, and there was no way of changing that.
The point about someone’s release being discretionary is that it is then open to the Parole Board to time their release, and to delay their release if they are not safe enough to be released. Of course, there is always a cliff edge. A person could go to the end of their sentence. The Parole Board could say, “We are not going to release you at all,” and then they would come out automatically. It adds something to put them in the hands of the Parole Board once they have been identified as a risk.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: It is a really good question. It is a power that will be exercised pretty rarely, I expect. I do not think that you can ask the judge who passed the original sentence to change the sentence. That would be an odd situation, to ask the sentencing judge to reconsider their sentence, on the basis of what happened in prison.
If you think, as I do, that there will be the rare case where you need to delay someone’s release, I cannot see an alternative mechanism, other than putting it in the hands of the Parole Board. You are right that it will disappoint some people, as I think we have discussed in the past. I am slightly concerned about the fact that for some dangerous terrorist offenders—people who have already been identified as dangerous—the role of the Parole Board has now been abolished altogether, because of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 that is now in force.
I do not think it is a bad thing to have the Parole Board looking at the small sub-set of individuals who are identified as very risky. In the course of my review into terrorism in prisons, I have seen evidence of individuals who are very risky and potentially becoming riskier because of how they are in prison. It seems right that they should know that, as a result of the risk and what they are doing in prison, their release may have to be delayed.
The Chair
I am going to have to stop you there. I will switch to the Government side and Victoria Atkins.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: First of all, it means that anyone who is a risky offender—whatever they were put inside for, whether they were sentenced for a terrorist offence or were sentenced for a non-terrorist one but are in fact a risk—can be managed under MAPPA. The law as it stands states that someone must be a risk based on their offending.
To take the example of a fraudster who went to prison and was then dangerously radicalised and became a terrorist risk, their risk would not in fact flow from their offending. Clause 162 cures that, so that anyone who is identified as a terrorist risk may be manged under MAPPA. That is a good thing, because the authorities found it quite hard to deal with that cohort of people.
The other thing that clause 162 does is to make it very clear that people can provide information to MAPPA without having to do what they used to do when I carried out my review, which was to look for information gateways in, for example, the Children Act 1989 or the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, because they did not feel that there was a clear basis for them to share information with MAPPA. As you will understand, the key thing about managing terrorist risk is that all the right information should be receivable. Clause 162 cures that point as well.
Victoria Atkins
In other words, dealing with the reality presented by a very small number of the most dangerous offenders—dealing with that reality, rather than being constrained by the fact that they committed a fraud offence in the past, rather than a terrorist offence.
Jonathan Hall QC: Exactly.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Matt Parr: There were four tests in the law as it stands, one of which is “serious disruption”. Clause 55, I think, changes that to “significant disruption”, among some others. It is a general lowering of the bar.
Victoria Atkins
Q
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”,
or,
“serious disruption to the life of the community.”
That is the wording in clause 54 as well. As you will understand, clauses 54 and 55 are about ensuring consistency between moving protest and static protest. We heard from police witnesses this morning that one can flow into the other very easily, and back again.
May I also ask about clause 59? That places the common law offence of public nuisance on the statute book. Does the inspectorate have any views on that, or has it made any recommendations on it previously?
Matt Parr: Not previously, but we did in the report we put out in March. That was one of the five proposals that the Home Secretary asked us to comment on in particular. Our view was that we agreed with what the Law Commission recommended back in 2015, I think. We concluded, for much the same reasons as they did, that that was a sensible thing to do. In summary, we thought that protesters deserve to know where they stand, and that there was no harm in making the rules clearer than they are. It was supporting the Law Commission’s proposal.
Chris Philp
Q
Matt Parr: I am really sorry. I have not looked at that. I cannot give you an answer, I am afraid.
Chris Philp
Q
Let me turn to Jonathan, if I may, going back to clause 108, which Alex Cunningham was asking about. This is in relation to prisoners sentenced for non-terrorist offences who are deemed to become high risk in the course of their sentence. To clarify, is your understanding of the clause the same as mine—that the Secretary of State does not have the power to unilaterally ask for their prolonged incarceration, but instead the Secretary of State simply has a power to refer the prisoner to the Parole Board, which will then make the assessment of dangerousness? It is the Parole Board that makes the decision, not the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State simply refers. Is that your understanding as well?
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes. I have it in front of me. I think the point that Mr Cunningham was making is that it is the Secretary of State who refers it, but you are right: it is the Secretary of State who refers it, but ultimately it is the Parole Board that decides.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes, that is right. When the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020—the emergency legislation that came in after the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall—transformed people from automatic release prisoners to people who would have to apply to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point, it had an effect on people who are currently serving. That was challenged in the courts by one of the affected prisoners, and the High Court concluded that it was consistent with article 7.
Chris Philp
Q
The final point that Mr Cunningham raised was in relation to the potential for a cliff edge if somebody serves all of their sentence in prison and is not released early. He referred to the possibility of a cliff edge, which exists in various other contexts that you have referred to already. Am I right in saying that if the Government, the security services or the authorities are concerned about the risk that a particular prisoner might pose following release if they were released without licence conditions because they had served all of the sentence, it would be open to the security services, acting through the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to apply for a TPIM if they felt the threshold was met? That would be one option available if they wanted to manage risk, accepting that TPIMs are rarely used.
Jonathan Hall QC: You anticipated what I was going to say. Yes, that is available, but TPIMs are very resource-intensive, and they are very rarely used for that reason.
Alex Cunningham
I misunderstood the line about the role of the Parole Board. I was concerned about what happens beyond the completion of the sentence. As the Minister says, the TPIM is used only in extremely rare circumstances, and it was unclear when that would apply and when it would not apply. Again, my concern is the cliff edge—somebody being released into the community without any licence conditions or further restrictions on their movements.
Chris Philp
Q
The Chair
Hang on a second. I think we are supposed to be taking evidence from our witnesses. Do you want to answer that, Mr Hall?
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes. To continue the thought, where someone reaches the end of their sentence, their sentence cannot be increased—for example, by adding an extra licence period. In a way, it sounds quite a sensible idea that if someone is very dangerous, when they get to the end of their sentence you should just add a licence on administratively, but that would be completely wrong in principle, because the point of a licence is that you can be recalled. If someone was sentenced to 10 years by a judge and got to the end of their sentence, and you then added on a licence period of, say, five years, if they were recalled—quite a few terrorist offenders do end up being recalled—they would end up serving up to 15 years. That would, of course, be wrong in principle.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I am not trying to avoid it by saying that it is a really good question, but I have not properly absorbed the role of victims in the work that I have done as reviewer of terrorism legislation. One of the difficulties of terrorism is that you are looking more at future risk than at past impact, but obviously, a really bad terrorist attack has the most atrocious consequences for individuals. I am going to slightly dodge it, if I may, by saying that I have not really thought that one through, but I will take it away.
Matt Parr: I do not really have anything to add. It struck me at first glance—it is the first time I have thought about it—as a reasonably attractive idea, but again, I have not really given it a particularly great amount of thought.
The Chair
Are there any further questions? It appears not. In that case, I thank you both very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Nesil Caliskan, David Lloyd and Alison Hernandez gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Caliskan: I am Councillor Nesil Caliskan. I am chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board—[Inaudible].
The Chair
We are having a bit of a sound problem here. Could you repeat that, Councillor Caliskan?
Councillor Caliskan: Thank you, Chair—I hope you can hear me now. I am Councillor Nesil Caliskan. I am chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board and the leader of Enfield Council.
The Chair
While we straighten out the sound, let us go to Mr Lloyd.
David Lloyd: Hello, I am David Lloyd. I lead on criminal justice for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I am the recently re-elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire.
Alison Hernandez: I am Alison Hernandez, the national lead for roads policing and safety on behalf of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I was recently re-elected the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly. I am here particularly to give the voice of the public on some of the areas in the Bill, and in our role as a scrutineer of policing.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We are trying to straighten things out with Councillor Caliskan’s sound—hopefully we can get that sorted—but we will proceed because of time. I call Ian Levy.
Ian Levy
Q
David Lloyd: I think you make a really good point. Demonstrations are frustrating, especially when they put other people’s livelihoods at risk. Certainly, in Hertfordshire, we had an Extinction Rebellion demonstration that really put free speech at risk by closing down the printing press in Broxbourne, which my friend, the other Chair of the Committee, Sir Charles, will know all about. Certainly, it was difficult to balance the right to demonstrate against the right to free speech.
I think that the strengthening in this Bill is very helpful, although in that specific demonstration the issue was not so much whether the protesters could be arrested, but how they could be arrested, because of the way they had got themselves in some very clever holes so that you could not unpick them. However, I think we really do need to think about the broader population when people are demonstrating, rather than just the rights of the demonstrators.
Alison Hernandez: As you will know, it does not matter which police area the protests occur in; there is a reflection upon police forces nationally from communities thinking, “It is happening where we are, where we live.” There is sheer frustration about some of the disruption that has happened. One of the key factors for us is that it is about being proactive with people who want to run peaceful protests. Our police force in particular has been very good at doing that. As you may be aware, we have the G7 summit coming to us in June in Cornwall, so we are very sensitive, to a heightened extent, about this particular area, and we want to facilitate peaceful protest.
I think these measures in the Bill are needed. Anything that gives the police a tool that ensures public confidence in policing and shows that mob rule does not rule is really important. It really is reflected in public confidence that our police force is on the side of those who are on the right side of the law.
Ian Levy
Thank you. Councillor Caliskan?
Councillor Caliskan: I think it is important to differentiate between protest and the opportunity for the public to come together for things like a vigil. That is obviously—[Inaudible]—the very tragic death of Sarah Everard, for instance.
The Chair
Are you able to bring your face closer to the microphone or bring the microphone closer to your mouth? I think that would help.
Councillor Caliskan: Is that better?
The Chair
Okay, try now.
Councillor Caliskan: And we must also differentiate between a one-day vigil or protest and something that is over a longer period of time. In my experience, from having spoken to council leaders from across the country, the best way that peaceful protest is facilitated is planning in advance. That means the community and organisers having a good relationship with the police, and local forces working closely with local authorities ,so that you know when gatherings will take place, how you can put measures in place to support them to express their views and do so in a safe way. Differentiating between short-term gatherings and long-term gatherings is important.
Sarah Champion
Q
Councillor Caliskan: The first thing to say is that the Local Government Association broadly welcomes the Bill. We recognise its intentions for victims of crime and to support communities. However, there are aspects of the Bill, for instance, the offensive weapon homicide reviews, that I referred to, that lack clarity on the implications for resources, and why they are necessary, given that other reviews take place that could probably cover some of the issues. Reviews take place when you want to learn from an incident. It is unclear what the outcome of an offensive weapon homicide review would be and what learning would be achieved from that.
On the broader point about resources and support, local government have been under incredible pressure in funding youth offending services for several years. We know that youth services have seen a cut in their budgets. Youth offending services primarily have two functions: to stop reoffending, and to stop offending in the first place. The second function is not a statutory responsibility, and it is up to local authorities and partners, such as the police and NHS, to be willing to put in resources to stop offending in the first place. The early intervention and prevention aspect of things will be critical if the intention of the Bill to reduce crime over a long period of time is serious. Alongside the statutory responsibilities that the Bill sets out, the LGA’s view is that it is critical that there are adequate resources to be able to intervene with preventive measures at an earlier stage.
Sarah Champion
Q
Alison Hernandez: There are a few bits in the areas we have been looking at. One area that is particularly of public interest is around the level of offending on our roads from poor driver behaviour generally. There is an absolute appetite from the public—we carried out a survey about 18 months ago on road safety through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and over 66,000 people responded. It was absolutely clear that people witness offending behaviour on the roads where they live for about 70% of the time. So there is an appetite for more enforcement and for the fines levels, and that is in the Bill around delivering courses for some of those driver behaviours, which I think is really great. We are interested in seeing another area, which would be a levelling up of the fines for some of those offences. They are all different, whether for speeding, using a mobile phone, or not wearing a seat belt. The fines are all at different levels. Our suggestion is: why don’t you level up the fines, then you also have an opportunity to spend more funding on road safety?
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
I am very interested in this issue and there are two parts to my question. First, do you think that the existing powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are sufficient to address the issues that arise from unauthorised encampments for communities that are affected? If not, do you think that this Bill goes some way to fill any gaps that have been identified and raised by a number of different groups?
Separately, regarding local authorities, I think it is little-known that local authorities are actually required to find space for Travellers’ sites, transit sites and authorised encampments. Do you have examples of local authority areas that are doing that alongside communities and the police, and it is working well? And what more can local authorities do?
Siobhan Baillie
Alison Hernandez. Thank you.
Alison Hernandez: There are a few things, actually. Some of the existing arrangements under the legislation that you mentioned are quite strong, but there is a resistance—a nervousness—among police actually to deliver on them, and I think that having a very clear criminal offence makes it a lot easier for the police to act.
At the moment, if you look through the National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on how to deal with unauthorised encampments, it refers to a number of elements that must be met before the police take some action. This change actually enables the police to make that decision much more easily and more simply, so we really support the change to the way that we are looking at this issue.
I want to be clear that right now, as we speak, I have two unauthorised encampments, one in each county: one in Truro; one in Cranbrook. And these encampments are really affecting our communities’ confidence, by allowing people to break the law and cause damage. Actually, our communities are taking extreme measures to try to stop these unauthorised encampments from happening. This is not about being against people who have an alternative lifestyle; having such a lifestyle is absolutely fine. But when they impact on the communities’ amenity and actually cost the community money to clear up and solve issues, this offence helps to make it really clear that we do not want to see that situation in our communities.
I will just add that the sort of extreme measures that I have witnessed here in my area of Devon and Cornwall include a local council spending £18,500 on metal gates with locks to stop people from accessing pieces of land, which people have still broken into and accessed. The council have now built a concrete wall to stop those people, but it is also stopping local communities from using that land, too, because the council do not want to spend more money to clear up the land afterwards. So there is a challenge about sites—absolutely—for local authorities to consider, but I think this offence makes it clear for policing that there needs to be action.
Councillor Caliskan: The issue is experienced by local authorities up and down the country to different extents. I think it is true to say that there is disruption and that it can cost local authorities resources and funds. It is also true to say that across the country our Gypsy and Traveller communities are badly served in terms of sites that are allocated through planning policy, and it does not help when local plans take a number of years to agree things for them. So, even when there is a clear commitment to find additional sites, it can take years to identify those sites in planning policy. It is partly a planning policy issue and it is partly, I think, a lack of commitment to be able to find adequate space for our Traveller communities.
However, I have to say that the best example of existing local government being able to accommodate Traveller communities is when local authorities proactively build relationships, and while the Bill clearly sets out a way forward to be able to deal with the issues from an enforcement perspective, that is only a part of the picture. The LGA’s view would be that alongside that there needs to be a genuine commitment to accommodate communities, to have adequate spaces and to support those communities in additional things that they might need, such as health provision. Over the past year, there have been good examples of local authorities appointing community liaison individuals just for Traveller communities to be vaccinated, for instance. It costs local authorities resources, but there is a bigger picture that has to be considered.
David Lloyd: I think first of all we have got to start to look at how we can work together across the public sector, and I do not think that we are good enough at that. Very often, the first thing that happens is that the police are called to move on rather than thinking about what the issue is in the first place. Certainly, when I was first elected to a local council back in 1992, we had issues with Travellers and unauthorised encampments. If we had started then with a policy of ensuring that every single borough and district council had sufficient provision for those who may pass through, so that then, when there were unauthorised encampments, they could be moved on to those places, I do not think that anyone would feel that there was a problem in doing that. The issue is when there is no other place reasonable for them to go that is within close proximity. I do not think the duty of the districts and boroughs in two-tier areas and local councils in other areas is enforced sufficiently.
We always have to think about what it is that victims of all crimes and members of the public think most of all. One of the things that concerns people most of all is when there is an encampment—very often, it happens around a bank holiday weekend—and it seems that nothing can be done. I think that the strengthening powers within this will be helpful but that does not, in the long term, help with the real problem, which is: is there sufficient provision? We have got to do something alongside that.
In this discussion, along with the earlier question where Sarah Champion asked “What about budgets?”, we have to find a better way in local government—and I am proudly a part of local government as a police and crime commissioner—to share all of our budgets and we have to find a better way to plan together. Because one of the problems is that the issue of unauthorised encampment is always pushed to someone else as their problem, rather than any one of us picking it up as our problem. We have got to find a way through that.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The Bill introduces offensive weapons homicide reviews. What do you see as a rationale for holding only reviews where offensive weapons are involved? Why is the focus on this type of weapon and is there not a danger that those who have lost loved ones to other causes or other methods will feel that their loss is less valuable than others? That is to anyone who wishes to answer that. I think we will start with Councillor Caliskan, please. [Interruption.]
The Chair
I think we have lost you again, councillor. Shall we go to someone else while we see if we can sort this out?
Allan Dorans
Mr Lloyd?
David Lloyd: My understanding of the Bill—you will understand it better than me, probably—is that it does not get rid of other homicide reviews. Of course, the one that probably you and all of us are familiar with is the domestic homicide review, which is always very helpful, and we all learn a great deal across all agencies around that when that happens. I think this builds on that and that is reasonable.
One of the areas of focus at the moment is around serious violence. I think it not unreasonable, therefore, that we take a little bit more time and we have a little bit more evidence around what has gone wrong. I am a real believer in evidence-based policing, and we have to look at that really closely. I am very much in favour of that. It is going to be, remember, an 18-month pilot. If that brings about initiatives to prevent homicides and protect communities, I think that is a very good idea.
The Chair
Let us try Councillor Caliskan again.
Councillor Caliskan: Hopefully you can hear me now. I agree with what David said about the pilots, and it will be interesting to see the outcomes. The direct comparison is to domestic violence homicide reviews, where there can be very clear learning; and being able to learn, as a system of multiple agencies, where you might have been able to intervene earlier to stop something helps us to reduce crime in the future.
The issue with offensive weapons homicide reviews is that the evidence shows that somebody with an offensive weapon may not necessarily know their victim. You can take knife crime, for example, and compare it with domestic violence. In most cases of domestic violence, the victim and the perpetrator would know each other; that is not necessarily the case—in fact, most often is not the case—when it comes to knife crime.
I think it will be interesting to see the outcome of the pilots, but we have to be careful that we are not just creating additional burdens on agencies and that we have clear criteria and pathways for learning. Also, who will be the owner of the outcomes? Who will be responsible for being able to implement some of those lessons learned? I think that level of detail is probably missing from the Bill, so I wait to see the outcome of the pilots.
Alison Hernandez: One of the challenges around domestic homicide reviews is the lengthy delay from, obviously, when the incident happened to when the review is completed. Often, the challenge we have is that people have moved on and some of the corporate learning from it is not actually kept well within the organisation. So I think that that accountability around this trial would be really helpful, to be clear. There are opportunities around things like local criminal justice boards and there are opportunities through police and crime commissioners of actually holding on to this as part of something that we have to report on. So I think it would be good to look at that accountability to make sure it does not become a paper exercise and is not really utilised in decision making.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Caliskan: The burden of finding alternative accommodation is really about the fact that you are competing. You are competing because you may have victims of domestic violence that the local authority also needs to find accommodation for. So it is about limited resources. It does happen already: they will be rare occasions, but there may be examples where a young person needs to be relocated because they may have been involved in county lines or gang activity. But it is not simple and it is not just about relocating that individual—
The Chair
Councillor, I am very sorry to interrupt you. Is it possible to bring the mouthpiece closer to your mouth? We are really struggling to hear you.
Councillor Caliskan: How is that? Is that better? I will hold it.
The Chair
Let us try.
Councillor Caliskan: Hopefully you can hear me a bit clearer. The other point I was going to make is that it is not as simple as just relocating an individual. It is often a family that you have to relocate, and there are additional processes associated with that. Examples of issues are employment for the parents and the tenure of accommodation. If they own their own property, relocating them becomes more complicated. The picture is complicated, as you might expect. This is possible; local authorities do do it, but it takes multi-agency working and it requires a real bespoke approach depending on the individual and the family that you are trying to support.
Bambos Charalambous
Do Alison or David have any insights? I imagine not, but if they do I am happy to hear from them.
David Lloyd: All I would add—I am sure Members will be very much familiar with this—is that probably the vast majority of our criminals are under the age of 25 and a huge number of them are under 18. In Hertfordshire a couple of years ago, three quarters of our murders—we have very few—were committed by people under the age of 18. So in many ways we need to get how people are being remanded right. There are greater rights that children would rightly expect and have, but that does not mean to say that some of our most serious criminals are not children. Getting that balance right is difficult.
Councillor Caliskan: If I might add, there are good examples throughout the country where youth offender services are intervening at an early stage that not only supports individuals not to reoffend but provides a family approach, supporting siblings who may be at risk of being involved in criminal behaviour. That early intervention makes a real difference, so as local government we would look to see how such public health approach-led practice could be rolled out more consistently across the country.
The Chair
Commissioner Hernandez, do you have anything you want to add?
Alison Hernandez: Just one point in relation to youth remand. The challenge in helping young people and getting that right is the gap between arrest and conviction. With the courts backlog there is at the moment, that can be a long gap, and one of the challenges is that sometimes you cannot work with that young person until they get to the point of conviction. I just wanted to flag that up, but that is more about charge to conviction than remand and awaiting.
Mr Goodwill
Q
David Lloyd: I feared that you were going to say that. I am not convinced that anything can easily be done. Clearly, on private land, there is a planning process, but it is private land, and that is difficult. I think you are talking specifically about where someone has purchased land and invited people in, and they may well have inappropriately developed that land so that there is a site built there. It is very difficult to know how to deal with that. I certainly have not got the answer. You may well have an answer among you, but how you get the planning process to discriminate, if you like, in a positive way against that which is clearly not right and for that which is right will be difficult.
Sarah Jones
Q
David Lloyd: Can I come in first on that and perhaps also bring in another bit? One of my concerns about the Bill is that it does not go far enough; in fact, it does not really mention how we might use police and crime commissioners more. My concern has always been very much about trying to be at the centre of the criminal justice system and how we bring that together with someone who is a focus for that on a local basis.
One of the benefits of police and crime commissioners has been their ability to bring different parts of the criminal justice system together, along with local authorities, so that we can better ensure that we reduce violence and crime, that the lessons are properly learned and that we put support for victims and perpetrators in the right place. I think it is perfectly reasonable to establish the situation as we are doing it, but we need to go further. One tends never to talk about what is not in a Bill, but the big thing this misses, as far as I am concerned, is how you put PCCs at the very heart of the criminal justice system.
Frankly, with extra duties falling to police, more people will be arrested, and they will end up in a queue going to court which is getting ever longer. Until you have got someone who is able to break through that long queue to get to court, none of this will really work. That is a crisis that we need to solve, and I think we have a solution in trying to give more power to police and crime commissioners. That might be a discussion for another day, but it is something we really need to focus on.
Councillor Caliskan: I think the LGA would highlight that a prevention-first approach is a long-term, sustainable approach to deal with crime in our communities. We absolutely support collaboration and a multi-agency working approach, because it works. The evidence demonstrates that it works, and the best and most successful outcomes demonstrate that. Take the violence reduction units, for example; there are very good examples of that.
There are not violence reduction units everywhere, so there is this inconsistency. They were, as I understand it, first established based on the areas where there were high levels of knife crime. Now, whether that should be the criteria going forward is a matter for debate, but I would emphasise again that the long-term statutory responsibility is suitable and that the multi-agency approach is properly resourced to be able to deliver those early interventions.
The community safety partnerships are really welcome as well. Again, there are some good examples of them. I guess that the benefit of community safety partnerships is that local communities can decide what the issues are. That gives communities agency, and it allows different organisations to come together to have ownership of the problem.
We at the LGA would ask for there to be more consistency. For that, we should see violence reduction units extended and offered in more areas, and there should be a more sustainable funding model. If we are serious about seeing a reduction in crime, we have to have models that move away from just one-off grant funding or one-year grant funding, to five-year periods of funding, so that there can be long-term projects.
Alison Hernandez: If I may say, I get a bit frustrated with the conversation about funding, because it is not all about having funding from the Government. I absolutely applaud the serious violence duty. One of the challenges that we all recognise is that, generally, society is getting more violent. This isn’t, “Who has got the most violence in their area?” We have a general societal problem, which every area needs to be looking at, focusing on and tackling.
In Devon and Cornwall, we are not one of the areas that received the violence reduction unit funding, so the chief constable and I have come together in a partnership to establish a serious violence prevention programme. We are funding that through council tax payers’ funding, because we believe that it is fundamentally important that we make this a priority. So you can do it yourselves if you think it is important. The serious violence duty will help people to see that this must be prioritised to be tackled. We want to do prevention; we do not want to deal with the things in the Bill that are just about enforcement and the hard end of it. We are able to look at that early intervention and prevention.
Many Members will have heard of things such as Operation Encompass, which is throughout the country in all 43 police forces, to try to help children who are at the receiving end of domestic abuse. In that sort of thing, we are trying to help children as young as possible, to break that cycle of violence. We fundamentally know that domestic abuse is one of the key issues that, if not tackled at a young age, leads to more violence in later life. I am an absolute supporter of the serious violence duty. We have things within our own powers, as commissioners with our local authorities, to set the priorities to tackle that.
Sarah Jones
Q
Councillor Caliskan: I think you are right. There is no point talking about just enforcement if you want to see community cohesion. Enforcement alone does not allow for Gypsies and Traveller communities to have their place in our community when they want it. It is the nature of their protected characteristics.
What needs to happen? There was a question mark over the efficiency of—[Inaudible]—policy. There has to be a commitment from local authorities that those sites are allocated. The statutory legislation that already exists for these protected characteristics needs to be taken seriously. We should be meeting the obligations that are already set in statute, which says that we should have adequate sites for these communities, but we just do not.
I would like to give parliamentarians some reassurance that the LGA absolutely takes tackling crime seriously. That is why councils up and down the country fund multi-agency working. We take it really seriously—it is a priority, because residents tell us that they want to be safe. We also recognise that crime is a symptom of what is often a complicated socioeconomic issue. If we want to collectively be serious about tackling crime, we have to tackle it at every stage, which means talking about prevention and—[Inaudible.]
Victoria Atkins
Q
Alison Hernandez: I want to be really clear what we are all talking about. We are not talking about all Gypsies and Travellers.
Victoria Atkins
Exactly.
Alison Hernandez: We are not talking about the travelling community. We are talking about a minority of people. I have examples in Exeter city where the local authority created a very nice site so that we could admit them quicker from where they were. It had everything that they needed and the facilities that they wanted, and it was in a nice, secluded spot. When the police went in to evict them, they decided not to go to that site that was available to them. They wanted to go to the next game that they wanted to play. Let’s be really clear about this: we are talking about a minority of people who do not want to abide by the law of this country. I believe we need this offence to support our communities and to send a very strong message: you do not do this type of behaviour.
I mentioned the £18,500 metal fencing created at Drumbridges roundabout to stop them accessing that land. They broke into that land. I have communities who will tell me that they have spotters who go ahead to break open the gates, so they will use the excuse that the gates were already open. All these sorts of things are happening. I have asked about CCTV—can we put it on the main sites where we have these things happening? It cannot be done, because of human rights—because it is where someone is living. Every place you turn to as a community to try to solve this problem is not available.
For me, harms are being caused. On Dartmoor alone, when they had an unauthorised encampment, it became absolutely huge. When these things get so huge, no one can move them on, because the amount of resource required to do so is immense. The bailiffs were going to cost £50,000 a day, and they would still need police back-up in order to do it. The cost is absolutely huge. There is something about sending a message through this Bill which tells the public that we are on their side and that we do not support people who do not want to abide by the law.
David Lloyd: I entirely agree with that. In Welwyn Garden City, we have a person who has almost been driven to the verge of bankruptcy because there was an unauthorised encampment which decided, at the same time, to take on industrial-level fly-tipping. It would cost about £150,000 to move those materials. That originally happened 18 months or two years ago. It is still there among all the woodland.
These people are at the end of their tether. The cost is not just monetary. I have people calling me who really are frightened because they have had large numbers of people on their own land and they feel intimidated and personally threatened. We need to do something about it. Much of it is about sending a message.
While I recognise that it is not helped, as I said earlier, by the fact that local authorities do not provide sufficient spots for Travellers to move on to—I recognise that is something we need to do—we also need to send a message that these people can be moved on if they are in an unauthorised place. We need to send that message out again, as Alison has said far more ably than me, so that the public recognise that we are on their side and we are on the side of the underdog.
Councillor Caliskan: All I would add is that I recognise that there are strongly held views, and we have councils who articulate exactly what colleagues on this panel have spoken about. It can be a huge cost to a local authority.
The best way to deal with these issues is through a collaborative approach, not just through agencies in a particular area, but also with the communities themselves who may be occupying the space. Something has got to give at some point, and an obvious solution is trying to identify space. Local authorities absolutely do not want to be encouraging criminality and disruption, not least because it costs a lot of money, but we could be going round and round in circles unless we find a long-term solution. I recognise that the Bill is an attempt to do that. All I would say is that in order for there to be a collaborative approach, alongside that there needs to be an approach that is about dialogue with communities, too. I do not think that contradicts anything that other panel members have said.
Victoria Atkins
Just to assist the Committee, clause 61 focuses on the conditions whereby this offence can be committed. The phrases “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress” appear to cover the descriptions given by Commissioner Hernandez and Commissioner Lloyd.
On the serious violence duty, where the Government are requiring local agencies to work together to draw together plans to tackle serious violence in their local areas, I am happy to reassure Commissioner Lloyd that clause 13 very much views police and crime commissioners and mayors with policing powers as having a convening role in that. What value do you think will be gained in your local areas from requiring these organisations—vital as they are, in their many ways, in tackling the serious violence that we hope to prevent—to get around a table and work together with schools and educational establishments, in particular, to ensure that we prevent serious violence?
The Chair
Very briefly, please, because we are almost out of time.
David Lloyd: Things that are asked for specifically and are required of us get done. This measure strengthens what many of us are already putting into our own police and crime plans. It is always better to place a duty on us, because that ensures that it gets done. We really do need to ensure that the scourge of serious violence is reduced. There are many parts of the country—thankfully not Hertfordshire—where this is out of control, and this measure will help.
The Chair
Order. We will stop, because we are out of time. I am sorry, Councillor Caliskan, but we have a very tight schedule today. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and I thank Councillor Caliskan for persevering with some of the sound problems.
Examination of Witnesses
Adam Wagner and Marc Willers QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Marc Willers QC: Good afternoon. My name is Marc Willers. I am a QC barrister practising at Garden Court Chambers.
Adam Wagner: Good afternoon. I am Adam Wagner, a barrister practising at Doughty Street Chambers.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: I will leave the Gypsy and Traveller aspect to Marc. From a protest perspective, what worries me about the Bill is that it decouples the public order element from the Public Order Act 1986. It makes that Act do things that it was not designed to do—to protect public order by effectively giving the police powers to impose directions on any protest that is very noisy, which is any protest.
In terms of discrimination, I regularly act for clients who protest—not for any particular thing; I act for clients who protest all sorts of things. My concern is that the police and potentially the Government will end up cherry-picking the kinds of protest that they consider to be valuable and the kinds that they consider to be problematic. That will ultimately be a political decision, not one based on public order. Ultimately, it does not matter whether it is a left-wing Government or a right-wing Government—they will have the ability to discriminate against groups that they do not agree with.
Marc Willers QC: You might have guessed that I am going to indicate that the Bill, particularly part 4, discriminates against Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, two ethnic minority groups with a traditional way of life, an integral part of which is living in caravans, and which also involves nomadism. The Bill will criminalise trespass at a time when many of those who resort to and reside on unauthorised encampments have nowhere else to go, the reason that being site provision, an elderly but enormous elephant in the room, has not been addressed since 1960, when the Government and Parliament of the day introduced the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which closed the commons.
A statutory duty was introduced in 1968 by Lord Eric Avebury, but that duty was subsequently repealed in 1994. I am afraid that the encouragement of private site provision has failed abysmally, and we still have a cohort of Romani Gypsies, Irish Travellers and, indeed, new travellers who do not have a lawful stopping place. Criminalising trespass and giving greater powers, which the police have roundly suggested they do not need, to occupiers of land for the police to enforce really puts another nail in the coffin of nomadism and makes such people’s lives extremely difficult. The disproportionate impact on Gypsies and Travellers is there for all to see.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: It widens the test for being able to impose conditions on a protest to encompass pretty much any protest that is noisy enough to cause intimidation, to harass, or to cause
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
or “serious disruption”. If you are a protest organiser, you will know that that could apply to any protest. You have to appreciate that the current section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows for conditions only when a protest causes
“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
That is already pretty wide.
By making it about noise, you are effectively saying to the organiser that any protest could be caught by that description, so they will have to rely on the good will of the police and the Home Secretary, because the Home Secretary will have a regulation-making power not only to define any of the new terms that I have expressed, but to give examples. Organisers will have to rely on the police and the Home Secretary to decide that their protest is not worth putting conditions on. From a protester perspective, that puts you entirely in the hands of the police and the Home Secretary. That very problematic for somebody organising a protest, because a lot of people will think it is just not worth it, particularly when they are representing an unpopular cause or one that they consider to be controversial. Those are precisely the protests that are the most important, and the most important to protect.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: No; I have not, I am afraid.
The Chair
Is there anything you wanted to add, Mr Willers?
Marc Willers QC: Much the same can be said about proposed new section 60C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in terms of its language. It seems to me that a lot of the language used is vague and uncertain. There is a reference to causing “significant distress” as one of the conditions that could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who refuses to leave a piece of land. That, in itself, brings inherent problems, because a private citizen could very easily invoke the power and leave a police officer with a fait accompli—in other words, they have no option but to arrest an individual who refuses to leave land in circumstances where the occupier says, “I am being caused significant distress by the very fact that this individual is parking on land that I occupy.”
That distress can be engendered or underpinned by the prejudice that Gypsies and Travellers face in our society today. It is a widespread and long-standing prejudice, dating back to the first time that Romani Gypsies came to these shores in the 1500s. I am afraid that it is fuelled by mainstream media and politicians. It is instilled in the minds of many members of the public, and it is bound to play a part. There may well be unwarranted and unjustified concerns on the part of the occupier, which could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who has nowhere else to go.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Marc Willers QC: It might be better for Mr Wagner to deal with that issue, given that I am dealing with part 4.
Adam Wagner: This is a recommendation by the Law Commission, as I am sure you are aware. My concern about codification is that it becomes a statutory tool in the armoury that might not previously have been used. I appreciate that the Law Commission recommended it. It does have benefits in terms of clarity and making the definition of public nuisance a statutory one, rather than coming out of common law and arguably being subject to not being clear.
I do worry that once it becomes a potential tool in the box, it will be used more. From the perspective of protest, and protecting the right to protest and freedom of assembly, it is just another tool in the armoury of public authorities to limit protest. Both Mr Willers and I deal with cases involving private injunctions against protesters and, in Mr Willers’ case, Gypsy and Traveller communities. You can see this proliferation in the courts of the use of any kind of method that will allow private companies and public authorities to restrict what is generally non-violent activity that does not cause much, if any, public order issue. You can see that being used. My concern is that it adds another potential bar to an already quite extensive collection of bars to public protest.
Marc Willers QC: I echo what Mr Wagner had to say. In the context of unauthorised encampments, there has been what has been described by the Court of Appeal—Lord Justice Coulson—as a feeding frenzy, in a case involving Bromley’s application for a wide injunction, effectively creating a no-go zone in Bromley, where Gypsies and Travellers would not be able to camp. That has been replicated up and down the country, in what has been described, as I said, as a feeding frenzy of litigation.
The Court of Appeal, in that context, concluded that the creation of such no-go zones offended the Equality Act 2010, the European convention on human rights and the protection of the right to respect for the traditional way of life of Gypsies and Travellers, and the enshrined right to roam. To bring it back to unauthorised encampments, in part 4 of the Bill the Government appear to be creating the no-go zones that the Court of Appeal has said in another context would fundamentally breach the rights that I have identified.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Marc Willers QC: The problem with part 4—it is speculation as to whether or not definitions will become crystallised in litigation—is that most Gypsies and Travellers will have left the site and be unable to challenge the decision by a police officer to arrest them, given the scenario that would play out under, for example, proposed new section 60C of the 1994 Act. A Gypsy or Traveller parking on a piece of land with their family, perhaps on the way down to Kent from somewhere up north, is not going to hang around when threatened with the seizure of their vehicle to argue that they should be entitled to remain on the land. Even if they did, they would probably not get legal aid with which to challenge the application of the section and their prosecution. In those circumstances, we are probably unlikely to see much, if any, judicial consideration of the vague terms in part 4.
Adam Wagner: If I may, I will add that
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
is not new to the law. You see that wording in the definition of criminal harassment and in other places. My concern is more about width than about clarity. I have dealt with numerous cases involving over-wide injunctions. There is quite a lot of case law about clarity versus width, and the point is that once this language is in the law relating to noise, it will be obvious to the courts that it is a very wide provision indeed and will rely to quite a large extent on the decision making of the police officers.
For example, if a protest decided to be completely silent, it would be difficult for the police to say that that protest was going to cause enough noise to cause serious unease. I imagine that the next Extinction Rebellion protest we see will be completely silent after this. But in seriousness, I think the court will just see that as very wide. What you have really got here is nothing to do with public order; it is about nuisance. It is about criminalising a certain kind of nuisance arising from what should be a protected activity—exercising political speech rights, under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention.
Sarah Jones
Q
Marc, it was put to us earlier that this is not about discrimination or attacking Gypsies or Travellers. It is about people who are engaged in significant criminal damage in places where they should not be. It would be helpful to have your response to that charge—Adam first.
Adam Wagner: I hear that. I will just quote Lord Justice Laws, who said:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”
Protest has not changed; protest has always been a pain, a nuisance and liable to be inconvenient and tiresome. What has changed is that we have a Government who do not like certain protests—although that in itself has not changed either.
Extinction Rebellion is no different from any widespread protest movement—the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the environmental movement previously—but what is different is that it has managed to attract hundreds of thousands of people to its cause and is making real inroads on the public consciousness. That in itself is not a justification effectively to give the police powers to ban or impose conditions on any protest or, even more troublingly from my perspective, to give the Home Secretary—whose role is only to protect public order, not to protect particular opinions or to impose her, his or the Government’s opinion on any particular group—powers in effect to give examples of protests that she considers to be noisy, the ones that this legislation is targeting. You are getting yourself into a situation not where the public is better served, but where this essential part of democracy is going to be reduced down and chilled.
Sarah Jones
Thank you. Marc?
Marc Willers QC: The first thing to say is that those who are committing significant criminal damage can be prosecuted using existing legislation. If they are committing antisocial behaviour, existing legislation is in place. Indeed, the police made that point in their responses to the consultation on these proposed measures, and did so in spades. The response from the vast majority of the police forces was, “We do not need additional powers”, or, “We do need the existing powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to be strengthened.”
I have no hesitation in saying, fund the police properly and ensure that they prosecute those who commit criminal offences, whether they be Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers or members of the settled population—everyone should be treated in the eyes of the law—but part 4 and the proposed provisions do not just affect those who are committing significant criminal damage; they affect each and every Gypsy and Traveller who is exercising their right, enshrined in our convention and under the European convention of human rights, to nomadism, to roam. We should not force them into a position in which they are only lawfully exercising that right when actually on the road—a road to nowhere.
The provision not only will force them into that situation, in which they are literally only within the law when they are moving along the road, but will give police the power to seize their homes, should they fall foul of the provisions. Should they camp on a piece of land and be asked to leave by an occupier who is prejudiced against them and would not want them to be there out of fear that they might commit some behaviour instilled in the mind by prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers, then as I said, it is a fait accompli for the police who are called in. They will have to arrest and almost certainly seize the caravans, that being the home. The individual and family might end up being destitute.
This is all at a time when there is insufficient transit and permanent sites for Gypsies and Travellers to live on. The proposed legislation ignores the rather elderly and enormous elephant in the room—the lack of site provision. That lack of site provision has continued unabated since the 1960s, as I said, when the commons were first closed.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Yes, of course.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: I think I would be neutral on that. It is a very wide piece of legislation. Every time I read it, I am pretty surprised at how wide it is already. What I am pretty clear about is that section 12 does not need to be widened.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Well, potentially. The proof is often in the pudding. It depends on how the police use it and whether they are using it effectively. I have read the report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. I speak to a lot of police, and my experience is that they know they have a wide suite of powers when it comes to protest. What they struggle with, if you look at what has happened over the covid regulations, is deciding when to use them and what is proportionate. These are very difficult policing situations, and they are not necessarily solved by imposing widespread conditions that may lead to legal challenges, which may be successful. Successful policing of protests ultimately comes down to working with the protesters and civil society—hearts and minds stuff from the police. You saw that with the Sarah Everard vigil, and you see that with Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. I do not think you can really enforce your way out of some of the disruption caused by protest. It is really about allowing voices to be heard and being careful.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Well, in part. The Public Order Act was used quite extensively over the course of the Extinction Rebellion protests, and Black Lives Matter was under the covid regulations last summer. That was the power that was used, and those are much more extensive. The covid regulations are far too extensive. We saw there the problems when the police are given too much power, because then they have to make what are not really public order decisions but substantive political decisions about which protests they do and do not allow. That is the danger. I do not think it is a right-wing or left-wing issue; any Government should be worried about protests being limited by political decisions, rather than public order decisions.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: I think the objective test would assist the courts; I do not think it would assist police officers. Anything that limits these powers is better than not, but I just think the powers themselves are too wide for the reasons I have set out. I do not think that helps anything. From a policing perspective, applying all those tests is not going to be easy anyway. Really, this is about the width of the powers overall as a package, rather than the reasonable firmness test or anything like that.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Marc Willers QC: I do not think it would just be related to private lands—
Victoria Atkins
I accept that. There are provisions on common lands as well—you are quite right.
The Chair
I think we had better let Mr Willers answer as we are going to run completely out of time.
Marc Willers QC: It covers private and public land, and common land, and you are right that the conditions are “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress”. My comments earlier were about the fact that significant damage and disruption can be covered by other legislation. The “significant distress” point was one I made in the context of the fact that the occupier may have their own impression of “significant distress”, or may suffer significant distress because of an inherent prejudice towards Gypsies and Travellers.
The Chair
I am really sorry Minister, but we are going to have to stop there because we are out of time allotted for this session. I thank you both for your evidence.
Examination of witness
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby gave evidence.
The Chair
I now call Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, acting CEO of the Youth Justice Board. Once again, we are down to 30 minutes, so we have to be tight—we have until 5.15 pm for this session. Stephanie, would you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, and I am the interim chief executive officer for the Youth Justice Board. It is great to be here today to give evidence to you.
The Chair
I see that you are on an iPhone. Could I possibly ask you to flip it round so that you are in landscape?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Is that better for you, Chair?
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Absolutely. We would say that children who commit offences as children should be sentenced as children, and that, where possible, the court should take into account the age and maturity of the child at the time of the offence. I know that HMCTS has been working tirelessly—particularly at the moment with the covid pandemic—to make sure that children’s cases are held promptly and before their 18th birthdays.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We strongly believe that when the offence was committed as a child, that should be reflected in the length of the sentence, so they should be sentenced accordingly. We appreciate the logic for some of the tapering proposed in the Bill, but we feel that it fails to recognise that all children, who were under 18 at the time of the offence, had a distinct set of rights and vulnerabilities, and that the nature and length of time with which children and young people’s development takes place needs to be reflected. Indeed, evidence points firmly to brain development continuing up until the age of 25.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We wholeheartedly support the introduction of secure schools. We very much welcome the Government’s proposal to open the first secure school at Medway and we look forward to a further secure school as part of the Government’s commitment to an alternative to secure accommodation for children. We have been working closely with Oasis, which was announced as the provider of the first secure school. It is a very strong academy trust and will offer a different operating model from the secure environments that currently exist. While there is some great practice that takes place across the secure estate, we know from the data about the outcomes for children who have been in the current secure estate that those outcomes are poor and that further offending continues.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: It is a concern that the market, as you would describe it, for providing a secure estate is quite limited. We would want to try to stimulate that market, to get the full range of providers that will be able to meet children’s needs. I think there is something about really understanding the complexity of children in the secure estate. These children are extremely vulnerable and, as a result, their behaviours can then be deemed as being extremely risky and posing a risk to others.
Our only concern about the delivery of the secure school is that link, at the moment, to the academy sector, particularly for children entering the youth justice system who have quite often been involved in practices whereby they have been off-rolled. For instance, we note the high levels—the prevalence—of exclusion of children. For example, we know from HMIP data that 89% of children at Feltham in 2018 had been excluded from school. We would be really keen to seek an assurance through the tendering process that academy trusts that are selected to open or run a secure school have the full range of skills, expertise, structures and ethos to support children to change in a secure setting.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Youth offending teams are critical in early intervention and prevention with children who may be on the cusp of offending. There are a whole range of sentencing options available, but before that point there are out-of-court disposals, which means that children can be engaged in a range of activities, interventions and indeed supervision that would help them to address their needs.
Regarding the latter, I think there is really something about us all committing to understand children’s development, some of the social and economic environments in which children are living, and some of the deprivation and the structural barriers that children in our communities are experiencing, particularly children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, who we know are disproportionately represented across the youth justice system. So there are a range of options available from youth offending teams.
One of the challenges that we hear about from the sector is its capacity to work upstream. Often, that is a result of funding, although this year the youth offending teams have had an additional uplift in their grant to help with some of the challenges that they are currently experiencing.
Siobhan Baillie
Very tiny. I have a number of youth groups in my patch, as no doubt all MPs have, that are trusted by youngsters and that have been there and built the relationships. How do the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams work with the grassroots youth organisations?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: If I start with our role as the Youth Justice Board, we work really closely with the voluntary and third-sector community. We have a regular stakeholder forum, where we come together with all of the voluntary sector to hear their voices and concerns, so that we can have effective oversight of the youth justice system.
At grassroots level, which you referred to with youth offending teams, local authorities can subcontract or co-commission services to the voluntary sector, although again we know that in latter years some of those organisations have not necessarily been able to sustain themselves. However, those services are really critical to understanding the context in which children are living: the services they need, and the services that are able to get alongside children and help them. We also have a youth-affiliated network in which we hear from children and hear their voices. They are often the go-to services when children are in crisis, are feeling vulnerable, or do not know what to do.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“In this Chapter—
“adult” means a person aged 16 or over”.
Given the wealth of evidence on maturity, do you think that the section and other provisions of the Bill that address sentencing 16 and 17-year-olds are appropriate?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: I go back to my original answer in which we are clear that the age in law for children is up to 18. We absolutely promote a child-first youth justice system which means that children up to the age of 18 should get treated as children, as they are in law. The evidence base in the debate about maturity strongly suggests that brain development continues until the age of 25, and indeed some evidence shows that it may extend to 28 for males in particular. We would absolutely continue to champion the idea that children should be sentenced as children until their 18th birthday.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“There is no evidence that the threat of harsher custodial sentences deters children from offending, no evidence that contributes towards rehabilitation or promoting long-term positive outcomes. Meanwhile, there is abundant evidence that imprisonment is extremely harmful to children and disrupts their healthy long-term development.”
How do you think the changes to youth sentencing proposed in the Bill will impact reoffending rates?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: A number of changes are presented, and I want to pick out some of those. We are broadly supportive of the proposals relating to youth rehabilitation orders. We are supportive of anything that prevents children from being drawn further into the youth justice system. That would include offering them greater support in the community, and making sure that they get their needs addressed. There is no evidence to show that punishment changes behaviour. What we know changes behaviour is pro-social identity, and giving children a positive image of themselves where they can build on their strengths, and aspire to contribute to our society and our economy. We are very clear that we would not want to see the Bill result in more children being pulled into the youth justice system, and indeed we would want to see children continuing to be referred into the services that rightly should be there to meet their needs and prevent them from offending, as we have seen in the last 20 years since the youth justice system was established.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We really support the proposals and changes to remand. I will start with that point, if that is okay. We welcome the proposal that there be a statutory duty for the court to consider the child’s welfare and best interests when applying the prospect of custody test. We know that at the moment only a third of children in custody on remand go on to get a custodial sentence, which raises the issue of why so many children are being remanded in the first place. So we very much support the proposals around remand.
We particularly support the changes that would say that only a recent and significant history of a breach, or offending while on bail, would result in custodial remand. We recommend that those definitions be tightened or specified. We would recommend that “recent” refer to a six-week period, and “significant” refer to a situation where there is a potential to cause serious harm or injury. We are very supportive of measures that would reduce the number of children being drawn into the system, particularly into custody, so we support the recommendations around remand, but those measures in isolation will not reduce the number of children in custody. There still needs to be work in the community around appropriate accommodation for children, with holistic services that meet their needs. At the moment, there is a misalignment between the priorities of the criminal courts and available community provision for children’s social care accommodation.
We also think there is limited time to build an appropriate bail package. As we all know, there is more to do, although there is ongoing work around vulnerable children and reducing the likelihood of their being exploited.
We very much welcome the changes to the detention training orders, but some of them could result in an increase in the number of children in custody. It might be helpful if I talk through each of those changes. I am conscious of the time and that I am talking very fast, but I think those changes are quite significant. We welcome the fact that there will be more flexibility with their sentences, rather than the rigidity that we have now. However, there is a challenge that the fixed lengths mean that children may miss out on the opportunity to be enrolled in school, for training or for an apprenticeship.
We have some concerns that the findings of the impact assessment that the Government completed may mean that individuals making an early guilty plea may end up with longer sentences than they currently receive. While there would be no additional children’s sentence to detention training orders under this option, that would increase the capacity at any given point of the number of children in the secure estate. We have estimated that to be a potential 30 to 50 places, costing £5.3 million to £8.5 million per year.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We would suggest that some of the changes may further disproportionately disadvantage black and mixed heritage boys—that is indicated in the impact assessment that is currently being completed. We would be very keen to work on some mitigating actions that might prevent those unintended consequences disproportionately affecting those children further.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We would see the benefits very much related to the skills, experience and expertise that multi-academy trusts could bring into a secure school setting. As you may know, the secure estate is split into three different sections: secure training centres, secure children’s homes and young offenders institutions. The custodial element of those organisations is very strong and probably strongest in the YOIs and the STCs. The introduction of a very different model that accounts for children’s needs will not mean that they will not be secure; it will mean that they have a focus on education, mental health, and a trauma-informed approach to working with children who have complex needs, which is very much needed.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Gosh. We could probably provide you with a significant amount of evidence on that and I would very much welcome the opportunity to do that in writing to the Committee.
We would suggest coming from the perspective of the child first and using the evidence base that has been developed recently, which focuses on children, their personal and social identity and their strengths, rather than being deficit-based. The evidence, which equally applies to adults, is that if you look for good and build on good, much more is achieved than if you tell people that they are no use and no good and cannot contribute to society.
We know that with children, the earlier we intervene, the better—early intervention and prevention, and targeting services upstream. That is a challenge for youth offending teams at the moment. They have statutory caseloads and trying to balance intervening earlier is really difficult. Some local authorities manage to do that better than others. There is a massive evidence base and we can share the evidence after the Committee today.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We have been working really closely with the Ministry of Justice on the remand review. We are very keen to understand the data better and to have a look at the trends across the country. One of the things we would really welcome as, dare I say, an amendment to the Bill is for there to be a decision why bail is and is not granted. There is still a lack of evidence on what needs to change for more children to remain in the community, and we want to avoid perpetuating cycles of evidence.
You asked about what more we could do around the remand review. There is certainly something more we could do around trying to knit the system together better, through our heads of regions constantly having discussions with the sector around remand. We are doing quite a lot of work at the moment on developing alternative models for accommodation. We are working across London. We are investing in a pathfinder project to try to develop a different model for children, to prevent them being taken into the secure estate on remand.
Chris Philp
I think that covers everything I wanted to ask. Thank you for the work you are doing.
The Chair
If you do wish to furnish the Committee with further written evidence to support your comments, that would be most welcome. I think Mr Cunningham had a further question.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: As I understand it, the inspection framework for a secure school will be Ofsted, quite rightly, because it is a secure school rather than a prison. Of course, there is a role that HMIP might play in helping to share and disseminate best practice. As is the case when Ofsted does an inspection in the secure estate, HMIP is part of that broader inspection team. There is a role for it to share best practice as it sees and finds it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Some of the principal challenges come from the fact that services for children sit across everyone’s responsibility but no one’s responsibility. There is absolutely something about us continuing to reach out across the Government. We very much see joining services up as some of the leadership space that we are in and will continue to be in, so that children who are vulnerable to offending are seen and are not slipping through the gaps in service provision.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank you very much for your evidence today.
Examination of Witness
Derek Sweeting QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I am Derek Sweeting QC, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Two questions there. Would we support them? Yes, because open justice is a really important objective within the justice system. Will they work? There are obvious problems with managing hearings that are accessible over the internet, particularly in an age of social media when people know how to record things and take photographs and video online—that sort of thing. I think there are issues with how you police open justice and ensure that proceedings have the seriousness and gravity that they should have and that you do not get an abuse, particularly on social media, of the facility to be able to see things from afar. But generally I think it is a move in the right direction.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes. I think at the moment there are already dangers around jurors doing things that they should not through the internet and social media. They are given a very specific warning and written information about what they can and cannot do while they are serving on a jury. I think all of this must be considered with a lot of care. There are bits of court proceedings that I think should not be directly under the gaze of the camera and so on. So there is a lot of room for working out what the protocols are and how things work best.
On the general point, there is plainly a risk that we will have more occasions on which there could be potential contempts of court, but I do not think we can go backwards; we just have to manage these things as we have done with every technological step forward that impacts on the justice system.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Well, barristers never do that, of course. I think we are a long way off the American sort of proceedings that we sometimes see. That is perhaps slightly unfair to many American attorneys, who conduct their business with a lot of decorum, even under the gaze of the camera.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you. That was slightly tongue in cheek, although we do occasionally have barristers appearing at the Dispatch Box and I would not comment on their performance.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think the first part of the question is: what technology have we got in place at the moment?
When the pandemic struck, and once we got back in particular to jury trials in the Crown court, we did see the roll-out of CVP—Cloud Video Platform—which very few of us knew was under development at the time. That was vital to allowing work to resume in many jurisdictions. We have also got a new system on the way, so the technology is improving all the time.
The second part of the question is really about how satisfactory is remote participation by the witness or others in court proceedings, and I think it really prompts the question, if we can do it, whether we should. That is the point—that fact that we can is not really a reason for necessarily doing it. I think it is absolutely clear that proceedings in future will probably involve a hybrid, with some witnesses attending remotely where that is appropriate. That has to be judicially managed. I think for some hearings it is pretty clear that everything could be done remotely, particularly administrative hearings. But in hearings that are serious in their nature because they will result in the final disposition of a case and so on, there is a much greater argument for ensuring that all of the participants and all of the evidence start on the basis that if evidence can be given in person, it should be. Thought should then be given to what is unnecessary to have in person and what could be dealt with remotely.
It is an area where we are finding our way. The Bar Council has just issued a statement with the Bars of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and of course England and Wales, which I represent, which actually makes that point. It says that there are many aspects of a remote hearing that are not satisfactory, in the sense that they are not as good as having everybody in the room—the old model, where you get two teams together with a referee and you have an adversarial contest. But that model anyway is something that we need to think about as we go forward.
There is plainly a use for more remote, but I think the profession would like some guidance as to what the parameters are for when we should be remote, what the starting position is and when it is appropriate, and only appropriate, to be in person.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The two types of conduct that you have just described are in themselves likely to be criminal offences, so there is nothing new about that. Has protest changed in its nature? I think we have certainly heard some evidence that, particularly with social media, the way in which protests can be arranged makes it much more difficult for them to be managed. I think there is some public concern about that. The measures contained in the Bill, particularly in relation to noise levels and serious disruption to and impact on persons in the vicinity, raise a legitimate question about whether it goes a bit too far, particularly in relation to what “significant” means and who has to take that decision on the ground. You ask whether things have changed, and I think you might look at this and say that almost every suffragette protest would have been caught by the proposed legislation.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think it is a sensible measure. We welcome the fact that we have got a statutory maximum of 10 years. It was a Law Commission recommendation—clause 59 is what we are talking about. I think the only thing I would inject into the conversation around this is that the Law Commission report itself actually includes a defence of reasonableness, and that defence applies particularly to cases where the conduct is in an exercise of an article 10 or article 11 right to freedom of assembly or freedom of expression. Effectively, you might say that the Government seek to criminalise, on the basis of what the Law Commission’s report addressed, acts that the Law Commission itself thought would be caught by a reasonableness defence in relation to public protest and the exercise of important rights of freedom of expression or freedom of assembly.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think it changes things, rather than adds, doesn’t it? In relation to memorials, we will now find ourselves in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court. It is important to acknowledge that approaching the issue of damage to memorials only on the basis of value, for example, really underplays the quite significant sentiment that attaches to particular memorials and ought to be recognised. However, magistrates already have the power to imprison in relation to the existing offences that would apply. It seems a little unnecessary, I would have thought, to say that all these offences need to be covered by an offence that means they have to be dealt with in the Crown court, with all the extra cost and time that that would entail, particularly in a jurisdiction that already suffers from a significant backlog.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I wonder whether the sledgehammer is being used for a nut here. I think you have to reflect public concern about attacks on memorials, but this may just flip the problem from something that perhaps does not provide enough in the way of sentencing options to a much more onerous and ponderous procedure to deal with something that can involve, for example, removing flowers from a memorial, which you would not have thought would be something that could not be dealt with by magistrates. One would anticipate a range of sentencing options within the summary jurisdiction and perhaps in the Crown court as well, but not the need to go off to the Crown court for all these offences.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The answer is that we are probably likely to see longer sentences and more of them. I hope that does not sound too pessimistic, but that is the overall effect that you are asking me about. That is probably what we will see if the sentencing reforms are carried into effect, because to some extent they limit judicial discretion and extend the role of mandatory sentencing.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: You are adjusting the release point within a sentence that has already been passed by the court. I think there is an argument that it might make things more complex, but on the face of it, it seems to me to be something that may actually provide a little clarity within the existing sentencing regime.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Which one are you referring to?
Alex Cunningham
The provision about the changes to automatic release and referral to the Parole Board.
Derek Sweeting QC: I am not sure that we have commented on that, actually.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The concerns around that are really that it is sensible to try to reduce the complexity of this area—I think the ambition is to reduce down to two—but I think the attachment of conditions to both of the cautions that are left, as a requirement, is not necessarily helpful. It would be useful to have something that was a more general tool that the police could use, that would not turn up in criminal records later on and so on, and that would give the police the option effectively just to give what is now the simple caution.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes. I think we have drawn attention to the fact that those are not in the Bill, so it would be sensible, we would have thought, to try to do that and to be a bit more ambitious around the youth justice points in the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: We do welcome, certainly, the British Sign Language proposal in the Bill. I think that, if anything, we were slightly surprised that there was not some consultation around it. There are jurisdictions in which this is a development and there is some learning about it; there is some practice as well. It involves, generally, two signers, so there is obviously a resource impact as well. This is not just about the interpretation of evidence; someone would go into the jury room when the jury retired. That is likely to require some additional training of signers, because it is a different role from just interpreting. Those are the sorts of things that we think might well have been covered by some consultation.
In fact, in a way, the opportunity was lost, by not consulting, to consider whether there are other categories of disability for which reasonable adjustments and accommodations might be made to enable people to serve on a jury, because it is an important civic duty and the wider the range of citizens who can undertake that duty, the better. So it is the right direction of travel, but we think the arrangements around it will obviously need some thought, some investment and some training for signers, and actually there might have been an opportunity to think a little larger about who else might benefit from similar adjustments or adjustments that are specific to their needs.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I hope it is not the case; I think it is once in a lifetime, as far as I am concerned. If I did not make the position clearer earlier, that was because we were really dealing with the general question of remote participation. I think, in the case of remote juries, that is an area where we do have significant concerns, and I think we would oppose the measure that is proposed in the Bill. The reason for that I think you have touched on already: this is not a measure that has been needed over the course of the present pandemic. It is said, I think, to be effectively a just-in-case measure, an emergency measure, but it is wholly unclear what the circumstances would be in which the measure would be required or executed—put into effect. So I think we do have concerns about that.
Fundamentally altering the character of a jury trial by, as the Lord Chief put it, having the jury as spectators rather than participants, which is certainly the view he was expressing about what the impact of remote juries would be—changing it in that way is a very significant change to a very important part of our justice system, a bit of the justice system that really has public confidence, and that we know from the research really recognises diversity and does not produce outcomes that are unfair. I think we need to be very careful and cautious about making significant changes. I think, if we are going to have a measure, it should not be a measure on which we say, “Oh well, there might be a need for it at some point.” If the point arises, it would be much better to consider itin the circumstances of any future emergency, if it occurs. We certainly would not like to see remote juries deployed outside of emergency conditions. There does not seem to be any reason to do that. There is no research about that and no evaluation of the effect on outcomes of having a remote jury. Even in Scotland, where it has been trialled during the pandemic, with much larger juries of 15, it is yet to be evaluated.
We would suggest that it ought to be approached with a lot of caution. It is not a measure that is needed; we can wait until it is needed. Equally, as I think is acknowledged, the technology is only barely there. Again, we ought to wait until the technology can be factored into the mix to consider whether it is a good idea.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Those who are vulnerable; young defendants and those who may find it difficult to follow proceedings if they are held remotely, who may need particular access to their counsel, which is much more difficult if you are dealing with things remotely. There is a raft of problems that you may encounter when you physically separate the defendant from the trial process.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: In the end, it will have to be managed judicially. I am not sure that we need to hem in the exercise of discretion in relation to that. There are already provisions in relation to what the judge must take into account when considering whether there should be remote participation. They are very difficult to apply to juries, by the way, but if they are followed, we will find that they involve a significant number of safeguards for the fair conduct of proceedings.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes, I think my point was really about the suggestion that the statutory offence—these are the words—is to cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance but, yes, you are right that there is an offence of that sort in there.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Two questions. Is it more convenient? Certainly, during the pandemic it has been important to have a method of holding hearings when we have to socially distance. Under the circumstances of the pandemic, it was vital. Remote hearings have enabled the family jurisdiction in particular to keep on working from the word go—it never stopped. Using technology in those circumstances in remote hearings was extremely helpful. It was certainly convenient during the pandemic.
Is it convenient for everyone? During the pandemic itself, we had some opposing views. Counsel certainly found it convenient, but one or two participants in family proceedings publicly said that they felt detachment from the proceeding. We have to recognise that there are reasons for being cautious about making the assumption that if it is convenient for legal professionals and judges, it is also necessarily a good experience for users. Certainly, there are whole categories of users for whom, if they cannot get to court or if they have mobility problems, the ability to have a hearing remotely is going to be valuable. Of course, we have been in a big laboratory, and we have tested a lot of these things in a way that we that we would not have been able to do in the decades before the pandemic. We need to take forward the best of remote and carry on using it.
Are there disadvantages? Yes, I think there are. There are experiences that we have all heard about, which are salutary and should make us be cautious about just assuming that we can always do things as well if we are doing them remotely.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I am not sure that is right. The point that I was making is that the proposed amendment is to the mode of trial for a limited class of offences of criminal damage. That is the effect of the amendment. It removes the power for an offence involving a memorial to be tried in the magistrates court, however small the value of any damage. That was the point I was making earlier. I was really being asked whether that is a proportionate measure, and the point I was making is that there are some offences involving memorials where one would have thought that the magistrates’ powers are perfectly adequate, and it is not proportionate to require that matter to go to the Crown court.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Well, there might be, but equally there might be cases where it is wholly unnecessary to go to the Crown court. Since the definition of “memorial” extends to moveable items, removing a bunch of flowers from a memorial amounts to the offence. It is difficult to see why that merits a trip to the Crown court. It is well within the magistrate’s existing sentencing.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: My understanding that a mode of trial change is being contemplated under part 2.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: There are obviously circumstances in which minimum sentences can be used. It is a matter for Parliament. You have to reflect on public disquiet and the need to make sure there is a sentencing regime that reflects the seriousness of offences. The general position is that if you have minimum mandatory sentences, you inevitably tie the hands of the judge to some extent. If you carry on extending that, you are making potentially significant inroads into judicial discretion. The lesson of sentencing is that cases generally need individual sentences because there are very complex differences between them. You were just making the point about judges having discretion to sentence according to the gravity and nature of the crime.
The Chair
Does anyone else have any further questions? I cannot see anyone. In that case, Mr Sweeting, thank you very much for your evidence to the Committee. I thank all witnesses who gave evidence today to the Committee. That brings us to the end of our oral evidence session for today. The Committee will meet again on Thursday to take further evidence. We will meet in this room at 11.30 am.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Consultation on the National Data Strategy and Data Sharing Code of Practice: Government Resp
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing our response to the public consultation on the UK national data strategy and laying the Information Commissioner’s Office data sharing code of practice.
Government response to the public consultation on the national data strategy
The national data strategy, published in September 2020, set out a framework for action to maximise the power of responsible data use across the UK. It also launched a 13 week consultation which closed in December 2020. We received 282 unique responses from across the public sector, civil society, industry and academia, as well as from members of the general public. Consultation feedback has confirmed that our framework is fit for purpose. Many respondents also recognised the need to rebalance the narrative, moving away from thinking about data use primarily as a threat to be managed, and instead recognising data as an asset that, used responsibly, can deliver economic and public benefits across the UK.
The Government response to the consultation builds on the insights we received, and details how we will deliver across our priority areas of action in such a way that builds public trust and ensures that the opportunities from better data use work for everyone, everywhere. This includes setting out our plans to create a national data strategy forum which will ensure that a diverse range of perspectives continue to inform the strategy’s implementation. The response also reflects on the crucial role of data in building back better after the covid-19 pandemic.
In the coming months, we will publish focused updates on progress in delivering specific missions and or actions within the national data strategy.
Data sharing code of practice
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent data protection regulator and has a statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) to produce a code of practice that provides practical guidance on data sharing. Today, the Government have laid the ICO’s data sharing code in Parliament. Alongside the laying of the code, the ICO has launched a data sharing information hub on its website, where organisations and businesses can find clear guidance and practical tools on how to share data fairly, lawfully and transparently, while protecting people’s personal information.
The Government are committed to working with the ICO to promote responsible data sharing which can have benefits for the economy and the delivery of public services. The national data strategy recognised that better use of data can help organisations of every kind succeed—across the public, private and third sectors. Data can be a driver of scientific and technological innovation, and central to the delivery of a whole range of vital public services and societal goals, from tackling climate change to supporting the national health service.
A copy of each document will be placed in the Library of the House today.
[HCWS37]
Plans to Restore Nature
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The events of the last 12 months have led people to appreciate the difference that nature makes to our lives more than ever before. Restoring nature will be crucial as we seek to build back greener from this pandemic, and in what is a huge year for the environment we will use our COP26 and G7 presidencies to take a leading role on driving a global green recovery on the world stage.
As a core part of our commitment to leave the environment in a better state than we found it, and acting on the recommendations of the Dasgupta review, we are announcing today that we will be amending the Environment Bill to require a historic, new legally binding target on species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature in England. We hope that this world-leading measure will be the net zero equivalent for nature, spurring action of the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis.
We will develop this target alongside the longer-term legally binding targets we are already developing in the Environment Bill, and set the final target in secondary legislation following the agreement of global targets at the UN nature conference, the convention on biological diversity COP15 in autumn 2021. This amendment will be tabled at Lords Committee stage.
We should not underestimate the scale of the challenge ahead in halting the decline of nature. Over the last 50 years, much of the UK’s wildlife-rich habitat has been lost or degraded, and many of our once common species are in long-term decline. We have also come to better understand the link between our own health, and economic prosperity, and that of the planet. The independent, global Dasgupta review on the economics of biodiversity, led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, has shown us that a healthy natural world, measured in its diversity of life, underpins so much of our economic prosperity and resilience.
To achieve our new target, alongside others in the Bill, we will also need measures that go beyond what is in the Bill.
We are also announcing today:
An England peat action plan to restore, sustainably manage and protect our peatlands. We will restore at least 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025, investing £50 million through the nature for climate fund and phasing out the most damaging practices to our peatland.
An England trees action plan to better protect our existing trees and expand woodland coverage, aiming for 12% woodland cover by the middle of the century. Over £500 million of the £640 million nature for climate fund is dedicated to trees. Tree planting rates in England will treble by the end of this Parliament to benefit our local communities, nature and climate.
Species reintroduction measures to recover threatened species and continue to provide opportunities for successful reintroductions. We want to see a more nature rich Britain, with further action to bend the curve of species loss in this country.
If we are to deliver this ambitious new target and reverse the downward trend we have seen in recent decades, we need to change our approach. We must move the emphasis away from processes that simply moderated the pace of nature’s decline, and instead put in place the governance regime that can deliver nature’s recovery. We need to create space for the creative public policy thinking that can deliver results, rather than relying on change being set by litigation and case law.
I am therefore also announcing today that I will be tabling an amendment to the Environment Bill to provide for a power to refocus the habitats regulations to our domestic priorities. We want to ensure our legislation adequately supports our ambitions for nature, including our new world-leading targets, rather than remaining tied to legacy EU legislation. We have already set out some important measures in the Environment Bill to switch the focus to nature recovery. We have the requirement for environmental targets on wider areas, for example water quality; a requirement for an environment improvement plan; local nature recovery strategies to steer habitats delivered through biodiversity net gain; and Natural England are making progress with a more strategic approach to nature recovery through their support for delivering the nature recovery network.
We will take a measured approach to reform. We will also consult with the new Office for Environmental Protection, and work with conservation groups on any proposals we develop before any regulatory changes are made. In addition, later this year, I intend to bring forward a Green Paper setting out how we plan to deliver a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose in driving forward our domestic ambitions now that we have left the EU, including our objective of protecting 30 percent of terrestrial land by 2030. We need a revised approach to deliver this new species abundance target and better support iconic and much-loved native species like the hedgehog.
As announced in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May, we will also be bringing forward amendments in the Lords to reduce the harm from storm overflows to our rivers, waterways and coastlines.
New duties will require Government to publish a plan to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows by September 2022 and report to Parliament on the progress towards implementing the plan. Water companies and the Environment Agency will be required to publish data on storm overflow operations annually.
These new measures will complement the existing provisions in the Environment Bill which will tackle air, water and waste pollution, which are critical to meeting our goals of net zero emissions, stemming and reversing biodiversity loss and improving public health.
Work on implementing measures in the Environment Bill has continued since it was last in the Commons. We have appointed the first chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, Dame Glenys Stacey. We have published a draft principles policy statement, started work on developing legally binding environmental targets, launched consultations on the deposit return schemes for drinks containers, and extended producer responsibility for packaging and consistent recycling collections.
The Environment Bill will have its final day of report and Third Reading in the Commons on 26 May, before moving to the Lords. We are aiming for Royal Assent in the autumn. In the year of COP26, the Environment Bill is at the core of delivering the Government manifesto commitment to deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth and leave our environment in a better state than we found it.
[HCWS38]
Call for Input: Canada and Mexico Trade Deals
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The call for input on future free trade agreements (FTAs) with Canada and Mexico will formally be launching as of today.
The UK has set its sights on the next generation of British-shaped trade deals to secure closer economic ties with major economies of today and tomorrow, with Canada currently being the ninth largest economy in the world, and Mexico forecast to become the seventh largest by 2050. These deals will secure more access for British goods and services, opening significant new opportunities for UK business by boosting trade with Canada and Mexico, already worth £22.8 billion and £5.1 billion respectively in 2019. They will cement the UK’s position as a world leader in digital and services trade, and constituent key building blocks to UK membership of CPTPP as well as delivering benefits to the whole of the UK.
The UK signed trade continuity agreements (TCAs) with both Canada and Mexico before the end of the transition period and committed to start negotiating the new trade deals later this year. Building on the deals signed in 2020, which secured tariff-free exports on 98% and 88% of goods to Canada and Mexico respectively, this next generation of trade deals provides the opportunity to set new benchmarks in areas like digital trade, climate and women’s economic empowerment, and cement the UK’s position as world leader in digital and services trade.
The call for input will provide businesses, public sector bodies, individuals and other interested stakeholders with the opportunity to give valuable feedback and highlight their priorities for our future trading relationship with these two countries.
The feedback received from stakeholders will be crucial when shaping our mandate, and will inform detailed negotiations preparation, and policy positions. The Department for International Trade is committed to ensuring future FTAs and their provisions are informed by stakeholder needs and shaped by the demands of the British economy.
The UK is to begin negotiations for upgraded trade deals with Canada and Mexico this year focused on creating even greater opportunities for UK businesses. Our new negotiations will allow us to go further to boost trade with these economies. Canada was the UK’s 15th largest export market in 2019, and according to IMF data, Mexico ranks as the 15th largest economy worldwide, with a market of over 130 million consumers, offering significant opportunities for UK businesses in industries including automotive manufacturing and food and drink.
Forging stronger trade links with Canada and Mexico will also support the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (CPTPP), as they are both members. CPTPP is at the cutting edge of global trade and will remove barriers, raise standards and support jobs, putting the UK at the centre of an increasingly influential and modern trade network of 11 economies in the Indo-Pacific region with a combined GDP of almost £9 trillion in 2019. Joining will help open up a new horizon of opportunities for British businesses, particularly in services and digital and data provisions. Canada and Mexico also represent the second and fourth largest economies out of the CPTPP countries, which in total account for 13% of global GDP. This would increase to more than 16% if the UK were to join.
The UK and our partners in Canada and Mexico share a desire to launch negotiations later this year. The call for input will strive to support the goal of greater economic prosperity for businesses and it will ensure that their needs are heard. The Government are committed to transparency and will ensure that Parliament, the devolved Administrations, UK citizens and businesses have access to information on our trade negotiations.
The call for input can be accessed using the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/trade- with-canada-and-mexico-call-for-input.
[HCWS35]
Transport for London Funding Deal
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government and the Mayor of London have agreed to extend the current Transport for London (TfL) funding deal. The deal was due to expire on 18 May 2021 but this extension will continue to support the capital and the transport network until 28 May 2021 on the same terms as now. The extension will provide certainty while we finalise the terms of the next funding deal which will get TfL onto a more financially sustainable footing.
The extension comprises an additional funding payment of £65 million with a top-up grant available based on actual passenger revenues.
The Government have repeatedly shown that they are committed to supporting the running of essential services across the capital with over £3 billion emergency funding provided since the start of the pandemic. Support for London needs to be balanced with the national recovery and ensure fairness and value for money for the taxpayer. The Government will continue to work with TfL and the Mayor so TfL can be financially sustainable as soon as possible.
[HCWS36]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
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, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee.
Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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, there are two instruments in the group before you, both of which address requirements for the movement of goods subject to UK sanitary and phytosanitary controls. I will speak to each in turn.
The first is the Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. This instrument delays the introduction of control measures for specific plant and animal product commodities. The EU exit regulations amended by this instrument addressed official controls on imports to Great Britain of animals and animal products, and plants and plant products, including food and other imports relevant to the agri-food chain, collectively known as sanitary and phytosanitary or SPS controls. Those regulations allowed retained EU law to remain operable in UK legislation after the end of the transition period following our exit from the European Union. For example, they removed references in legislation to the Commission and replaced them with references to the appropriate UK authority.
Having exited the European Union, we are implementing measures to bring EU imports into the same risk-based controls regime that we apply to imports from the rest of the world. A key element of the EU exit regulations is to set out a transitional period for the introduction of these controls on EU SPS imports into Great Britain. This is a temporary pragmatic step, made necessary due to the impact of Covid-19 on all businesses delivering import, control and infrastructure services. The phased introduction of controls prioritises flow at the border and gives business and industry the necessary time to prepare for the full controls regime. It supports international trade and mitigates border disruption. Those regulations, made and brought into force in late 2020, set out phasing provisions in a number of separate instruments governing official controls, trade in animals and related products, and plant health, including provisions to introduce a first tranche of border controls for some specific plants and animal product commodities from 1 April 2021.
On 11 March 2021, the EU Exit Operations Cabinet Committee agreed that the dates for the introduction of these phased SPS border control checks should be extended while businesses are still dealing with the ongoing impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, which have significantly outlasted the estimates made in the third quarter of 2020, when the instruments in question were being drafted. We are therefore now amending the original regulations to revise the planned dates for the ongoing introduction of phased controls. We must ensure that these transitional provisions are reasonable and operable during and after the protracted period in which businesses and border operations continue to be adversely affected by the coronavirus pandemic. This phasing adjustment will enable businesses to familiarise themselves with the new SPS requirements and migrate to new IT systems. It will ensure that necessary infrastructure and processes are in place at border control points, further minimising the risk of any disruption. We will, in due course, introduce a further instrument to reset the later phases of import controls.
As a whole, these regulations will ensure that we continue to deliver robust, effective controls and checks on all food, animal and plant imports. This instrument does not introduce any policy changes, and the devolved Administrations have given their consent for these regulations to apply to the whole of Great Britain. We remain fully committed to the World Trade Organization and to our international trade obligations.
I now turn to the second instrument. The Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021 provides a fee exemption for phytosanitary certificates for exporting or re-exporting goods from England to Northern Ireland by amending certain fee regulations. These regulations set fees for delivery of plant health services in England by the Forestry Commission and Defra respectively. This includes fees for pre-export and export certification services required to comply with EU third-country entry requirements relating to plant health controlled material. All businesses that use these services are charged a fee to recover the cost of delivery.
The protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland means that Northern Ireland remains in the EU plant health regime. Therefore, all movements of regulated plants between GB and Northern Ireland must meet EU third-country requirements, including being accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. If pre-exit fees related to production of phytosanitary certificates were not amended, they would apply in full to trade in regulated plants, plant products and other objects between England and Northern Ireland. This would create additional costs to businesses when carrying out trade within the UK internal market.
Amendments are being made by this instrument to provide an exemption from the payment of fees for pre-export and export certification services where goods are moving from England to a business or private individual in Northern Ireland. The exemption also applies to movements of goods by private individuals in their passenger baggage. This SI applies to England only. Scotland has made parallel legislation and Wales plans to do so. This instrument will ensure that trade between England and Northern Ireland is not subject to additional plant health costs following the end of the transition period. The exempt costs will cover the application, examination, production and amendment of phytosanitary certificates and any associated inspections and testing that may be required in order to meet EU entry requirements.
The amendments introduced by this instrument do not include any policy changes. The instrument simply ensures that the current policy for intra-UK trade is maintained; that services for pre-export and export certification to third countries should not be an additional financial burden to businesses when moving goods within the UK internal market. These instruments ensure that we continue to deliver an effective imports system that guarantees our high standards of plant health and food and animal safety, while ensuring frictionless trading and movements. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity of speaking to these statutory instruments and to the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I am also grateful for the easement of fees, as they were looking fairly formidable. There was a great deal of anxiety about the fees likely to be payable, particularly in a business like ours. I must declare an interest, as my family business is very much involved in the supply of flower bulbs to Northern Ireland for distribution throughout the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere. In particular, the regulated arrangements made a great deal of difference to the position of a company such as Taylors. I am sorry to speak from personal experience, but I hope that, in a way, it makes my comments more relevant—although my interest in the business is now as an elder statesman. I am not responsible for day-to-day management anymore, but I know the concern that it has cost.
These statutory instruments all change dates. The first changes the date to 31 July. I notice that it also extends the regulations on plant health until December. I wonder what the position is after that. The second statutory instrument expires on 31 December so the concession on fees, as I read it, expires on 31 December, and from then on it looks as if those fees will in fact be charged. I hope that some accommodation can be made regarding the prohibitive cost of small parcels and mail order and, in our case, after-sales service after the principal order has been delivered. I read the reports of the First Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons, which met yesterday. They make for interesting reading. They certainly give a strong line on the importance of horticulture and the importance of the Northern Ireland market to British horticulture. I think noble Lords will agree that it is important that the United Kingdom has freedom of trade across all four nations. I know that this is a matter of negotiation; these concessions certainly help.
If I may, I will give an illustration of what happens to a flower bulb grown in Holland. It gets a field inspection in Holland. It gets a dry bulb inspection in Holland prior to export. It then gets a receipt dry bulb inspection in GB. Then, if it goes to Northern Ireland, it gets an export dry bulb inspection and must have a receipt dry bulb inspection in Northern Ireland. That is five inspections for one bulb. They are duplications of the same thing. A bulb is a dormant object. It is not a developing disease. It is not growing. It is being repacked in Great Britain for the purposes of distribution to retail outlets. The plant health certificate that is issued on its arrival in the UK lasts only 14 days; the packing process may take a month or two while consignments are gathered together.
It seems unnecessary bureaucracy to have to do all this. Even with some concessions as to how frequently the consignments will be inspected, it is still a considerable burden. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind and to seek ways of trying to negotiate arrangements whereby the industry does not have to have all this delay and difficulty for the genuine export of a product when previously it was sufficient for it to be sent on the basis of commercial trust from one producer to another and with a plant passport issued in the Netherlands. There is no difference to the bulbs and no difference to the care but an awful lot of increased delay and expense is involved.
Added to which, I know that the whole Northern Ireland trade business is a matter of considerable concern to the Government. I support them in their concern in this area. For example, we supply a large number of seed potatoes to Northern Ireland. At the moment, we are forbidden from sending seed potatoes from Scotland. These certified seed potatoes are inspected in Scotland and freely distributed throughout Great Britain but they are banned from Northern Ireland at the moment. I hope that it will be possible to get this matter resolved.
Only today, we had a Private Notice Question in the Chamber from my noble friend Lord Moylan concerning a cancer drug that is, as I am sure all noble Lords know, freely available in Great Britain but not available in Northern Ireland. This is a real cause for concern. If the United Kingdom is to mean anything, products that are available in one part of the United Kingdom should be available in another.
I support the regulations and am grateful for the concessions that they deliver. I would like to know whether there are time limits on those concessions. I hope that my general remarks have made it clear that there is a long way to go before we have anything like normal trading relations with our customers in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of and introduction to these two sets of regulations.
The first set relate to trade and official controls. I note that they are intended to protect biosecurity and support trade by ensuring that within Britain, and between Britain and the EU, effective official border controls continue to operate following the end of the transition period, governing imports to Britain of animals and animal products and plants and plant products, including food and other imports to the agri-food chains—collectively known as the sanitary and phytosanitary checks. This represents a failure properly to prepare for the new arrangements over all of last year and raises more questions that require detailed answers.
The important questions are these. Why are the IT systems not ready? Is the infrastructure in place at the border ports of Portsmouth et cetera? Has more construction of infrastructure to take place? Have staff been trained to undertake the new responsibilities? What discussions have taken place with the agri-food sector and the National Farmers’ Union regarding the delays? What will be the estimated costs of the damage that these delays could cause to our agri-food sector?
In actual fact, this statutory instrument postpones the date from which prior notification requirements will apply to the import of products of animal origin and prescribed types of plant and plant products from the EU into GB from 1 April to 31 July. The instrument also extends the transitional period so that phytosanitary certificates will not be required for the import of plant and plant products from the EU into GB until 31 December 2021—apparently to allow businesses more time to familiarise themselves with new information technology arrangements.
Can the Minister explain the reason for both delays? Is it due to the implementation of the IT arrangements? If this is the case, why is that? Was no preparatory work undertaken on this issue last year in advance of the TAC agreements at the end of December? Was any equality impact assessment undertaken? If so, what were the results? If no assessment was undertaken, why was that the case? Will there not be an impact on the agri-food sector? Why the lack of preparedness on the part of the Government and Defra?
I note the concerns of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Committee, which has written to Defra about the delays in the implementation of the IT systems. The committee was advised that there would be a phased transition to the new live systems, starting in summer 2021. Can the Minister indicate how long this phased transition period will be and whether there is an estimated date for completion?
There is also, it has been suggested, a delay in getting the BCP infrastructure ready for the new BCP checks, which Defra states should be ready in October 2021, January 2022 and March 2022. What will be the financial costs of this work and has it been budgeted for within the budget timeline for this financial year?
While recognising that these regulations are required for the operation of the trade and co-operation agreement, I fail to understand the inexplicable reasons for the delays. I fully recognise that Northern Ireland will continue to operate within the EU single market under the Northern Ireland protocol. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no detrimental impact on agriculture and the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland and its relationship with GB as a result of the delay in implementing the IT and digital requirements?
A number of weeks ago we discussed the plant health fees amendment regulations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, responded. I am pleased to say that there have been some easements. I have been contacted by the AgriSupply Coalition which stated that because of our references in that debate to its problems, there has been greater engagement by Defra with it. Defra recognised that more clarity was needed on the terms used, such as “not intended for final user”, and put out much more information. It now means seed being sown to produce a crop that will be marketed, such as a crop of OSR. This step by Defra is welcome in removing the higher fee from seed for trials in response to industry concerns.
Notwithstanding that, the industry remains vigilant about any potential divergence between all parts of the UK on the matter of seeds and plant health. Many companies located in or involved in sales around all parts of the UK remain nervous about this. This is very relevant to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, so I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the area of divergence is being managed, and managed in the interests of those in the agri-food sector and the AgriSupply Coalition, which helps to supply and keep fuelled our local agricultural industry throughout the UK.
I support these statutory instruments and their two specifications. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and I echo many of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who speaks with such authority on these issues. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly the content of the two instruments before us. I would like to put a number of questions to him, if I may.
In regard to the plant health miscellaneous fees regulations before us, the point was made that an exemption from the payment of fees is being made but, as we understand it, this is only for a period of time. However, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said that these regulations apply only to England and that there will be separate regulations for Scotland and Wales. It would obviously be good to know that they will be applied in the same way, and that there will not be two different regimes operating. Confirmation of that would be very helpful.
I note the importance of the industry. The horticultural trade is worth more than £24 billion in GDP. It supports more than 568,000 jobs and contributes £5 billion in tax per annum, which is considerable. The agricultural supply industry, as represented by the Agricultural Industries Confederation, represents a farmgate value of more than £8 billion. This is a significant industry and a significant trade.
Particularly in the context of the second instrument before us—the Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations—it would be helpful to know whether the Minister can update us on where we are in the negotiations on the recognition of the sanitary and phytosanitary provisions. I have great difficulty in understanding why we cannot introduce a system more akin to that in New Zealand, particularly when we live so physically close to our erstwhile European Union partners. It would be helpful to know what stage we are at.
Likewise, in case any issues arise, can the Minister confirm that parliamentary committees and other specialist committees are being established at this time under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement? Many of these issues will raise concerns on both sides, and it is important that they can be identified at the earliest possible stage.
As was noted in the discussions in the House of Commons, it is a matter of concern and something to be remarked on that the Minister was completely silent on the question of the expected financial impact and the cost of applying these two sets of regulations. Given the significance and contribution of this sector to the UK economy, it is extremely important that we understand the impact at the earliest possible stage.
As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said, these are new fees that did not exist in the past. Given the new arrangements that we find ourselves in post Brexit, this is the first time that a producer or exporter will have to pay them—from 1 January 2022, as I understand it. It would be helpful if, in summing up this short debate, the Minister could tell us what impact he and the department expect the fees to have when they apply. Also, it seems slightly odd that, if that is the case, the same fees will apply per consignment regardless of size. That seems nonsensical and it would be helpful to have an explanation.
Extraordinarily, when we last debated these regulations, there had been no discussion or formal consultation with the agricultural supply sector. The Agricultural Industries Confederation was not contacted before the initial regulations were drafted. It is good to recognise that there is now greater engagement. I understand that there is a dialogue between Defra and the AIC, as well as with other parts of the industry, on this subject. That is obviously welcome.
However, Defra must provide more clarity, particularly on some of the terms being used. One example is the phrase “not intended for final user”. Can more information be put out at the earliest possible stage, particularly in view of the fact that we have time now before these fees come into effect on 1 January next year? What does that phrase mean? If the seed is being used to produce a crop that will be marketed, it will be important to understand that from the industry’s point of view. I understand that Defra is removing the higher fee from seed for trials in response to the concerns that have been expressed by industry. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case. I would welcome that very much indeed.
As I mentioned earlier, there is ongoing concern that if these regulations are to be implemented differently with three pieces of legislation—one for England, one for Scotland and one for Wales—there should be no divergence in their interpretation and operation between the nations of the UK on the matter of seeds and plant health. I entirely support the strong and appropriate comments made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach about the fact that we find ourselves in this incredible position of not being able to export seed potatoes from Scotland and the rest of Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That is regrettable. If there is to be a review of the Seed Marketing Regulations 2011 next year—or even this year—it would be extremely helpful to us to have the earliest possible notification of what the implications will be.
Although I do not oppose these regulations, I obviously welcome the fact that there is now at least a dialogue between the department and the industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to take this opportunity to answer some of the concerns I have addressed this afternoon.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these two short statutory instruments, which are closely interrelated. The first is a short SI concerned with sanitary and phytosanitary checks to ensure efficient pest and disease control, which is extremely important. Previous speakers have spoken knowledgably and from experience on this subject.
This is all about border control, yet the EM makes no mention of Northern Ireland, but deals with England, Scotland, and Wales. Given that this is extremely important, I am surprised that we are debating this only today, on 18 May. The SI came into force on 1 April, as the previous regulations ceased on 31 March. This is all very retrospective and unsatisfactory.
I am concerned that paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that although businesses could
“attempt to comply with control requirements”,
the Government do not think this is necessary and they will not be enforced. Is this safe? Are the Government, in their anxiety to assist businesses, not opening a loophole which could see the importation of diseased material?
The SI on plant health deals with the payment of fees from England to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister say whether there is a similar arrangement from Northern Ireland to the UK or whether this a one-way arrangement only?
This is a fairly straightforward SI on the face of it, and appears to be solely about the waiving of fees for pre-export and export certification services. However, I have one concern about the wording at paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:
“The exemption also applies to movements of goods by private individuals in their passenger baggage.”
This Minister referred to this in his opening remarks. I am by no means a frequent global traveller, but one thing I have experienced is that, if you fly out of GB to another country, taking plants and plant products, even for your private consumption on the flight, is not permitted. Given the rise in pests and pest-borne diseases, and the decimation they can bring to our plant life, it seems odd to be allowing individual travellers to carry plant products in their luggage without an exemption certificate, and likely to be a recipe for disaster. Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of this paragraph, and I would be grateful if the Minister can provide some clarification.
I have two other comments on this SI. First, new paragraph 2(d), which is inserted by Regulation 2, refers to
“introduction into, and movement within and out of Northern Ireland”.
There is, however, no mention of the destination after leaving Northern Ireland. Is it to be assumed that it is always going to be England, Scotland, or Wales? I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for sharing his experience with us. It has been most helpful.
Secondly, new paragraph (4B), which is inserted by Regulation 3(2)(b), states that new paragraph (4A)
“ceases to have effect at the end of 31st December 2022.”
What is proposed to happen then? Presumably fees will be introduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested. What is the likely scale of these fees? Will this be a burden for businesses which will have benefited from a fee holiday? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to a possible increase in fees.
I am generally content with these two SIs, but there are some worrying aspects to this, and I look forward to the Minister’s concluding remarks.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs. While they are broadly technical in nature, I have a number of questions on which I would like clarification.
Dealing first with the trade and official controls SI, I accept that this debate is taking place after the SI came into effect on 31 March, but nevertheless it raises some concerns. We have dealt with a number of SIs on similar themes over the past year. Each time, we ask whether businesses will be ready to operate the new processes and whether the IT systems will be in place. On each occasion, we receive reassurances from the responding Minister, only to find that further delays in implementing the new regime are necessary.
In December, when we were dealing with an earlier SI which introduced delays, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, reassured us that a shift in introducing the new processes from 1 January to 1 April would
“allow us to maintain the highly effective sanitary and phytosanitary regime, while allowing businesses time to prepare for our new import requirements”.—[Official Report, 2/12/20; col. GC 179.]
He specifically argued that introducing the new import controls on a phased basis would give businesses—many of which had been impacted by Covid—time to adjust.
We now have a new set of deadlines before us today, and the reason given in the Explanatory Memorandum is:
“This extension will allow businesses affected by the pandemic to familiarise themselves with the new SPS compliance requirements and IT systems, and enable workable migration from current systems.”
Does the Minister accept that, despite previous reassurances, businesses were clearly being put under unreasonable pressure to set up the new compliance systems? Does he accept that trying to rush it through risked jeopardising the viability of import companies which were struggling then to understand the complexities of the administrative system set up by Defra? Can he clarify what the industry response has been to the new deadlines?
The Explanatory Memorandum states that stakeholders had not been formally consulted but it was expected that these amendments would be received positively. Since the amendments represent a further delay, this was clearly to be expected, but has anyone asked them whether they are confident they can have the new processes up and running by 31 July and 31 December respectively? Otherwise, is there not a danger that we will be back here again, with another SI making further changes to the timetable?
While on this subject, can the Minister also update us on the development of the IPAFFS IT system? This issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. In a letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the department said that, from 1 January 2021, the system was being used for live animal and high-risk food products, and that its functionality was now being extended to include plants and plant products. Can the Minister clarify whether the new IT system now covers all animal and plant products, or is there more work still to be done? Can he also update the Committee on the development of the border control posts infrastructure? By the new deadlines contained in this SI, will there be the comprehensive biosecurity checks that should be required at all border posts? Is the Minister confident that enough staff will have been recruited and trained to staff the posts? Can he update us as to whether sufficient veterinary staff with appropriate qualifications will be in place to ensure that proper checks can take place?
We are not in a position today to oppose this SI, and we have every sympathy with businesses adversely affected by the huge bureaucratic maze that the Government seem to have created. But, as my colleague Daniel Zeichner made clear in the Commons when it considered this SI, it is also vital that we put in place robust biosecurity measures equal to those that we previously enjoyed in the EU. I hope the Minister can explain when we are likely to receive the same protections on food safety and security that we previously took for granted when we were in the EU.
Turning briefly to the second SI—on plant health miscellaneous fees—we accept that these proposals are necessary to ensure that our colleagues in Northern Ireland are not penalised by changes to export certification costs on plant and wood products. This is one small measure that highlights the difficulties that Northern Ireland businesses are having to tolerate to carry on trading, as was well illustrated by the example from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, of dry flower bulbs needing five inspection certificates. Can the Minister explain why this problem was not picked up earlier and clarify whether a comprehensive review of fees charged when goods are moving from England to Northern Ireland is now taking place? Can we expect further SIs covering different aspects of trade costs to ensure that Northern Ireland is not further disadvantaged by the new trade arrangements?
Also, paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes:
“Scotland and Wales plan to make parallel legislation, which will have the same effect”.
As it has been some time since this SI was laid, can the Minister provide an update on the status of the devolved legislation? As several noble Lords have said, it would be helpful if there was no divergence in application by the devolved nations, either in the timescale or the content of the provisions they are making. I look forward to his response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
As I outlined in my opening remarks, the first instrument reflects the Government’s assessment of the protracted impacts of the ongoing pandemic and our need to be pragmatic about phasing in controls on EU imports in a manner and on a timescale that can be reasonably met by trade. The second instrument ensures that the current policy for intra-UK trade is maintained without additional plant health costs for moving goods between England and Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period.
I assure the noble Lords who raised concerns about delaying checks and the new timetable that we are acting in the best interests of UK businesses in taking the decision to delay the introduction of import controls. This will give traders time to focus on getting back on their feet as the economy opens up in the summer.
When the regulations were drafted in the autumn of 2020, we were unaware how disruptive the pandemic would continue to be. These proposals are contingent on the UK proceeding with the relaxation of coronavirus measures in accordance with the broad timetable set out by the Prime Minister. If the UK faces a different scenario, we will monitor the impact very carefully. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in particular that we are confident that there are no biosecurity risks from these delays. Current EU biosecurity standards are essentially the same as our own, and where this is not the case—for example, for certain plants—we have already delivered more robust controls, which remain in place.
The instrument before your Lordships was made under the urgency provision so that it could be laid and brought into force by 31 March, following the Cabinet committee decision of 11 March. We did not want the risk that EU import businesses would have felt obliged to comply with the control requirements originally due to come into force in April. As with many of the SPS instruments giving effect to the withdrawal Act 2018, this SI does not apply to Northern Ireland.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Jones, asked about the readiness of IT infrastructure. Delivery remains on track for the new import and export IT systems. Since 1 January 2021, the IPAFF system has been successfully introduced for imports of live animals, animal products and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin into GB. We are now extending that system to imports of plants and plant products from EU and non-EU countries. Our new exports IT system is also on track, currently in beta. The next stage is phased transition to the new live systems throughout summer 2021. These timetables will allow the import and export sectors, including businesses affected by Covid, the time they need to familiarise themselves with the new services and commodity groups.
On wider infrastructure readiness, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as of April 2021, Defra has received 41 applications for new border control points in England and Wales; 37 of them are live and we are aware of 16 applications for Scotland. The revised phasing has taken into account the concerns from ports and port authorities on preparations for checks. As we validate the plans for January 2022, we will identify any ports or authorities where there are residual concerns and ensure that a response is pragmatic, tested and can be operationalised effectively. Delaying these requirements does not reflect a change in policy; therefore, in answer to a number of noble Lords, an impact assessment or formal consultation with stakeholders was not deemed necessary.
The delay in import controls introduced by this instrument has already been communicated to the trade via meetings, newsletters and a webinar. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, these amendments have been positively received by the trade as they enable businesses to save documentary costs and goods to flow easily across the border. Also in response to the noble Baroness, to support readiness for the delivery of the new import controls on animals and animal products, Defra has provided £40 million of funding to local authorities in England to assist port health authorities with the recruitment and training of more than 500 new staff, including official veterinarians.
The delay in import controls for low-risk plants and plant goods introduced by this instrument will give EU businesses more time to prepare for these changes. EU businesses have welcomed this additional time. EU member states are aware of our new requirements and are getting ready for these changes. Ultimately, they will be responsible for preparing EU businesses to meet ongoing demand from customers in Great Britain.
Noble Lords asked questions about the challenges facing those that export regulated goods to the EU or move them to Northern Ireland. We fully acknowledge the difficulties facing those businesses, and continue to press the strong technical case for the remaining prohibitions and restrictions to be removed from GB plants and plant products.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised concerns about charges and the need to simplify the process of sending dormant flower bulbs to Northern Ireland. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have developed practical arrangements to simplify checks and controls between GB and Northern Ireland. The requirements for moving bulbs and other plant material to Northern Ireland are set in EU plant health regulations, and we continue to discuss issues around the application of these requirements, in the context of the protocol, with the Commission.
The Movement Assistance Scheme has been developed by the Government to make it easier for traders to continue to move agri-food goods, including bulbs, from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We will continue to monitor and review the scheme to determine how best to provide ongoing support to traders. Also in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the UK Government have engaged and continue to engage with businesses and stakeholders on support measures; they also continue to collect feedback on what further assistance could be beneficial.
Defra continues to press the strong technical case for the remaining prohibitions and restrictions to be lifted to enable exports of the full range of GB plants and plant products to the EU and their movement to Northern Ireland. Following this process will lead to an outcome that endures over the long term. Working with industry bodies, we are seeking to ensure that this process is expedited.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was concerned that there is a contamination risk where private individuals can bring plant and plant matter into and out of Northern Ireland with certification. The new requirements on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are consistent with the Northern Ireland protocol, and certificate requirements are the same for personal or commercial movements of plants and plant products. The Government have guaranteed unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the rest of the UK internal market, ensuring that they can continue to trade as they did before the end of the transition period. Plants will continue to move from Northern Ireland to GB under the same plant passporting system that now governs plant movements within GB. For private individuals travelling from Northern Ireland, or indeed from anywhere, our advice remains to act responsibly.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether the SI covers all the devolved Administrations. The answer is no. The territorial application of this instrument is England. Scotland has laid two Scottish statutory instruments to cover the equivalent measures for goods moving from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and Wales intends to lay equivalent legislation, which will enter into force later this year. The Scottish and Welsh Governments continue to commit to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks where it has been agreed that they are necessary or where discussions continue.
My noble friend also asked why we do not have an SPS regime such as that in New Zealand. The sanitary and phytosanitary chapter of the trade and co-operation agreement put in place a framework, including an SPS specialised committee, that allows the UK and the EU to take informed decisions to reduce their respective SPS controls, with a commitment to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. It is in both parties’ interest to use this framework to reduce the rate of SPS checks required, and the TCA is the starting point for our future relationship with the EU. We are open to discussions with the EU on additional steps that we can take further to reduce trade friction, but they cannot be on the basis of future alignment with EU rules, as that would compromise UK sovereignty over our own rules.
Finally, on the issue of cost, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, the actual costs to businesses will vary depending on how they organise their imports and the type of material being imported. The schedules to the statutory instrument set out the fees for individual categories of commodities. The fees methodology was agreed through consultation with the trade in 2017.
To those noble Lords who raised questions about the fees applying to moving material from GB to Northern Ireland, I can reassure them that there will be no associated fees. This is in line with the principles of unfettered market access. There is no requirement for export phytosanitary certificates to accompany qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. There will also be no import checks on QNIGs entering GB, and no additional costs to trade as a result of plant health service delivery by APHA.
I hope that noble Lords appreciate the need for these trade-supporting regulations. These two statutory instruments are critical components in our ongoing legislative process, which will together ensure that we are able to maintain a functional and effective imports regime now that the transition period has ended. I would like to thank again noble Lords for the important points raised here today. I trust the responses have been useful. I am confident that these regulations are fit for purpose and represent another marker in the Government’s commitment to providing support for business.
Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. 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.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 24 March this year. It is now over a year since the emergence of Covid-19, and the Government have consistently taken the swift action needed to save lives, limit the spread of the disease, protect the NHS and mitigate damage to the economy. The Government’s successful rollout of the vaccine programme and the implementation of their four-step road map out of lockdown are both reasons for cautious optimism that we will soon enjoy a return to normality. To date, in excess of 35 million people have had their first vaccination and more than 18 million have had their second dose—including me, yesterday. The British public have also risen to the challenge of suppressing the spread of the virus by sticking to the rules: staying at home; getting tested when appropriate; isolating when required; and following the “hands, face, space” and “letting fresh air in” guidance.
However, we are not out of the woods just yet, and the emergence of new strains of the virus mean that now is not the time to become complacent. The continuation of social distancing measures, introduced to limit the spread of the virus and help save lives, is crucial while we wait for everyone to be vaccinated, but this of course continues to have an effect on business. The Government recognise that, while most businesses have been able to reopen and many have received significant financial support, social distancing measures remain and some businesses continue to face uncertainty and financial difficulties, as they are still unable to open or are not yet able to trade at full capacity.
It is therefore crucial that the Government continue to support businesses by giving them every chance to survive, fully reopen and get through this period of uncertainty. This statutory instrument will do that by extending the temporary measures first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020—which were due to expire variously at the end of March or April—by a further three-month period until the end of June 2021. The temporary measures being extended until 30 June 2021 are: first, the suspension on serving statutory demands and the restrictions on filing petitions to wind-up companies; secondly, the small supplier exemption from termination clause provisions; and, thirdly, the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions. In addition, modifications to the moratorium provisions and the temporary moratorium rules are extended until 30 September 2021.
The temporary suspension on serving statutory demands and restrictions on winding-up petitions continue to help many viable companies during these difficult trading conditions by removing the threat of aggressive creditor action at a time when many businesses remain closed or are unable to operate at full capacity, particularly in the retail, hospitality and events sectors. Extending these measures further will give businesses the confidence and support they need while they are doing their best to reopen safely and return to as normal trading as they can in these unprecedented times.
Noble Lords will know that the Government have already extended the temporary suspension on the ability of commercial landlords to forfeit business tenancies. This will give further protection to tenants who have only recently been able to restart trading after the restrictions introduced because of the most recent lockdown.
Although these measures are intended to help companies that may be subject to aggressive creditor enforcement, the Government have been clear that they are not to be seen as a payment holiday. Where companies can pay their debts, they should of course do so. It is important to note that these measures aim to encourage forbearance and do not extinguish any existing creditor rights or interests. In addition to the protection that these measures give, they are also intended to give those companies with unavoidable accrued arrears caused by the pandemic time to take advice from restructuring professionals and to negotiate and reach agreements with their creditors wherever possible.
I know that many businesses and their business representatives will welcome the continued support that these regulations will give them during this extremely uncertain time. However, I also recognise that these measures will mean a further period of uncertainty for creditors where some of their rights to enforce the recovery of their debts are temporarily restricted. Although we believe that the extension of the statutory demand and winding-up provisions will be particularly welcomed by commercial tenants, it applies to all business sectors of the economy.
Noble Lords will be aware that wrongful trading proceedings are an action that may be taken by an insolvency office-holder against directors, which can lead to a director being held personally liable for losses to a company’s creditors where they allowed the company to continue to trade beyond the point at which it became inevitable that the company would enter formal insolvency proceedings. A successful action may lead to losses being recovered for the benefit of creditors but, more importantly, wrongful trading has a vital role in preventing reckless insolvent trading. The threat of personal liability is a strong deterrent against directors causing companies to continue to trade at the risk of creditors.
The suspension of liability for wrongful trading until 30 June 2021 will allow directors to take steps to save companies that would otherwise be viable but for the impact of the pandemic without the threat that they may be personally penalised for losses incurred during a period of great economic uncertainty if things did not improve and the company later had to enter insolvency proceedings. I should stress that suspending wrongful trading does not give a free pass to directors or allow them to act irresponsibly. Other vital protections for creditors when a company is facing insolvency remain in place, such as the directors’ duties set out in the Companies Act, fraudulent trading or misfeasance actions under the Insolvency Act, and disqualification from acting as a company director.
Finally, the new company moratorium introduced by the Act gives financially distressed companies protection from creditor enforcement while they seek a rescue. In normal economic conditions, the moratorium is intended to work with certain entry criteria that must be met before a company can enter into one. These criteria protect the integrity of the moratorium, which should be used only for those companies with a realistic prospect of rescue. Noble Lords will recall that it was recognised during the debates on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act that it would help fundamentally viable companies impacted by the pandemic to make use of the moratorium if these criteria were temporarily relaxed.
These regulations will extend some of those temporary relaxations to 30 September 2021. They include: allowing a company subject to a winding-up petition to access a moratorium simply by filing the relevant documents at court, rather than having to make an application to the court; and, secondly, disapplying the rule that prevents a company entering a moratorium if it has been subject to a company voluntary arrangement, been in administration or been in a previous moratorium within the last 12 months. These regulations will also extend the temporary administrative rules for the moratorium contained in Schedule 4 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which enable it to operate.
The important package of temporary measures, first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act last year and by subsequent extensions, continues to be widely welcomed by businesses. We are told by business that these measures, alongside the availability of new permanent tools, have been essential in supporting continued trading, seeking a rescue or restructuring, and allowing many companies to trade without the threat of creditor action being taken against them.
In conclusion, the Government recognise that these measures represent a significant incursion into the normal operation of insolvency legislation, in particular to the rights of creditors, and as such it is right that they are not extended for longer than is absolutely necessary. These temporary measures will, therefore, continue to be kept under constant review. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out so clearly the effect of these extension regulations. I support these extensions, as I have done previously—this is not the first time we have been here, of course—but I have some questions for my noble friend.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced the new stand-alone moratorium procedure for companies. This had been proposed earlier and was, of course, very much a pre-pandemic proposal. Most of the other legislative changes in that Act were driven by the pandemic, and quite rightly so. Given that the moratorium procedure is central to some of the context of these regulations, I wonder whether my noble friend can update the Committee on the number of moratoriums that have been applied for, although I appreciate that that statistic might be difficult, the number granted, which should be more straightforward, and the number that are live today.
Few would argue—and I do not do so—that those businesses impacted by the Covid pandemic and which find themselves in financial difficulties, unable to pay their debts because of the pandemic, should be granted a breathing space, which is what these regulations seek to do. I support that. What I do not understand, and it is not apparent from listening to my noble friend, is why the length of the breathing space varies according to different areas of activity under the regulations.
Protection of companies from creditor action on statutory demands and winding-up petitions lasts only to 30 June 2021—I note in passing that that is not far away, and I suspect we will be back here again, probably after the event, to extend this period, which I do not necessarily disagree with. On the other hand, protection for the operation of the company moratorium goes on to 30 September 2021. Protection for directors and shadow directors from the wrongful trading provisions lasts only to 30 June 2021. There is no explanation in the regulations for the different end dates, other than the somewhat cavalier statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that
“the extension for each measure has been determined having regard to the nature of the measure in question.”
This seems somewhat circular to me. What is it inherent in the nature of the statutory demand versus the moratorium that requires a different end date, particularly, as I say, given that I would be surprised if we are not asked to extend these dates again? I believe I raised this issue on our last outing.
As I have said, I support these provisions, but we need to recognise—to be fair, the Minister made this point too—that, notwithstanding the small business carve-out exemption, these measures are an interference with the normal rules of insolvency, and indeed the normal rules of trading. However, a year into these restrictions—my noble friend referred to them as temporary, and I think we are going to have to revisit that word before too long in this context—there has been no consultation on them. The Explanatory Memorandum does however state that the
“Government has engaged informally with a range of stakeholders”.
The Minister in passing made reference to a welcome, I think, from business. The Explanatory Memorandum also refers to engagement with
“business representative organisations and investor groups on these matters.”
Can my noble friend tell the Committee what groups these were, what the nature of the engagement was and what the groups said? That would be important for us in these proceedings.
Lastly, I turn to the position regarding wrongful trading. I note what my noble friend said about the suspension of liability for wrongful trading for directors and shadow directors, and I wonder why this part of directors’ liability has been seized upon. My noble friend noted, I think with approval, that other liabilities in relation to directors’ duties, disqualification and so on are unchanged. Why, then, have the Government singled out wrongful trading as a particular area to suspend during this period? It is not clear to me. There may be some reason, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could enlighten us on that.
Subject to these caveats and concerns, I support these regulations.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, clearly we are at a critical time for UK businesses. It is widely recognised that businesses face enormous liquidity issues when an economy comes out of a downturn as much as when the downturn starts. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register, which include investments in all sorts of companies—I think they are all solvent, but one never knows.
As of now, as my noble friend eloquently explained, the effects of the downturn have been cushioned by the somewhat heroic efforts of the Chancellor, and the teams at the Treasury and BEIS, in providing a cushion for so many businesses in different ways, from loans to grants, rates relief and furlough, and, as my noble friend explained just now, measures that were set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which we debated in this House a short while ago. It was a great achievement and showed the Government being fleet of foot at their best.
There is no question that we are coming through the difficult times to some sort of normality, and even possibly a mini boom, so the question is whether we need all the measures in the Act to be extended. I plan to ask my noble friend broadly the same question as my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth asked: why are the measures not coterminous? Perhaps he can explain what has happened in the interregnum for those measures which expired on 31 March.
I have been studying some commentary and research from the turnaround specialist group R3. When the previous extension was under consideration it said:
“The Chancellor’s decision to temporarily extend his COVID insolvency measures, coupled with the other aspects of the support package announced today, will be welcome news to many businesses across the country … The insolvency and restructuring profession will also welcome the extension of the temporary relaxation of entry requirements for the new moratorium procedure. This measure could enable more businesses to access this important tool over the coming months, and help to facilitate the rescue of otherwise-viable businesses.”
It added:
“However, while the Chancellor’s announcement will make a real difference in the coming months, these measures can’t be prolonged indefinitely, and the Government will face a number of questions when this extension ends.”
It is important to avoid a cliff edge, but the longer temporary measures are in place, the harder the recovery will be. On early intervention, a smart and staged plan is needed for businesses to be in turnaround, ideally, rather than insolvency.
The main issue that businesses will face will be working capital and skills shortages. On the former, the reintroduction of Crown preference has reduced the amount of headroom in inventory finance to the point where there may not be any facility on which to draw. As a key creditor in most corporate insolvencies, along with landlords and banks, the Government have a direct role to play in supporting viable restructuring and business rescue proposals. HMRC, in particular, has not always taken a constructive approach to these proposals although, I understand from briefings, it is being as lenient as it possibly can be to companies that have been sensible taxpayers. However, every step should be taken to encourage HMRC to be as helpful as possible. This is now very important because, as I have noted, HMRC has Crown preference, which is a huge change from the former arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will advise us of whether the Government have any plans to review this preference.
As part of the excellent build back better policy, there is an inevitable need to reallocate resources, improve productivity and, therefore, grow sustainable jobs for businesses that can truly thrive in post-pandemic global Britain—as in post-Brexit Britain, my noble friend will note. There will be a painful but necessary process to get Britain back to fighting fit. There will be casualties; we have to accept that. The enormous challenge we have is to devise ways for fundamentally sound businesses to get through the next year or so, but not to prolong the agony for those that will just use up more and more resource before, sadly, they reach their inevitable end. I understand that the current rate of insolvencies is, roughly, one-third below the normal level, so there is a build-up of companies and businesses facing insolvency.
I will use this debate to make some related points to this SI. First, what will the Government’s approach be to the mounting level of corporate debt in the economy? What further flexibility will HMRC provide to Covid-hit businesses that need extra time to pay their debts? The Government need to make the most of the time they have bought for businesses, industry and the economy, not least by the Act, to consider how they will answer these questions. In particular, are there any further plans for some sort of equity fund, which was being discussed about a year ago, possibly through the British Business Bank or the Business Growth Fund, which celebrated its 10th anniversary last week? This needs to be reconsidered, as so many businesses just need a modest injection of equity—say £2 million or £3 million. I say “modest” in the nature of the world because £2 million or £3 million is below the amount that traditional private equity arranges and is not necessarily within the scope of EIS or SEIS. Of course, this is an opportunity for us to look again at the EIS rules, now that we are out of the EU. This is the famous equity gap that was first raised by Harold Wilson, when he was Prime Minister.
I turn to a subject that my noble friend and I have discussed at length, the moratorium. In answer to the question from my noble friend Lord Bourne, I think that there have been only four moratoria between June and December. There is an argument that initial take-up was low because of other reliefs, such as statutory demands, winding-up petitions, furlough payments, et cetera, which are protecting companies that might otherwise need the procedure. The extension is to the relaxation of the eligibility criteria for a moratorium to make it more accessible. I understand that the moratorium is intended to be a permanently available procedure and that permanent rules will be introduced in due course. Can the Minister comment on that and on whether the changes to the moratorium that we debated are under review?
By taking a more active and engaged stance as a creditor and legislator, I am sure that the Government could help to save more potentially viable businesses, thereby safeguarding thousands of jobs, securing future tax income and giving companies a chance to deal with the liabilities resulting from this pandemic. However, there must soon be a time when we allow businesses to find out if they are viable without further support, and thereby protect creditors from prolonging and deepening the problem.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the regulations before us extend the life of temporary measures to 30 June this year, but the Government have failed to provide any road map to show how businesses can negotiable the cliff edge that is inevitable whenever the regulations end. The past 15 months should have been used to develop such a strategy, but none is in sight at the moment.
Covid-related loans have been welcomed by many businesses and have enabled them to manage and survive the crisis. Such support has been welcomed by big and small businesses, including easyJet, British Airways and many others. Of course, some loans will never be repaid. However, this loan-centric policy is also storing up more problems for the future. In time, the loans and interest thereupon will need to be repaid. The repayments will deplete business cash flows and dampen business recovery, employment and investment in productive assets.
A better policy option would have been to take an equity stake in businesses wherever possible. This would mean that business cash flows would not be depressed and would instead be available for investment in productive assets. In time, the Government could sell their equity stake to recoup their investment if they so wished. Of course, the equity stake would need to be written off if the business in question did not survive. However, that risk is no different from a situation where the business has been supported by government loans. Even now, there is nothing to prevent the Government converting their loans to an equity stake wherever possible. I hope that the Minister will agree with this proposal and the Government can therefore avoid the problems that will surely arise and affect many businesses.
In previous debates, I have asked the Government to help unsecured creditors. Under insolvency law as it stands now, unsecured creditors recover little of the debts owed to them. This in turn affects their survival, jobs, investment and local prosperity. There is no economic or moral reason for enabling secured creditors —mostly banks and other financial institutions—to walk away with most of the proceeds from the sale of a bankrupt business’s assets. This leaves little for unsecured creditors and hits micro-businesses and SMEs particularly hard. Their prospects of survival are strangled by inequitable insolvency laws.
The current insolvency laws do not provide equitable risk-sharing and the biggest burden is borne by those least able to carry it, namely micro-businesses and SMEs. Such entities are not diversified and therefore cannot absorb the risk arising from the collapse of a major customer. In contrast, banks hold diversified portfolios and are in a position to absorb risks arising from the default of loans. Insolvency law needs to be changed. At least 40% of the proceeds from the sale of bankrupt businesses’ assets must be ring-fenced for distribution to unsecured creditors to give them a chance of survival. If the Minister does not agree, I hope he will explain why SMEs are being penalised by the current insolvency laws.
There is no legislation in place to prevent insolvency practitioners enriching themselves by prolonging insolvencies and charging exorbitant fees. In some cases, partners are charging more than £1,500 an hour for their services; I have seen the invoices. Government statistics show that around 14,328 insolvencies were not finalised, even after 15 years. This is a licence to loot and no regulator has done anything to check it. It is no good saying that a creditors’ committee can act because many insolvencies do not require the prior approval of creditors. In any case, small businesses are too busy looking for replacement business and do not have the time to attend such meetings. Even if they did, the votes cast by banks and private equity would override their concerns. The cost of administration and the liquidation fees are directly borne by unsecured creditors. In other words, higher fees for insolvency practitioners reduce the amounts that can be recovered by unsecured creditors. I hope the Minister can explain why secured creditors do not bear the cost of insolvency —the insolvency practitioners’ fees, in other words.
I urge the Government to provide an insolvency road map so that more businesses can survive the coming crisis, which will not end soon but will roll on for quite a few years yet. We need a strategy in place now.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I support this measure. It is right that the Government should take action to protect corporates from insolvency in the current pandemic emergency situation. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the measures are designed to help UK companies and “other similar entities”, so I hope I will be forgiven for pointing out that the measures have no effect and give no relief for those running businesses as self-employed persons from the equivalent of corporate insolvency in their case, which is of course personal bankruptcy. This also applies to the directors of small companies who have been required to give personal guarantees to their creditors and landlords.
I take as an example for the benefit of the Committee a bespoke tailor of my acquaintance. Effectively, his business and the skills he has learned so hard over the years have been criminalised during the past year; it is impossible in practice to do an inside leg measurement without breaching Covid regulations. His past earnings—now very much in the past—exceed the limit for help under the self-employed income scheme that the Chancellor has made available. Of course, trading as he does from shop premises, he is protected from eviction and has had business rate relief, but he is not immune to personal bankruptcy proceedings brought by his landlord. Bankruptcy, even more than corporate insolvency, threatens one’s home, one’s family and one’s reputation in a terrible way. It is a terrible threat to live under. My example is only emblematic, of course; it applies to the self-employed as a class, especially those trading from business premises and, as I said, to directors of companies.
Short of legislation, because legislation is not the essential answer to everything, there are things that the Government could do. For example, they could prevent such claims coming before the courts for a period to come—certainly while the pandemic lasts and for a period beyond—in the same way as they have prevented actions for eviction being brought before the courts. They could even use the force of moral suasion—the bully pulpit, if you like—against unscrupulous and unforgiving landlords. There may be other things that they can do to get landlords and tenants working better and more effectively together. I hope that my noble friend will be able to offer some words of support to those in this very difficult position.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as the Explanatory Memorandum states, this SI
“has been prepared by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy”.
It goes on:
“This instrument makes provision to further extend the duration of some of the temporary measures introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 … beyond their current expiration dates, namely: restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions from their current expiry date on 31 March 2021 to 30 June 2021; the modifications to moratorium provisions and temporary moratorium rules from their current expiry date of 30 March 2021 to 30 September 2021; and the small supplier exemption from termination clause provisions from its current expiry date of 30 March 2021 to 30 June 2021. This instrument also extends provisions suspending liability for wrongful trading in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 … made under the CIG Act, from the current expiry date of 30 April 2021 to 30 June 2021.”
The EM also states:
“The instrument is made using the powers given by section 20 and section 41 of the CIG Act to make regulations which amend or modify corporate insolvency or governance legislation, and to extend temporary provision in the CIG Act respectively and is subject to the made affirmative procedure … the Secretary of State must have considered the effect of the regulations on those likely to be affected by them. The Secretary of State must also be satisfied that the need for regulations is urgent, the regulations are proportionate, and that the same result cannot be achieved either without legislation or by using a different power. The Secretary of State must also keep the need for the regulations under review and revoke or amend them if appropriate. This power is being used to amend secondary legislation … The territorial extent of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland.”
Thank you.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I have a strong sense of déjà vu. We are back debating the extension of measures in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. As we have heard, these measures include extending the
“restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions”
from March to June. The modifications to moratorium provisions and temporary moratorium rules are extended from March to September; the small supplier exemption from termination clause provisions are extended from March to June; and the provisions suspending liability for wrongful trading are extended from April to June.
We welcome the Government extending the safety net for businesses in distress because of this pandemic. Just as we supported the emergency legislation last year, we welcome any measures to support the businesses that closed to keep us safe. As the Minister knows, we argued then that the protections in the Act should be extended over a longer period. Now, as we extend them again, I stress that this causes real uncertainty and worry for businesses in the run-up to each previous expiry date.
As the economy reopens and restrictions ease, it is right that these measures are kept under review but we must remember how many people are still being affected by insolvency. According to the most recent government statistics, there were 29,140 total individual insolvencies in the first quarter of this year—2021—with one in 424 adults having become insolvent in the last 12 months.
Throughout this crisis, we have called on Ministers to ensure that economic support matches the public health measures in place. While we have seen welcome support for workers through the furlough, there have still been gaps in support that the Government have repeatedly failed to address. In particular, we are concerned about the levels of debt facing businesses, whether through the loans they have taken, the VAT they have had deferred or the rent holidays they have had but will soon have to start repaying. These measures are welcome in staving off creditors but they just kick the can down the road. They do little to change the fundamentals facing so many firms of large Covid debt and low or no takings while the fight against Covid continues.
After the Queen’s Speech, it is also clear that the Government continue to dodge the need for wider reform of our insolvency laws, particularly in providing greater protection and support for key industries and their workers. Currently, there is no safe place to refinance or protect such a company’s assets until it might be too late, all the while leaving the company searching for refinancing while trying to retain the confidence of suppliers and customers, who risk the most should it fail.
Even if these changes do not come forward, Ministers should not be bystanders. They should intervene early—before liquidation if necessary. This would mean that workers would not lose their accrued service benefits, and would protect the supply chain. We support today’s measures but call for wider reform tomorrow.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what I thought was a very interesting and informative debate. The points raised have highlighted the importance of the measures being extended by these regulations and the necessity of extending them so that many businesses can continue to benefit from them. Over the past year, businesses have faced an exceptionally challenging time, with many unable to trade or having had their ability to trade at full capacity restricted due to social distancing measures.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked how many moratoria there have been to date. The answer is four. This relatively low number is a direct result of the decisive government action to support the economy through the worst of Covid-19’s economic impact, which has helped many businesses and saved jobs. These measures have meant that there has been somewhat suppressed demand to date for the moratorium. It should be noted that there have also been far fewer corporate insolvencies in this period; for example, government statistics show that corporate company insolvencies in March 2021 were 86% down on the same month last year—as I say that, there is a clap of thunder; I hope that is not a sign of impending doom.
As the economy begins to emerge from the pandemic, it is of course sad to report that we expect the moratorium to be used more frequently. It will be subject to review to ensure that it works as intended no more than three years from Royal Assent of the Act.
On the different end dates my noble friend asked about, the Government recognise that these measures have a significant impact on the normal working of insolvency legislation and the rights of creditors; it is therefore right that they are not extended for longer than needed. The temporary provisions for moratoria in Schedule 4 are extended to 30 September because the consent of the Scottish Government may be required to implement replacement permanent rules for Scotland, as some aspects of corporate insolvency are devolved. Users have told us that when rules in both England and Wales and Scotland change, they prefer the rules to come into force in both jurisdictions at the same time. An extension of six months will therefore aid this process.
My noble friend also asked whom we consulted. We have engaged with major trade representatives including the Institute of Directors, R3, major restructuring firms and insolvency practitioners. There are too many to list now but I can write to my noble friend if he wishes to have a list.
My noble friend Lord Bourne also asked why we have singled out wrongful trading for these measures. Representatives have made it clear that wrongful trading is a strong deterrent to continued trading, and many responsible directors will cause companies to cease trading rather than risk the threat of future personal liability, with the impact that this could have on the lives of directors and their families and all it entails. As with all these measures, we will keep the need for them under constant review and act swiftly if evidence demonstrates a need to extend them further or turn them off.
My noble friend Lord Leigh asked about the Government’s approach to mounting levels of corporate debt in the economy. While many firms have been hit hard by the pandemic, government support has ensured that the corporate sector has remained resilient, with the increase in indebtedness matched by an increase in net deposits over and above the level of lending. Firms look likely to have used lending to increase cash buffers, both to cover deferred liabilities such as VAT and rent and to prepare for any further shocks. Firms in certain sectors such as hospitality, which has been hit hardest by the pandemic, have received additional government support in grants of up to £9,000 per premises. Support continues to be available to firms as restrictions are eased and economic activity rebounds.
Further temporary insolvency legislation and business support provided by the Government since the crisis began have resulted in fewer insolvencies than would normally be expected. Her Majesty’s Treasury is monitoring the impact that insolvencies will have on lenders’ balance sheets, which to date have remained largely resilient—backed of course by government action —and on their ability and willingness to lend to support economic recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised some concerns about insolvency practitioner fees. In our view, it is right that insolvency practitioners are paid a fair rate for the work they do. The remuneration and expenses of insolvency office-holders are subject to the approval of creditors in each case and, of course, subject to the overall control of the court. Regulators have a statutory duty to encourage an independent and competitive insolvency profession that provides high-quality services at a fair and reasonable cost to the profession. Complaints about high levels of fees charged by an insolvency practitioner can be made through the Insolvency Service’s complaints gateway.
I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for highlighting the many ways in which the Government have consistently supported business throughout the pandemic; he also made a number of very important points. He asked what the Government are doing to protect sole trader tenants and/or directors who have given personal guarantees against being made personally bankrupt by aggressive landlords; that is indeed a good point. As my noble friend will be aware, although the restrictions on insolvency proceedings were targeted at companies, the Government have put in place an unprecedented package of support to help the self-employed with their finances during the coronavirus pandemic; this includes the job retention scheme and the recovery loan scheme as well as a number of business support schemes operated by local authorities.
The Government recognise that many people are struggling financially due to the coronavirus. We have worked with mortgage lenders, credit providers and the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that people can get and access the support that they need. We are also committed to helping people to access the necessary support to get their finances back on track. An extra £37.8 million has been made available to debt advice providers to support people in financial difficulty. I would always encourage businesses that have not been able to access support, or are not sure of the support available, to contact their nearest business growth hub. The Government have established a network of 38 of these hubs, with one in each local enterprise partnership area in England. Expert advisers can offer businesses of all sizes free, tailored, one-to-one guidance on areas such as business plans, building resilience and potential funding streams.
My noble friend asked why these temporary measures are not being extended for longer. The temporary measures can be extended by statutory instrument only for a maximum period, which was set down in the original primary legislation; for the insolvency measures, that is a maximum of six months. However, recognising that these measures involve a significant intervention into the normal working of the insolvency regime, including affecting the rights of creditors, it is right that these measures are put in place only for as long as is necessary and that we keep them regularly under review. The Government will keep this matter under review in the light of ongoing developments during the pandemic, and we will move swiftly to extend them further if that proves necessary.
Turning to my noble friend’s questions about the measures that expired at the end of March, this was solely due to a relaxation of the requirement to hold annual general meetings physically. The provision was effective for a limited period and it was not possible to extend it beyond 5 April 2021. Where there remain concerns in the business community that holding general and annual general meetings post March 2021 would be problematic given continued uncertainty around coronavirus restrictions, officials are working closely with stakeholders as a matter of urgency to explore non-statutory approaches to address the challenges that might arise upon the expiration of the temporary provisions.
Turning to the question of how we avoid a so-called cliff edge when these measures expire, the Government recognise the risks of such a scenario involving the accumulation of unpaid debts becoming due when restrictions and government fiscal support expire. Work is ongoing to develop possible solutions to enable a viable exit from these measures; that continues to support business during the recovery phase.
Finally, I turn to the question of the Government’s approach to the mounting level of corporate debt in the economy. While many firms have been hit hard by the pandemic, HMG support has ensured that the corporate sector remained resilient, with the increase in indebtedness matched by an increase in net deposits. As I said earlier, firms in certain sectors, such as hospitality, have also received additional support through grants of £9,000 per premises.
Further temporary insolvency legislation and business support, provided by the Government since the Covid-19 crisis began, has resulted in far fewer insolvencies than would normally be expected; I outlined the figures earlier to my noble friend Lord Bourne. We continue to monitor the impact of insolvencies on lenders’ balance sheets; backed by government action, these have been largely resilient to date, as have lenders’ ability and willingness to lend to support economic recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked about the scope for wider insolvency reform. I can tell him that the Government always keep the insolvency regime under review and, if any change is needed, we will not hesitate to bring forward the necessary legislation. These regulations will provide much-needed continued support for businesses as we continue with the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown, allowing them to concentrate their best efforts on reopening or continuing to trade, and building on the foundations for our economic recovery in the United Kingdom. Careful consideration has been given to extending these temporary measures, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation extremely closely.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. 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.
Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the House may be aware that in October 2020 the Government consulted on the proposed one-year extension of the warm home discount scheme. The changes proposed were broadly welcomed and it is the regulations implementing those changes that we are debating.
The Government are committed to alleviating fuel poverty. In the sustainable warmth strategy, published in February, the Government restated our commitment to our statutory target to upgrade as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practicable to an energy efficiency rating of at least band C by the end of 2030. The best long-term solution is to improve the energy efficiency of a home, bringing down the cost of heating it, but this takes time, and some, especially those that are harder to treat, may be left behind. As well as reaching millions of people each year, energy bill rebates are simple to deliver and consumer-friendly. The warm home discount is therefore a key policy in our policy mix to help alleviate fuel poverty.
Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households each year by reducing their energy bills at the time of year when it is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £140 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills and more than 1.2 million low-income and vulnerable households receive the rebate following an application to their participating energy supplier. Building on the success of the scheme, the energy White Paper committed to extending the scheme to at least 2025-26, expanding the overall spending envelope to £475 million per year from 2022, and consulting on reforms to improve the fuel poverty targeting rate. We intend to consult on the future scheme later this year.
Reforming the scheme has long lead-in times, however, and this winter we want to prioritise the safe and timely delivery of rebates to ensure that those in need continue to receive this vital support, particularly given the continuing impacts of Covid-19. It is therefore important that minimal changes are made to the scheme for next winter. This will mean that the scheme will be worth £354 million and that eligible pensioners on pension credit guarantee credit, as well as eligible vulnerable households supported through the broader group, can continue to receive a £140 reduction on their energy bills.
We will also not be amending the current energy supplier participation thresholds, as any change now, with such limited time for implementation, could cause significant, and potentially damaging, administrative and financial challenges for smaller energy suppliers. We intend to review this for the future reform. We are, however, making some improvements to the industry initiatives part of the scheme. This includes lifting the restriction on providing financial assistance under industry initiatives to those eligible for a rebate, which will create greater flexibility and help more people during the Covid-19 pandemic. We will keep the current overall cap of £6 million for the energy debt write-off mechanism, but we will also introduce a new individual cap of £2,000, enabling support to reach a greater number of households in need.
We will also be making changes so that proposed industry initiatives and specified activities will ensure—so far as reasonably practicable—that advice on the benefits of smart meters is provided to households benefiting from the industry initiative or specified activity. During the Covid-19 pandemic, smart meters have been invaluable for energy consumers, allowing prepayment customers to top up remotely from home, while also enabling suppliers to offer timely support to vulnerable consumers. We are also introducing greater consumer protections for boiler and central heating system installations and repairs carried out under the scheme.
Finally, we are proposing to make some further operational changes this year. This includes introducing a requirement for the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to inform the Secretary of State if an electricity supplier which becomes a supplier of last resort notifies the authority of its intention to meet all or part of a failed supplier’s non-core spending obligation. This additionally includes making changes to clarify the full extent of a smaller supplier’s scheme obligations when it passes the relevant threshold and becomes newly subject to the non-core spending obligation.
In conclusion, the regulations extend the warm home discount until March 2022, which will help more than 2.2 million households next winter. These regulations will provide vital support for low-income and vulnerable customers to keep warm, in advance of consulting on wider scheme reform from 2022. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of the regulations before us and thank my noble friend for setting them out so clearly. I have a number of technical questions and, as I have not been able to give advance notice, if my noble friend cannot reply in full, I would very much welcome a written response, if that is in order.
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to ending fuel poverty and declare my interest as president of National Energy Action. I pay tribute to NEA, which works across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone in the UK can afford to live in a warm, safe home. NEA both promotes the warm home discount rebate scheme to its clients, ensuring that those who are most in need can access it, and delivers broader support as part of the industry initiative portion of the warm home discount. My noble friend has accurately set out why this scheme is so important, and I echo that NEA strongly supports passing these regulations exactly as they are set out before us.
I will take this opportunity to look at some of the detail beyond the welcome single-year extension. NEA hopes that the regulations will take effect as soon as possible—the scheme effectively came into force on 1 April 2021; I think my noble friend will confirm this—and I echo its concern that the new regulations are urgently required to give immediate clarity to vulnerable energy consumers and industry participants on the shape of this scheme year.
I also welcome the commitments made in the energy White Paper, which has pledged to extend and expand the warm home discount scheme, after the one-year extension, from April 2022 to the end of March 2026 with an expanded scheme envelope. I hope that this debate enables us to look at the opportunities that these future developments will provide, and I take this opportunity to seek early clarity on the longer-term scheme.
It is particularly welcome that, while the White Paper does not set out too much detail, it makes a number of commitments that are to be noted and welcomed. These are a significant increase in the scheme envelope to £475 million a year from the current £350 million a year, and an increase in the rebate from £140 to £150. I also welcome consulting on reforms to improve fuel poverty targeting; for example, using government data to provide automatic rebates to most recipients.
There are some concerns expressed by NEA about the detail, which I hope can be resolved at the earliest opportunity, certainly before the end of this one-year extension and forthcoming consultation. The only clarity over the future of the industry initiative portion of the scheme was a commitment from the Minister in the corresponding debate to today when these regulations were raised in the Commons:
“The reform consultations later this year will include industry initiatives.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 315.]
Industry initiatives are particularly important to deliver significant value for the most vulnerable households. It is argued that they must be retained for the current level of energy advice, income advice and fuel vouchers to be preserved. Therefore, I hope that, as part of this debate, my noble friend is able to confirm and agree that the industry initiative scheme is of significant value and that, as far as the Government are concerned, this vital element will continue or be further expanded.
I want to raise on behalf of National Energy Action its concern about the intention to improve fuel poverty targeting. In the impact assessment for the recent consultation on the one-year extension of the scheme before us today, BEIS set out the fuel poverty hit rate for the current core group and the broader group based on the England-only fuel poverty “low income high costs” definition, which has been recently adjusted. While it is important that the poorest fuel-poor households can access future warm home discount rebates, this analysis implies the possibility of withdrawing support from the current core group and the broader group recipients. If that is the case, it could prove detrimental to households that currently receive the rebate, in particular current core group pensioner recipients or low-income-household recipients who require support with their energy bills via the broader group but who do not fall within the new fuel poverty metric for England: those with income less than 60% of the median living in poverty with an EPC of D, E, F or G.
Taking rebates away from the core group would remove support from the poorest pensioners, which I am sure is not the Government’s intention. Whether captured within the England-only fuel poverty metric or not, poorer recipients within the broader group could also face significant health risks when living in cold homes. The current discount doubtless helps mitigate such risks. I therefore request on behalf of NEA that the Minister share with us how these potential risks will be mitigated and how the department expects to do so.
While it is important that we value the contribution that the warm home discount scheme makes in supporting the Government’s wider fuel poverty commitments, the NEA specifically does not support one-off energy rebates counting towards progress to meet statutory energy-efficient fuel poverty targets. The current approach considers whether a household receives the warm home discount and, if so, treats the rebate as an energy-saving measure. This means that the energy-efficient fuel poverty target can be reached in part through giving rebates to households. As rebates do not necessarily deliver the same lasting benefits as energy-efficiency improvements, NEA believes it important that the warm home discount scheme does not potentially mask a lack of progress in increasing levels of domestic energy efficiency in fuel-poor homes.
While we accept and welcome the safe passage of a one-year extension, which will be secured through the regulations before us today, these issues should be addressed to ensure the future of the scheme. I welcome the regulations. I congratulate the Government on their ambitions, and hope that my concerns will be heard.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the regulations. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who raised a number of very important questions. If the Minister is unable to answer them immediately, I hope that any answers in writing will be copied to the Committee, in particular in relation to the rebate being covered as an energy-saving measure, which is clearly a counterproductive approach.
I wonder if the Minister could tell us a little, first, about the way in which this statutory instrument has been dealt with. My understanding is that these measures have come into force already; I think they did so on 31 March. It is obviously slightly concerning that we are debating issues which are already in operation. Secondly, in her response can she explain to me, in a way that I did not quite gather from the Explanatory Memorandum, what happens where the supplier of last resort does not take on the obligations? I understand that part of the purpose of these regulations is to try to encourage that, but what happens in those circumstances?
As noble Lords will know, the warm homes discount was introduced in 2011, during the coalition Government, to help tackle fuel poverty by placing obligations on energy suppliers. But in the 10 years since then, significant costs have been placed on bills because the cost of power sector decarbonisation has been funded pretty much entirely through them. This is obviously a highly regressive way of addressing the problems of climate change—an issue that is, after all, critical to us all and to which the wealthiest, in fact, contribute the most in emissions. The fact that those on low incomes are having to pay a disproportionate share of that burden seems the wrong starting point.
Not only that, but the impact assessment states that the cost of the warm homes discount is met by energy suppliers. Of course, that is not really correct: it is met by energy consumers, because those costs are passed on by the suppliers to the consumers. This means that it is, again, an extremely regressive—and in my view inappropriate—way of paying to tackle fuel poverty if it burdens costs in a disproportionate way on others who may find them difficult to pay. We have to look again at the whole way in which we share fairly the burden of decarbonisation and how we support those in fuel poverty out of it.
The most sustainable way of addressing fuel poverty—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on this—is to ensure that everybody lives in the most energy-efficient buildings. We are otherwise literally letting our money go up in smoke, which is why it is particularly unfortunate if the rebate is treated as an energy-saving measure. Again, the impact assessment gives an indication of the increased emissions as a result of these measures.
Can the Minister give us in her response, or else put it in writing, a breakdown of the EPC rating of all the homes where households are in receipt of the warm homes discount? She reminded us that the Government have committed to improving the homes of those in fuel poverty to EPC band C by 2030, while the Explanatory Memorandum reminds us that the Energy White Paper committed to all homes reaching band C by 2035. That is an incredibly unambitious target. The Liberal Democrats have set out a target that we should reach that point by 2025, but we should note also that even the unambitious target set by the Government is caveated by the words
“where practical, cost-effective and affordable”.
At some point, the Government will have to recognise that there is no point setting the highly ambitious targets that they have—a 68% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases on 1990 levels by 2030, or the 78% reduction by 2035, or achieving net zero by 2050— if they will not match those targets with ambitious actions. The Minister knows that the one cannot be achieved without the other. She also knows that these targets of 68%, 78% and net zero are absolute targets and commitments; they are not caveated in the way that the Energy White Paper caveated the energy efficiency ambition.
I ask the Minister in her reply to confirm specifically that those targets are not subject to those sorts of caveats but absolute targets, and to recognise that if we are to have any hope of meeting them, our actions have to be much more ambitious. That has got to start with the energy efficiency of fuel-poor homes. We have to make much more rapid progress on that. All the time we fail to do that, we—the consumers—are having to pay out costs to support those in fuel poverty who continue to burn excess amounts of fuel in homes that are not properly insulated.
We have to recognise that the world has 79 months at the current rate, at the current burn level, before we have used up the carbon budget to keep us within the 1.5 degrees aim of the Paris agreement. We do not have the luxury of time. Much will rely on future technologies, but on the things that we know how to do we must act much more swiftly and ambitiously. As I say, our actions must be as ambitious as our targets.
Having said that, obviously we support the alleviation of fuel poverty and, in the absence of a more progressive scheme, welcome the renewal of the warm home discount and the increases in rebates. However, I urge the Minister and the Government to really get on to the issue of the energy efficiency of our buildings. We simply cannot proceed on the current timetable.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for a clear explanation of the regulations before the Committee. From these Benches we are happy to approve the instrument, as it extends the warm home discount for another year. As it has been a successful scheme, what is there that we could not welcome in the extension for at least a further year, with a government commitment to continuing the scheme until 2026, albeit that new arrangements, with details and provisions as yet unknown, are envisaged to come into place from that point?
The scheme, now in its 11th year, will continue to provide a guaranteed £140 for to help those in fuel poverty and in vulnerable circumstances with their fuel bills. Before I challenge any assumptions or possible intentions of the Government in shaping the future scheme, let us recognise that these regulations maintain existing benefits with minor improvements in some respects. They maintain the overriding approach agreed by participants in the consultation: to allow as many eligible consumers as possible to receive support within the funding envelope. That this funding envelope has been increased to £354 million—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has a higher figure—in line with the rises in inflation is another important benefit. The regulations maintain the current £6 billion total debt write-off cap provision, while introducing a £2,000 cap for individual debt write-off—although how far that is used to write off historic bad debt from previous versions of the scheme with unfortunate outcomes is one for specific case-by-case analysis.
Nevertheless, I have some questions around this individual cap. How many individual cases of bad debt have been eliminated and from what total? Was there evidence of disparity in higher bands of debt across any analysis of banding debts with the number of individual cases? It would be interesting to understand whether the element of previous and new bad debts was being eliminated, with the stress for many vulnerable customers recognised and dealt with realistically. Further recognition can be given to the improvements in these regulations, removing restrictions on energy suppliers that prevented them providing additional financial assistance through industry initiatives to domestic consumers eligible in the core and broader groups—with rebates, advice and specified activities, including benefits for smart meters and consumer protection requirements for boiler installations to be provided under the TrustMark scheme.
It is also encouraging that the regulations include provisions such that when a voluntary or compulsory smaller electricity supplier grows to pass the relevant supplier threshold and becomes a larger energy supplier its core group rebates, undelivered previously, are utilised consistently with the fully obligated suppliers and that all funds for rebates are used to help those in need. However, some benefits and improvements, unfortunately, still need consideration and further development.
For example, when a supplier fails and its licence is revoked, the scheme’s obligations on that licence also fall, meaning that there is no obligation on whoever steps in as a supplier of last resort—or SoLR. If I understand the regulations correctly, if they had included provision that whoever this might be could deduct such a technical overspend from future scheme years, they could incentivise any supplier of last resort to take on the spending obligations of failed suppliers voluntarily. The provision would bring greater consistency with that regarding suppliers whose growth is allowed for, as I have mentioned. The scheme would be further improved. Can the Minister say whether I have this correct and see whether it could be addressed in future years?
It was also unfortunate that a consultation proved negative towards the proposal that supplier participation thresholds should be changed. While respecting the view that, given the pandemic and the disruptions it has caused throughout 2020, the main elements of the scheme should remain consistent in this one-year extension, it causes competitive issues and distortions. Some smaller energy suppliers can offer lower tariffs as they do not have to take part in a scheme. There are also consumer issues; a consumer may switch to a smaller supplier on price and then lose the benefit that he or she could be entitled to and receive with a larger supplier. Does the Minister have any figures or evidence on this latent cost?
The consultation also adjudges as unimplementable the proposal to require failing suppliers to provide data on unpaid rebates and industry initiative spending to TrustMark, to integrate it with its framework operating requirements. This can be extremely frustrating for participating consumers who miss out through no fault of their own. While we understand the practicality of the measures and the direction of travel for future regulations, will the Minister take the issue back to the department and can further consideration be given for future developments?
Many operability improvements also included in the measure could well be mentioned. All these measures will come with compliance costs and administrative burdens, which impacted businesses can recover under the scheme through charges to domestic consumers. The impact on the public sector is also discussed as very small—around £2 million for scheme year 11, in a total estimated cost of £10 million. However, the impact assessment fails to examine the added cost that will be passed on to consumers by energy suppliers. Can the Minister provide any details on the measure’s effect on consumer pricing? What is the status quo cost of the discount scheme on pricing and what may be the added cost specific to this extension?
I would like the Minister to address some other serious issues. The Energy White Paper of 2020 sets out the commitment to make and keep energy bills affordable, and to ensure that households in fuel poverty are not left behind in upgrading energy efficiency ratings on their homes, with the long-term reductions in energy costs this would bring.
One feature of the regulations is that they categorise one-off energy rebates to many vulnerable households as improvements in energy efficiency and progress towards reaching statutory energy efficiency targets. However, as has been stated by other contributors to this debate, rebates are not necessarily delivering lasting benefits in the same way as would be provided by energy efficiency improvements. The sustainable warmth part of the warm home scheme can mask a lack of progress on increasing levels of domestic energy efficiency in fuel-poor homes. The future design of the scheme must correct this interpretation. It is regretted that the green homes grant was such a dismal failure and had to be scrapped merely six months after its launch.
How will the Government align the warm home discount scheme with their legal commitment to net zero? What plans do they have to address the urgent problem of below EPC standard band C homes, especially those of the fuel poor with generally less available income? What is the Government’s view of Scotland’s wider interpretation of the 10% indicator in assessing fuel poverty? What are their plans and what thoughts do they have on reassessing and redesigning the scheme?
The Minister said in her introductory remarks that 1.2 million households received the £140 rebate. How many do the Government expect to receive the rebate in the next year? What will success look like to the Government in addressing the route to eliminating fuel poverty by 2035? What measures will the Government put in place to ensure that net zero is delivered fairly to those living in fuel poverty? When will the promised consultation start and when will the Government lay out their proposals?
Already there are concerns when the Government talk of refining the scheme towards better targeting of the fuel poor when the budget was already constrained from providing better financial assistance to more households that already miss out on their entitlements. This inevitably means that there will be some losers and that some households will receive less help than they currently do. Can the Minister confirm that industry initiatives will remain a key part of the current and future schemes? Will the department look at how the budget could be expanded for this element that seeks to help consumers understand and utilise their entitlements? It would provide a welcome boost of confidence to the industry to develop these initiatives.
There is much here for further consideration in my approval of the continuation of the warm home discount scheme.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, particularly coming from people whom, I know, have long been interested in this subject and have a greater degree of knowledge than often happens in these short debates.
The points made show the importance of extending the warm home discount scheme for a further year. The financial pressures that Covid-19 has imposed on households across the country has been challenging, particularly for low-income and vulnerable households. Extending the warm home discount will provide much-needed support for households in or at risk of fuel poverty, particularly during the pandemic. I am therefore pleased that there is agreement across this Committee that low-income and vulnerable households should continue to receive the valuable support provided by the warm home discount at the time when they need it most.
Over the 10 years of the discount scheme, more than £3 billion in direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households. These regulations will enable the continuation of this support for another winter. This means that more than 1 million of the poorest pensioners and a further 1.2 million households in or at risk of fuel poverty will continue to receive £140 off their energy bills.
The regulations also allow for the continuation of a wide range of industry initiatives, including debt write-off, financial assistance and energy efficiency measures. These initiatives will be enhanced by the changes I have outlined, ensuring that we can better support households in need.
As outlined in the energy White Paper, we are committed to extending the scheme beyond this extension, from 2022 until at least 2025-26, expanding the spending envelope to £475 million to enable us to reach a further 750,000 households. We are also consulting on reform of the scheme to target fuel poverty better. This may be where the difference in numbers came from—the scheme has expanded from next year. We intend to consult later this year on the future scheme beyond 2022.
I pay tribute to the long-standing commitment of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering to this whole area of alleviating fuel poverty. I am very grateful for her support. She asked for confirmation of the industry initiatives—they are of significant value—and whether they will be continued or expanded under the reformed scheme. We recognise the value of industry initiatives, which is why we have expanded their potential use over time. We will consult on reforms later this year; that will include proposals on industry initiatives.
In response to my noble friend’s question about the future for vulnerable customers in relation to the new fuel poverty metric, we intend to reform the scheme to target those most likely to be in fuel poverty while continuing to protect the most vulnerable current recipients. Our proposals, which we are still finalising, will include options to mitigate the impact on households that may be disadvantaged by those reforms. My noble friend also asked about the rebate contributing to the Government’s fuel poverty and energy efficiency targets. We are increasing energy efficiency support for fuel-poor homes through the future expansion of the energy company obligation, as well as through recently introduced funding through local authority delivery.
We recognise that energy efficiency is the best long-term method of tackling fuel poverty, which is why in the past year we have increased government investment to make homes more energy efficient and committed to extending and expanding the energy company obligation. We should also recognise, however, that reducing bills through the warm home discount will continue to be a crucial tool in reducing fuel poverty until all homes reach the required energy efficiency standard. I know that this point was of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Oates. In response to his question on the timing of the regulations, they have not come into force; the rebates will be paid only from autumn this year, as is always the case. We have said that, if and when these regulations come into force, any industry initiatives that have already been funded from 1 April 2021 and are subsequently approved will count towards suppliers’ obligations.
On the noble Lord’s question on the supplier of last resort process, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets already has in place a process that ensures that customers have continuity of energy supply when an energy supplier fails. The competitive process is run by Ofgem and allows for the orderly transfer of the failing energy supplier’s customers to a different energy supplier. Warm home discount obligations are placed on the electricity supply licence and, when a supplier fails, it does not transfer to the new supplier. However, the warm home discount is taken into consideration when Ofgem appoints a supplier of last resort. In previous scheme years, suppliers of last resort who were themselves warm home discount participants have chosen voluntarily to honour the obligations to pay rebates of the failing energy supplier. This information requirement is intended to facilitate the potential to permit any notifying suppliers of last resort to deduct extra non-core overspend from their non-core spending obligation in future scheme years, which in turn would incentivise suppliers of last resort to take on the non-core spending obligations of failed suppliers voluntarily.
The noble Lord also asked about the funding of the scheme. Suppliers reducing their customers’ bills directly is a more effective way of tackling fuel poverty than increasing incomes because consumers are more likely to use the money to pay their energy bills. The same amount of money reduces energy bills by a greater proportion than it increases income. We also believe that it is more likely to result in households using more energy to keep warm in winter and reduces the risk of them rationing how much they heat their homes or self-disconnecting entirely.
In response to the noble Lord’s question on the EPC ratings of homes that have received the warm home discount, I am afraid that we do not have the data he requires. He also spoke in general terms about the Government’s ambitions on increasing the efficiency of homes and their heating. On this point, I should say that the heat and building strategy will be published imminently, setting out how we intend to meet our commitments and setting us on a path to decarbonising homes and buildings by 2050. When I say “imminently”, I know it is disappointing that we have not got it out already, but it is due to be published soon.
I suggest that I write to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the details of writing off bad debt as I do not have that data in my briefing pack or to hand. In response to his question on the supplier of last resort process, the obligation is tied to the supplier’s licence but, thus far, the new suppliers have voluntarily taken on these obligations.
In response to the noble Lord’s question on TrustMark, we are introducing new requirements for the installation and repair of boilers and central heating under industry initiatives. They are to be delivered by TrustMark-registered installers and lodged in TrustMark’s data warehouse. This will provide greater consumer protection for households. The cost for a company to register under TrustMark is minimal. TrustMark also has a fee for installers to lodge measures in their data warehouse. As with other government schemes, the fee is £30, which covers the costs associated with providing technical monitoring and quality assurance. Requiring TrustMark registration will ensure that boilers and central heating systems installed under the scheme are delivered to a high standard, providing households with security and a longer-term solution. The introduction of these standards is particularly beneficial for those who are particularly vulnerable to cold, such as individuals with a health condition.
On the noble Lord’s question about consumer costs, the expansion from 2022 is expected to add £5 to the average annual dual fuel bill, taking the total to £19 per annum.
The noble Lord asked about the definition of fuel poverty in Scotland. Fuel poverty is devolved and it is up to Scottish Ministers to set their definition of fuel poverty and targets. We believe that our definition is best suited to measuring the problem and progress against it in England. In the next scheme year, we expect around 2.2 million rebates to be provided.
The noble Lord also asked about the contribution of measures to eliminating fuel poverty by 2035. Our target is to improve as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practical to an energy efficiency rating of Band C by 2030. I can also confirm that we will publish our consultation on the future of the scheme soon. We will consult on the future of industry initiatives as part of this but, as I have already said, we value industry initiatives.
I think I missed out the green homes grant and local authority delivery. Last summer, the Chancellor announced an investment of up to £3 billion in decarbonising buildings, including investments towards the £9.2 billion of funding set out in our manifesto. We have made excellent progress across much of this investment, with substantial sums being invested in social housing, schools and hospitals as well as in homes through the green homes grant voucher scheme, particularly in partnership with local authorities and supporting local green jobs. I think the noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about this.
I think that that completes the debate. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 22 March. This instrument is brought forward using powers under the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020.
The trade and co-operation agreement that we have secured with the European Union provides for co-operation on a range of energy matters to support and strengthen the UK’s and EU’s shared energy objectives. The agreement requires that new, efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements be developed between connected UK and EU markets. The UK and the EU are committed to co-operating closely on efficient trading developed in accordance with the process and timeline set out in the agreement.
These new arrangements were a key objective for the UK during the negotiations on the agreement. Efficient cross-border trade can lower bills for UK consumers, as well as support our decarbonisation and security-of-supply objectives. The new arrangements will be based on the concept of multi-region loose volume coupling, where cross-border transmission capacity on an interconnector and electricity are auctioned together. This will ensure that Great Britain can import energy from areas of lower price or export energy to areas of higher price more readily than under current interim arrangements. This will be achieved while the energy market in Great Britain maintains independence from EU regulations.
While the agreement sets out the principles for the design of the new trading arrangements, the detailed technical procedures still need to be developed by transmission system operators. These are, collectively, the companies that own and operate electricity interconnectors that connect the UK to neighbouring markets, and the electricity system operator that runs our onshore electricity network. The development of these new arrangements will need to take place in co-operation with relevant electricity market operators, which are organisations that operate marketplaces for the buying and selling of electricity.
The agreement details the timeframes for transmission system operators to develop technical procedures for the new arrangements, noting that new arrangements should be made operational by April 2022. It is therefore important that development of the new arrangements takes place quickly and efficiently. To support this development, this instrument imposes duties on electricity transmission system operators in Great Britain, with co-operation from relevant electricity market operators, to develop the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements for the day-ahead market period.
The instrument also grants Ofgem the ability to regulate transmission system operators and relevant electricity market operators in their development of the new trading arrangements to ensure that they meet their obligations under the regulations. The instrument further enables Ofgem to make decisions on the allocation and recovery of costs incurred in the development of the new arrangements. It is estimated that these new, efficient trading arrangements could bring significant economic benefits to UK consumers. Any delay in implementation will come at a cost to them. Therefore, it is important that this instrument is approved to ensure that transmission system operators develop the new arrangements within the timeframes set by the agreement and that the benefits can be realised as early as possible.
The new arrangements will also be used for trade between Great Britain and the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. While energy is largely a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, my department has developed this instrument in close collaboration with officials in the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation. Input from our colleagues in Northern Ireland has ensured that this instrument supports a UK-wide approach to the development of the new arrangements. The process continues to be underpinned by extensive engagement with UK industry and stakeholders, including Ofgem and the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator, to ensure they can prepare for the development and implementation of new arrangements. My department has regular conversations with the transmission system operators and is pleased with the progress they are making.
The instrument is one part of a programme of work to deliver the new arrangements. On 3 February, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provided guidance to those organisations to encourage early action to support implementation of the agreement while the regulations were being prepared. This instrument follows on from this guidance, providing a regulatory underpinning for the initial development of the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements. If required, the Government will prepare further legislation for the operation of the new trading arrangements once they are developed. I assure Members of the Committee that this legislation will be laid before Parliament to ensure that it can be appropriately scrutinised.
Since this instrument was laid in both Houses, the numbering of the provisions within the trade and co-operation agreement has been updated following the final legal revision process. Therefore, a correction slip has been laid in respect of the draft instrument to update the cross-references to the agreement.
In conclusion, this instrument is an appropriate use of the powers of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act and will ensure compliance with an international treaty and that an enforcement mechanism is in place to prevent delays in developing technical procedures for cross-border electricity trade. These new trading arrangements will provide for greater efficiency and consumer benefits than the alternative arrangements currently in place without the UK being a member of the EU’s internal energy market and subject to the EU regulations that that entails. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am honoured to be in such a select group of noble Lords debating these regulations. I thank the Minister for his explanation of them.
If I did not already deeply regret the UK’s exit from the European Union, then having to get my head around this statutory instrument would surely have converted even the most ardent Brexiteer to the most ardent remainer. We are confronted by such tortuous statements as:
“cross-border electricity trading arrangements at the day-ahead market timeframe that will replace previous market coupling … will be based on the concept of ‘multi-region loose volume coupling’, where cross-border transmission … on an interconnector and electricity are auctioned together and the energy market in Great Britain maintains independence.”
That is not even from the SI; it is from the Explanatory Memorandum.
Can the Minister help us out a little here, on what is obviously a fairly technical measure? Can he tell us whether the proposed
“multi-region loose following coupling”
is preferable to the previous market coupling? Is this change between the two types of coupling taking place simply between the UK and the single energy market—is it happening because we are no longer part of the European Union and as part of the arrangements under the trade and co-operation agreement—or is it part of a broader change within the European single energy market?
I think the Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that Northern Ireland is not within the scope of the regulations. That certainly seems to be the case from what I have read. Northern Ireland will therefore continue to be governed by the single energy market rules. He has told us how he has consulted the Northern Ireland Executive on these regulations, but how are the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly involved and able to make representations on the single European energy market, under which, if I have understood this properly, they are still governed? How will they be consulted as we develop these proposals and what practical impact will they have on them anyway, if they are part of the single European energy market? Can he also indicate how long it will take to put the new arrangements in place, given that they will obviously involve some fairly complex technical discussions between a range of stakeholders, domestically and within the European Union?
Paragraph 7.16 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that
“Placing obligations on relevant persons is not sufficient by itself to ensure that technical procedures are developed without delay”
and that “An appropriate enforcement mechanism” is therefore
“necessary to act against non-performance. The instrument applies Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989”
in this respect. I have looked at Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989 and it did not enlighten me particularly. Can the Minister explain to us what the enforcement procedures under Section 25 of that Act are and what the sanctions are? Section 25 refers to the notices that may be issued to relevant persons but says nothing about the sanctions if they are not complied with. I am happy for him to write to me on any of this because it is obviously a technical error.
The final question I have for the Minister is this. Throughout the documentation, there are references to the trade and co-operation agreement—the Minister has explained that the references have been amended because of the changes in the final version of the TCA. Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union.”
I am slightly at a loss as to that. Can the Minister explain how it does not relate to our withdrawal, when it seems so bound up with the fact that we are no longer part of the single energy market? That refers back to my first question: would this be happening anyway if we were within the European Union?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the regulations. I also thank his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for providing answers on interconnectors earlier during Questions.
This statutory instrument may not be contentious and is largely technical. However, it is not entirely uncontroversial, as we have discovered this afternoon. It implements provisions relating to the efficient use of electricity interconnectors and requirements to develop technical procedures in respect of the day-ahead market timeframe in its operability in accordance with the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement that was initiated at short notice on 1 January this year.
The instrument makes reference to many aspects that need to be delivered as a consequence of the agreement. If the Minister could outline how fast and how quickly he envisages these things being implemented, it would be useful. The instrument makes reference to two agencies, the specialised committee on energy and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, necessary to implement and co-ordinate powers and regulations with what used to be the internal energy market across the EU, which at the time included the UK. Can the Minister give any more details about these structures, as they will have considerable powers to ensure that transmission system operators develop arrangements that run efficiently across both the UK and the EU through interconnectors? Does the reference to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators relate merely to dialogue with the EU after any adjudication and consideration by Ofgem, as the authority and overall independent regulator within the UK, in connection with its operation of interconnectors? Will the SCE be suitably independent in this structure? What is its authority in relation to the TSOs?
Since 1 January, the arrangements have been necessarily ad hoc, while respecting the independence of the UK from the previous internal energy market. What is the specific timeframe within which transmission system operators must develop arrangements setting out the technical procedures? How will the Secretary of State determine this timeframe? Since 1 January, have any specific problems arisen, and will the powers of Ofgem be sufficient to implement all the provisions necessitated since ending the transitional arrangements? What assessment have the Government made of the efficiency of multi-region loose volume coupling compared to the internal energy market’s existing trading mechanisms? What material impact has there been on energy pricing since 1 January? What assessment have the Government made of the impact on consumer prices of the new arrangements envisaged under the trade and co-operation agreement for new, cross-border electricity trading at day-ahead timeframes, such that they are deemed more efficient and allow appropriate trading to benefit from greater transparency?
There are notable benefits from interconnectors. That more are envisaged can only be further insurance that energy continues to be supplied effectively while the huge transition to net zero, through reforms to the energy market, continues.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank our two hardy contributors who have stayed the course for this afternoon’s debate on the fascinating subject of the technical operation of electricity markets. I thank both noble Lords for their valuable contributions.
Both noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Grantchester, raised questions about multi-regional loose volume coupling and whether that is preferable to the previous market coupling. This model provides for greater efficiency than the current alternative arrangements without being a member of the EU internal energy market and subject to EU regulation. The UK and the EU are moving to a new relationship and a continuation of previous arrangements was not an option for either party. There are new internal EU arrangements as a consequence of the TCA.
On the questions regarding Northern Ireland, the department has engaged extensively with the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy and the Northern Ireland electricity regulator on this instrument which obliges parties to consult Northern Ireland counterparts as required under specific stages of development. To ensure that opinions reflect views that are specific to Northern Ireland, the instrument states that Ofgem must provide the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator with relevant information and opportunities to make appropriate representations. Ofgem must have regard to those representations and ensure that they are taken into account as appropriate.
On how long the new arrangements will take to put into place, the anticipated deadline for implementation is April 2022. All stakeholders are taking relevant steps to ensure that this deadline is met. In the meantime, alternative electricity trading arrangements are in place which will endure until a new agreed solution is implemented.
On the enforcement methods available under Section 25, I will write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the SCE and ACER, the European regulator. I can tell the noble Lord that ACER will have no formal role but, of course, there are co-ordination arrangements in the TCA that will require co-ordination between UK regulators and ACER. The specialised committee on energy plays a key role in the development of the EU/UK electricity trading arrangements, and following ratification of the trade and co-operation agreement by the EU we are now working with the EU formally to set up the specialised committee on energy and all associated working groups. In particular,
“The Specialised Committee on Energy shall review the draft technical procedures”
submitted by November 2021 and
“shall take decisions and make recommendations”
as required by the agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the impact on consumer prices. The cost-benefit analysis shows that there are significant potential benefits in moving to more efficient electricity trading arrangements. The cost-benefit analysis quantifies the potential social-economic welfare benefits, as well as the carbon dioxide emissions savings. We welcome the CBA and outline proposals that the transmission system operators have jointly produced, and are assessing these materials together with the European Commission. We expect to provide feedback to the transmission system operators to support their development of the technical procedures that are required to be submitted to the specialised committee on energy by November this year. Alternative electricity trading arrangements across all Great Britain’s interconnectors have already been developed, which will endure until they can be replaced by the new agreed solution.
I therefore hope that I have been able to provide the necessary assurances to approve this instrument before us. The Government are committed to co-operating closely with the EU on efficient energy trading, energy markets and access to networks, with a deal based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. There is no precedent for an agreement on energy trading of this nature between the EU and a third country.
The UK and EU are moving to a new relationship. As of 1 January this year, trading between Great Britain and the internal energy market on the day-ahead market ceased. Until new arrangements are operational, trading will continue using what we feel are less efficient explicit auctions. The UK and EU are committed to developing and implementing a robust and efficient solution that will facilitate efficient electricity trade across interconnectors. As said earlier, these will be based on the concept of the famous multi-region loose volume coupling, allowing transmission system capacity on an interconnector and electricity to be auctioned together and the energy market in Great Britain to maintain independence.
The regulations that the Government are seeking to introduce will oblige transmission system operators to develop new efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements under the TCA with the EU. They will also enable Ofgem to take the necessary decisions on the allocation and recovery of costs incurred in the development and implementation of the procedures. I am pleased with the progress that the transmission system operators have already made in developing these new efficient trading arrangements and assure the Committee that we will continue to take steps to facilitate their implementation.
As I said earlier, we will continue to work extensively with the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy, Ofgem, the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator and the UK industry to ensure that we see the benefits of the new arrangements as quickly and effectively as possible. The agreement notes that new arrangements should be operational by April 2022. This is a challenging deadline, but adherence to it will enable us to realise the benefits to consumers from the arrangements as quickly as possible. I commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
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. I ask Members to respect social distancing, and if the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers are also brief in their answers.
Right-to-Work Checks for UK Nationals
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to end online right-to-work checks for United Kingdom nationals.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, from 21 June, right-to-work checks will revert from the Covid-19-adjusted measures to face-to-face physical document checks for those who cannot use the Home Office online checking service. We are currently evaluating the potential for introducing specialist technology, including identity document validation technology, into the right-to-work checking service. This would provide a permanent digital option for those unable to use the online checking service.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what has the feeling of being, perhaps, an encouraging Answer. The online verification of right to work during Covid has been a huge success for the Home Office. The system works really well; no one I have spoken to is aware of any serious issues. It avoids frauds; it is much more efficient and effective for companies; and it really promotes remote working, helping people in unemployment blackspots get jobs many miles away. What is the reason for junking it? Who benefits? I really do not understand.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I am glad my noble friend feels he got a positive Answer because, in fact, employers have been very positive about the temporary measures we have put in place. It is not about “junking it”; it is about the fact that it has been a temporary measure. Obviously, legislation has not been changed in this regard, and we made it clear that we would revert to the full checking regime in line with the lifting of social distancing measures. But I hope that my noble friend is encouraged by the moves we intend to make going forward.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
If the temporary measure has been successful and there is no need for return to physical right-to-work checks, why not continue with the temporary measure? We do not really seem to have had an answer to that question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The answer is actually quite clear: we need to check the security of what might go forward. We are undertaking a review of the value of using specialist technology, including identity document validation, in supporting the system of digital right-to-work checks to include UK and Irish citizens, as they are not in scope of the Home Office online checking services.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, not only are the Government insisting on in-person physical right-to-work checks but some parents say they are being asked by schools to produce passports to prove their child’s right to education as a result of the UK’s departure from the European Union. Can the Minister confirm whether the Home Office is requiring schools to do this and, if so, on what legal basis? If it is not, will the Minister take urgent steps to stop this practice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for a heads-up this morning, and it is important to say to him that Brexit has not changed the rights of foreign nationals to access schools. State schools do not have a role in policing the immigration system. Independent schools, with sponsor licences, do have an explicit duty to have documents proving the right to stay in the UK. I do not know the details of the noble Lord’s case, but I would be most grateful to have some further detail, and perhaps we can discuss it further.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, following the move to more distanced right-to-work checks during the coronavirus pandemic via video link, in operation to 21 June 2021, can the Minister comment on what measures were taken to check against fraud and abuse of this process? What were the findings?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, my noble friend asks the absolutely crucial question. We need security measures in place to ensure that the system is robust. What we have had in place as a temporary measure will, I am sure, be evaluated in due course. But she goes right to the heart of what we need when we progress towards more regular online checking.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been reported that EU nationals arriving here who were believed to be seeking work were immediately detained in places such as Yarl’s Wood and deported. Apparently, this has stopped, but what sort of example does the Minister think it sets for the treatment of British citizens in the EU? Secondly, EU nationals who have been British citizens for decades are getting letters telling them they risk losing rights to work, healthcare and benefits unless they apply for settled status in the next six weeks. But they do not need this. Why are the Home Office records so poor?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, EU citizens who have applied to the EU settlement scheme should not be detained in Yarl’s Wood unless there is some exception such as, for example, criminality. In terms of people getting letters, I am sure the reminders are helpful; they are not intended to be hostile in nature.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next question.
Electricity Supplies from Europe
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of electricity supply to the United Kingdom is provided from continental Europe.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
From provisional data, net imports from continental Europe—the Netherlands, Belgium and France—provided 5.6% of UK electricity supply in 2020. Final data for 2020 will be published at the end of July.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Threats to provision of power to Jersey have highlighted the issue of UK reliance on overseas power supplies. Currently, I think we have four interconnectors and the number is going up by about 10 or even 12. Does the Minister agree that it is highly dangerous for our nation to be reliant on power sources beyond our shores, and contrary to government policy on resilience and sovereignty? Rapid completion of major new nuclear reactors, plus advanced modular reactors, would seem to be the answer to ensuring sufficient UK provision of zero-carbon electrical power.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Interconnectors form an important part of our energy mix, but most of the power consumed in this country is still domestically produced. The noble Lord will know that the White Paper mentioned an ambition to have 18 gigawatts of power through interconnection. In The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, reiterated in the energy White Paper, the Government confirmed their commitment to developing large, small and advanced nuclear projects, and an advanced nuclear fund of up to £385 million was proposed to invest in the next generation of nuclear.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Does my noble friend accept that these electricity connectors, to and from the continent, play a vital triple role, in smoothing and increasing the reliability of our electricity supply—which is mostly low-carbon sourced—through the connectors when the wind drops or stops, in cutting our inflated energy bills and in exporting our electricity surpluses overseas when wind and solar produce too much for our immediate needs? What are the plans for further expansion of these links, both with continental Europe and elsewhere? Is the North Sea-Norway link progressing, and what about the link, which will be the longest of its kind in the world, with Iceland?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, who speaks with great authority on this matter. The Iceland link is, I think, no longer going ahead, but I can confirm, as I said in an earlier answer, that we have 18 gigawatts of interconnected power provided for within the energy White Paper. It does indeed play a vital role in supporting a flexible decarbonising system, by rapidly responding to changes in demand and supply. Interconnection supports the integration of low-carbon generation in the UK to meet our net-zero goal. It also provides competition in the energy sector that will reduce prices and lead to lower energy bills.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, reliability is of course an imperative. However, is the Minister able to give an assurance about Russia, which was deemed by the Government to be “the enemy” in their recent integrated policy review? Given that a major UK company is a funder of the Nord Stream 2 gas project, with the promoters emphasising that not just Germany but western Europe will be a beneficiary of the gas from Russia, it would be inextricable that the gas from the original source would find its way to our shores.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There can be no normalisation of our bilateral relationship until Russia stops its irresponsible and destabilising activity. The UK imported less than 3% of its gas in 2020. The Government remain concerned about the impact Nord Stream 2 will have on European energy security, and particularly on the interests of Ukraine.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister update us on the interconnector application by AQUIND Ltd, owned by two Russian Tory party donors? One of them, Alexander Temerko, once said he owned enough Tory MPs to dislodge a UK Prime Minister? The two owners control less than 50%; who owns the rest? Can she confirm that everybody on Portsmouth City Council is totally opposed to the proposed cable route through the city, and that even now it is better for this decision to be made locally rather than by Ministers?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am indeed aware of the issues surrounding the AQUIND interconnector, as the noble Lord outlined. AQUIND has made an application for development consent. All applications for development consent are dealt with by the department in line with government propriety guidelines. We do not comment on projects that are currently in the planning process.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
Over the last year there have been significant issues with electricity supply, not least because a number of power stations have either been down or under repair, and we have not yet got the new generation online that has been long talked about. That makes the interconnectors particularly important, but in Northern Ireland, of course, they are fully integrated with the rest of the Irish electricity system. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement that governs all this will run out in 2026. Are the Government actively in discussion with European counterparts on its successor?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can confirm that the Government are in discussions on its successor. We are in fact planning another interconnector between Ireland and the UK. As the noble Lord knows, the island of Ireland is counted as one electricity market, and I can update him on further discussions as and when they happen.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I follow up on the questioning from my noble friend Lord Rooker, as conflicts of interest have obviously been a large part of public debate recently. Can the Minister confirm which Minister will sign off the final decision on the AQUIND cable, that Ministers in the department have no involvement and that the Government will nominate who has any role in any stage of the adjudication process? Will the final sign-off be undertaken by Ofgem?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The application has been examined by the planning inspectorate; the examining authority is currently writing its report, which will contain its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State. Once he has received this report, the Secretary of State will have three months in which to take his decision. No other Ministers are involved in this decision-making process.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, interconnectors play an important role in reducing costs, but Britain is not at risk of an energy embargo. We are close to self-sufficiency, we will be closer when hydrogen comes on tap and, in a real emergency, we are sitting on 300 years’ supply of coal. Will the Minister confirm, none the less, that threatening an embargo is not the act of a friend, but rather that of an antagonistic state, such as Putin’s Russia?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Undoubtedly, emotions ran high following the introduction of the new licensing regime in Jersey, but we believe that the measures that Jersey has put on its fishing licences are entirely consistent with implementing access under the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. Our strong and healthy reciprocal energy relationships with neighbouring countries have been based on good will for many years; it is in the mutual interest of all parties that we continue to uphold these positive relationships.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House the anticipated timescale for more interconnectors between Britain and Ireland? Does the UK have any plans to set up a domestic cable manufacturing capability?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We have a strong pipeline of interconnectors. We have 3.8 gigawatts in construction to Norway, Denmark and France, and the completion of these projects will result in 9.8 gigawatts of interconnector capacity for Great Britain by 2023. A further 6.1 gigawatts are in development to Ireland, France, Germany and Norway. We have no capacity in the UK at present to build HVDC cables, but we have the capacity to build the medium voltage cables that service the offshore wind farms.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. No? In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to opine on this important issue. Can the Minister confirm that the French are in fact building one of our nuclear reactors? Has the recent dispute led the Government to review that situation?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The French are indeed building at Hinkley Point, and we are still in discussions with them on the project to build Sizewell C. I am not aware of any interruptions in those negotiations.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, what many Members want to hear is an assurance from the Government that reducing dependence on the import of French electricity will be a strategic priority for the Government in the face of the threats that we know they are likely to issue—they have a track record—when it comes to renewing and renegotiating the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. If my noble friend cannot give that assurance today, which I understand, will she at least promise to take it back to Ministers, so that we can have a clear policy that defends the national interest?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The UK has an extremely strong domestic energy supply—our homegrown mix of energy sources means there is no chance of the lights going out. The UK has a target to build 40 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and our ambition for at least 18 gigawatts of interconnection by the same date will support our energy requirements in this country. I will of course take my noble friend’s concerns back to the department.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the third Oral Question.
Railway Industry Association Report
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Railway Industry Association Why Rail Electrification?, published on 22 April.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my railway interests as declared in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome this report and agree that further electrification is required to decarbonise the railway, alongside the deployment of hydrogen and battery trains on some lines. In the last three years, we have completed almost 700 miles of electrification in England and Wales, and we will continue to do more.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome that Answer. The Railway Industry Association report is indeed excellent and the case it makes for a rolling programme of electrification is unanswerable. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to decarbonising the railway by no later than 2050? If so, do they accept that the most effective and beneficial way to deliver that is a steady, stable stream of electrification of between 400 and 500 kilometres each year? Will she and her ministerial colleagues in the DfT do their utmost to resist the Treasury’s efforts again to kick this into the long grass and water it all down by putting it off into the spending review?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government’s plans for decarbonising all forms of transport will be set out in the transport decarbonisation plan, which will be published shortly, but the noble Lord is quite right that the best way to make the most effective use of the supply chain is to have a rolling programme. That is why electrification projects are included in the rail network enhancements pipeline, which was last published in October 2019 and will be updated in the near future. I take his point about the Treasury, but it is also the case that we must be prudent and stay within the funding envelope that we have available.
Lord Snape (Lab)
The Minister will be familiar with the east-west railway line connecting our two main varsity towns. She will also be familiar with the fact that the design was for a fully electrified line, since when the Government have changed that to a non-electrified line, with electrical specification left for the future and the line being built by a private sector company. Are we really going to decarbonise our transport system by adopting this temporary and, in the view of many of us, expensive alternative, rather than going ahead with building the line as it was originally designed?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that it is our aim to deliver a net-zero carbon railway. East West Rail is a very important part of the development of the Ox-Cam Arc, which will support housing and jobs. Any decision to grant development consent for the project will need to demonstrate that it would not have a material impact on the ability of the Government to meet their carbon reduction targets. However, EWR Co, the company responsible for it, continues to examine decarbonisation options, including full electrification along the whole route, as well as various options for partial electrification using battery or electric hybrid rolling stock and other sustainable rolling stock options.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
There is nothing really new in this review because, of course, electrification has always been a cleaner option and, as I never tire of saying, the Green Party has been saying this for 30 or 40 years. Why have the Government not taken this as a matter of urgency and done it much faster?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Green Party is against HS2, a position which I remain a little confused by. The noble Baroness is quite right that now is the opportunity to put our shoulder to the wheel and to electrify our railways as quickly as we can. That is why we will be setting out a rolling programme in the forthcoming RNEP, and why we take great heed of what was written by the Network Rail-led traction decarbonisation network strategy. That is not government policy, but there are some very important conclusions which we are looking at, and we will be putting them in the transport decarbonisation plan.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the report mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, makes a compelling case for accelerating the electrification programme so that we can hit our carbon commitments, but it says very little about the industry’s capacity to deliver, which historically has been disappointing. Can my noble friend ensure that if the recommendations are accepted, we have the technical skills and know-how to deliver, on budget and on time, and that any reorganisation of Network Rail will not impede progress?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. Indeed, the Rail Industry Association report in 2019 set out that one of the root causes of the challenges of electrification was the 20-year hiatus that had previously occurred in the electrification projects, which led to a loss of specialist knowledge. But we are looking at the supply side of this to bring forward the rolling programme of electrification; I specifically point my noble friend to the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy, which has a lot of information about the supply side. We are confident that, if we have the right programme in place, we can not only use the existing supply-side skills and expertise but grow them for the future.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Does the Minister agree that all the options in this report are better than diesel trains, which are just as bad as diesel cars for the environment and health? Can she therefore explain why the Government have fixed 2030 as the year to phase out all diesel cars while they are still promoting hybrid trains, which are of course simply diesel trains for large parts of their journey?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness will be well aware that decarbonisation of different modes has to happen at different speeds. For example, the reality on the railway network is that freight is a challenge, because it takes much higher levels of energy to pull freight cars along. Therefore, it is right that we look at each mode and try to decarbonise them as quickly as we can, and that is what we will set out in our transport decarbonisation plan.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that had there been some diesel trains operating on the east coast main line, there would have been a greater number of trains operating, given the recent problems with the cracks? The electric trains can operate from any power source; which power source do the Government intend to use for electric trains?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure that I entirely understand that question. The electric trains will use the power sources available. Decarbonisation of the power network is, of course, very important and a huge amount of work has already been done to decarbonise power generation. Therefore, when we combine decarbonising not only power generation but the transport system as a whole, we will reach our target of net zero by 2050.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
Why Rail Electrification? rightly claims that electricity is the cleanest and most efficient power source for UK railways, but electricity itself must be cleanly produced. It cannot be stored and requires the use of energy to convert it to other potential energy. There are other linked components to the use and distribution of power; does the Minister agree that tackling each of these in parallel is essential in meeting the target of net-zero emissions by 2050?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree, and I refer the noble Lord to the answer to my noble friend’s question just now. But I also point out that this is not just about electricity and electrification; there is huge potential for hydrogen in the mix. The Government are very clear that we should invest in various new technologies. Indeed, we have now invested up to £3 million on various alternatives to straightforward rail electrification. On hydrogen, for example, we have invested £750,000 in HydroFLEX, the UK’s first hydrogen-powered train. These trains may be particularly useful for freight in the future.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In light of the Government’s commitment to decarbonisation, when will the Great Western main line into Bristol Temple Meads and from Cardiff to Swansea and Didcot to Oxford now be electrified? What will be the additional costs of now doing so at a later date, arising from the earlier decision to defer electrification of these key parts of the Great Western main line?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Great Western electrification programme is now substantially complete. However, I recognise that some parts of the network will still need to be electrified. As with all projects within the rail system, each one is looked at from the bottom up, and analysis is undertaken and development work done. If it meets value for money and is affordable, it will go into the RNEP system and therefore be done in due course.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
When the Minister’s colleague Chris Heaton-Harris met the Rail All-Party Group, he was presented with a package costing less than £100 million which would enable 2 million train miles a year to be hauled by existing electric locomotives instead of diesel—the equivalent of decarbonising 80 to 100 million HGV miles a year. Has any progress been made with this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I know that my honourable friend in the other place will be very grateful for the suggestions of the noble Lord about some of these quick wins—the fairly small, low-cost, infill electrification schemes that he refers to. We will of course look at these schemes, and they would be developed through the RNEP process.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Size of the House of Lords
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to the latest report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have of course noted the committee’s latest report. However, given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and outlook of the Lords fresh. This will ensure that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its role in scrutinising and revising legislation while respecting the primacy of the Commons.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, good progress was made in the last Parliament in reducing the high numbers in your Lordships’ House by a combination of increased retirements by your Lordships and restraint by Theresa May. But the incentive for your Lordships to play their part is diminished if the Prime Minister does not play his. Will my noble friend encourage the Leader of the House to persuade the Prime Minister to do what the Burns committee recommended —namely, to engage positively with the House—so that we can continue to make progress towards our target of 600?
Lord True (Con)
The Government always seek to engage positively with the House; the House does not necessarily always engage positively with the Government. The Government did not accept the cap when it was proposed to come in by 2027 in the first report, and they do not accept it in the latest report, when it is due by 2024.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the House has been freshened up rather enough, and we hope that the Government might pause for a little time. Have the Government now set themselves against substantive reform of the House? If they have, why not at least engage with your Lordships’ House to see what incremental change could be agreed?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, there have been a number of changes in your Lordships’ House over recent years. The Government have made their position clear: we are committed to looking at the role of the House of Lords, but we do not want to do so in a piecemeal way.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I strongly endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Hunt, and indeed those of the Lord Speaker. Is it not now obvious that Mr Johnson is seeking to deliberately damage the reputation of the House to reduce our influence? Will the Government now accept the recommendations of the Burns committee, and the view of the large majority of the House, and take the lead in legislating to end the 20 year-old temporary hereditary Peers by-election anomaly? This is way past its sell-by date.
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords, for the reason I have just given. The noble Lord speaks with the strength of 86 Liberal Democrat Peers behind him. At the rate of retirement we have seen recently, it would be some time in the 2060s before their representation was reduced to that awarded to them by the British people in the House of Commons in 2019. Maybe there is another aspect of your Lordships’ composition that might be examined.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I really hope that the Government have not lost their enthusiasm for proper reform of this House but, given that over the last 20 years there have been a tiny number of Divisions of over 600, I cannot really see what the problem of numbers actually is. Being a practical person, has my noble friend considered the relevance of asking the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee to look again at the whole subject of age limits in this House, as so many other professions are legislated with age limits?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course I was struck by what my noble friend said in the debate on the gracious Speech last week and some of the striking figures he gave then. Having said that the Government are not looking for piecemeal change, I will not follow him directly, but it is of course a fact that somewhere above 110 Members of your Lordships’ House are over 80.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has repeated the Government’s desire not to have piecemeal reform, but does he not accept that the only progress that has been made in your Lordships’ House has been through piecemeal reform? Can he think very seriously about the report’s recommendation about the worrying blurring that has happened between the process for appointing Cross-Bench Peers and party-political Peers? Will he also accept the recommendation that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should regain its control of this process, and perhaps consider the view—which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—that that commission should be put on a statutory basis?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly says, the Appointments Commission has an important role. However, I cannot agree that there has not been progress in reforming your Lordships’ House. I seem to recall a very dramatic reform of your Lordships’ House in 1999—which, considering the age of your Lordships’ House, is relatively recent. Substantial proposals were also put forward in the 2010 Parliament which failed to make progress because the Labour Party would not agree to a programme Motion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry not to be present, but I am off to get my second jab after this Question. I return to the quite inadequate answer that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. He referred to the Burns report but did not accept its recommendations. The Burns report has the interests of the House at heart; clearly, the Government do not. When the Minister mentioned refreshing the House, what he really means is refreshing the Conservative Benches. Since the first Burns report was published in 2017, we have seen an overall decrease in the number on the Official Opposition Benches of 16 Peers and an overall increase on the Conservative Benches of 20 Peers. This House works best when we work as a team to examine legislation. That does not seem to be the Government’s understanding.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the role of the Official Opposition is extremely important, and new Peers have been appointed —the Prime Minister has nominated people to the Labour Party Benches. Indeed, I had the great privilege of hearing the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, only last week.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, may I follow the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith? The Labour Party acted with great restraint in the first 11 years after the 1999 reforms. It was six years before there were more Labour Peers than Conservative, and at the end of the Labour Government there were only 26 more Labour Peers than Conservatives. We now have 83 more Conservative Peers than Labour, almost as many as there are all other party Peers. Do the Government intend to respect the convention that no group should have a majority in this House or do they intend to carry on appointing more until they approach an overall majority?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Conservative Party has only about 33% of the seats in the Lords, which obviously is way short of its share of the vote. This House has always benefited from negotiation and balance. However, there is a fundamental principle of our constitution that the Queen’s Government must be enabled to carry on, and everybody watches very closely the relationship between this House and the House of Commons.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests. I wonder whether it is time to take advice from Albert Einstein, who said, “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solution.” As we are about to enter a period where I think the United Kingdom will reflect on its constitutional arrangements as a whole, it may in that context be appropriate to look at the function of the House of Lords, and then its composition and size may well flow from those conclusions quite naturally.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that function and role are of substantial importance; too often all aspects of this question fail to be considered together.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
Do the Government agree or not agree with the Motion passed by this House on 5 December 2016 that steps should be taken to reduce the size of the House?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government always respectfully note Motions passed by your Lordships’ House. However, I believe I have answered that in saying that the Government’s view is that this House needs refreshing.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, that we need to look at the function and the purpose of the House and not concentrate just on its size. This constant concentration on the size of the House detracts from the real purpose of what the House can do. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that we need to put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis and look at the role that the House can play in post-legislative scrutiny.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness was able to intervene, and, as I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, I agree that the broader role needs to be considered. I can only repeat that, yes, the House of Lords Appointments Commission has an important role. However, I will go no further than that.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume and I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Osimertinib Cancer Treatment
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Osimertinib (Tagrisso), a cancer treatment drug recently approved by the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, will be available to residents of Northern Ireland (1) on the same timescale, and (2) with the same ease of access, as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the innovative lung cancer drug Tagrisso has recently had its licence expanded to include patients with early-stage lung cancer through Project Orbis. I am pleased to confirm that Tagrisso is currently available to all patients, including in Northern Ireland, at clinical discretion with no delays. The UK Government are committed to supporting parity of access to medicines across all parts of the UK.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, people will be reassured to hear that but the fact of the matter is, surely, that the use of this drug for early treatment of lung cancer remains subject to the approval of the EMA and access at the moment is available on application by clinicians on an individual-case basis, which is not the same ease of access as exists in the rest of the UK. While it may be of some assurance that the EMA is expected to approve the drug’s use for early treatment in the near future, that remains wholly outside the Government’s control. What does that say about the integrity of our National Health Service and for how long can this situation go on?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we estimate that there are currently just eight patients in Northern Ireland who would benefit from the expanded use of Tagrisso for early-stage disease. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend that they will all have the same access as in the rest of the United Kingdom without any delay or restraint on that access.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we should all wholeheartedly welcome the news of the agreement to enable early access to Osimertinib for early-stage lung cancer patients in England and I absolutely recognise that it is also available to patients in Northern Ireland. However, early diagnosis is as important as access to treatment. It is therefore deeply concerning that the number of people in England and, presumably, across the UK being seen by a specialist for suspected cancer, following urgent referral from their GP, has dropped dramatically. What steps are the Government taking to bring those waiting lists down? We certainly cannot wait for a reorganisation of the NHS, as proposed this year. Does the noble Lord acknowledge that reorganisations tend to have a chilling effect on the recovery of our NHS?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right to be concerned about the backlog of oncological diagnostics. It is of grave concern to all of us. That is why the NHS has massively prioritised the tests she described. We are working extremely hard to get through the backlog. GPs are extremely focused on identifying those most at risk and those who are late for their tests are being followed up with great energy and endeavour. I pay tribute particularly to the role of NHS D, which is using the kind of data gains that we made during the pandemic to mobilise all the technology we can to get the right people into tests at the right time.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I am really pleased that this drug can now be used as I understand that it is something of a wonder drug. That is good news. Are there any other drugs that might fall foul of the Northern Ireland protocol? Will the Minister update the House on the current problems in Northern Ireland with over-the-counter medicines such as Strepsils and others that appear to have fallen foul of the protocol?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of a Strepsil shortage in Northern Ireland but I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness if I have any information.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland protocol runs the risk of medicines not being available, that there will be divergence in the availability of medicines—and, importantly, medical devices—because the approval process might be different, and that the Government are due to report in six months on the effect of that divergence?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are watchful of the concerns to which the noble Lord refers but it is our hope and aspiration that there will not be the kind of delays or trouble that he explained. The Northern Ireland protocol means that Northern Ireland will stay aligned with EU rules, particularly for this kind of specific cancer medicine, but that does not mean that there need to be any delays. However, we are watching the situation carefully and the report that he described will give a full account of the problems, if there are any.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can my noble friend, in this instance at least, explain the divergence between the MHRA and the European Medicines Agency? On 22 April, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use gave a positive opinion under an accelerated assessment, but the EMA has not yet given the new indication of marketing authorisation. What is the potential gap between MHRA authorisation and EMA authorisation?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is, as ever, all over the detail. It is my understanding that the gap is a matter of weeks rather than there being any clinical divergence in assessment of the evidence. However, I am afraid to say that I would have to leave it to the EMA to think for itself on that.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly mentioned waiting lists. According to the most recent statistics, 9% of the population in England are on hospital waiting lists—the highest figure since records began in 2007. In Northern Ireland, the figure is 23% of the population, by far the highest proportion in the four home nations. The drug that we are discussing has been widely used in Northern Ireland to treat mid and late-stage lung cancer until now. Cancer patients in Northern Ireland now feel that they are being placed at greater risk than cancer patients elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that the supply problems that Northern Ireland is facing would not exist if the United Kingdom Government had not agreed to the European Medicines Agency having jurisdiction in Northern Ireland?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with either the basis or detail of the noble Lord’s assertion. There is absolutely no delay or problem of access for this drug. He is entirely right to say that Tagrisso is currently offered to patients across the UK, including Northern Ireland, for mid and late-stage disease and it will now be offered to patients across the UK, including Northern Ireland, on exactly the same terms for early-stage disease.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, Northern Ireland is subject to EU law when it comes to the single market for goods and medicines because there is a grace period until 31 December 2021. After that, say representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, the supply of 98% of medicines from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is at risk of being discontinued. That is a truly outrageous and scandalous situation. The effects are already being felt. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will take whatever steps are necessary in terms of the protocol to guarantee the continued supply of medicines to Northern Ireland from Great Britain without any further regulation being required?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have met with industry on this matter for the past 18 months. I am afraid that the message I get from it is not of the alarmist kind that the noble Lord described—quite the opposite. I pay tribute to the industry for its enormously collaborative sense of partnership and I really do not believe that there is any threat of the kind that the noble Lord described.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
Speaking from Aberdeenshire, I know that drug approval can differ between Scotland and England. Now that we have left the EU, is it not inevitable that there will be differences in drug approval and timings from time to time? What are the Government doing, having signed the agreement, to opt out of the EMA and negotiate an arrangement that minimises disruption but does not pretend that it cannot happen because that is what they signed up for?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there will be an occasional moment when there are slight differences between the EMA and MHRA; we are not anticipating them to be huge and, in this case, we are anticipating them to be a matter of weeks while one approval does not quite overlap with another. The UK Government and the MHRA are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and all relevant stakeholders to ensure that the supply of medicines to all UK patients, including those in Northern Ireland, remains smooth, seamless and efficient.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his calm and reassuring Answer, but does he accept that the real problem is the one pointed to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, namely, that of waiting lists? Can we perhaps devise some sort of Nightingale solution to bring forward and have people seen in a special place or special places? The real danger is that people will be diagnosed too late, and then, whatever the drugs, they will die.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I endorse my noble friend’s recommendations. He is entirely right that the old method of diagnostics, which relied a lot on patients attending diagnostic appointments in hospital, feels very out of date after the pandemic. I note the review on diagnostics by Professor Sir Mike Richards, which recommended community hubs, and has a huge amount of support within the NHS. We need to build up our diagnostic capability, bring it closer to where people live and make it more approachable so that people get early interventions.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I fear what seems to be a certain complacency in the Department of Health about what will happen in Northern Ireland from next January, when Brussels takes control of medicines coming into Northern Ireland. How can a Conservative and Unionist Party accept that our National Health Service will now be separated out, whatever the good will that my noble friend might express about making sure this does not happen?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I reject the accusation of complacency. We have worked unbelievably hard with Northern Irish stakeholders, the pharmaceutical industry and EU colleagues to ensure the smooth running of the supply of medicines in Northern Ireland. The facts speak for themselves: so far, they have run extremely smoothly indeed. I reassure the noble Baroness that the UK Government are committed to parity of access to medicines across the UK, including Northern Ireland. Despite different approval routes, we have ensured that all patients have access to medicines at the same time, and we will maintain that commitment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister commit to meet the pharmaceutical industry, otherwise known as PAGB, which I met several weeks ago and which told me about problems that could ensue from 1 January next year in relation to the availability of over-the-counter medicines in Northern Ireland, due to the requirements of the protocol? Will the Minister undertake to meet this organisation to ensure that there are immediate discussions between the UK and the EU to resolve any ongoing difficulties and impediments?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I note the point made by the noble Baroness. As I mentioned in relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on this issue, it is not one that I am not aware of, but I would be pleased to meet with the party she described in order to understand it better.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and indeed answered.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Local Authority Enforcement Powers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 9 April be approved.
Relevant documents: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019-21, and 48th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2019-21 (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 17 May.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 22 and 25 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 May.
Anti-Semitic Attacks
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Jewish 97 year-old aunt Rose lives in St John’s Wood. I never imagined I would see such scenes on her street. As Simon Wiesenthal said,
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.”
And Pastor Niemöller wrote:
“First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.”
Does the Minister agree that each and every one of us must stand up to, and speak out against, what we saw at the weekend?
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I completely agree that we must stand in solidarity with British Jews. The events we saw in the past week were abhorrent and I am pleased the police acted swiftly to arrest four individuals for that offence of driving up and down Finchley Road. Equally, there was the violent attack on Rabbi Rafi Goodwin in Chigwell, and I am pleased to say that the latest news is that the police have arrested two individuals concerning that incident.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is poignant that today’s exchange on anti-Semitism coincides with the important Jewish festival of Shavuot, which has kept some of our colleagues away from this debate. One of the examples that accompanies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, is
“Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”
Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all public and private bodies adopt not only the definition but also the examples? Can the Government stress at every opportunity that the supposedly pro-Palestinian demonstrations of recent days have actually been pro-Hamas, and not in support of the Palestinian people?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this Government are very proud of the fact that they were the first adopters of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, and we are working very hard to ensure that that is fully embedded across our universities and local councils and, of course, every single Member of Parliament, bar one, has also signed up to that definition. It is important that we take that forward and we will continue to work very hard to ensure that we tackle anti-Semitism wherever we see it.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The Jew haters and the women-despising thugs who threatened murder and sexual violence on our streets brought great shame to our nation. At the first chance, they exposed the thin veneer between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Does my noble friend share my sadness that many of the car convoys of violence came from my native city of Bradford, a city that has a proud record of co-operation between communities, not least through the Near Neighbours programme? Does he agree that we cannot allow the men of violence to define the relationship between communities? Will he commit to measures that combine strict policing and a strong social cohesion? We must, as a priority, remove fear from our streets.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend, with his experience as a leader of Bradford, is absolutely right. We need to combine that strict policing, where we do more than engage and the police act to ensure that we take the hate off our streets and online wherever it occurs, with an equally strong and robust approach to social cohesion. In fact, Bradford pioneered the Near Neighbours programme, which brings different communities, such as the Muslim and Jewish communities, closer together. We can learn from that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
Is the Minister aware that the Union of Jewish Students has raised serious concerns that Jewish students and societies are now being targeted with really quite disgusting anti-Semitic abuse due to the conflict in the Middle East? Will he reassure Jewish students that the Government will clamp down on all forms of campus anti-Semitism and encourage all universities not just to adopt but to implement the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of this tension. The Community Security Trust has reported a massive spike in anti-Semitic incidents, but equally, Tell MAMA has seen a similar increase in anti-Muslim incidents of 420% in the past week. We are funding the Union of Jewish Students to do precisely that: to tackle these issues. We want to see the full implementation, not just the adoption, of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Jewish community will be very grateful to the Minister for what he said today. He knows that anti-Semitism is not confined to appalling attacks on a rabbi in Chigwell and threats to Jewish women in north London. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, to which the Minister referred a few moments ago, gives as an example applying double standards by requiring the State of Israel to behave in a way not expected of any other democratic nation. Does the Minister accept that there have been many examples of those double standards in the past week, particularly by broadcasters, and that this more subtle form of anti-Semitism contributes to an atmosphere in which the cruder forms breed?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend in the other House talked about how sometimes anti-Zionism is a subtler form of anti-Semitism. We need to root out even those most subtle of forms absolutely and ensure that we take these forms of anti-Semitism away from both the internet and the streets of our big cities.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
Just a couple of days ago and less than half a mile from my home, a motor convoy with loudhailers passed by calling for Jews to be killed and our daughters raped. I know that there has been a quick response from political leaders and the police, although I must say to what effect I do not yet know. I abhor Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. No decent safe society can live with either. I have never come across a Jewish group calling for the death or rape of Muslims. If I did, it would find me an outspoken enemy. What discussions have the Government held with the many law-abiding Muslim groups to encourage public expression of their anger and repudiation of the hatred of Jews? What concrete additional help can be given to the Community Security Trust to enhance community protection?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we continue to have our cross-government working groups to tackle both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiments. We continue to work with a number of stakeholders to address those challenges. We also provide substantial support to the Community Security Trust. It is £14 million this year, but it has been £65 million to date. We will continue to support what those groups do, but they also provide important support for other minority and faith communities.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, about the speedy action by the police were extremely welcome. For the sake of Holocaust survivors, such as my beloved sister, and the whole of the community, can we ensure that once prosecutions are brought, they are brought quickly and not delayed? Will the Government call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to account to the Government for the speedy way in which these cases should be processed?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I cannot talk about specific cases, but equally, justice delayed is justice denied. We need to see swift and sure justice in these matters.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that while all decent people in the United Kingdom disapprove of anti-Semitism and find it abhorrent, there is particular resonance for the Jewish community in what was happening on the streets of London just a few days ago? In the 1930s, that is exactly the kind of thing that proved to be a precursor to a Holocaust. Does the Minister agree that it behoves all of us, not just the police and the judiciary, but those of us in this and the other House and journalists, to take the utmost caution in the language we use to describe events in the Middle East just now so that we do not inadvertently inflame the fires of anti-Semitism?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with those sentiments. We need to react and enforce robustly, but equally to find the right tone to cover these sorts of events.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, but the time has now elapsed for this Question.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for being here to take this Statement. We keep meeting like this; it is over a year now. I wonder whether our relationship needs to move on.
The Covid variant first detected in India looks as though it has now seeded in 86 areas and is set to become the dominant strain in the UK within the next few days or weeks. Indeed, many experts think that it was a mistake for the Government to go ahead with the easing of lockdown restrictions implemented yesterday. I suppose that there must be increasing doubt about whether the further lifting of lockdown measures will be able to go ahead as planned next month. I will not ask the Minister to give any definitive answers on that because I absolutely accept that uncertainty is the name of the game. However, I quote one of the four tests that the Government set out for proceeding with the road map out of lockdown, which is if
“our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern”—
in other words, if there are new variants of concern, that may be the issue. Is this still the case?
The Royal Statistical Society, which promotes the proper use of data, is concerned that the Government have failed to publish the information justifying their decision that stage 3 of lockdown easing should go ahead because the new variant threat has been met. Will the Government publish the framework for that decision and the data that fed into it so that people can be assured that the facts justify the policy? Can the Minister confirm reports in the Times that officials have drawn up plans for local lockdowns modelled on the tier 4 restrictions introduced last year, and that, under these measures, people will be advised to stay at home and non-essential shops and hospitality will be closed, if the new strain is not brought under control?
On Bolton and Bedford, I regret to say this, but it seemed that the Secretary of State reverted to a blame game yesterday, perhaps to deflect from the fact that the Government did not do enough to protect us from this new variant. He said that people infected by the new variant in hospitals in Bolton had refused or not taken up the vaccine and had chosen not to take the jab. I felt that was very unfair.
My honourable friend the MP for Bolton, Yasmin Qureshi, says that the vaccine is not easily accessible to some of the poorer and BAME communities in Bolton: for example, some people have to take three buses to get to the vaccine centre in the centre of the town. If you are not mobile and do not have flexibility in your working hours, or are a key worker and have caring responsibilities in a multigenerational household, you are not refusing the vaccine if you cannot get to it.
Turning to Bedford, the Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, has said that Bedford is now to be among the areas given surge testing, as the borough recorded the second highest rates of Covid-19 infection in the country, and that cases were doubling every five days. This comes after the MP, the mayor and the health chiefs all called on the Government to act quickly to prevent further spread of the variant in Bedford. For days they have felt ignored. They have felt that the Government wanted to recognise the new variant as a northern problem, which clearly is not the case because it is in Bedford. My honourable friend Mohammad Yasin MP said that, after a fair bit of dither and delay, he welcomes surge testing in Bedford.
Can the Minister tell us whether it is true that Bedford has no access to the Pfizer vaccine at the moment? This must limit a comprehensive vaccine campaign in that town; you cannot do a comprehensive vaccine campaign, especially if you are dealing with the under-40s, if you do not have two or three of the vaccines that are available. I am aware also that reports of many people choosing to delay their jab were about concerns over side effects and whether they would be available for work or might struggle to manage their responsibilities. So the Government must give resourcing and support on these issues and improve the flexibility, information and understanding at a local level.
The Minister is also aware that achieving the truly remarkable vaccine take-up among adults will still leave 20% of the wider population—our children—unvaccinated, meaning of course that the virus can still spread. So can he update the House on any plans to vaccinate the under-18s? It also remains unclear for how long vaccines prevent Covid-19. Initial studies suggest that it may be six months, or possibly longer. Well, those who were vaccinated in December are rapidly approaching that. So we need to know whether there will be declining protection from Covid and what assessment the Minister has made of this risk. Can he update the House on plans to roll out booster shots this autumn?
Finally, at this critical time when we need to work internationally, why are we the only G7 nation cutting our aid budget? How can the Government defend cutting our contribution to vital science and research projects? Given the Government’s total silence on President Biden’s support for the temporary lifting of patent protections to increase vaccine production, should we assume that the British Government do not agree with the President?
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for coming before the House to deal with this Statement, and also for his work ethic in dealing with Covid-19 over the last 14 months.
From these Benches, we have always said that we will support whatever is proportionate and follows evidence to keep people safe. The more that you delve into the Government’s reason for not including India on the red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh, the more it feels like a big ball of candyfloss that initially seems tempting but disintegrates on touch. Yesterday, both the Minister and the Secretary of State said that India was not put on the red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh because of the positivity rate.
Looking at the figures for the two weeks before Bangladesh and Pakistan were put on the red list, the positivity rate for India was 5.1%. For Pakistan, it was slightly higher at 6.2%, yet for Bangladesh it was lower, at 3.7%. The same data—the Government’s test and trace data—shows that in the same two-week period, 50% of all new variants entering the UK, including those of concern, were from India: the largest country by far. Therefore, variants of concern and positivity rates show India to be on a par with, or ahead of, Bangladesh and Pakistan. So what data were the Government actually using, if it was not their own test and trace data? Can the Minister place on the record that data and the raw data which made him, and the Secretary of State, say that India’s positivity rate was three times higher?
Another area of concern is people entering the UK being huddled together at the border with people entering from red-list countries. One needs only to look at the significant Twitter feeds from yesterday of people arriving from green or amber countries, who were spending up to four hours in queues to get over the UK border and having to stand next to and mingle with people entering from red-list countries. Heathrow and Manchester Airports were responding that, despite asking the Government for more border staff to deal with the issue, none had been forthcoming.
This was planned. We knew that international travel was allowed and the Government knew that the traffic-light system was being introduced, so why have the Government not carried out the wishes of the airport operators to ensure that more border staff and more guidance are available to segregate those entering from red-list countries? This is a clear public health crisis at our border, and the Government have not, to date, solved it. So, as a matter of urgency, when will this public health breach right at our borders be solved?
Finally, as variants of concern continue to enter the country and replicate at speed, “isolate, isolate, isolate” becomes vital. Yesterday, the Secretary of State in another place indicated to Munira Wilson MP that the Government were worried that isolation might not be as robust as required, and that some pilots were taking place. Can the Minister outline where they are, what the parameters of the pilots are and when the results will be made public? Also, overwhelming evidence now shows that people on lower salaries must be paid their full wages and given support to ensure that they can comply with full isolation requirements. Will the Government now look at this as a matter of urgency?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the very detailed and thorough questions from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I am also appreciative of and touched by their kind comments.
The noble Baroness asked about the Indian variant and the uptake of the vaccines. I reassure her that we are doing absolutely everything that we can to ensure that there is a thorough uptake of the vaccine among all communities. She spoke touchingly about the feeling of blame associated with those in hospital who people hear have not taken the vaccine. I hear her comments, but there is no attribution of blame meant in this. It is a simple statement of fact that if you do not take the vaccine that is offered to you, or if you do not take two doses, and you then expose yourself to the virus, that is putting yourself in substantial danger, and it is a clinical observation that many of those who have ended up in hospital with severe disease are those who have not had the vaccine, even though they may have been offered it.
The noble Baroness asked about accessibility. She is entirely right that there are some people to whom we as a healthcare system have not made ourselves accessible enough. During this pandemic we have moved on from using the phrase “hard to reach” and we now think of it in terms of people who find us “hard to access”. She makes a perfectly reasonable observation in that respect, but I reassure her that we have absolutely bent over backwards to do everything we can to put the vaccine in front of all groups in the country, particularly those in areas such as Bolton, which we recognise have in the past been places where we have not got our message across.
I personally am hugely touched by the videos I have seen of people now queueing to have the vaccine. I applaud all community leaders and those who work with communities in Bolton, who have clearly mobilised a huge amount of public sentiment behind the vaccine programme. We are seeing a transformation in the penetration rates among some very important communities.
There is more that we can do. I am open to any suggestions from noble Lords on how we can do better, but I would like to reassure noble Lords that we have strained every sinew in trying to achieve vaccine equity across all groups in the country. That is true not only in Bolton but in Bedford, and I am disturbed to hear that people in Bedford feel they may have somehow been overlooked. I do not believe that is the view of the Vicky Head in Bedford, the DPH, and we have worked extremely closely with her. I assure the noble Baroness that cluster 2, linked to 12 cases in Bedford, was targeted immediately. An MTU went to the community on 8 May, and two community sites were opened up on 10 May. We have absolutely prioritised Bedford, as we have Sefton, Leicester, Nottingham and London—all areas where clusters have broken out. There is absolutely no question of prioritising one area over another. On the availability of the Pfizer vaccine in Bedford, that is news to me. I will be glad to look into that and to write to the noble Baroness accordingly.
On children, as noble Lords will be aware, this is an area in which some of the vaccine companies are making considerable progress in their clinical trials. None is categoric yet. It is too early to have agreed policy in this area, but the noble Baroness makes a very good point. Opening up the Covid vaccine, as we have with the flu vaccine, means that not only are children with some kind of vulnerability, particularly to long Covid, put into a safe place but that the transmissibility of that important age group can be reduced.
I am afraid we cannot know for certain the long-term effect of the vaccine until time has passed, but the CMO’s view is that the indications on the body’s immune system are extremely strong. At this moment it seems the vaccine is working, and our confidence is at a reasonably high point, but we remain vigilant. VoCs could emerge that either reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine or, for instance, effect some kind of decline in protection from the vaccine. That is why we have put in place contingent plans for boosters in the autumn. Those boosters might be of the existing suite of vaccines that are proving extremely effective. We are also looking for VoC vaccines that may be used to supplement the range of immune responses so that they cover any new mutations or variants that may emerge.
I cannot immediately recognise from the Bench the data the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, gave on the India VoCs. I wonder whether it was data that emerged after we made the decisions, because a lot of the sequencing data is retrospective; it takes between a week and 10 days to emerge from the Sanger Institute. That is one of the difficulties in making these decisions, which sometimes seem so clear-cut in retrospect. When you have the data available to you on the day, the decisions are not necessarily quite so apparent.
I do not really recognise the criticisms the noble Lord makes of the red list system. The red list system we have in the UK is an incredibly important shield and is proving extremely effective. Segregation is unbelievably difficult during travel. It is very difficult to segregate amber list and red list passengers on a plane, train or ferry. Within an airport it is very difficult to segregate people, because of the physical proximity. That is why travelling is dangerous, why we tell people not to travel and why, when people do travel, we tell them to isolate. Travelling is dangerous, and that is not news to us or to the people who get on those planes in the first place. The ultimate sanction here is that, particularly as we go into the summer, we tell people: travelling is not for this year. Please stay in this country.
On the isolation pilots the noble Lord referred to, we are running a large amount of work on pilots for isolation generally. If he would like to write to me about the particular pilots he was referring to, I will be glad to give him an update. I am afraid I am not quite clear at this stage which ones he is referring to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. We do not have that many Back-Bench questioners, but it is still quite good discipline if people keep their questions and answers as brief and relevant as possible.
Lord Popat (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his repeat of the Statement. It is indeed welcome news for people and the economy that we are able to move to step 3 in our road map. However, as the Health Secretary said,
“we must be humble in the face of this virus.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/21; col. 424.]
While the UK has had the highest vaccination enthusiasm in the world, does the Minister agree that it is deeply worrying that many people eligible for a vaccine, particularly among vulnerable age groups, have still not had one? This was seen in Bolton, where the majority of the 19 patients admitted to hospital with the new Indian variant, especially people from ethnic-minority communities, have not had a vaccine. What further support can the Government give to promote the better uptake of vaccines among ethnic minorities?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to humility and he is right: we have all had to develop a stronger sense of humility in the face of this awful virus and this dreadful pandemic. It has taught us that, despite all our 21st-century healthcare systems, we are all vulnerable to its awful effects. His words are absolutely spot on. I repeat the statistic that 69.4% of adults across the UK have had the vaccine, because the overall story of the vaccine rollout has been one of incredible participation by the British public. Not only have I never been involved in anything quite so successful in my life but there are very few national projects anywhere in the world that have been as successful. I really applaud all communities in every part of Britain for the way in which they have stepped up to the vaccine. My noble friend is right that there are some communities in which those levels are not as high as they should be. That has led to higher transmission among younger people, and in a few cases that has led to severe disease among older people who, frankly, should have taken their vaccine. I urge everyone to step up to their opportunity.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
As the Minister, who has worked tirelessly during Covid, knows only too well, an outbreak anywhere can become an outbreak everywhere. Can he tell us how the UK plans to increase vaccine distribution globally through COVAX to control the pandemic and decrease the risk of further variants arising in countries with high rates of infection, particularly as the risk of vaccine-resistant variants will remain high for at least a decade?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Tedros principle of us being safe only when we are all safe remains the most profound insight. The noble Baroness is entirely right: we must do more to try to help those in the developing world. The frustrating truth is that the world simply does not have enough capacity for the manufacture of these very complex and tricky substances. We are straining every sinew to try to deliver the 9 billion vaccines we need to deliver worldwide vaccination, but the rate of manufacturing is not as high as any of us would like. I take my hat off in particular to AstraZeneca, which has provided licences for the vaccine worldwide on a no-profit basis, but I also pay tribute to the other vaccine companies, which, despite what one might read in the press, are trying all they can to set up manufacturing sites all around the world. Progress is being made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I too salute AstraZeneca for its noble efforts. However, I would like to take the Minister back to the SAGE meeting of 13 May, when the Government were warned:
“In the areas where numbers of infections are increasing rapidly … an even faster increase can be expected if measures are relaxed”.
The Government went ahead with relaxing the measures yesterday. I know that Mr Dominic Cummings can perhaps not be regarded as the most reliable of commentators, but was he not right to say that fast, hard and effective action is the best policy for the economy, as opposed to always delaying taking decisive action? When it comes to the next stage, can we be reassured that the decision will not be taken until the evidence in June is fully assessed and evaluated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am a big supporter of the “fast and hard” principle. In our response in Bolton, Bedford, London and elsewhere, we have demonstrated that principle in our handling of the Indian variant. I point out that the use of testing and social distancing measures in schools has been enormously effective. One of the remarkable aspects of the infection rate so far is that transmission levels among school-aged children have not increased in the way that SAGE and others, including myself, once feared. We should take a “glass half-full” moment to applaud that fact. I reassure the noble Lord that we will absolutely make these decisions on the data. Space has been put in between the steps for exactly that reason, and we are not going to rush it.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister outline the Government’s plans for test and trace as lockdown is lifted, particularly in areas such as Bolton and Bedford where surge testing is currently being deployed? With former centrally based Public Health England staff being disbanded and senior civil servants returning to their own posts, what financial resources are being passed to the local resilience teams, run by local directors of public health, to operate test and trace, which will be so critical to controlling the spread of the virus alongside the vaccine rollout?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the outbreak in Bolton, Bedford, London and elsewhere has demonstrated, if that were needed, the paramount importance of keeping resources for test and trace at a critical level, and that is what we have done. Since the national infection rate is lower, there is a much greater emphasis on the kind of surge activity and outbreak management that the noble Baroness describes. Sequencing has proved to be an essential part of that process, and we have brought sequencing from the back of the laboratory to the front line of test and trace operation. Every single positive case is now treated as though it were a VOC, with the same amount of tracing and sequencing that a VOC would have had a few weeks ago. We have the full operation on standby. Should another wave of infections arrive, as it may well do with the relaxing of social distancing, we have the systems in place to be able to deal with it.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. The Indian variant is spreading not just across the United Kingdom but across the north Indian plains and into Nepal, a country ill-equipped to deal with such a pandemic. Given the speed of response and support offered to India, I simply ask my noble friend whether the Government will respond positively to Nepal’s request for 2 million doses of vaccine.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for the briefing on Nepal I had earlier from my noble friend. The scenes that we have seen in north-west India are heart-breaking. Nepal is such a good example of the kind of country that the global community needs to surround and support with vaccine technology that, frankly, is for G7-style countries to help to provide to developing countries. I take my noble friend’s point completely on board. I do not have immediately to hand the statistics about what Britain is doing for Nepal on the vaccine front, but I will be glad to write to him with any data that I can put together.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. With the move to stage 3 of the road map, university students can now return to campus. Most of them are too young to have received vaccines so students around the country will form a significant cohort of young people undertaking regular and frequent testing as a matter of course. What consideration has been given to the benefits of sustaining PCR testing and sequencing at scale in universities as a way of rapidly identifying and understanding new variants? Will the Government consider providing funding to support that in future?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the vice-chancellors and to the universities and colleges of Britain for the way in which they have embraced campus testing. It has been a salutary lesson in what can be done, and it has helped to keep infection rates down on campuses where there has been a small number of returning students to date. That is done mainly through LFD testing. Positive tests then have a complementary PCR test, and the PCR test is automatically sequenced if it is positive. The combination of LFD, PCR and sequencing is the right one for keeping infection rates down, but we tweak the formula as and when best advice comes in.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has hit the low-paid and the poor the hardest. The Government need to commit to a road map to a better post-Covid society so I invite them to make two pledges. First, at the very least, they need to reduce the NHS waiting lists in England from the present 4.95 million to 2.5 million, which was the case in 2010. Will the Minister pledge to do exactly that by the end of this Parliament or even sooner? If not, why not? Secondly, the poorest 10% of households pay 47.6% of their income in direct and indirect taxes, compared with 33.5% for the richest 10% of households. This condemns millions of people to poor food, housing and health, which is a key reason for deaths during this pandemic. Will the Government pledge to eliminate that injustice by the end of this Parliament?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I recognise some of the noble Lord’s insights. It is undoubtedly true that the low-paid and the poor have been hardest hit by Covid, both by the infection rates themselves and by the lockdown. That is a frustrating truth that is completely recognised and acknowledged by the Government. It is also true that the low-paid and the poor have health inequalities that have themselves made people more vulnerable to sickness, both from Covid and from the non-Covid diseases that have been exacerbated by limited access to some parts of the NHS. We are absolutely committed to reducing NHS waiting lists—that is an incredibly important part of the “build back better” mantra—but we need to do more to bring a degree of levelling up to all parts of society in order to address the symptoms that the noble Lord rightly describes.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the remarkable progress of the uptake of the vaccine in all communities, and I thank the Minister for coming to us with this Statement. However, I am sure he will understand that serious questions remain about the Government’s decision not to red-list being a direct cause of this dangerous Indian variant—I am sure that at some point the Government will have to answer fully to Parliament—and that it is not true, even as a clinical assessment, despite the media repeatedly and consistently suggesting this, that the uptake of vaccinations is the responsibility of certain communities. The Minister will appreciate the likely and even inevitable consequences of rising Islamophobia and hate crimes, as has been reported by Tell MAMA. What are the Government going to do to monitor and support local communities to ensure that they do not face such consequences? Also, echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, what plans and resources are in place to monitor and support compliance as we enter the next phase of the road map?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have to be honest with the noble Baroness: I am not sure it is helpful to try to connect healthcare policy decisions with a commentary on hate crime. The people who have not stepped up to the vaccine come from a very wide variety of communities; it is not one single community that has been singled out. We are talking about everyone from migrant workers in the apple yards of Herefordshire, to hard-working off-book sweat-shop labourers in east Leicestershire. In between there are people from many different communities who have not taken advantage of the vaccine opportunity. We are working really closely at NHS level to reassure community leaders and individuals concerned that the vaccine is safe and will provide protection. That is the right conversation to have.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
The bus industry has cleaned up its buses and introduced lots of ventilation, and people are wearing masks. Is there any hope that the amount of social distancing on buses will be reduced in the near future, because there is a lot of unused capacity?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the bus industry. Many noble Lords will remember those terrible stories at the beginning of the pandemic about bus drivers having an extremely high incidence of severe disease and even death. But the noble Lord should have hope as there is a really good reason why the buses will one day be full, and that is the vaccine. The vaccine gives us all hope that the kind of life we once had can be revisited, although we have to take some time to ensure that the vaccines are working as well as they should. We have to ensure that booster shots, if needed, are delivered. We have to ensure that the vaccine cuts through to all communities and that hygiene—the social distancing, handwashing and other personal hygiene disciplines which are going to be a long-term commitment by the entire nation—is truly imbedded in everyone’s habits.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement repeat and congratulate him on the work he has been doing over the last many months. Does he agree that the public health messaging, which has been very good in all communities, should continue because we are going to get many other forms of variant? As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, says, this is going to be an ongoing issue, probably for a number of years, and continuous messaging will be key. Will he also tell me, given the recent new variant, what conversations he is having with counterparts from the countries concerned to see how that variant is reacting, what is happening there and whether it is reproducing rapidly or slowly, so that better informed decisions can be made in our own country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her insight. She is entirely right; this awful pandemic does have a silver lining, which is that it can be an inflection point for a complete transformation in our public health messaging. The work we are doing on communicating the threat of the variants is one example of that. The next front line will be the flu jab rollout in the autumn, where take-up rates have been okay but not great. I hope that, when the flu jab campaign begins this autumn, a completely different generation and spread of people will step up to that opportunity. We are working extremely hard to use the public mood and sentiment behind preventive medicine to full effect to ensure that the flu jab works, that therefore a much smaller proportion of the population will transmit flu, and that deaths and severe disease from flu will be reduced. That can be the legacy of this awful pandemic.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the vigilant focus described in this Statement that has been adopted by the Government, and that the response is being co-ordinated through the UK Health Security Agency. Could the Minister explain how England is working with the other three countries in the UK to ensure that a proactive approach is taken to the new virus variant, that the uptake of vaccines increases, that the monitoring of transmission continues, and to enable early intervention should the number of cases increase? In particular, what data are the Government collecting on the number of people in quarantine hotels testing positive for coronavirus and how many people have absconded from quarantine? Would the Government consider adopting a process similar to the electronic tagging undertaken in South Korea, to more accurately monitor the movement of people in and out of the country at its borders?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for that creative and thoughtful question. The good news is that the number of absconding residents from managed quarantine is minimal; it can be counted on one hand and many of them have been retrieved. The bad news is that the positivity rate in managed quarantine is far too high. I do not have the precise number in front of me and do not want to guess at it, but it is clearly true that far too many people are getting on planes when they are infected and far too many people are catching the disease on their travels. When we think of how to manage any vaccine-evading and highly transmissible variants, we have to look to the red list for secure protection for this country. She asked another question I cannot remember, but I will be glad to write to her about it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I was genuinely excited to be able to attend a Saracens rugby match last night, and I notice from my noble friend’s Twitter feed that he too was out last night enjoying a thoroughly well-deserved visit to Sadler’s Wells. My sincere thanks go to all those who have made this step to normality possible, particularly my noble friend. However, like others, I have concerns about the entry arrangements at airports. While I fully understand the difficulties of segregation and that international travel should be strongly discouraged, does he agree that more should be done to prevent passengers arriving from red, amber and green countries mixing—particularly at airport border entry points with those from red countries, where, as he has just said, there is obviously a high degree of infection?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I enjoyed the contemporary dance at Sadler’s Wells, which really lifted my heart, but I rather wish I had been at Saracens for that thumping victory and to see my favourite team doing so well after a difficult year. I very clearly hear the concerns of noble Lords about social mixing of amber and red route passengers at airports, and one reads about it in the papers. I reassure noble Lords that the amount of segregation in place in the airports is the focus of both Border Force and the Home Office. We are absolutely doing our best. We are looking at red list terminals, but the practicalities of that when there is a relatively low level of flights are very challenging indeed. I reiterate my point that if you are travelling you are putting yourself at risk, and there is no way we can pretend otherwise. If you are travelling, you should isolate yourself for a substantial amount of time when you touch down in the UK. This question of mingling in airports is, to some extent, a red herring.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that the B16172 variant of SARS-CoV-2 is now established in the community, but that only highlights the need to keep out further variants of concern that will inevitably arise around the world as the coronavirus runs rampant. Following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, can the Minister reassure me about the security arrangements in quarantine facilities given the number of cases of transmission in New Zealand and Australia, who have long practised quarantine? How often are staff being tested? Are they being paid in ways that mean they do not have to take other jobs, particularly jobs where they may have contact with large numbers of people? Are ventilation systems being checked regularly?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right to cite the examples of Australia and New Zealand and the challenges they have had with staff manning managed quarantine facilities. I am extremely grateful to officials from both Australia and New Zealand for the very thorough briefings we had when we set up our managed quarantine facilities. We totally took on board their profound insight on that area and that was the number one thing they told us to get right. We focused on it, we have invested in it, and that has worked well to date.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all questions have been asked and answered.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Queen’s Speech
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to open this fifth day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. Today’s debate on justice, home affairs and cultural issues will allow us to explore some of the key themes that Her Majesty expounded in her Speech last week. Many of these matters are central to a well-functioning society, including the recovery of our justice system in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic; the prevention of violent crime and the delivery of justice for victims; the basis and operation of our constitutional settlement; the way that our immigration and asylum systems work in practice; and how the United Kingdom will respond to digital and technological developments, including online safety and the security of our communications. Given the wealth of experience on all sides of the House, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford and I look forward to hearing the contributions that will be made by noble Lords in today’s debate.
The last year was like none in recent memory and has been difficult for everyone. None the less, this Government have remained steadfast in responding to the Covid-19 crisis. The pandemic affected all areas of life, both private and public, and the justice system is no exception. The past year has been particularly challenging for our courts and tribunals, so I first, and importantly, want to express my gratitude to those working across the justice system, whose efforts over the last year meant that the wheels of justice never stopped turning. They are now turning faster: almost all jurisdictions are now completing cases at pre-pandemic levels.
However, we are aware that there is much further to go—so, as we begin a new Session and social distancing restrictions ease, one of our top priorities will be to accelerate the work already taking place to address the effects of the pandemic on courts and tribunals, and we will also use this opportunity to secure further improvements for our justice system. As such, we will implement measures to ensure that the Crown Courts are running to their maximum capacity, using every judge and courtroom available, with no limit on sitting days this year. We will learn from our experience with remote hearings and seek to retain them where appropriate. These measures will enable us to deliver swifter outcomes for victims who might otherwise see their cases delayed. We know the old adage: justice delayed is justice denied. We do not want to see justice denied to anyone, so we will work hard to speed up the justice system, as it emerges from the pandemic.
However, our commitment to delivering justice for victims does not end at trial, and it certainly does not begin there. We want to ensure that victims are supported and their rights recognised at every stage of the criminal justice system. During the last Session, we published a revised victims’ code, which set out the rights to which victims are entitled. We will now go further: we will work to ensure both the standard and the availability of victims’ rights, beginning with a consultation on a ground-breaking victims’ Bill that will enshrine the new code in legislation.
We are acutely aware that crimes such as domestic abuse, rape and sexual violence, which disproportionately affect women and girls, shatter not only the lives of the victims but also those of their families. The whole country was shaken earlier this year by the death of Sarah Everard, which was a harrowing reminder of the violence to which many—far too many—women and girls in our society are subjected. As such, in addition to the landmark Domestic Abuse Act passed last Session, we will continue to make supporting victims and survivors of these crimes a priority. We will publish the end-to-end rape review action plan, working to ensure that, at each stage of our justice system, from reporting and investigation to trial and sentence, rape cases are considered with the diligence and gravity that they deserve.
We will publish a new tackling violence against women and girls strategy and a domestic abuse strategy, which will work in tandem to drive real change in this area. We received 180,000 responses to our call for evidence to inform these strategies. The views of victims, survivors and the public will be at the heart of our approach. We will also review our national statement of expectations, to ensure that police and crime commissioners approach these crimes in a collaborative and robust way.
This approach reflects our wider strategy. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has been held over from last Session, will further our commitment to being tough on crime and its perpetrators. We will give our police more powers to tackle crime, we will protect our emergency workers and increase sentences for those who would harm them, and we will establish a new, smarter approach to sentencing that sees our most dangerous criminals spend longer in prison.
I am aware that there has been a lot of discourse about the public order provisions in this Bill, much of which is based on a misunderstanding of what the provisions actually do and the genesis of the legislation. These measures have been portrayed by some as draconian and a dismantling of our civil liberties; this is both misinformed and wrong. The right to protest is a fundamental and important freedom—but so is the right to go about your business unhindered. These provisions allow police to take a more proactive approach in managing disproportionately disruptive protests, which place an unnecessary burden upon our citizens.
It is that sense of balance that permeates a lot of the work which this Government plan to deliver over the next Session, and nowhere is this more apparent than in relation to our work on the constitution and judicial review.
I am sure everyone will agree that our uncodified—I did not say unwritten— constitution is something to be both celebrated and preserved. That includes examining the fine and critical balance between the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature.
That is why we plan to introduce a judicial review and courts Bill, which will not only introduce many of the court recovery measures I mentioned earlier, but will work to restore the balance between our institutions of state. We want to protect the judiciary from being unnecessarily pulled into political matters. Let me be clear and unambiguous: this is not about abolishing judicial review. We will ensure the integrity of the judicial review process. But the idea, put about by some who should know better, that the judicial review process cannot be improved or that it must remain a no-go area for government is false. Public law is too important to be left only to public lawyers.
We are still considering the submissions made to the recent consultation, which itself built on the work by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and his team, and considered further areas for reform. We expect to increase the flexibility provided to judges by ensuring, among other things, that more flexible and effective remedies are available, and to review the merits of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cart.
Our desire to ensure that our society’s vital systems function as fairly and as effectively as possible extends to our plans for the borders Bill that we will introduce. This will implement the most significant overhaul of our immigration and asylum systems for decades.
At the heart of this Bill is a simple principle: fairness. Presently, we have a generous asylum system that offers protection to the most vulnerable people around the world through defined safe and legal routes. But this system is collapsing under the pressure of parallel, often extremely dangerous, illegal routes to asylum, facilitated by criminals smuggling people into the UK.
We believe that access to our asylum system should be based on need and not on the ability to pay people smugglers. When people are dying, as they are, we have a duty to act. The Border Force already has a range of powers and capabilities to deal with maritime threats, but we will use this legislative opportunity to strengthen them further. We will introduce new powers to target the increasing use of vessels by criminal gangs to facilitate illegal entry to the UK.
Over and above that, our ability to enforce immigration laws, passed by and with the authority of Parliament, is being impeded, contributing to a downward trend in the number of people, including foreign national offenders, being removed from the UK. Our Bill will enable us to remove more easily those with no right to be here. Our time and resources should be directed to protecting and supporting those in genuine need of asylum, and to reclaim control of our borders.
Cicero’s maxim, “Salus populi suprema lex esto”—your Lordships will of course require no translation—remains absolutely true. The safety and security of the people of this country must be, and will be, the primary concern of this Government. We live increasingly in an online world, as the television screens above me show, so we also want to ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online as well as offline.
That is why we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an online safety Bill to set a global standard for safety online. It will include the most comprehensive approach yet to online regulation, requiring platforms and search engines contained within its scope to tackle illegal content and protect our young people from harmful material.
Major platforms will also be required to set out, with clarity, their own terms and conditions about legal but harmful content for adults, and to enforce these rules consistently and transparently.
The Bill will also enshrine in law safeguards for free speech. We will use this opportunity to defend freedom of expression and promote the valuable role of a free press that now exists online as much as it does in newsprint. This will allow us to usher in a new era of accountability for technology giants, and to protect our children, ensuring that future generations have a healthy relationship with the internet.
We are also aware of the importance of ensuring the long-term security and resilience of our telecommunications network. The Telecommunications (Security) Bill will create one of the most rigorous telecommunication security regimes in the world. It will protect and future-proof our networks as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our critical national infrastructure both now and in the future. It will allow us to manage the risks posed by high-risk vendors.
We will also ensure that the national telecommunications system flourishes. We will introduce a second Bill, the product security and telecommunications infrastructure Bill, to allow us to deliver on our connectivity ambitions by making sure that telecommunications equipment can be installed, shared and upgraded as quickly and efficiently as possible, and by assuring consumers that the smart devices that we all now bring into our homes—the so-called the internet of things—are secure. This legislation will underline the UK’s continued global leadership on cybersecurity and allow consumer-connected technology to continue to grow.
We also have to look at the threat posed to us by hostile activities from other states—a threat that is ever-growing, diversifying and evolving. Unlike terrorists, who rely on grabbing the public’s attention, this sort of hostile activity operates in the shadows and remains hidden. Although these acts fall short of open conflict, the consequences for our democracy, economic security and prosperity are real. To address this threat, we will introduce a counter state threats Bill, which will modernise our existing counter-espionage laws to reflect the modern threat and introduce modern legislative standards. It will create new offences, tools and powers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile activity in and targeted at the United Kingdom. We will do this through reform of the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920 and 1939, as well as the Official Secrets Act 1989, and the creation of a foreign influence registration scheme. The Home Secretary has published a public consultation on our proposals in this area, and the response to that consultation will help us shape the tools and powers at our disposal to make sure that they balance the protection of national security with the important rights and values that we all enjoy in the United Kingdom.
Lastly, we will introduce two new Bills to support the voluntary sector by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for charities, and to unlock additional funds for good causes. The first is a charities Bill. Charities occupy a special place in our society, and the law should both protect and regulate them. The reforms that we introduce will remove or replace inappropriate and unnecessary burdens while safeguarding the public interest in ensuring that charities are properly run, so that charities will have more time and more resources to spend on their charitable objectives.
The second of these Bills is the Dormant Assets Bill. The dormant assets scheme has already released £745 million, including £150 million for Covid relief last year. Expanding the scheme using this Bill has the potential to unlock a further £880 million over the coming years.
These measures, as outlined in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, will set a clear direction for the future of our country. By implementing them, we will ensure that we are a country where swift justice is delivered to victims and meted out to perpetrators of crime, and that victims’ rights are respected and enshrined in the law of the land. We will ensure that our police, judges and border officials have the powers necessary to secure our society and protect our citizens. We will ensure that when they are online, as well as offline, our citizens are protected, and that our systems are robust and secure. In the wake of a life-altering pandemic, and a year of prolonged difficulty and disruption, we will ensure that our country has all the resources needed to build back better, stronger and safer. Over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to discussion, discourse and debate, with your Lordships and with others outside this House, about the many measures which it has been my privilege to outline today.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing today’s debate. It is a privilege for me to respond and open for the Opposition. I remind the House that I sit as a magistrate in London.
I look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, who brings unparalleled experience in the arts, particularly music. I look forward to her maiden speech, and I also look forward to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook. She has a background as a former MP and in local government, and I note that she went to the same university as my daughter, which is no doubt a good omen.
I shall speak on the justice-related Bills and refer briefly to the DCMS Bills, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy will speak on the Home Office Bills. By way of background, a decade of cuts by the Conservative Government has left our justice system weak and vulnerable—and that was even before the pandemic began. Half of all courts in England and Wales were closed between 2010 and 2019; today there are 27,000 fewer court sitting days than in 2016. The Crown Court backlog, now more than 57,000 cases, has increased from 39,000 before the pandemic. Rape prosecutions are at an all-time low. Victims are being told to wait up to four years to get their day in court, which of course leads many to drop out of the system. Convictions for rape, robbery, theft, criminal damage and arson, drug offences and fraud have fallen to a 10-year low.
The Labour Party has called for the rapid extension of Nightingale courts and war juries of seven jurors, in an attempt to reduce the backlog, but the Government have not accepted our proposals. Beyond the pandemic, we need to increase sitting days to clear the backlog, provide greater support for legal aid, embrace technology where it works and restore victims’ faith in the justice system.
On judicial review and the courts Bill, the Government propose to introduce reforms to judicial review to, as they see it, protect the judiciary from being drawn into political questions. The Government are unhappy that their own panel has not advocated the widespread changes that they wanted, so they have announced further consultations on various aspects of judicial review to get a different answer. I have a specific question for the Minister. Why have the Government announced a further consultation on the use of ouster clauses, when their own review explicitly said not to do this? The Labour Party believes that judicial review is a key part of our constitution since it gives members of the public and organisations a legal forum to challenge the Government and public bodies when they act unlawfully.
On the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is a carryover Bill, the Government say that this legislation will increase sentences for the most serious and violent offenders and ensure the timely administration of justice. This is a large Bill which is poorly thought through. It is a mess and could lead to unintended consequences; for example, we could have harsher penalties for damaging a statue than for attacking a woman. In recent months and years, the Labour Party has worked constructively with the Government to, for example, increase maximum sentences for front-line workers and increase sentences for terrorists. We would like a similar constructive approach to this Bill, and call on the Government to drop their poorly thought-out proposals and focus their legislation on tackling violence against women and girls. Why not use this Bill, as well as the victims Bill, to enact a more comprehensive strategy to protect women and girls? Indeed, yesterday the Labour Party published a “green paper” with a number of suggested policy proposals to end violence against women and girls, which could be adopted through this and Home Office legislation.
Having said that, we believe there are good and important parts of this Bill. Some of those have come from Labour MPs: Stephanie Peacock on dangerous driving, Holly Lynch and Chris Bryant on protecting the protectors, John Spellar on reform of the DBS system and Sarah Champion on sexual abuse by people in a position of trust—all this as well as reforms taken from the Lammy Review. We believe that the Government are undermining the parts of the Bill that we support through unnecessarily draconian measures on free expression and the right to protest. There is no evidence that I have seen that these more severe measures will do anything to reduce reoffending. The Minister said that many of the protests are misinformed, and I hope that he is right; we will look forward to exploring that when we come to the legislation.
I move on to the victims Bill. It has been a long wait for this Bill, which was first announced in the 2016 gracious Speech. In fact, Keir Starmer, when he first became an MP in 2015, introduced a Private Member’s Bill, co-drafted with the Victims’ Commissioner for London, which in many ways underpins this Bill. Speaking as a magistrate who sits in both adult and youth jurisdictions in London, I rarely see a victim in court, and it is also relatively unusual to have a victim impact statement read out in court—although I acknowledge that this has improved in recent years.
There are many things that we can do to improve the legal rights and the experience of victims, both inside and outside court. I look forward to working constructively with the Government to enshrine victims’ rights in legislation and protect those who suffer persistent anti-social behaviour.
I will briefly refer to the four DCMS Bills. The charities Bill will introduce a range of Law Commission recommendations. We support this Bill; we will be focusing on the issues of governance and transparency and on ensuring that they are not watered down through the Bill.
With regard to the Dormant Assets Bill, the Minister said that he hoped to get £880 million by unlocking further assets. We support that and look forward to working with the Minister on it.
Next is the product security and telecommunications infrastructure Bill. As the Opposition, we would be concerned about reforms to the electronic communications code. There is a lot of detail in this Bill, and we will wait to see it before we consider our approach.
The Telecommunications (Security) Bill is a carryover Bill. While there were some amendments in the Commons, we agree with its general thrust.
Finally, I want to talk about the online safety Bill. The Minister used some expansive language in talking about this Bill: he spoke of setting global standards to which other countries could aspire. However, nobody knows better than the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, the great strength of feeling in this House on the slowness of the introduction of the Bill. During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act and many other bits of legislation there has been constant frustration at the fact that we are not getting on with this Bill. We understand that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses, and that the intention is to enact a statutory duty of care, to be enforced by Ofcom that would require companies to prevent the spread of illegal content and activity online.
The Bill is presented as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for legislation, and the Government’s thinking appears to be a continuation of the self-regulatory approach that we have seen to date. This approach has failed our children. Online crimes are proliferating, and people’s rights online remain confused and unclear. The Government’s decision to water down its legislative proposals and hold back on criminal sanctions for company executives will continue to put children and others at risk.
This will be a complex piece of legislation, and it will be one of the most important in recent years. Although Ofcom has been named as the regulator, it is far from clear that it will have the powers or resources needed to address the issues that it will face. The noble Lord gave a good example of disinformation. We see it on an almost daily basis—in fact we see disinformation being spread about, for example, vaccines and their use literally daily. That is another reason why this legislation is so important.
Keeping children safe is the most important task we have. If children were being abused and put at risk in the same way offline as they are online, people would rightly go to jail. Criminal sanction for senior executives is the most direct way to get large corporations to take their responsibilities seriously.
We routinely co-operate across parties to amend legislation in this House. Sometimes the Government say that they welcome this approach. I hope that we can continue to co-operate with all corners of the House to improve this legislation.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I first pay tribute to her Majesty the Queen as we enter her Platinum Jubilee year. Her example of a lifetime of public service at the highest level is extraordinary. I am also greatly looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Fullbrook and Lady Fleet—the first of many valuable contributions to this House, I am sure.
As we consider the home affairs, justice and culture aspects of the Queen’s Speech, I remind the House of the comments of my noble friend Lord Newby, who said last week:
“The Queen’s Speech contains many Bills of second-order importance but none offering fundamental change”.—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 16]
I would go further. The Government seem to be continuing along the same path, following policies where the broadsheet analysis of the right-wing tabloid headline shows the negative unintended consequences of government policy.
One of our strongest sectors is culture, yet the only legislation in that space is the online safety Bill, which is an inadequate reaction to protecting children and other vulnerable internet users who are being exposed to things online that they would be protected from in the physical world. Meanwhile, there is nothing to encourage or facilitate our musicians and performers, who are facing the disastrous twin impacts on their livelihood of a global pandemic and restrictions on their ability to tour in the European Union.
We on these Benches believe in freedom and fair play—what some might call traditional British values. That includes the freedom to succeed no matter who you are or what your background or backstory is, and the freedom of the individual from unnecessary interference by government. Yet this Conservative Government seek to unfairly discriminate, further marginalising minorities and the poor, further limiting challenges to government overreach, and pursuing populist policies where the evidence clearly shows that they do not work. This is a Queen’s Speech of promising headlines with unintended negative consequences.
Proposals to ensure that speakers are not “no-platformed” in universities make it more likely those with radical views—ones that need to be heard, challenged and debated—are not invited in the first place. The electoral integrity Bill is a solution in search of a non-existent problem, and is likely to disproportionately disfranchise the poor and ethnic minorities.
Whether through the extension of treason offences, or longer and longer prison sentences for existing offences, not only are the Government pursuing a policy that has proved to be ineffective in deterring criminals, they are adding to overcrowding in prisons, making rehabilitation more difficult and radicalisation easier. Sedition has its roots in the perceived unfairness of society, and draconian punishment is one of those unfairnesses.
In their immigration proposals, the Government seek to penalise legitimate asylum seekers, contrary to our international obligations on refugee resettlement. This is not because they do not have a valid and lawful right to seek sanctuary in the UK, but because they arrive here by what the Government consider the wrong route. For the majority of those desperate enough to put their lives at risk by crossing the channel, there is no alternative safe and legal route to take. There is currently no way for those being bombed in Syria by their own President, or those caught between warring factions in Yemen, to claim asylum within their own country. All UK resettlement schemes are currently closed, with no plans or timetable for reopening them, nor for establishing new ones.
Instead of first establishing or re-establishing resettlement schemes and setting targets for the number of asylum seekers to whom the UK will give sanctuary, the Government are spending millions of pounds on barbed wire and enforcement patrols on the French coast. They are forcing legitimate asylum seekers into the hands of people traffickers—the only people who know how to get around the increased security measures.
One people smuggler, quoted by the Guardian, said:
“We thank your government for our full pockets.”
If you say to voters in the red or blue wall, “Look at these illegal immigrants crossing the channel”, you encourage xenophobia. If you say, “This is the only way these desperate people, who are not safe in their own country, can seek sanctuary here”, you encourage understanding. It is a choice, and the Conservative Government, through their immigration proposals, are choosing the former.
In the year of the 40th anniversary of the Brixton riots, this Conservative Government choose to ignore the recommendations of the Scarman report and instead condone enforcing the law over maintenance of the Queen’s peace, as we saw at the Clapham Common vigil. At the same time, they fail to address the unfairness, discrimination and waste of scarce police resources on disproportionate stop and search.
Placing further restrictions on protests might seem reasonable in the light of the Extinction Rebellion protests last year. I know from years of experience as an advanced public order-trained senior police officer that it takes several degrees of magnitude more police officers to enforce a ban on a demonstration than it does to work with organisers to ensure compliance with conditions. Outside London, the majority of police leaders consulted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said that it was not a lack of legislation but a lack of police resources that was the limiting factor in policing protests.
What are the consequences? Following the tragic case of Sarah Everard, the Mayor of London claimed that women and girls were not safe on the streets of London. The commissioner of the Met barely qualified that statement last week, when she said that the streets were
“not safe for everyone all of the time.”
The streets of London are not safe because police officers are increasingly being withdrawn from their beats to enforce bans on demonstrations and because they are targeting stop and search on black people, looking for drugs. You are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs if you are black, but no more likely than white people to be found with drugs. The overwhelming majority of stop searches are for drugs, not for knives. No wonder the black community still feels “overpoliced and underprotected”, as a black clergyman told the Macpherson inquiry into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence.
We all want the freedom to be able to walk our streets in safety and for our women friends and family to walk safely down any street at any time. For this to happen, we must restore a visible policing presence, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council said yesterday. We do not want even more of our police officers sitting in police vans, ready to enforce a ban on a peaceful protest —which is the likely consequence of the Government’s proposals. We do not want our police officers wasting their time stopping and searching innocent people in the vain hope of finding a small quantity of drugs. We want violent criminals to be in fear of the police, not for women and girls to be in fear of men.
Fair play is not just about protecting the most vulnerable. It is part of what makes us proud to be British. Fair play is not just about ensuring lawful protest and that black people feel welcomed and protected. It is about focusing scarce police resources on ensuring everyone’s freedom to walk the streets in safety. Freedom and fair play are what make our country great. This Government’s proposals are in danger of undermining that greatness.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall focus not on asylum but on immigration. I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch UK.
Noble Lords may have seen a recent article in the Times by the noble Lord, Lord Hague. He referred to extraordinary events in France, where two groups of retired military officers have declared that their country is disintegrating—yes, disintegrating. A subsequent opinion poll found that nearly three-quarters of the French public agreed. The main theme of the article by the noble Lord, Lord Hague—with which I entirely agree—was the vital importance of a shared national identity. His view is that its promotion in the UK has become a matter of urgency.
I have three important points to add. First, this will not be possible unless and until immigration is sharply reduced. For the time being, the public believe the Government’s claims that they are taking measures for this purpose. For reasons I have set out elsewhere, the Government will fail in this matter.
Secondly, recent work has shown that high migration, combined with the higher birth rates in some immigrant communities—and a generally younger age structure—are driving major changes across the UK. We now find that about a third of all children born in England and Wales have at least one foreign-born parent. In both primary and secondary state schools in England, around one-third of all pupils are from an ethnic minority background. In the population of Great Britain, the share of ethnic minorities, including other Europeans, has nearly doubled to 21% in just 20 years. In more recent years, more the 90% of our population increase has been due to immigration.
Thirdly, there can be no doubt that the whole nature of our society is changing very rapidly and at an accelerating pace. Meanwhile, the public are instinctively aware of this and are, albeit privately, very concerned. A recent YouGov tracking poll found that nearly 60% say that immigration has been too high during the past decade. That is about 30 million adults.
That is enough about numbers. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will be a valuable addition to this House. She put it very well in her report of December 2016:
“It is not racist to say that the pace of change from immigration in recent years has been too much for some communities.”
People are understandably uncomfortable when the character and make-up of a town change out of all recognition in five or 10 years.
In calling for a sharp and sustained reduction in net migration, I am conscious that I shall be strongly opposed by those who profit from immigration, whether politically or economically. My answer is clear: these are vital issues for the future of our country. Having been appointed to your Lordships’ House for my work in this area, I think it no less than my duty to speak for those who have entirely valid concerns which our political system is simply not addressing.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook and Lady Fleet. In my few minutes, I shall briefly mention women in the criminal justice system, the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill, violence against women and girls and the online safety Bill. I refer to my interests in the register, as Anglican bishop to prisons.
I begin by asking: when will we see a renewed timetable for the 2018 female offender strategy? While I welcome the implementation of some of the deliverables, analysis by the Prison Reform Trust shows that the Government have met less than half the commitments. The concordat published last year does not appear to have been progressed. Then there was that shocking announcement of 500 new prison places for women, totally at odds with the strategy’s direction to reduce the number of women in prison. What evidence is it based on, and why is the designated £150 million not being spent on women’s centres and implementing the concordat?
The Government have pledged to give every child the best start in life. I am a big proponent of prioritising the early years. But, related to today’s subject, I would say that if one of the justifications for the new prison places is to allow children to stay overnight with their mothers, this seems a strange way to implement the Farmer review findings. It would be far better if those mothers who do not need to be in prison were supported in the community with their children. Again, why are policy proposals seemingly ignoring evidence and expertise?
Perhaps that is a good segue into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. In our scrutiny, we will need to ask whether it is supported by the evidence available and reflects a clear strategy and ethos that can be justified ethically. While I welcome certain proposals, such as diversion and community cautions and empowering problem-solving courts, other aspects raise serious concerns. For example, the use of life sentences for younger offenders seems to undermine any chance of reform and redemption. The measures relating to longer sentences seem to ignore the fact that decades of lengthening sentences have done nothing to improve outcomes for offenders or prevent cycles of reoffending. Yet the myth is perpetuated that longer sentences will provide greater public protection. Rather than policies being driven by evidence, it seems that they are driven by populist views and some headline cases. Furthermore, there is a woefully little focus on rehabilitation and what happens during someone’s sentence. Thus, victims and communities, as well as offenders, are poorly served, and longer sentences will only put more pressure on our overcrowded prisons. It is also troubling that after all that has transpired in recent years, little attention is paid to racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
We did good work in this House on domestic abuse with the Act. Yet a number of issues remain, not least the vulnerability of migrant victims. The pilot project must be closely watched. I look forward to the publication of the violence against women and girls strategy, and, once again, I commend Australia’s framework for primary prevention. I would also welcome greater consideration of the contributions of faith groups in the future VAWG strategy.
I want to end by commenting on the draft online safety Bill. Within the commendable commitments to safety, there is still work to do. From my conversations with young people around physical appearance and self-worth, I urge the Government to encourage more diverse representation in advertising and to ban, or at least restrict, the use of altered images.
I must close. I will finish by encouraging the Government to ensure that future legislation is based on evidence and research and underpinned by a clear ethos of the flourishing of all people.
Baroness Fullbrook (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is the greatest honour and privilege to address your Lordships for the first time. I have received such a warm welcome and so much helpful advice from all sides of this House. I thank noble Lords. In particular, I thank Black Rod and the doorkeepers, who have answered all my questions with knowledge and cheerful courtesy. I must also offer my thanks and gratitude to both my supporters—my noble friends Lord Trimble and Lord Arbuthnot. I was the council leader in the constituency of my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot when he was a Member of the other place. His guidance, intellect and good humour saw us take on many issues together. My noble friend Lord Trimble is an inspiration of mine.
As a Glasgow-born descendant of Ulster Scots with strong ties in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, I was seen by my company as ideal to be sent to Belfast for my first ever audit assignment—my first ever proper job—as a young woman in the 1980s. That assignment lasted for two years during the hunger strikes and the Troubles, and I saw the devastation brought to all people of Northern Ireland during my time there. I went on to spend over 20 years in senior management roles with several international blue-chip companies, working mainly in Europe and Africa and, latterly, in the Middle East.
But back home, having never considered elective politics, I experienced first-hand the fear, misery and devastating impact that illegal encampments have on the lives of law-abiding people. But what truly astounded me is that local victims of this criminal behaviour came second to the lawbreakers by a long way. This experience dramatically changed the direction of my life, as I put myself forward and was elected as a councillor to Hart District Council in Hampshire. Within a year, I was leading the council.
Before entering the other place in 2010, I was for several years the first executive director of Women2Win, working alongside my new Whip, as well as my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington and the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May. By the time I had stepped down, we had seen Conservative women MPs triple in number, not through quotas or women-only shortlists, which I totally oppose, but through support, advice and training so that good, able women could navigate the political world—for women to contribute to their fullest. Many of those Women2Win alumni are still serving proudly in the other place.
I was the first female to represent the constituency of South Ribble in Lancashire. But through my passion for law and order I was drawn to the home affairs brief, and I was fortunate to serve on the Home Affairs Select Committee for five years in the other place, with a personal focus on policing, counterterrorism and the trade in narcotics. Given my experience of local government and on the Home Affairs Select Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to state my support for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill outlined in Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. This Government are committed to protecting and empowering our police by passing the police protection Bill and introducing new powers to tackle unauthorised Traveller camps while empowering the courts to tackle crime and ensuring a fair justice system. It is clear to me that this Bill contains several important measures to support the delivery of those commitments. I would like to mention some specific elements of the Bill.
Experience has taught me that unauthorised encampments create significant challenges for local authorities and cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. Unfortunately, as I have found all too often, current law enforcement provisions are simply inadequate to deal with the scale of the disruption these invasions have caused. Therefore, I support the measures to create the criminal offence of residing in a vehicle on land without permission. A person guilty of this offence will be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—or both.
If we are to look after our communities, we must ensure that the police are provided with sufficient powers to effectively and efficiently enforce against a range of harms caused by unauthorised camps. I believe this new offence and strengthened police powers will also deter the setting up of unauthorised camps in the first place. As we emerge from this tragic pandemic, it is right that the Government seek to lead with a programme that does just that.
I thank noble Lords again for their kind welcome to this House, and I look forward to working with all noble Lords for the good of the country.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Fullbrook. We have been friends for many years, since long before her distinguished career as a councillor, council leader and Member of the other place. She led her council with great style, committed to producing quality services at an affordable price. That commitment to public service was further evidenced by her time in the other place. Her full title refers to Dogmersfield, which is Anglo-Saxon for a field of waterlilies—a fitting title for a noble Baroness.
I would like to say a few brief words in support of the election Bill. Many of the measures are based on recommendations that I made to the Government a few years back. Voter fraud is, by its very nature, covert and difficult to prove. A system that relies on trust is vulnerable to manipulation. We have ignored those concerned with the administration of elections, and overseas observers, for too long. Now is the time to make our ballot boxes safe.
The most important provision is on postal votes: banning party campaigners from handling postal votes altogether; stopping the practice of “harvesting” by limiting the number of postal votes that one person may hand in on behalf of another; extending the secrecy provisions that currently protect voting in polling stations to absent voting, so that it will be an offence for anyone to attempt to find out who a postal voter has chosen to vote for; and requiring those registered for a postal vote to reaffirm their identities by reapplying for a postal vote every three years. Postal voting will remain on demand but require renewal every three years. The total number of people for whom someone can act as a proxy would be limited to four, regardless of their relationship.
There seems to be opposition verging on hysteria to the sensible provision of voter ID, which would bring the United Kingdom in line with other democracies. In this respect, the Government have moved further than I recommended by insisting on photo ID. I am relaxed about this for two reasons. First, the number of people possessing photo ID has increased since my report. The pandemic has given that a push. Secondly, the Government have shown flexibility about what photo IDs are permissible. We are no longer restricted to passports and driving licences, but a much wider selection—including various concessionary travel passes, work pass cards, Ministry of Defence cards and blue badge parking permits, and even my OAP bus pass—would qualify. The result is that 98% of the voting population has a form of ID that would qualify. That figure, for ethnic minorities, goes up a further percentage point to 99%. The Electoral Commission and the OSCE support the measure; both organisations have warned about Britain’s vulnerability to voter fraud for years. Neither organisation would support voter suppression.
I agree with the Labour Minister’s assessment introducing this same measure for Northern Ireland in 2003:
“The measures will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/01; col. 739.]
I also agree with the Labour official on the introduction of photo ID for Labour Party elections when he said,
“It is rare members have no form of ID.”
The Bill contains sensible measures that will make our ballot boxes safe.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech and look forward to clashing with her over the years to come. I look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, making her maiden speech today.
The right honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden, speaking on the Queen’s Speech, said that he was concerned about an
“illiberal solution in pursuit of a non-existent problem.”
He was talking about the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has just referred, but he might have been talking about several elements of other Bills as well. As with so much, there are elements of each of the pieces of legislation that have been put forward in this Session of Parliament with which you can agree; other parts lead to very grave concerns.
Very briefly, I will mention the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. I have got no problem dealing with anarcho-syndicalists who misuse and abuse the privilege of freedom to encourage others to do things they would never otherwise have done. I think we need, however, to be absolutely sure that we do not put the police in an impossible position, where they are making impossible judgments based on changes in the law, which will either not be implementable, and therefore ineffective, or will cause the exact opposite of the problem that they were trying to resolve. I hope we will be able to deal with this in your Lordships’ House effectively, amending those parts relating to public order.
I want to concentrate, in the short time available, on the issue of immigration. The Minister referred to border officials having the resources. Tell that to the people, in the limited numbers that are currently allowed in, coming through Heathrow. Either the decision by the Home Secretary is because of incompetence or indifference or intent. It has to be one of those three, and if it is intent, then the lack of application of resources is causing not only major hold-ups but, in doing that, causing the likelihood of a greater spread of infection. If we cannot get that right in the months ahead, how on earth are we going to deal with the complex piece of legislation that creates two tiers of asylum seekers, in circumstances where we claim that we can send people back to countries that will not have them and were not aware of their presence in the first place? Having pulled out of Europol, no longer having the European arrest warrant, having disengaged effectively from working on organised crime across borders and detached ourselves as an island, it ill becomes the Government to then say that we are going to find ways of returning people to countries that will not have them.
We need a much more sophisticated approach. In the year leading up to the pandemic, 32,000 people were turned away because of the measures that were taken in 2003 to put immigration and security officials on European soil, enabling us to turn people back not just on Eurostar but at the border itself so they did not actually reach Britain. More of that effective work, across countries, tackling the criminals that the Minister quite rightly referred to in his speech, would be the way forward. I hope we will be able to do that in a way that, in reference to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Green, does not counterweight the decision to welcome Hong Kong residents—27,000 to begin with, but possibly half a million over the five years ahead—by making it impossible for other people to make their way to this country and claim their international rights. That would be a great disservice to the name of our country as well as, by the way, to those we are welcoming from Hong Kong.
In essence, there is a great deal we can do in this Queen’s Speech that will be extremely welcome out there—the victims Bill is an obvious one, and the online safety Bill is another. But let us also be clear that, if we do not get the measures right, instead of the bluster and frippery that substitutes for clear thinking and positive action, then we will let people down. In making it possible to take practical measures, we build trust. When we tell people—as I know from my time in Government—that we are going to do something that in our hearts we know is impossible, we lose their trust. While the Government are riding high at the moment, in a few years’ time some of the measures that have been outlined in the Queen’s Speech will catch up with them, and people will realise that they have been misled.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
The Government say they want to build back better— an aim we share, as we do levelling up—but I have a major concern, already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Paddick. There is a deafening silence about the creative and cultural sector, whose contribution to the economy was £111.7 billion pre pandemic. Its huge contribution to well-being is not so easily demonstrated through figures, but we all know it to be true. It is a sector whose very nature is about levelling—about the communality of humanity—and it is a sector for which Covid has been nothing less than catastrophic. While the Government have been generous with their rescue packages, there is much that has left a terrible legacy.
First, there is the effect on individuals. The vast majority of cultural workers are self-employed; they are the ones who fell through the gap and who have largely found themselves ineligible for the support on offer. This has led to a damaging migration of people from the creative workforce. The Government’s skills agenda must recognise this and, in particular, that those hardest hit have been from lower-income, diverse and disabled communities. Does the Minister not agree that addressing this is an essential part of levelling up?
Secondly, live events were inevitably particularly affected. Help is at hand—introduce a Government-backed insurance scheme, as has been done for TV and film. But the Secretary of State has provided a positively Catch-22 response to this request: no support until live events are possible again and it becomes clear, which it will, that they cannot happen because of insurance market failure. This is too late. Live events involve planning; it is not a matter of switch on, switch off. Does the noble Baroness not agree that an indemnity insurance scheme should be put in place right now? It is not expenditure but investment.
Then there is the major problem faced over touring. Here, the restrictions of Covid have been exacerbated by the fact that the creative sector was dealt a no-deal Brexit. Can the Minister report on progress towards achieving a bespoke visa waiver agreement with the EU and bilateral agreements with member states that do not offer cultural exemptions?
Returning to skills, the acquiring of a skill begins at school, but successive Conservative Governments consistently and persistently undervalue and undermine arts education, first via the EBacc, then via proposals to scrap the performing arts BTEC, and now HE and the announcement that there is to be a 50% funding cut to arts subjects. “STEM not STEAM” has been the mantra—totally ignoring the fact that there should not be a choice between arts and science: they are symbiotic. The success of the iPhone is as much about the design genius of the UK’s own Sir Jonathan Ive as the tech genius of Steve Jobs, yet this Government say that arts subjects are not strategic priorities. This is the same Government whose industrial strategy prizes the creative industries as a “priority sector”. This is baffling. Can the Minister explain the disconnect? Will she listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, last week that the cuts are “misguided and ill judged”?
Finally, among the most successful drivers of our world-beating creative sector are our PSBs, in particular the BBC. PSBs held us together during the pandemic, providing news that people could trust and, in the case of the BBC, essential support for home schooling. What the PSBs need is prominence extended to all digital TV platforms. What they do not need is an underfunded BBC and a privatised Channel 4. This is a world-leading sector that we have. Global Britain needs it—so support it, do not unravel it. Culture, creativity and our public service broadcasters will be central to getting us through this next period, both the recovery and the renewal.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are two sentences in the gracious Speech on which I should like to comment. The first is:
“Legislation will be introduced to … restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
The second is:
“Measures will be brought forward to establish a fairer immigration system.”
The first I understand to be a reference to proposals in the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The second is a reference to the proposals in the Government’s New Plan for Immigration.
Both of these documents were issued by the Government in March. They were both put out for consultation, but the consultation period in each case was only six weeks. Given that this period included the Easter bank holiday weekend, this surely was far too short to allow sufficient time for all those affected or interested to comment in detail on these far-reaching proposals—and, of course, the time allowed today is far too short, too. I do hope that time will be found for this House to debate them fully before the legislation is introduced. In the meantime, I will make the following points.
First, with regard to any reform of judicial review, it is important to note that most of these proposals can apply to England and Wales only. I leave it to others more familiar with that system than I am to comment, but Scotland has its own system of judicial review, which is devolved. On the whole, Scotland has been able to align itself fairly closely with the system in England, but it may not be willing to do that if the reforms are pressed too far. That could lead to forum shopping, as I was able to do under the then current rules when I was still in practice to successfully challenge the Government’s policy on aviation in Scotland. It should also be noted that the justification for the abolition of the so-called Cart reviews, which is questionable in England and Wales, is even more so on the figures that relate to Scotland.
Secondly, on the New Plan for Immigration, there is much to be concerned about. The new two-tier system that is proposed appears to be based on discriminating against asylum seekers depending on how they arrived in the UK. Those who use irregular routes of entry, involving passage through a third country, will be considered to be inadmissible. This seems to run counter to the overriding objective of the reforms, which we are told is fairness and access to asylum based on need. For most asylum seekers, unauthorised entry is the only means they have of entering the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out. Further, the fact that no successor agreement to the Dublin III regulation has been developed means that there are currently no safe and legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to enter the UK from the EU—so they too will be discriminated against under the proposed two-tier system. I find myself in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that a more sophisticated approach is needed to deal with these problems.
There is also an absence of detail in the plan about how the Government would secure a returns agreement with the safe country through which those who have used an irregular route will have passed, or how they will be protected when they get there. The proposal to remove support from those who arrived by an irregular route but cannot be returned is also very worrying. For them, that would mean destitution. Are we turning our back on our treaty obligations once again?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. In the gracious Speech, the Government have promised measures to ban conversion therapy. No one should seek to justify dangerous medical or other practices that are abhorrent, coercive or humiliating in the name of so-called conversion therapy, but freedom to carry out legitimate religious activities, such as preaching the gospel, prayer and pastoral support, must not be hindered or criminalised. People have a right to seek spiritual counsel, and threatening preachers who fulfil their God-given duty is a serious denial of religious freedom. Indeed, the coverage of this issue is quite prejudiced against biblical Christianity.
Preachers who faithfully expound God’s word and call people to repentance and salvation—will the Government’s proposed legislation limit or criminalise them? I note that the Education Secretary in the other place has heralded the Queen’s Speech as a “milestone moment” and that universities could be fined if they fail to protect free speech on campus. But recently a 71 year-old pastor was forcibly pulled down from the steps on which he was standing in west London and led away with his hands cuffed behind his back for exercising his religious liberty to preach. He suffered some injury to his wrists and elbow. Recently, Blackpool Council banned adverts from the Lancashire Festival of Hope and it took a court’s intervention to overturn that decision. Also, the Robertson Trust terminated a contract to rent its premises to Stirling Free Church and ordered it to leave. There is open hostility to the Christian belief in marriage. It makes me wonder: are we losing our religious liberties here in the United Kingdom? I challenge this Government to reaffirm their commitment to freedom of speech and religious belief.
In the gracious Speech the Government promised to increase sentences for the most serious and violent offenders, yet many in Northern Ireland fear that we are being told that those who brutally murdered our loved ones may never have to face the possibility of a criminal conviction or imprisonment. After the release of the report into what was termed the Ballymurphy massacre—I offer my genuine condolences to those families—I received a text which included photographs of 30 innocent victims of IRA terrorism with these words: “Where is our truth and justice?” The answer is, they have received none. There has been no justice for the families of Teebane, where 14 innocent construction workers were blown up. Eight were murdered and the rest still bear serious injuries. On that unforgettable night, I personally walked among the dead and assisted the injured into the ambulances. What about justice for the massacres of Kingsmill, Enniskillen, Warrenpoint and so on? Yet no Sinn Féin leader has been ordered to any dispatch box to unreservedly apologise for their evil deeds; nor have they offered to go and look the innocent families of their victims in the eye and tell them why their loved ones had to die, as Mary Lou McDonald asked our Prime Minister to do. There is one law for them and another for everybody else.
As for Ballymurphy, I note that no one has mentioned that, prior to those killings, seven British soldiers were murdered by the IRA, when it is widely accepted that Gerry Adams was the so-called officer commanding. I will read out their names lest we forget their sacrifice: British soldier George Hamilton, aged 21; Stephen McGuire, 20; Alan Buckley, 22; Eustace Hanley, 20; George Lee, 22; James Jones, 18; and Brian Thomas. They were all murdered in Ballymurphy by IRA gunmen.
I acknowledge that the pain and heartache experienced right across the community is the same but I will not allow Irish Republicans to equate British soldiers with terrorists. Neither will I allow to go unchallenged the vexatious claims against veteran soldiers or police officers simply for the promotion of anti-British propaganda. Successive Governments sent our young soldiers out for the purpose of protecting the community and preserving law and order, but every terrorist went out with lust for blood, deliberately aiming to leave some home in grief or a child fatherless. Justice demands that the legacy of our past in Northern Ireland is tackled, but to rely on some supposed truth-telling exercise is totally unacceptable. Remember that Gerry Adams still denies that he was ever in the IRA. My appeal to this House is that justice is not for the chosen few, nor for those who shout the loudest, but for all.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, we heard a beautifully balanced maiden speech by my noble friend Lady Fullbrook. I congratulate her and look forward to more.
The gracious Speech commits the Government to addressing “racial and ethnic disparities”. Bravo! Britain is not an outrageously racist society. My own personal life has been overwhelmingly enriched and indeed transformed by the opportunity to embrace friends and loved ones of a different colour and culture. I am not an exception; that applies to millions. I am not making an argument to sit back and be self-satisfied but an argument for balance, context, and for looking for the abundant good in society and building on it, not pretending that things are worse than they are and exploiting ignorance. Yet, sadly, we live in a post-truth world of fabricated hatreds, such as the anti-vaxxers, who deliberately and despicably target non-white communities, trying to weaponise Covid. Black lives matter—of course they do—along with Asian and Chinese lives, and Jewish lives. Yes, our commitment must include the fight against anti-Semitism, too.
Even the vocabulary of racism has been weaponised: a violence of language used to intimidate and browbeat ordinary, sensible people into assuming that they must be wrong. Even Tony Blair says that he no longer knows what he is allowed to say and think. Although why do we still refer to minorities? Is that the right word? Does it imply that anyone who is not white is somehow a little juvenile or less equal? Perhaps we need to look at things like that.
We have been making a right modern mess of some of this, allowing zealots to take hold of the argument and to throttle common sense to death like some modern-day thought police. We, the sensible, decent majority, need the confidence and sometimes the courage to remember that we stand on the shoulders of giants such as William Wilberforce, who was wise enough to denounce those who turn a blind eye to unpleasant reality:
“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.”
There is only one certain way to defeat racism—by levelling up, offering everyone equal opportunity, where colour is no longer used as an insult or an excuse. We must find the language, means, schools, jobs, inspiration and innovation to bring our communities together, to extend an open hand rather than the clenched fist. We must change the dialogue.
Nearly 60 years ago, another giant, Martin Luther King, caused the world to hold its breath. Sixty years ago—but we all remember it, do we not?—he said:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
It was a proposition he gave his life for: a proposition—a dream—that was worth dying for then, just as it is worth a new generation living by today. Levelling up, not tearing apart: I embrace that prospect—I cannot wait.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
One of the proposals included in the gracious Speech is the statement that legislation will be introduced to
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts”.
The suggestion is that certain decisions of the courts on applications for judicial review are responsible for this alleged lack of balance. Having been personally involved in judicial review since its inception, I question whether this alleged lack of balance of power exists. I furthermore suggest that legislation, far from restoring the balance of power, could create a lack of balance which at present does not exist.
I can state this with added confidence because the Government set up an independent review of administrative law, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which as recently as March of this year published its report which set out its conclusions. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will shortly speak to the House and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. The report made no suggestion, as far as I could identify, that there was any lack of balance that needed to be addressed, saying:
“Judicial review is considered an essential ingredient of the rule of law … an essential element of access to justice, which is a constitutional right”
and:
“On balance, little significant advantage would be obtained by statutory codification, as the grounds for review are well established and accessibly stated in the leading textbooks”.
I have the privilege to be editor of one of them. In their response to that report in March of this year the Government said:
“This does not mean we think there needs to be a radical restructuring of Judicial Review at this point. Rather, there are aspects of the current system and the doctrine applied by the courts where it would be useful for Parliament to intervene and clarify how Judicial Review should give effect to statute.”
If there is no clear case for intervention, I strongly urge the Government to think again before intervening.
Judicial review was uniquely crafted—not by government and not in the first instance by Parliament, but by the judiciary—to achieve and preserve the proper balance of power between the different arms of government. If there is a need for fine-tuning, it is better that this is left to the judiciary to remedy rather than legislation. In saying this, I do not refer to the procedural amendments recommended by the Faulks committee; those I would warmly welcome in the majority of cases.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s legislative programme is inseparable from a well-functioning courts system. In its report, COVID-19 and the Courts, the Constitution Committee, on which I sit, applauded the monumental effort by all those working in the courts to maintain a functioning justice system during the pandemic. But recognition of those heroic efforts cannot obscure the scale of the challenge that courts in England and Wales face. Court funding fell by 21% over the preceding decade, the courts modernisation programme struggled to deliver, and legal aid cuts increased litigants in person. Therefore, when Covid-19 suddenly rendered courts reliant on remote technology, those very vulnerabilities exacerbated the devastating impact of the pandemic, and the need for more investment in the justice system was laid bare.
The Lord Chief Justice described the rapid adoption of new technology during the pandemic as
“the biggest pilot project that the justice system has ever seen”
and said that the shift to remote hearings provided an opportunity to
“take the best of this new way of working to improve access to justice”,
but the information to support improvements to the courts service was “just not available”. The pandemic shone a light on the absence of quality data. An opportunity to capture users’ experience in that “biggest pilot project” has been lost—yet without adequate data, the fundamental questions about the operation of our justice system remain unanswered.
The sudden move to remote hearings during the pandemic has been uneven in its impact. Senior courts and those dealing with commercial cases adapted relatively well. The lower courts, particularly those dealing with criminal and family cases, have had a much more difficult time.
The evidence reveals the practical challenges facing ordinary people in virtual hearings, including—among other things—limited broadband access; phones or iPads shared between users in a household; no private space; a dependency on pay-as-you-go phones and expensive data packages; sensory impairments; and limited digital literacy. Yes, they may use email, but electronic document management may prove impossible for many lay users. Remote hearings can make it difficult for lawyers and their clients to communicate, frustrate users if they cannot see or understand what is going on, and undermine litigants’ ability to engage. On the other hand, there was clearly evidence that court users with special requirements have benefited from remote proceedings.
The backlog of cases, which predated the pandemic, has reached record levels, undermining access to justice and public confidence in the justice system. In the criminal courts, the backlog now exceeds 530,000. The prison population fell by 6%; those in prison awaiting trial increased by 28%. Litigants and victims wait longer for justice. Unsentenced children in custody grew in number. More than half of children and young people in custody and 87% of children on remand in London were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. In family courts, the backlog exceeds 10,000. As the public advisory group of the Family Justice Board observed:
“For children who remain stuck in the middle of the court system, the detriment to them is immeasurable.”
The Government have committed to modernising the justice system and improving the experience of court users, but what targets are being set and resources allocated to reduce the backlog of cases? What is the time limit for the collection of key data points across all court services—physical and digital—needed to assess the vulnerability of court users?
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a number of noble Lords have said, the gracious Speech referred to the possibility of restoring balance in the constitution. It is well known that the constitution is not always easy to identify. In fact, one of my revered colleagues on your Lordships’ Constitution Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—says that he has spent his lifetime looking for it.
The combination of Brexit, a minority Government, division in the Conservative Party on the approach to Brexit and the rigidity of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act amounted to a constitutional crisis. The purported Prorogation of Parliament by the Prime Minister resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court that he had acted unlawfully and that Parliament should return. This was the second occasion on which Brexit had caused the Government to lose a major constitutional case before the Supreme Court.
It may be that these reversals were a factor in the Government’s decision to set up the independent review. They convened a panel, which I was invited to chair. The terms of reference were broad; the timescale short. Having received an enormous amount of very high-quality material, the panel was not ultimately convinced that judicial review needed radical reform. We set out our reasons, probably at too much length. While some of the panel, including me, preferred the decision of the strong Divisional Court to that of the Supreme Court in the prorogation case, we considered that it was very much a one-off and an unreliable basis on which to conclude that there was something structurally awry with judicial review, which is a vital ingredient in the rule of law.
However, we did accept that it was perfectly legitimate constitutionally for the Government—any Government —to legislate to reverse particular court decisions, whether they were the result of judicial reviews or, indeed, in any other context. We specifically pointed out two areas which we thought were ripe for reform and would need legislation, and they both involved reversing decisions of the Supreme Court. The Government have accepted our recommendations, and some of the judges involved in the decisions have graciously acknowledged that they did perhaps need revisiting. The question remains: will the Government go further?
I understand why the Government are concerned about judicial review. In his Reith lectures, Lord Sumption memorably described “law’s expanding empire”. But as we conclude in our report, it is inevitable that the relationship between the judiciary, the Executive and Parliament will from time to time give rise to tensions, and a degree of conflict shows that the checks and balances in our constitution are working well. We must trust our judges to identify cases which are—to use the words of a Court of Appeal judge—using judicial review as “politics by another means”.
A theme which we also hope emerges from our report is that the issue should not be characterised as merely a conversation between the Executive and the judiciary. We emphasise the importance of Parliament. If legislation is clear, there is little scope for judicial review. But while Governments continue to use framework Bills and Parliament does not prevent them doing so, it cannot be altogether surprising that government decisions are challenged in the courts.
I briefly mention one other constitutional principle: free speech. The online safety Bill, as it is now called, is an exciting and unprecedented piece of legislation. Our newspapers are mostly regulated—I declare an interest as the chair of IPSO—and it is time that social media, where most people gather their news and other information, should also be regulated to protect the vulnerable and safeguard the integrity of the news-gathering process. This legislation is to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny and no doubt will be closely scrutinised by both Houses. However, the Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, was right when he said last week that it was vital that the Bill did not compromise freedom of the press, whether in print or online.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook—who is not now in her place—on her excellent maiden speech. I also mention a maiden speech made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev. He said that, coming from Russia, he did not take freedom of speech or the rule of law for granted. Neither should we.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will talk about fraud, which is one of the great scourges of modern life but was largely ignored in the gracious Speech. More than 822,000 frauds were reported to Action Fraud in 2019-20, totalling £2.3 billion, but only a fraction of frauds are reported. It is estimated that the real number is around five times that. That is seven frauds every minute, and accounts for more than a third of all crime in England and Wales. These numbers represent people losing their life savings, their pensions, their house deposits. It is not just about money; being the victim of a scam is deeply traumatic and wrecks lives.
Why has fraud become so commonplace? There are two reasons: it is easy and it is low risk. Why is fraud easy? It is because so many businesses profit from facilitating it and have little or no incentive to stop it. I will give a few examples. Search engines and social media platforms take money to advertise fake pension and investment sites, fake online shopping sites, fake holiday letting sites and so on. To add insult to injury, they then make more money from the regulators. The FCA apparently paid £600,000 last year to post warnings on Google.
Web-hosting platforms are paid to host the scam websites. Telecom providers are paid for the calls and texts that plague us, and make things worse by failing to prevent false caller IDs. The banks are also facilitating frauds. All that stolen money has to be received somewhere, and most is processed through UK bank accounts. Instant payments allow the stolen money to be whisked away through multiple accounts and overseas before the victim has even realised that they are a victim.
Why is fraud low risk? The statistics speak for themselves: fewer than one in 13 reported frauds is actually investigated and less than 4% lead to a prosecution. Anyone who has dealt with the laughably named Action Fraud will understand why that is.
I welcome the fact that the Government have at last agreed that the online safety Bill will cover user-generated frauds, but they have chosen—it is a choice—to exclude most types of economic crime from the Bill, including frauds arising from fake adverts. It is perverse that the tech companies will be responsible for scammers’ social media posts but not for the adverts they are actually paid to publish.
The Government say that they will publish a fraud action plan, but only after the 2021 spending review, and that DCMS will consult on online advertising, but only starting later this year. This is not good enough. Every day that passes without action means more than 10,000 more frauds, more than £6 million more stolen, and more people losing their life savings and having their lives wrecked. We must push the risk of fraud back on to those facilitating it. The big tech companies, telecoms companies and the banks, with all their resources and know-how, could easily find ways to make life harder for the fraudsters, but they have proved that they will not do it voluntarily, so the time has come to create a real financial stick to encourage them.
At the same time, we must stop blaming the victims and make it easier to recover losses. The banks’ voluntary code has failed and should now be replaced with a compulsory code, under which the bank that received and processed the stolen money has to refund the loss automatically. Policing of fraud is critically underfunded. Training and resources are urgently needed so that scammers actually face some risk of being caught and prosecuted.
Fraud has become an epidemic that is wrecking lives. It must be made a much more urgent priority.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Hope, quoted the Government’s expressed desire to
“restore the balance … between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, with whom I largely agree on this topic. It is misleading to talk in terms of balance rather than of function. In our constitution, the legislature makes the laws, the courts interpret and apply them in specific situations and, in theory, the Government obey them. The problem arises when the Government do not wish to obey the laws that Parliament or the common law have created and seek to reject courts’ interpretation of them.
It is not a question of balance. In a judicial review, the scales of justice do not weigh the interests of the Executive against the strictures of the law. The concept of the scales of justice in a court setting is that, where an individual or organisation seeks judicial review of a government decision, the judge’s duty is to apply the law without favour to either side. If the Government’s purpose in introducing a judicial review Bill is to carry out the recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, it will be unexceptional. No doubt we can argue about the details of the two main areas he recommends. If, on the other hand, the Government pursue the aims outlined in the Lord Chancellor’s statement setting out the further consultation to make areas of policy non-judiciable, that is an entirely different matter. The noble Lord’s committee would not support it, as he has made abundantly clear.
Ouster clauses are not effective because the courts assume that Parliament does not intend to give licence to a Government or to a Minister to break the law. Mr Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, attempted to introduce clauses that expressly involved the Government in illegality by breaking the Northern Ireland protocol. This episode demonstrated that Parliament will not stand for it. The attempt was defeated overwhelmingly by all parties, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and responsible and experienced Members on the Government Benches in this House.
I suppose it would be possible for the Government to introduce into a Bill or statutory instrument a clause that reads, “On questions of policy, a Minister can do what he likes”—or, to put it rather more formally, “A decision by a Minister under this Act shall not be set aside or voided by reason of illegality”. I very much doubt whether such a clause in its naked simplicity would get past a competent Attorney-General, never mind Parliament itself.
The Government can huff and puff when they lose a case, but that does not change the reality that they function within the rule of law as interpreted by the courts. As for the courts themselves, their decision in a particular case may have implications for the policy that the Executive wish to implement, but it is well understood that the system of judicial review does not permit a judge to substitute his own views or his own decision on the issue. All he or she can do is quash the decision that has been made and invite the decision-maker to think again. As for ousting the jurisdiction of the court, you can sum it up in seven words: “If it is illegal, it is justiciable.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, in particular as a partner in the international commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft, and as chairman of its financial services division.
I warmly welcome the Queen’s Speech and, in particular, the atmosphere of renewed positivity and optimism in which our debate is taking place. Let us hope it does indeed prove to be the solid foundation for our nation building back better as we bounce back from the Covid-19 pandemic. A mass of criminal justice reform is adumbrated in the Speech, and I think we all confidently foresee some lively debates on matters including sentencing, online safety and immigration.
In contrast, the Speech is understandably quite light on civil justice issues. We are, however, witnessing the creation of numerous obligations and rights. We must therefore be mindful of the need to ensure that those do not spawn mass litigation in the civil justice sphere. The compensation culture—blame and claim—insidiously undermines civility within our society and is not in any sense a victimless activity. Someone has to pay for every settlement, not just the compensation that goes to the complainant but the full legal costs. It is an all-too-common characteristic of claims inspired by claims farmers that the lawyers earn more from cases than the claimants do. Might the Government therefore issue a call for clarity on the use of alternative dispute resolution to help avoid legal costs exceeding damages, which is the catnip for claims farmer activity and which we have all been trying to avoid?
I do not intend to focus unduly upon the recent indication on restricting the small claims limit rise for employer’s liability and public liability injury claims to just £1,500. We should entirely support restraint in employer’s liability claims where it is important that the rights of employees are protected. I would, however, urge everyone to be mindful of the possible unintended consequences of the injury limit for public liability claims, where claims farmers forage for rich pickings—no doubt all the more so, post whiplash reform.
We are also discussing cultural matters and it is a matter of considerable regret for many of us that there was no mention in the Queen’s Speech of reciprocal, visa-free travel and work for UK and EU performers and their crews. It was a great achievement—in no small part UK led—when the old era of complicated ledgers, carnets and other expensive and time-consuming paperwork was swept away, and a new and welcome freedom ruled for creative artists. Touring is the lifeblood for creative artists—musicians in particular—and it seems to be purely a question of whether the will exists to create a mutually beneficial arrangement. Particularly in light of the welcome news that quarantine requirements may imminently be waived for fully vaccinated UK citizens going to the EU, I join others in urging Ministers please to sort this problem out with the utmost urgency.
Finally, I strongly support the tribute to Her Majesty by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. For some time, I was honoured to be Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, for which she kindly gave me four-and-a-half yards of British cloth, which my wife had made into this suit that I now proudly wear for the debate on the gracious Speech.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his special suit and the two noble Baronesses who will make their maiden speeches.
This past year has certainly thrown up a whole range of important issues for both Parliament and government to confront. I am privileged to be a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee looking at life after Covid and some of the long-term problems that we have to deal with, not necessarily through legislation. Noble Lords will be aware of our recently published report on the pandemic and the internet, which concluded that internet use over the past year had accelerated by a decade the changes in that world and exposed alarming inequalities in the digital society. It also exposed a lot of the problems with online life that have already been referred to in this debate.
One perhaps less immediately obvious topic on which the Select Committee has received powerful written evidence but has not discussed concerns the sensitive questions about how we care for the dying and our choices at the end of life. The tragedy of the daily death tolls reported on the evening news and the extraordinarily sad stories about bereavement in lockdown seem to have crystallised and stimulated a new interest—a determination that we must make changes for the better. These issues bring together the legal, ethical and medical dilemmas that we in this House have often debated.
However, I am convinced that there is now an appetite for a more open, evidence-based approach. Somehow, the pandemic has enabled us to talk about death in a way that reduces superstition and taboos. The organisation Compassion in Dying reports that calls to its information helpline have increased by almost 50% in the past year and that the number of people making so-called living wills—that is, refusing treatment in certain circumstances —has soared by 160%.
We are all, of course, acutely aware that the coronavirus has put unprecedented burdens on our healthcare professionals and their resources. At the beginning of the pandemic, there were disturbing stories about inappropriate rationing of intensive care and “do not resuscitate” decisions being made without proper consultation. That was troubling but it prompted open and honest discussion which has, in turn, produced useful developments led by the Care Quality Commission. It reported earlier this year and there is now, for example, a new ministerial oversight group established to improve the use of “do not resuscitate” decisions.
In our new post-pandemic world, we must also respect those people who want neither resuscitation nor intervention but whose preferred choice at the end of life may be a medically assisted death—still, of course, illegal here. Over the past year, the situation in which those who want to exercise that choice are forced to travel to Switzerland has become even more intolerable. Outsourcing this emotionally and practically difficult option to another country has always been regrettable and unethical. Today, Covid restrictions have made it almost impossible. We must now look again at our own law and its cruel blanket ban, which has led to an increasing number of reports of desperate suicides by dying people.
It is therefore extremely helpful that the Health Secretary has now asked the ONS to look at those reports and examine the statistics on suicide among the terminally ill. Mr Hancock has committed himself to ensuring that, in general, good factual evidence is available for future parliamentary debate on assisted dying. In this House, we will have that opportunity when the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on this subject is introduced. She is speaking almost next in this debate and I look forward to her contribution and, most importantly, to her Bill. Noble Lords will remember that five years ago, we supported the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on assisted dying and I very much hope that we will support this similar Bill. The pandemic experience has created the circumstances for safe, compassionate legislation to give dying people the right to choose the death they want for themselves.
Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
My Lords, tourism has been the sector most affected by Covid-19 and it will be the last industry to reopen. One in 10 jobs depends on it, yet there was no mention of tourism in the Queen’s Speech or the accompanying 163-page policy briefing, and there were no Bills that directly support the UK’s tourism industry. It has been taken for granted as a national cash cow for years but government policy is now slaughtering the UK’s £31 billion inbound tourism sector because the new traffic light system favours people leaving the UK to holiday abroad while doing nothing to encourage tourists to come here.
With many people working from home and businesses allowing more flexible working, UK residents will be able to travel to amber countries and then self-isolate on their return while working from home. In contrast, people in amber countries who want to travel to the UK for a holiday will have to remain in their hotel for 10 days, meaning that there is no point at all in coming.
The Government’s present position also risks making overseas travel the preserve of the wealthy. The cost of a Covid test for people travelling even to a green-list country is £150 per person, vastly increasing the cost of a family holiday. Travel to an amber country involves £450-worth of tests per person. Meanwhile, there is a baffling range of potential test providers all making a pretty penny from the process. Given that the UK’s testing capacity was radically expanded in 2020, there must surely now be scope to permit UK citizens, say, one set of NHS tests per year for travelling purposes.
The overall effect of the present arrangement is that the UK loses its most lucrative domestic travellers to overseas holidays and gets hardly any inbound tourists to make up for them. The potential inbound tourism revenue from green-list countries—the only countries whose residents can credibly visit the UK—amounts to just 3% of the UK’s normal inbound tourism revenue. The Government could boost that figure and support the half a million—or more—people in the UK whose jobs directly rely on inbound tourism revenue. They could allow fully vaccinated people from the UK’s main tourism markets, such as the USA, to come to the UK without having to quarantine, and they could also provide targeted support for businesses reliant on inbound tourism to protect jobs in this sector.
The industry also needs the Chancellor’s £1.6 billion business rate support, promised in March for the most severely impacted businesses that have not been eligible for other rates relief. Coach operators, tour operators and English language schools are desperate for this support, but there is still no word from the Government on which businesses are eligible or how they can apply.
The Queen’s Speech is always the product of negotiations within government, with Ministers and departments vying for a slot, but without a Cabinet Minister for tourism this sector misses out time and again. This year, of all years, surely the Queen’s Speech should have included a tourism Bill. The fact that there was no mention whatever of tourism is a bitter disappointment but, sadly, not a surprise.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB) [V]
My Lords, I swapped my slot with my noble friend Lady Meacher, at her request.
In the gracious Speech, Her Majesty the Queen referred to
“measures to increase the safety and security of … citizens”.
I pick for comment from that broad aspiration the proposed legislation to make it easier to counter threats to this country from other states: the counter-state threats Bill, to which the Minister referred at the beginning of this debate. We do not yet have a Bill, although we can get a reasonable sense of it from the Home Office consultation. The Minister described the aims of the legislation and—for once, despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that Cross-Benchers always disagree with the Government—I wish to reinforce what the Minister said in his opening remarks: modern tools and powers are needed to detect, prevent and respond to threats from states whose aim is to undermine the safety and interests of the UK.
In thinking about what I wanted to say at this very preliminary stage, I reflected that in my dozen or so years in your Lordships’ House I have rarely spoken about hostile state activity, despite many years of experience of trying to counter it, mainly in the Cold War. The fault is mine; my excuse is that successive Governments have not had the appetite to tackle the problem, rather preferring to rely on creaky legislation from the last century designed to deal with German espionage in the run-up to the First World War and Nazi espionage in the run-up to the Second World War. The Government moved to fill some of the legislative gap in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, but then recognised that more was needed. I strongly welcome their intention to legislate, and I look forward to seeing what the Bill says.
Why do we need it, and what are we talking about in 2021? I start with what we are not talking about. As a young intelligence officer, I remember interviewing a Russian intelligence officer who was distressed to discover that the papers in his carefully chosen dead letter box—a hollowed-out tree in which his agent was going to stow top-secret documents—had been eaten by squirrels. That is not what we are talking about any more; we are talking about activity at scale—industrial, economic and academic espionage, and cyberattacks to steal our secrets, distort data, spread lies, amplify disinformation, and, as I hope is of particular concern to this House, to interfere with and undermine democratic process.
I look forward to the scrutiny of this overdue legislation. I do not anticipate that it will have an easy passage, as it is a complex subject, but we need a law that is balanced and proportionate, recognising the public interest while allowing us to better defend ourselves against covert attacks, of which the scale and cost of the damage are not well understood.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am deeply saddened that I am not following on from my noble friend Lady Fleet, whose maiden speech we were much looking forward to. That she has been unable to speak is clearly the result of an administrative glitch and, for my part, I think the treatment of a new colleague in this way is unforgivable. I wish to say a word or two about the impact of the measures outlined in the gracious Speech on the media and, in doing so, declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, and note my other interests as set out in the register.
One thing the pandemic has certainly taught us is the need for reliable, verifiable news from trusted sources of information. But while the need for trusted journalism has never been greater, the threats to it are becoming existential as the revenues which fund it evaporate. More than 260 local newspapers have disappeared since 2005 and, in the past year alone, there have been more than 2,000 job cuts across the media in the UK. The situation is grave, particularly for the local and regional press, which are now in real peril.
How do the measures outlined in the gracious Speech help? The online safety Bill is welcome. It starts a journey of levelling up, if you will forgive me adapting the phrase; that is, levelling up the essential duties and responsibilities of the platforms to those to which traditional publishers have long been subject, both in terms of legislation and regulation. The draft Bill includes a robust and comprehensive exemption for news publishers from its framework of statutory regulation, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson said earlier. That is absolutely right. During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, we must ensure that this exemption is both watertight and practical so that news publishers are not subject to any form of statutory control, and that there is no scope for the platforms to censor legitimate content. We have the opportunity with this legislation to lead the world in ensuring proper regulation of news content on the internet, and to show how that can be reconciled with protecting free speech and freedom of expression. It is an opportunity we should seize.
Although the online safety legislation will go some way to help support independent, trusted journalism, the measures to be contained in the health and care Bill relating to a complete online ban on advertising of HFSS products regrettably point in the other direction, and I shall not support them. Of course obesity is a real problem, but there really is no credible evidence that this ban will be an effective solution. In this House, we are always guided by evidence; let us see and scrutinise it.
Advertising bans are objectionable because of the interference with freedom of expression, but they are even more objectionable where no compelling case can be made for them. They appease lobby groups but rarely have real impact. In effect, the Government’s case is that a ban might reduce calorie consumption among children by one-third of a Smartie each day—fine. But at the same time, the TV ban will take around £200 million out of the UK TV market each year, as well as revenue from UK publishers, at a time when broadcasters face huge challenges from the market disruption caused by other platforms. I declare my interest as vice-chairman of the ITV APPG.
This will directly impact employment in the creative industries when we should be investing in them as part of our drive towards global Britain. There is no evidence that this measure will help tackle obesity, but it will gravely damage the media.
We have not yet seen the detail of the Bill, but I urge the Government to think again about how they approach this issue, in particular to see whether there is a self-regulatory and more proportionate response in place of the blunderbuss of statute brought forward with no evidence.
Finally, I mention one thing not in the gracious Speech: legislation to give the Digital Markets Unit statutory powers to underpin a code of conduct to ensure fair trading, open choices, trust and transparency in digital advertising and, above all, to compel tech companies to pay for the content they carry.
Reform is long overdue. It is now more than two years since both the Cairncross Review and the Treasury’s Furman review recommended radical change to ensure the future of quality journalism, and nearly a year since the CMA’s excellent report on the issue was published. They all reached the same conclusion: change must come, and soon, if we are to save the free press. There has been progress, including the establishment of the Digital Markets Unit within the CMA, but it is not enough.
We need a competition Bill as soon as possible to give the DMU the statutory powers it needs to tackle the platforms. It is an opportunity for the UK to show it is leading the world in dealing with a problem—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind my noble friend of the four-minute advisory speaking time.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK’s media is in jeopardy. Time is not on our side. Let us make sure that the legislation we pass this Session helps and does not hinder.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, in declaring my interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, I highlight an opportunity to improve the criminal justice system for the benefit of victims and their families, witnesses, defendants, court officials and jurors that would enhance the quality of justice and save public money. I hope that impressive list of benefits has grabbed the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson.
The issue is the provision of interpreters in our courts and tribunals. The opportunity is to insert a simple amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. In a nutshell, the problem is that the chaotic system used by the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service allows far too many cases of unqualified or underqualified, inexperienced pseudo-interpreters to do such a bad job that, quite apart from damaging the reputation of properly qualified linguists, it can cause mayhem in the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice, adjourned hearings, defendants remaining in custody and an undermining of trust in an important public service.
The notorious case of Iqbal Begum led to the establishment of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters in the early 1990s. The Court of Appeal had quashed a conviction for murder against a woman when it was realised that the interpreter at her original trial had not known the difference between murder and manslaughter and, though fluent in English and Gujarati, could not speak Punjabi, the language of the accused. In another case the defendant was accused of perverting the course of justice, which the so-called interpreter managed to translate as, “You are accused of being a pervert”. In another, the interpreter’s English was so poor that he could not distinguish between a marital partner and a business partner, which led to the judge assuming the defendant was being evasive.
The national register is an independent, non-profit organisation whose purpose is to safeguard and regulate the quality and professionalism of interpreters. Registration depends on stringent criteria for training, qualifications and experience. There is a code of professional conduct and a disciplinary procedure uninfluenced by any political or commercial interest.
In 2011, however, the MoJ outsourced interpreting to reduce costs. Reduced pay and conditions for interpreters resulted in an exodus of the properly qualified ones and an influx of the unqualified. The MoJ list is not a patch on the national register. You can get on to this list just by having a GCSE pass or a low-level two-week foundation course, or just by being bilingual, even if you have never set foot in a court before. The list is outsourced to a private company and, despite the MoJ’s claim that compliance with targets has been high, the increase in aborted hearings and general dissatisfaction among lawyers and clients alike tell a different story.
The courts are out of sync with other parts of the justice system. The CPS continues to use the national register, and the new flagship Police Approved Interpreter and Translator scheme has blazed a trail for high standards. It respects all parties and, combined with the register, could be a really effective model for the courts too.
We could get all this right very easily. Part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill provides for British Sign Language interpreters to assist jurors. I suggest just adding a new, simple clause to provide for spoken-word interpreters to be appointed only from the national register in order to raise standards, improve justice and save public money. It is ironic that one clause in the Bill creates a new offence for a BSL interpreter intentionally or otherwise to influence the jury. I contend that to continue to allow incompetent, unqualified spoken-word interpreters in our courts is itself, by default, a serious way of influencing the outcome of proceedings in the most negative way possible. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, even though he will not reply to this debate, will indicate that he is willing to meet me to discuss my proposal.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech and very much regret that we have not been able to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I hope she will be able to address the House before too long.
Culture is listed as one of today’s subjects for debate, but the gracious Speech makes no reference to it. Of course, there is important legislation—notably the online safety Bill—coming from the department with “Culture” in its title, but culture in the wider sense, including the arts, once again has no place in the Government’s programme.
I return to funding for higher education and how it will affect the future of our hugely successful creative industries. In doing so, I remind the House of my interest as a deputy chair of the Royal Shakespeare Company and a trustee of the Artis Foundation.
The Government propose that funding to higher education courses in the C1 price group, including music, dance, drama and other performing arts, art and design and media studies, should be significantly reduced because they are not among the Government’s “strategic priorities”. This proposal is wrong-headed in so many ways that it is hard to know where to begin. The fact that the proposed reduction per student is not huge in cash terms is irrelevant. The wrong-headedness, so ably identified last week by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, resides in the attitude behind the decision. If followed through, this proposal will reinforce the message that schools, parents and students themselves are already getting, because of the narrowing of the national curriculum, that these subjects are of less value, in every sense, than others.
The Government supported the recent decision of the Russell group of universities to abandon its facilitating subjects list, which by excluding arts subjects had such a damaging impact on their status. Now the Government seem to be facing in the other direction. Why?
Furthermore, the proposal is likely to widen existing inequalities in higher education, decreasing participation rates among students with disabilities and from lower socioeconomic groups. The Office for Students consultation document makes that clear. How can it be in line with the Government’s levelling-up agenda to cut funding to the courses most successful in attracting such students?
Finally, the proposal is incomprehensible when viewed in the light of what the Government have done for the cultural sector over the past year, which has been generous and life-saving. More than £1.5 billion has been invested in supporting arts organisations through the Culture Recovery Fund, and yet more through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. Despite some problems, which have been mentioned already, such as the continuing impasse over the provision of cancellation insurance for live events, these interventions were enlightened and I gladly acknowledge their significance, but what is the point of spending all that money on protecting our cultural infrastructure while simultaneously signalling that the skills needed to create the work that they present, for which the UK is celebrated throughout the world, are not worth acquiring? Who do the Government think will be leading these organisations and keeping them alive in future if not students from the very programmes that the Government are now seeking to sideline through underfunding? This is bad politics, bad economics and, above all, bad education. I hope the Minister will encourage her colleagues at the Department for Education to think again.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
It has been clear during the pandemic that we are increasingly dependent on digital technology and online solutions, but what is the reality in the digital economy of the Government’s levelling-up agenda? How are we mitigating digital online harms and digital exclusion? When we look at the risks and opportunities in adopting new technology, are we adopting the right values? The DDCMS Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, has recently set out 10 tech priorities. Some of them are reflected in the Queen’s Speech but many do not yet measure up. Two of them are
“Rolling out world-class digital infrastructure nationwide”
and
“Levelling up digital prosperity across the UK”.
We were originally promised spending of £5 billion by 2025, yet only a fraction of this, £1.2 billion, will have been spent by then. Digital exclusion and data poverty have become acute during the pandemic. It is estimated that 1.8 million children have not had adequate digital access. It is not just about broadband being available; it is about it being affordable, and about devices being available.
“Unlocking the power of data”
is another priority. Yes to this, and to
“Championing free and fair digital trade”,
so I welcome today’s response to the national data strategy and the national data strategy forum, but this must go hand in hand with a strong commitment to data governance, increasing public trust in the sharing and use of data and the work started by the Open Data Institute in creating trustworthy mechanisms such as data institutions and trusts.
Another priority is
“Keeping the UK safe and secure online”.
Amen to that, and to the secure-by-design consumer protection measures now promised to meet the challenges of internet security, but the draft online safety Bill now before us is not yet fit for purpose. Protection should be risk-based, not platform-based. In particular, there is the exclusion of commercial pornography where there is no user-generated content and the societal harms caused by, for instance, fake news—misinformation—so clearly described in the report of the Democracy and Digital Technologies Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Educational and news platforms are excluded in total. In addition, there are no group actions, no focus on the issues surrounding anonymity—"know your user”—no reference to economic harms, no focus on enhanced PSHE or the promised media literacy strategy, and little clarity on the issue of the algorithmic pushing of content. Where is the commitment to working with the IWF?
On the question of
“Building a tech-savvy nation”.
I welcome a greater focus on FE, the jobs and skills White Paper and the new Bill, but the pace, scale and ambition of government action does not match the challenge facing many people working in the UK. I welcome the work of the local digital skills partnerships, but they are massively underresourced. Broader digital literacy is crucial, as the AI road map pointed out.
With regard to
“Fuelling a new era of startups and scaleups”
and
“Unleashing the transformational power of tech and AI”,
catapults should become more effective institutions as a critical part of our innovation strategy. I welcome the commitment to producing a national AI strategy later this year, but it should contain key elements, such as the development of approaches to AI audit, compliance, and risk and impact assessment, and proposals to regulate high-risk applications such as live facial recognition and deepfakes. I welcome the priority to
“Leading the global conversation on tech”
and the recent G7 digital communique, but we need to go beyond principles in establishing international AI governance standards and solutions and agree on a digital services tax.
In closing, there are a number of major omissions in the Queen’s Speech. Where is the commitment to set up a new digital markets unit, to develop our own sovereign data capability and to tackle the gig economy in the many services run through digital applications? This last should be a major priority, and it is a gaping hole in the Queen’s Speech.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
It is a privilege to contribute to this debate, yet once again we are obliged to come at the subject of culture somewhat obliquely, focusing on those areas where it ought to be but is not. Much is made in this gracious Speech, as in the last, about the UK becoming a global science superpower, a world-leading R&D environment with innovation central to tackling major challenges. We are told that the Advanced Research & Invention Agency will support the creation of ground-breaking technology with the potential to produce transformational benefits to our economy and society.
However, the central role of the arts, humanities and creative industries in delivering that vision is ignored. We know that research in these disciplines is not currently eligible for R&D tax relief, and I urge the Government to remedy that in their planned diversification of R&D funding. A unified definition of R&D that valued arts, humanities and social science alongside the scientific and technical would not only support legitimate research in the creative industries but ensure that technological solutions were informed by cultural and behavioural insights, making adoption more likely, and it would encourage knowledge exchange across disciplines, where innovation is most likely to occur.
In this context, the proposed cuts to funding for arts courses make no sense. Not only would they impact talent pipelines and deepen inequalities in the creative sector, they would impact on the wider innovation ecosystem, because other industrial sectors rely on a flow of creative workers to imagine, design and communicate new concepts. Cutting arts subjects at a time when we are nailing our colours to the mast of innovation is, sadly, further evidence that this Government consider arts education as “nice to have” and fail to understand the role of arts graduates in the innovation ecosystem. The Secretary of State for Education made that clear last week when he wrote:
“The record number of people taking up science and engineering demonstrates that many are already starting to pivot away from dead-end courses that leave young people with nothing but debt.”
What is in the Speech is the long-awaited online safety Bill. A key concern will be to ensure that the Bill effectively balances freedom of expression with protection for users’ rights online. In that regard, I will be interested to understand what is meant by a new protection for
“content of democratic importance”.
The Explanatory Notes say this refers to government policies and political parties, but it raises questions about how that would impact the freedom of individuals to initiate online debate or campaign on topics that are not “live political issues”—a quote from the Government’s press release—but, rather, issues that voters believe current policies overlook.
I am equally curious about the definition of “harmful content” as that which will have, or indirectly have,
“a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities.”
The Bill adds that this ordinary adult should be assumed to have any combination of characteristics, but does not say if they are the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. If they are, how will the Bill protect from harms related to body image, weight or appearance, given that those characteristics are not covered by that Act? This threshold is central to the Bill’s powers over legal but harmful content, but is not elucidated. I foresee endless court time devoted to determining whether my sensibilities are more ordinary than the next person’s.
The online safety Bill has been a long time coming and, as our lives have moved increasingly online, the need for a regime that balances freedom of expression with the protection of rights has become more acute. I look forward to working together across the House to ensure that the Bill effectively meets those twin aims.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this debate includes the work of the DCMS and thus enables us to focus on sport, recreation and an active lifestyle. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I have constructed a 10-point plan to focus attention on what I hope will be cross-party support for action to promote these objectives. First is the formation of a new office for health promotion, mandated to drive improvement in the nation’s health, tackle obesity and improve mental health—not least that of the 1.5 million children predicted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists to need new or additional mental health support as a result of the pandemic. There is a major opportunity for a new start, leading to policy formulation for an active lifestyle at the heart of government.
Second is an education recovery plan, ensuring that no child is left behind as a result of the education and extracurricular activities that they may have missed out on during lockdown. This is against a background where almost 70% of parents have said that their children were less active during lockdown—and 10% have said that their children had been completely inactive. The creeping scholarisation of childhood continues to erode free play at school and home in favour of academic, sporting and cultural activities.
Third is laws to modernise the planning system, which plays a crucial role in providing access to high-quality facilities so that everyone can play sport and be physically active. In this Bill, there is the opportunity to put that mantra into practice.
Fourth is legislation to set binding environmental targets. Despite its ability to entertain and promote health, sport can also degrade the environment. To remedy this, we can turn sport and recreation into a positive force for environmental change by adopting sustainable practices.
Fifthly, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is an important measure for all of us who have long campaigned for an extension in the position of trust provisions to capture those who lead activities in sporting and religious settings. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not only an outstanding sportsperson but a true campaigner who achieved this change. Now, at last, the loophole in the law that meant that some adults who held a position of power over a young person, including sports coaches, could abuse that power will be remedied.
Sixthly, during Covid, there have been a range of welcome DCMS funding measures to support sports and clubs, including a £300 million sports recovery package to support major spectator sports in England. We will have the opportunity to assess how effective all these measures that are focused on sport have been and whether they have achieved their stated objectives.
Seventhly, the online safety Bill will establish a welcome duty of care to ensure the safety of users online. Sport has led the way. The recent boycott of social media by English football, supported by other sports and international governing bodies of sport, sends a clear signal that social media companies must be held to account for protecting their users.
Eighthly, Tracey Crouch MP is one of the very brightest and most knowledgeable Sports Ministers of her generation. Her fan-led review of football comes on the back of the Prime Minister’s commitment that government would do whatever it takes to tackle the problem of sports governance. There will be forensic consideration of ownership models, governance, financing and ensuring that supporters play an integral part in the running of football, combined with all-party calls for a football regulator.
Ninthly, the levelling-up White Paper will, I hope, lead to legislation to provide the opportunity for access to modern, built-for-purpose sports and recreation facilities, which should be central to this goal—for, as Danny Kruger MP said in his maiden speech, social infrastructure should be treated as seriously as economic infrastructure.
Tenthly, the Professional Qualifications Bill offers backing to ensure that regulators share information with counterparts to support them, as professionals move between jurisdictions—a key concern of sports coaches, British mountaineers and ski instructors looking to continue work in the Alps. Couple that to the need to reform modern-day ticket touting in the secondary online ticket market through the online safety Bill, and end on consideration of the recommendations of your Lordships’ National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, when completed in 2022.
This is a 10-point action plan—for it not just culture for which the DCMS is responsible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, and I hope that she enjoys her time in the House as much as I do. I listened with great interest to the Minister, who delivered, in his usual emollient way, all these incredibly nasty pieces of legislation that the Government are bringing in. Although I will try to stay coherent as I speak, I am actually spitting with fury, so I ask for that to be taken into account.
We have to understand that there are a lot of Bills in this Queen’s Speech, and, given that this is the third Speech of the Prime Minister in two years and that most of the legislation that he has announced has not actually happened—sometimes it is on its third, fourth or even fifth iteration—I am staggered that there are so many Bills in it. Again and again, the really important stuff, like the Environment Bill, gets put off, which will be very embarrassing when we come to COP 26.
However, of course, the Government always find time for the really nasty bits of legislation, like the spy cops Bill and the overseas operations Bill. I worry about this trend of the Government, which is why I have chosen to speak today, on the topics of crime and justice and home affairs, because this is where the Government do some of their worst work.
Much of the proposed legislation is designed to fight political proxy wars, rather than trying to improve people’s lives and create a better future, which is probably what the Government’s job is. For example, the electoral integrity Bill is an excuse to make it harder for people—particular people, not just any old people—to vote, while giving the Conservative Party more power in an attempt to extend the life of this Government, possibly for decades.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill seeks to put financial penalties on universities and student unions for not wanting to listen to speakers with fundamentally stupid ideas. I do not understand it, and it gets a bit confusing when the Government, apparently so concerned about free speech, are also bringing in a Bill designed to criminalise and ban free speech and the right to protest—because protest is free speech. As such, we are being asked to crack down on free speech in one Bill but to force people to listen to speakers whom they fundamentally disagree with in another. It will be very interesting to see, over time, just how this plays out in court and how these two pieces of legislation interact.
Next up on the nasty list are the Government’s plans to make it harder for people to claim asylum and refuge, which are horrendous and plain cruel at a time of such global instability—much of which we have caused —especially because global migration will increase. We will carry on trashing the planet and will make huge areas uninhabitable, and, as we continue to sell weapons to tyrant regimes and war criminals, there will be more political instability in all sorts of countries. We are responsible for a huge number of the people who come to this country seeking refuge, and we should accept that and that it is our duty to make them welcome.
There are some important pieces of legislation tucked into the Speech, but I feel that those are the ones that will fall through the cracks and that we will probably not get around to. This is very distressing because it will be the most regressive laws that come through and that the Government support. This is really appealing to the darkest parts of human nature and it is not good for our collective psyche, not just here in the House but in the wider society. As such, I promise you strong and relentless opposition.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. I start by echoing the pleas of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for more attention to be paid to culture and media issues in these debates. I hope that the good points made already by many noble Lords around the House will be picked up by DCMS. I declare an interest as a member of the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House. However, what follows are my thoughts on the online safety Bill, prefaced in the gracious Speech.
In Our Digital Future, published yesterday, the Labour Party made it clear that we want empowered citizens who do not merely have access to the internet but are equipped with the skills and tools to make the most of technology and who are protected from those who use it to cause harm. The online safety Bill shares these aspirations, and, in so doing, reverses the history of international internet technology governance, based as it is on a 1990s presumption that this would be best left to companies and technologies, which had little legal ability to govern the things that people did on the platforms.
Thankfully, democratic Governments have begun, at last, to appreciate the extent of the harms that arise for citizens and businesses due to a loosely governed internet and its patchy adherence to human rights. In that spirit, I welcome the draft online safety Bill. The Government have got a lot right, particularly the adoption of the duty-of-care approach, the focus on systemic measures and the roles to be played by Ofcom, the DMU and the ICO. However, there are some gaps and concerns which have been referenced already, including the very long lead time before the Bill will actually reach the statute book, democratic accountability and a worry that the Bill underplays the current dangers to children and vulnerable users.
However, the welcome pre-legislative scrutiny will help sort out these issues. I hope it will focus on the following points. The internet gives everyone a voice—a really important point—but the resulting cacophony can mean that minority voices are lost in their entirety. Forms of expression which in the past were tolerable, even if they offended, are amplified to the point where action may be required to moderate volume and identity. But that brings real threats to freedom of expression and to quality journalism. How can these tensions be resolved? What content should be treated as illegal and who decides what should be treated as illegal but harmful? If there are forms of activity that were lawful in the past but should now be made unlawful, surely Parliament needs to set these new laws, lead and give clarity. If platforms are to determine their community standards, what role should be played by the regulator—or regulators—and will it have the resources and the powers it needs across the piece?
Online platforms have a responsibility to protect users against fraudulent and scam content as well as other harms. The Bill needs to rise to the broader challenge to democracy posed by digital technology itself, and we will need systems of regulation that protect that. As the Bill recognises, the platforms are a big part of the solution to online harms. They hold the technical expertise, the resources and the access to clean up online spaces, but they do not have the legitimacy to make decisions about what constitutes a free society and they should not be asked to do so without appropriate democratic oversight by Parliament.
Lord Beith (LD)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, and the many distinguished speakers in this debate who fastened on the Government’s words that legislation will be introduced to restore the balance of power between the Executive, the legislature and the courts.
Try as I may, I cannot find anything in the gracious Speech which restores the balance by correcting or reducing the ever-growing power of the Executive. I can find plenty of examples of the opposite, in both legislation and policy. It is all about strengthening the already overmighty Executive. In four minutes, I shall try to give four examples.
First, there is judicial review, reviewed in an excellent report by the committee chaired very ably and knowledgeably by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which the Government clearly intended should come up with severe curtailment of judicial review. It did not. In a courteous letter to me, the Lord Chancellor rather gave the game away. Having commended the committee for its empirical evidence, he said, “However, we feel that the analysis in the report supports consideration of additional policy options to more fully address the issues they identified.” In other words, “We’re from the Government and we are here to help you by protecting you, the judiciary, from yourselves and ensuring that you don’t do any more protecting of the people.”
In all their arguments on this, the Government fail to recognise that in a system where the Government so often control the Commons with a large majority, it is particularly important that the courts can insist on adherence to the law and, when rights are threatened, to see that there has been proper decision-making, and that what is proposed or done is clearly and explicitly within the intentions set out by Parliament.
The second example is the sentencing legislation that began in the previous Session. It gives the Home Secretary power to extend a prison sentence indefinitely on the basis of matters which have not been tested in court, subject only to whether the prisoner can prove a negative to the Parole Board—that he is not dangerous and did not commit offences for which he has never been tried. Serious issues of public safety are involved—I recognise that—but I do not see that we can leave the Bill in its present form without crossing a boundary between the role of the Executive and the role of the judiciary.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister is appointing lots of new Peers. This is not an attack on the noble Baroness whose maiden speech we heard earlier, but the overall effect of what the Prime Minister is doing is to block the means by which this House has agreed, voluntarily, to reduce its own size. I was a member of the group which advocated for the proposals. Failure to tackle the growing size of an unelected House undermines the reputation that the good work of so many Peers would otherwise earn. I think the Government like having a second Chamber whose legitimacy they can easily challenge, rather than a reformed House, which would be more widely seen as an appropriate body to hold the Executive to account.
My fourth example is in today’s other area: culture. I declare an interest as being involved in a number of heritage charities that have benefited, or need help to survive, from the recovery fund. I am worried by all the briefings from DDCMS that board-level appointments in national cultural institutions need to be the subject of closer ministerial attention to ensure that various areas and views are better represented. As a northerner—you cannot live further north in England than I do—I might welcome that, but not if it becomes more use of ministerial patronage to enforce politicians’ prejudices on highly valued institutions of precious national importance or just another version of patronage and jobs for the boys.
Ministers like power, and invariably want more of it. Legislating by decree and press conference during the Covid-19 crisis has given them even more of a taste for it. Our job is to do our best to restore the balance by defending the rule of law and restoring and deepening parliamentary accountability.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, it is now more than 15 years since I sat on a Select Committee in your Lordships’ House. It was established to look at draft legislation on assisted dying for the terminally ill. As a committee, we had the privilege of travelling to the Netherlands, Dignitas in Switzerland and Oregon, which then stood as the only state in the USA to have legalised this practice.
We were led with great distinction by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern as chairman and the 10 other distinguished members included the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is in the Chair today.
We heard in Oregon that the practice there was working well and had been integrated into palliative and hospice care systems, and its safeguards were protecting against any possible abuse. Regrettably, in 2006 this House declined to support a new law based on Oregon’s experience, although it did lend its support to similar proposals in 2014 and 2015, only for the Bill to fall due to lack of time after three full days of debate, including two full days of consideration in Committee. As a House, we gave our support to tightly safeguarded legislation—that is, two doctors independent of one another would have to assess a person’s mental capacity and prognosis, and the entire process would be overseen by a High Court judge. These were, and continue to be, the most safeguarded and conservative proposals anywhere in the world. They were supported by your Lordships’ House and by more than 80% of the British public.
It is now more than five years since we have had a substantive debate on this issue and public demand for changing the law has not subsided. Nor, indeed, has international progress. Oregon’s example has been followed by 10 additional American states, with New Mexico becoming the 11th jurisdiction in the USA to permit assisted dying earlier this year. Altogether, over 70 million Americans live in states where assisted dying is permitted. Tasmania this year became the third Australian state to do so. New Zealand held a referendum on assisted dying last year, which passed with an overwhelming majority. In Europe, too, the Low Countries and Switzerland have long permitted euthanasia and assisted dying. They are being joined by Spain and Portugal, whose Parliaments have approved new laws in the past few months. Important court judgments are likely to lead to similar legislation in Austria and Germany.
Even closer to home, Ireland is currently debating assisted dying; a vote in the Dáil passed the Dying with Dignity Bill in October. In Scotland, too, Holyrood will tackle this issue again in the near future and looks likely to succeed in legislating for assisted dying.
Perhaps influenced by the growing clamour for law change and the mighty evidence that assisted dying can be introduced safely and fully integrated into modern end-of-life care, doctors’ views are shifting in support of assisted dying. Two years ago, the Royal College of Physicians dropped its long-standing opposition to assisted dying and the British Medical Association is poised to do the same later this year. In a survey of nearly 30,000 doctors the BMA found that 50% of its members supported a change in the law, compared to 39% against. This progress is fast spreading across the English-speaking world and in predominantly Catholic countries closer to home. As more and more countries legislate, we gain more and more evidence that assisted dying can be legislated for safely and with huge popular support, giving dying people the right to choose how they end their lives.
I say very simply: we did not ask to come into this world; might we now be allowed to say how we would wish to depart from it?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to move to issues of modern slavery. I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery and as a vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
The Government are rightly proud of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which is a splendid piece of legislation, but it urgently requires further implementation. The position that we hold as innovators in dealing with modern slavery across the world is slipping. I will refer to several parts of the Frank Field review of the Act, of which I was a member. The most important gap is in the supply chain. Much of the transparency of supply chain legislation—Section 54—requires it to be mandatory for the large companies to report effectively on their supply chain situation. Serious penalties are being discussed, but so far there has been no commitment by the Government and no action. They must act on the proposal for an enforcement body. The Home Office should look across the Atlantic to see how the USA is now dealing with hot goods and the measures that it has in place to stop the importation of goods or produce obtained by forced labour. The Government must make the legislation effective to ensure that goods and produce provided by forced labour overseas are stopped before they enter the country.
The guardian provision for trafficked children is excellent, but pilot schemes are no longer necessary; it should now be rolled out across the country. It extends only to the age of 18, although the review gave good reasons to provide support up to 21 or even 25. There is concern about the position of very vulnerable teenagers transitioning into adulthood without appropriate support. There is a real risk of those young people being re-trafficked. According to Safe Passage, there are 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children in Europe. They are in danger of abuse and of being trafficked. The UK has brought in a considerable number of children, which is admirable but not sufficient. Since Brexit, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said earlier, Dublin III is no longer applying, and under current and intended immigration rules it is estimated that 95% of children may not qualify to be admitted.
The proposal to penalise children who enter the country illegally is entirely contrary to the Government’s welfare commitment towards children. Compensation for victims, and reparation orders, appear to have made no progress. There remains a considerable lack of support after victims have received a positive NRM decision, only partly filled by the wonderful work of NGOs. This places victims in danger of being re-trafficked and leads to non-effective prosecutions where the main witness—the victim—cannot be found.
Finally, the dramatic cut in overseas aid has had a devastating effect on modern slavery projects. This should be a matter of great concern to the Home Office. The Government have, in the past, been generous in supporting the setting up, with the USA, of the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery in 2017. The impact of the cut in funding is to reduce the current year’s expected funding from an estimated £7.6 million to £1.1 million. Among its effects is the cancellation of initiatives in Bangladesh with the IOM to stop forced labour in unregulated clothing factories, which adversely affects 10,000 victims, including 1,000 children under 14, and a project in India to help 8,000 children in Mumbai. As chair of the National Commission on Forced Marriage, I remind the House that forced marriage is an aspect of modern slavery.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. I am especially pleased to welcome such a fine Ulster Scots lady into your Lordships’ House.
The pandemic has had a detrimental impact on the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. Indeed, following the gracious Speech, the Government admitted that a levelling-up White Paper will appear only at some point later this year. Meanwhile, by breaking his cast iron promise not to place a post-Brexit regulatory border in the Irish Sea, the Prime Minister made a conscious decision to level down Northern Ireland by making it more difficult for businesses there to compete and denying local shoppers access to many goods. I cannot overstate the sense of betrayal felt in the Province over the Prime Minister’s actions and the Government’s refusal to fully acknowledge the ever-growing list of problems that the sea border has created.
The subject we are dealing with today is culture. In the year of Northern Ireland’s centenary, I am sorry to say that Boris Johnson has chosen to undermine our British culture. He has placed on us a position where we must follow rules set by the European Union, over which the United Kingdom Government, Northern Ireland Assembly and local voters have absolutely no say. It is the greatest diminution of British sovereignty since a previous Conservative Government signed the Anglo-Irish agreement 36 years ago. That should not rest easy with Her Majesty’s Government, nor indeed with those who support them in the Lobbies of your Lordships’ House.
There are two references to victims in this gracious Speech, one being how the Government intend to
“address the legacy of the past”
in Northern Ireland. On the eve of the English local elections, the Government advised two friendly newspapers that they would ban future Troubles-related prosecutions against soldiers and police officers. What was less prominent in this briefing was that these rules also apply to IRA/Sinn Féin and loyalist terrorists. It is not often that all the Province’s political parties come together to agree on something, but they are united in their hostility to this news. Concerns were shared by victims’ groups right across Northern Ireland. What the Government were proposing was an amnesty that would have treated police officers and members of the UK Armed Forces in precisely the same manner as the terrorists who were seeking to murder them. It is appalling; it is unacceptable. Those who suffered loss want justice and they should receive it if we are to address the legacy of the past.
I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister’s dereliction of duty last week in the way he treated the families of those killed in Ballymurphy half a century ago does not augur well. His predecessor David Cameron may not be winning many friends at the moment but his Oral Statement delivered in another place on the day of the Bloody Sunday report was published in 2010 and gained him a huge number of admirers. Mr Cameron’s apology to the Bloody Sunday families was sincere, honest and offered in full public view. In contrast, Boris Johnson’s words to the Ballymurphy families were conveyed in what amounted to a circular email to their solicitor a full 48 hours after the report was published.
Victims on all sides deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. The Prime Minister’s—I would say—tactless behaviour was entirely the opposite. Legacy issues have bedevilled Northern Ireland for far too long and the Government must finally show responsible leadership to allow us to move forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the new plan for immigration will, we are told, increase the asylum system’s “fairness and efficacy”. We certainly need more fairness and efficacy, but the Law Society and refugee and human rights groups warn that this plan spells the opposite, with
“dire consequences for children and young people”,
according to the Children’s Society.
I can do no better than to cite the UNHCR’s devastating critique. This
“discriminatory two-tiered approach … will undermine the 1951 Convention and international protection system, not just in the UK, but globally.”
A commitment to resettlement and improved safe and legal pathways, which are urgently needed but for which there is no detail, cannot,
“substitute for or absolve a State of its obligations towards persons seeking asylum at its borders”.
The inferior temporary protection status offered to irregular entrants who stay in the UK is incompatible with international refugee law. We are told that the
“human consequences …will be very serious’.
The UNHCR has offered to work with the Government
“to adopt a more sensible, humane and legally sound”
approach. Could the Minister tell us the Government’s response to this offer, how their plan will work, given the reported refusal of all EU countries to co-operate, and what are the plans to open up safe routes?
More positive is the commitment to correct what is described as
“historical anomalies in British Nationality law which have long prevented individuals from gaining British citizenship or registering for citizenship, through no fault of their own.”
This is a real injustice suffered by the children of British Overseas Territory citizens of a certain age, denied citizenship simply because their parents were not married. It should have been rectified years ago.
With regard to registering for citizenship, there has been a long-standing concern across the House about the barriers faced by children who were born or have grown up in the UK who have to register their entitlement to citizenship because of their parents’ immigration status. In February, the Court of Appeal ruled that the exorbitant fee is unlawful because it was set without consideration of the best interests of the child. Can the Minister assure us that the consequent Section 55 best interests assessment will be published, and say when?
This shameful policy reflects the failure to put children’s best interests at the heart of policy-making. Twice during the Queen’s Speech debate, ministerial responses have ignored calls for a Cabinet-level Minister for children. I trust this will not happen today. Among other things, such a Minister would help to ensure that children are treated as a priority for the levelling-up agenda.
Given the prominence of that agenda, it is incomprehensible, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has commented, that there is no sign of the employment Bill, which we were promised would protect and enhance workers’ rights. The Government have responded that the Bill will be introduced when the time is right. But surely, if we are to “build back better” from the pandemic, this parliamentary Session is exactly the right time: the right time to address endemic insecurity, especially among the lower paid; the right time to introduce promised leave, which needs to be paid, for around 5 million informal carers who juggle paid work and care and who have borne such a heavy burden during the pandemic; and the right time to reform shared parental leave, so as to ensure greater paternal involvement, as mothers have paid the price during the pandemic due to increased childcare responsibilities. When will the responses to the long-standing consultations on both carers’ and parental leave finally be published?
The briefing note on the speech includes a welcome acknowledgement that levelling up involves living standards. This means that it must address poverty and in particular child poverty, which is worsening in terms of both numbers and depth. We need investment in what the Biden Administration term the “human infrastructure” of financial support. At a minimum, the Government should now commit to maintaining the £20 UC uplift and its extension to legacy and related benefits, and to improving support for children, given the mounting evidence of how families with children have suffered disproportionately over the past year. The forthcoming levelling up White Paper must address these issues—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the advisory time limit for this debate is four minutes.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
I am just finishing.
The forthcoming levelling up White Paper must address these issues if it is to offer any hope to the millions who are struggling to stay afloat.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I make no apologies for drawing the attention of the House yet again to the state of our prisons. The United Kingdom continues to have the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe. In England and Wales, there are 131 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the general population, compared with 90 in Spain and 69 in Germany.
Sentence lengths have greatly increased in recent years. The average sentence for an indictable offence is now 58 months, which is more than two years longer than in 2008. Mandatory life-sentenced prisoners now spend on average 18 years in custody compared with 13 years in 2001.
We still send large numbers of people to prison for short periods: 47% of those entering prison under sentence are imprisoned for six months or less. Community sentences are significantly more effective than short prison sentences in reducing reoffending among comparable offenders, yet the use of community sentences has halved in the past decade. As a result of the higher use of custody, most of our prisons are overcrowded: 80 out of 121 currently hold more prisoners than their certified “normal” population.
Safety in prison has deteriorated over the past decade, during which the number of deaths in prisons has risen by over 50%. For every 1,000 prisoners, there were 741 incidents of self-harm in the period 2010-2020, compared with 282 in 2014. Over half of British prisons have found it more difficult to provide resettlement support to help prisoners avoid reoffending on release. Over the past 10 years, there has been a marked decline in prison inspectorate ratings of our prisons for purposeful activities and resettlement.
Covid-19 has caused particularly acute problems for the prison system. During lockdown, the vast majority of prisoners have spent 23 hours or more out of every 24 in their cells—2,000 of them in conditions that amount to solitary confinement. But even before lockdown it was clear that purposeful activity in our prisons had suffered a marked decline in recent years.
The latest projections predict a prison population of over 98,000 by 2026. The Government have announced plans for a significant programme of prison building. Despite this, last year’s report from the Public Accounts Committee, Improving the Prison Estate, estimated that the demand for prison places could outstrip supply by the next financial year. We all know that prison building programmes take time to deliver additional places, and this one will be no exception.
Against this background, the Government are introducing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which contains a raft of provisions for lengthening sentencing further, including measures to ensure that most offenders serve lengthy minimum sentences and to increase the time served under discretionary life sentences. The Government estimate that these measures will increase the prison population by a further 700—the population of a medium-sized prison—by 2028. The Government’s impact assessment of this acknowledges that there is little evidence that these measures will deter offenders or reduce the level of crime.
I have one simple question for the Minister: will the Government adopt a policy objective of reducing, or preferably ending, overcrowding in our prison system, with clear target dates? It is a question that can be answered with a yes or a no. If the Government were prepared to adopt a clear objective along these lines, they would gain the support of noble Lords in all parts of this House.
Tucked away in the gracious Speech is a sentence which will require lots of attention in coming months:
“Measures will be brought forward to address racial and ethnic disparities”.
Nowhere are these disparities more obvious than in prison sentences. I see that my time is up, but I intend to take this matter up in future debates, and I will write formally to the Minister on this issue.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall keep this contribution brief and to the point. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that, as a former Metropolitan police officer, I shall confine my remarks to policing.
This past year or so has seen probably one of the most challenging times for British policing. Tasked with ensuring that people remain safe during the pandemic and act within the law, policing has often met with derision and contempt—not only from certain elements in our society but, I regret to say, from politicians at all levels. That was particularly evident immediately after the Sarah Everard vigil which, as your Lordships will recall, took place on Clapham Common on Saturday 13 March. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate report says that
“what began as a quiet, sombre affair, with a minute’s silence for Ms Everard at 6 pm became a rally, complete with microphones, a public address system, placards and a dense crowd. Police made nine arrests as they moved to disperse the crowd. Photographs and video footage of the scenes, including police officers detaining people, were widely circulated on social media and published in the media.”
My word, the main news channels had a field day. They were rapidly supported by politicians, keen to get on the critical bandwagon. I made a note of them, but there were far too many to recall here in a four-minute speech.
The inspectorate concluded:
“When the decision to move to enforcement was made, our review found nothing to suggest that officers acted inappropriately or in a heavy-handed manner. In fact, we found evidence of patience and professionalism during engagement prior to, during and after arrest … Our inspection has led us to conclude that police officers at Clapham Common worked, in sometimes challenging circumstances, to maintain public safety and keep the peace. Unlike the public, who chose to be there, the police were there because they serve to keep us safe.”
Sadly, none of the critics had the courage to come forward in light of the findings to withdraw or apologise for their remarks.
We parliamentarians task the police to ensure our safety during this pandemic. As politicians, the very least we can do is to offer our support in these challenging times. I look forward to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill coming before your Lordships’ House, in particular the elements of the Bill which balance the rights of protestors with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered. It will enable the police to better manage the highly disruptive protests of which we have witnessed and tolerated far too many of late in the vicinity of Parliament, with the accompanying criminal damage to our monuments. The Bill contains many new and welcome aspects. I support it, as I do the draft victims’ Bill which at long last acknowledges the current shortcomings in our responsibilities to the most important people in the whole of the criminal justice system—the victim.
I have no doubt that there will be much debate around these Bills. I look forward to lending them my support and, in particular, our very deserving police service.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on 17 September 2019, I attended the first day of an historic sitting of our Supreme Court. It was subsequently to rule unanimously—as I had repeatedly warned and argued—that the Government’s prorogation of this Parliament was a grave and unlawful abuse of power. As I walked out into the lunchtime sun, with just one young female colleague, we were the target of a noisy, at times abusive, and even racist demonstration. Noble Lords may remember the mood. Despite a counterdemonstration, there was a negligible police presence; however, neither group surged. It was unpleasant, but I was unafraid for my safety and would never have dreamed of making a complaint. Nor did I hear a complaint from anyone associated with government—quite the contrary. I do not believe that the streets outside Parliament or our higher courts should be islands of tranquillity, nor that I should be protected from offence, let alone dissent. I fear that this Government display a thinner skin.
The Minister is a commercial lawyer of considerable distinction. I am merely one of the public lawyers whom he mentioned in his opening remarks. Indeed, I am one of the activist lawyers to whom his colleague, the Home Secretary, often refers disparagingly. However, I hope he will agree that I have always tried to disagree with him kindly and well.
In my view, the best way of protecting free speech and democratic dissent is to show and not tell. These values cannot be imposed, like some kind of one-way system, with the stroke of the town planner or a parliamentary draughtsman’s pen. Freedom of expression, liberty and equality under the law constitute the ultimate two-way street. I urge the Government to recognise this and not continue to prosecute a culture war in which there is one law for some—especially the Executive.
For many public lawyers and vulnerable people, including the desperate refugees some of us spend our lives representing, attempts to clip the wings of judicial review look nothing short of retribution for the prorogation case of 2019 to which I have referred. It is like losing 11-nil in the FA Cup final and coming for the referee with a baseball bat. Attempts in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to curtail peaceful but noisy and impactful protest by law seem like a response to the growing international recognition of the Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion movements that will just as easily be used against vigils such as that for Sarah Everard. It is an illiberal dog whistle at a time when the Government should be attempting greater post-pandemic unity and equality—the rule of law, not more divide and rule.
An essential government free speech czar for universities is an oxymoron indeed, not least when these institutions are bound by Article 10 of the human rights convention —our first amendment if you like—and subject to judicial review. Perhaps the Government would do better not to threaten such protections and demonstrate the tolerance and civility that they demand of others.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook—I thank her for her maiden speech. I warmly welcome the online safety Bill, referenced in the most gracious Address. I declare my interest as a board member for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.
It is my view that the online safety Bill represents a major step forward in preventing harm to children, vulnerable adults and our wider society. The Bill places a robust duty of care on content-sharing platforms and creates a major new regulator by extending the remit of Ofcom. Those designing the Bill have listened carefully and have risen to the challenge of scoping a regulatory framework for new and rapidly changing technologies. The internet is used by over 90% of adults in the United Kingdom. There are many benefits to that use, as we have seen during the pandemic, but also great potential for harm. As the memorandum from DCMS indicates very clearly, this landmark regulation will end the era of self-regulation. The Bill is likely to prove a key benchmark, not only for the United Kingdom, but for governments around the world.
The technology is evolving rapidly, and the Bill provides flexible mechanisms for responding to new developments through the evolution of codes of practice and the powers given to the Secretary of State. The extra time given to develop the Bill has been well used; however, the legislation and frameworks are needed very urgently as other noble Lords have said. Will the Government set out their assessment of the timescale, from the publication of the Bill to the date when the regime will be working? Are there ways to accelerate this, including a request from the Government now to Ofcom, asking it to prepare to receive powers under the online safety Bill.
Will the Government please clarify what has happened about their intention to deal with the vital questions of age verification and access to pornography sites, which seem not to have been included, as I thought was promised? Finally, will they clarify the ongoing role of Parliament in further improving the legislation offered and in the SI-making process, where the Secretary of State seems to have the initiative?
The Bill will make a very substantial contribution in translating the deep values of our society, the worth of each individual, public responsibility and care for children into the online world, and I look forward to it becoming law.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I must admit to being disappointed that the gracious Speech did not include details of the criminal justice catch-up and recovery plan, for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, because one of the main effects of the Covid pandemic is that virtually all rehabilitation work with prisoners has ceased. Coming on top of Chris Grayling’s disastrous transforming rehabilitation programme that virtually destroyed our world-class probation service, that means that there is a great deal of catching up and recovering to be done, as the Minister admitted in his introduction.
For the last 26 and a half years, I have advised successive Home Secretaries and Justice Secretaries that if they did not introduce a strategy for imprisonment, coupled with the management structure common in every business, hospital or school, in which named people are made responsible and accountable for certain functions within that business, hospital or school, sustained improvement would not happen, which it has not. In the case of prisons, I have advocated that directors should be appointed for every type of prison and certain types of prisoners, such as lifers, sex offenders, foreign nationals, the elderly and those serving indeterminate sentences. Directors would be responsible and accountable to the Secretary of State through a chain of subordinates, starting with the Minister for Prisons and going down through the Director General of Prisons to individual prison governors, who would be responsible and accountable to the director of their type of prison. I now advise the Secretary of State for Justice that without introducing such a management structure, he will not be able to catch up on, let alone recover, all that has been lost. It is essential that prisons and probation are included in the Government’s job creation plans mentioned in the gracious Speech.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech, and I refer to my interests in the register.
As other noble Lords have said, the draft online safety Bill is an important part of the Government’s legislative programme, but I am extremely concerned that in its latest iteration there is no mention of gambling, despite earlier intentions. Two years ago, the online harms White Paper made numerous references to gambling, which it described as an example of “designed addiction” and as demonstrating a
“fragmented regulatory environment which is insufficient to meet the full breadth of the challenges we face”—
challenges which the draft online safety Bill was partially seeking to rectify. But now, it appears, gambling is to be omitted from the Bill. When she winds up, will the Minister confirm that this is the case and explain why? This absence is extremely worrying, since the Bill could provide a vehicle to address many of the growing concerns about online gambling.
I chair Peers for Gambling Reform, a group of over 150 Members of your Lordships’ House pressing for the reforms recommended in the Select Committee report on gambling. Those reforms range from curbs on sports sponsorship and advertising to the introduction of a mandatory levy to fund research, education and treatment, and from establishing a gambling ombudsman to classifying loot boxes as gambling and so regulating them accordingly. Of course, we also need measures to tackle illegal gambling, the advertising of legal gambling companies on illegal websites and the use of drones filming sports events to give their owners an unfair gambling advantage.
These and other reforms are urgently needed. Two million people are affected by gambling-related harm; over 60,000 children are problem gamblers; and, on average, sadly, there is one gambling-related suicide every day. But online gambling is a particular cause for concern. Smartphones enable 24/7 unsupervised gambling. Yet, in comparison to land-based gambling, it is far less regulated. After all, the key legislation was enacted before the first iPhone was launched in 2007. For example, there are limits on stakes and prizes for land-based games but not for those available on the internet, where over 40% of all gambling now takes place.
The Government’s gambling review is of course welcome, but it looks increasingly as though the Government are shying away from taking action. Unless available legislative opportunities, such as the online safety Bill, are used, it could be many years before the Government deliver on their promise to tackle gambling-related harm. After all, the last major gambling review began in 1999, but it took a further eight years before new legislation was enacted. Given the scale of current gambling problems, we simply cannot afford to wait another eight years.
Even gambling operators believe the online safety Bill should be used, for example, to crack down on unregulated gambling operators. But some reforms can be made without new legislation, yet even in such cases, there is evidence that the Government are not pushing ahead as quickly as possible. For instance, the Gambling Commission is using its existing powers to consider affordability—how to ensure that all gambling operators use a common system of checks to ensure that customers can afford to gamble at the level they choose. But newspaper reports now suggest that the Government want to take this responsibility away from the Gambling Commission and incorporate it into a wider gambling review, which will lead to unnecessary delay. Can the Minister confirm this and, again, explain why this much-needed reform should be delayed?
Reforms to gambling are urgently needed, and the Government must not delay.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I congratulate the two noble Baronesses on their superb maiden speeches, which were a delight to listen to.
I welcome the overall thrust of the Queen’s Speech, and I thought the Minister was extremely impressive in laying out for the House exactly what the programme entails. I want to concentrate on that part of the Speech that referenced Northern Ireland veterans. I would like to give it a cautious welcome, with some concerns. When I was in the other place, I was the founder of the all-party veterans’ support group, which has now become a full-scale APPG. I took a close interest in the Dennis Hutchings case, and I declare an interest because I have met him a number of times and know him well. As noble Lords will probably recall, Dennis Hutchings was serving in Northern Ireland in County Tyrone in 1974 and was part of a patrol that resulted in the killing of one John Pat Cunningham. The case was fully investigated at the time; there was absolutely no question of any of the soldiers on patrol being charged, and they were told to get on with their military careers.
Fast-forward to 2010 and the Historical Enquiries Team, when these soldiers were investigated again, including Dennis Hutchings. He was told once again that there was no case to answer, that his case had been thoroughly investigated, and that he should get on with his retirement and enjoy the rest of his life. Eight years afterwards, in 2018, he was arrested in a dawn raid and has been charged with murder.
Obviously, that case is sub judice, but I can refer in detail to the Joe McCann case and the two members of the Parachute Regiment, Soldiers A and C. This case involved a notorious and wicked IRA killer. Soldiers A and C were charged with murder. The case was expected to last at least six weeks. As noble Lords will know, the case folded after a matter of days when the judge ruled that evidence gleaned from the original investigation and from the HET was not admissible. We now know that the former deputy head of the HET actually recommended that there should be no prosecution because no new evidence was available. Frankly, it is staggering that this case went ahead.
I am very concerned, because we are told that there are more than 200 cases in the pipeline involving veterans in Northern Ireland and that a number of them will go to prosecution quite soon. We know about the soldiers who have been charged as a consequence of involvement in the Bloody Sunday killings and the recent Ballymurphy inquest. I am concerned that no one has mentioned the impact on the lives of these soldiers and the fact that very few of these prosecutions will probably now have much chance of succeeding.
This leads me to the commitment in the Queen’s Speech on Northern Ireland veterans. The details are fairly sketchy, but HMG have made it clear that they are looking at some form of amnesty or truth and reconciliation commission. I am very nervous about this, because it would certainly imply at first instance some form of equivalence between soldiers and police officers doing their duty and those terrorists who had one sole aim in life: to go out there to maim and kill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, in his typically passionate way, pointed out that these soldiers and police officers had no alternative: they were doing their duty, whereas terrorists did have an option.
I suggest to the Minister that there is a way forward that does not involve new legislation. In future, the Attorney-General should sign off all future prosecutions. There should be an override for the UK AG in terms of national security, so that every single case, be it terrorists who killed or soldiers involved in killings, would have to be signed off by the Attorney-General. Victims would know that these cases would not go uninvestigated and soldiers, veterans and police officers would be able to sleep at night knowing that unless there was compelling new evidence they would not be prosecuted.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I begin by reminding the House of my interests as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and chair of the Art Fund. Before I turn to issues of culture, I want to record my serious disappointment at one item in the gracious Speech: the decision to undertake a period of further consultation before bringing in legislation to ban conversion therapy for LGBT+ people. I have to ask the Government: what on earth is there to consult about? Conversion therapy is wrong. It is deeply damaging to those it is imposed on. It should be banned as rapidly as possible. This is an unacceptable delay and, worse, it might be a way of smuggling in exceptions to a ban. The legislation should be brought forward without exceptions now.
I want mainly to address issues of culture, especially the Government’s rather obvious decision that culture war is their thing. They are at it with universities, flagging up in the gracious Speech the imposition of a duty to promote free speech, with an enforcer appointed by government. I am all in favour of free speech, especially in universities, where education is surely enhanced by the expression and contest of ideas and opinions, examined, tested and challenged as appropriate. But the last thing we need is the Government deciding what free speech should be allowed and what should not.
Every bit as worrying, however, is what appears now to be a government-directed imposition of their version of correctness on our national museums and galleries. We have seen it in the recent decision not to renew a distinguished academic’s term of office as trustee of the Royal Museums Greenwich simply because his work focused on issues of decolonisation. We have seen it also in the letter sent by the Secretary of State a few months ago to museums and others telling them that they should not explore issues of contested heritage with a critical eye. The Government are trying to tell museums what they can and cannot do. This really is not on. There is a very precious thing called the arm’s-length principle, which is supposed to define the relationship between government and museums. The Government are tearing this principle apart.
Our national museums and galleries are the great storehouses of our nation’s culture, history, science and wisdom. They contain the things of beauty that we have collected over generations. They reflect our nation’s identity in all its complexity, diversity and glory. It is vital that this complexity, diversity and glory are displayed and explained to the public in the best and most effective way, and the people who know best how to do that are the curators and directors of those museums. The last people to know how to do it are Governments and politicians. I say this in all earnestness to the Government, as a former Secretary of State: I would not have dreamed of trying to tell museums what they could display and what they could not, or what they could say about it and what they could not. The Government, quite simply, must get out of the way.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, began this debate by saying that the wheels of justice never stop turning. I remind the House that in the last gracious Speech in December 2019, we had the promise of a royal commission on the criminal justice system. Subsequently, there were five Questions in this House, and every single time there was evasion from the Ministry of Justice, which said that the purposes of the royal commission were still under consideration. Now it has been abandoned, unless the Minister can tell us in his reply that it will be coming back. That is a massive disappointment to all of us who have been concerned about the reality of justice for those who feel that miscarriage rather than fairness is the normal experience.
This gracious Speech rightly and understandably prioritises victims, and everybody will have sympathy and understanding for that. But there is very little understanding of the needs of those who are in prison now or who may face prison and where miscarriages of justice are normative. I identify myself wholeheartedly with the brilliant speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, who both identified the treatment of prisoners. A junior Minister in the Ministry of Justice—Alex Chalk MP in another place—issued a statement just the other day saying that prison leaders should not refer to people in prison as “inmates” or “residents”; they must be referred to harshly as “prisoners” so that they can experience the reality of their vileness and crimes. This is not a right and responsible attitude to take towards those who must deserve dignity and human rights. The Government should not be playing to the agenda of the Daily Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph in seeking to constantly push up sentences and to make prisons harder and harsher.
There are those who would respond by saying, “So you are on the side of prisoners and the vile?” Well, let me cite the example of one young man who came to see me just three weeks ago. A young man by the name of Brandon, 24 years of age, was falsely accused and held on remand for 11 months in 2020, during which he was held in his cell for 23 hours and 45 minutes of every single day. When the charges against him were subsequently proved to be false, there was no apology, no compensation and no support. He was crushed as an individual and released with no recognition of the injustice done to him simply because police officers decided that he was to be a target. He now desperately needs support and help.
We see today in the newspapers the wonderful story of the brilliant law firm Hogan Lovells, which spent eight years fighting for compensation for two black men in North Carolina who have just received $75 million as a consequence of falsified convictions 31 years ago when both men were teenagers sent to prison on an inappropriate, inaccurate and non-just basis. This is the largest-ever payout in American criminal justice and the case was pursued entirely pro bono by the international law firm.
In the UK, we do not have a system whereby the Criminal Cases Review Commission brings forward such cases with any speed or determination. We simply allow those who are in prison to falter and fail. I have in my hand just one week’s worth of letters from prisoners telling me of issues of injustice and miscarriage in their cases. One man in particular, whose mother and aunt died as a result of the coronavirus, as a consequence sought to ask the prison if he could watch his mother’s funeral on YouTube. He was denied the opportunity to see his mother buried. That is not fairness and justice, treating prisoners with dignity or a recognition of their human rights.
We therefore urgently need a royal commission and for it to recognise that, yes, there are victims but there are also people whom injustice has locked away for too long.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook. As a woman of Glasgow heritage, that alone should undoubtedly make her a great asset to this House.
It is hard to select which pieces of the Government’s legislative programme are the most dispiriting, but let me start with the Lord Chancellor’s plan to ratchet up sentences of imprisonment. This is mere populist posturing. It has already been mentioned—I mention it again because it is about wider Europe—that we have the highest prison population in Europe, surpassed only by Russia and Turkey. We are not talking just about western Europe but about the wider Europe of members of the Council of Europe. We are up there at the top of the league table, and it should be no source of pride to us.
I was rather saddened by the Minister’s woeful slogan, “Tough on crime, tough on the perpetrators of crime”. I know that he seemed proud of it. However, while it may be a little jibe at the Labour aphorism, “Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”, the difference between a slogan and an aphorism, which is why I choose the word “aphorism”, is that there is a nugget of truth in an aphorism. The truth in that aphorism about having to deal with and look to the causes of crime is because there one has a real sophisticated project on trying to drive down crime.
At the moment, our prisons are crammed full, with there being virtually no skills training, rehabilitation or education. Yet the level of illiteracy is high among our prison population. It means, therefore, that their ability to survive in society is harder. There are no anger management courses. It is truly abysmal that there is such an absence of courses to address drug addiction, alcohol addiction and misogyny, which is the backdrop to so much crime against women. We also have a depleted probation service, as was described by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Probation officers are so hard-pressed that they have no capacity to carry out the risk assessments that are key to the prevention of reoffending.
My great friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, spoke of women in the criminal justice system, about which I, too, am concerned. In 2018, 62% of women in prison were serving sentences of less than six months. Since then, it is believed that that figure has increased. We have the extraordinary business of women being in prison, the vast majority of whom are serving sentences of under six months. Think about the consequences of that. A woman’s children are taken away from her and put into care; she loses her accommodation because the contract is terminated and she is evicted; and of course in prison, as I have mentioned, she is not able to avail herself of much in the way of support. Women in prison have usually been the victims of domestic violence, child abuse and all those things that we know often lead to people committing offences at the behest of controlling men.
It saddened me that, when the Attorney-General was asked on “Woman’s Hour” why we were creating 500 new places for women when the majority of women do not commit violent or serious offences, the response was that 50,000 new police officers were being created so that there would be many more arrests and therefore there was a need for many more prison places. That does not seem like a very imaginative way of dealing with criminal justice or preventing crime.
I turn to the other Bill that is an absolute travesty, the asylum reforms, which my noble friend Lord Blunkett made the arguments about very clearly. It is a shameful rejection of our obligations in international law. It should be remembered by everyone in this House—we are the last generation that really remembers this stuff; I remember my father, having coming back from the Second World War, telling us stories of the horrors—that the reason why the 1951 refugee convention was created was the problems that many had in getting out of Nazi Germany and away from persecution. The drafters of the convention made it very clear—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Sorry. They made it clear that we have to treat a person as a refugee, not simply according to the way in which they made their way to another country.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Smith: we cannot delay the business of dealing with the persecution and misery faced by homosexual people in conversion therapy. That is a promise that was made, and I hope the Government stick to it. This is not about a failure to protect religion; it is about preventing people from being treated horribly—exorcised and so on—in ways that are inhumane and do not recognise their essential sexuality and humanity. Please proceed with that Bill.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook. Maiden speeches are never easy, and in these circumstances they are very difficult indeed.
As a number of people have said, the gracious Speech foreshadows the internet safety Bill, which is intended to address some of the real harms inflicted on society, particularly on the young and the vulnerable, by the abuses and misuses that have become apparent over the nearly two decades since the Communications Act 2003.
I welcome the promised pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill is large, complex and comprehensive but far from oven-ready. I hope, for example, that we will take evidence from the NSPCC about its concerns that the draft online safety Bill leaves out of scope a large number of commercial pornography sites that have the potential to cause harm to children. My noble friend Lord Foster has referred to the absence of gambling reform; the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, drew attention in his report to the absence of any attempts to curtail harm to our democracy; and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned scams and fraud, so there is much for the Select Committee to consider.
Over the coming year, we will have the opportunity to produce legislation that is genuinely world-leading in bringing the internet within the rule of law, but much will depend on how Ofcom perceives its role. When Ofcom was first mooted as a regulator, I remember it being said that “Murdoch’s lawyers will eat them for breakfast.” That has not been the case, thanks in part to the amendment to its powers proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, during the passage of the 2003 Act, which gave Ofcom a hierarchy of responsibilities, the first of which was to protect the interests of citizens. It is that hierarchy of duties that gives Ofcom the power and flexibility to intervene where broader public interest issues are involved. It will be Parliament’s job to ensure that Ofcom retains those powers and that flexibility in the new regulatory landscape that we will be mapping out in the Bill.
Another success of the 2003 legislation was the carving out of the rights and responsibilities of our public service broadcasters. Among those responsibilities was to provide access to the work of the independent production companies. The result has been to see what was a cottage industry develop into a worldwide success story, employing some 75,000 people and attracting upwards of £3 billion a year in inward investment. There is a very real danger that the very successful ecology of our media industries could be irreparably damaged by financial interests and ideological vandalism. It is essential that the new broadcasting settlement recognises, as did the 2003 Act, the need to protect prominence and other benefits in return for the unique contribution to our culture, creative industries and regional and national identities which the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 provide.
As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, we are in a culture war between old values, which have helped shape our liberal democracies over the last 100 years, and the challenges to those values thrown up by the new technologies. It is the responsibility of Parliament now to make sure that we are in a good place to win that war.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, whose wisdom I look forward to hearing more often, for an excellent maiden speech. I also refer to my interests, stated in the register, in policing and housing.
A number of Bills mentioned in the gracious Speech will require our police to enforce new laws and regulations. We have already seen considerable disquiet expressed regarding what might amount to a very significant reduction in the ability of the public to engage in peaceful political protest, particularly where such protests directly or indirectly impact on others. I will reserve more detailed comments on this Bill for when it reaches your Lordships’ House, although I note the wise comments made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. For now, I want briefly to lay it alongside my experience of 12 months of rapidly changing coronavirus regulations.
On many occasions, the precise boundaries between regulations—matters that police can enforce—and guidance, to which they can only direct our attention, have been seriously blurred. Meanwhile, ministerial statements have put pressure on our police to issue fixed penalty notices, but the Crown Prosecution Service is quite clear that an adequate chain of evidence will be almost impossible to achieve.
I fear that the nine Peelian principles, which have shaped UK policing since 1829, are being eroded. Behind those principles, carved out in the years immediately after the Manchester Peterloo massacre of 1819, lies the central tenet that the power and authority of our police come from the consent of the public, not the power of the state. The will of the people cannot be collapsed into the ambitions and policies of the Government of the day, no matter what mandate or majority it may hold in the lower House of this Parliament. Our police must never be turned from agents of the public into agents of the state, let alone the enforcers of mere ministerial policy. I look forward to some robust debates in this House during the forthcoming Session.
I turn briefly to two other matters. Several weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister for Housing, assured me that he would arrange for national representatives of those living in unsafe apartment buildings to meet not only himself and his staff, as they have been doing, but representatives of Her Majesty’s Treasury. I know that the noble Lord has made strenuous efforts to fulfil that promise; meetings have been arranged but then postponed or cancelled due to the Treasury not being available. It is simply not good enough for a major department to delay and obfuscate in this way. I would be extremely grateful for reassurances, either in this debate or in writing straight after, that this matter will be promptly rectified.
Finally, I am grateful that legislation to ban conversion therapy is now under consideration. I share that sense of urgency of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who both spoke in the last few minutes, and pray that the necessary consultation will be focused and time-limited. The General Synod of the Church of England passed a motion to outlaw such therapy several years ago, and by massive majorities, including my right reverend friends on these Benches. However, I fear that too much emphasis may be placed on the methods such so-called therapies employ. Good criminal law concentrates on the impact on the victim; scrutiny as to the traumatic impact of the particular techniques used by perpetrators is far better entrusted to the courts, which can carefully weigh up the evidence in each case, rather than make it central to the legislation.
I look forward to our debates throughout what will be my first full Session as a Member of this House.
Lord Bird (CB)
It is wonderful to be able to talk about justice, home affairs and culture. Based on my own experience, if you want to sort out justice and all the problems of people who end up in the justice system—often people from poverty and need, people who have a predictable road to failure from the very beginning—you do not sort it out through courts, probation and all those things. You give them something to do.
My own pathway out of wrongdoing was to become involved in culture. I became a posh geezer because I started to go to art galleries and read books. As I have told this House exhaustively over the last four or five years, I learnt to read at the age of 16 in a boys’ prison, in a library supported by the local authority. We know that local authorities support 3,000 libraries in England and 350 museums.
In my humble opinion, if you want to change something, you have to change it tangentially. If you go on looking after the poor by simply giving them money—not giving them an opportunity to move on, social mobility or the chance to read, write and learn all the skills necessary to get out of poverty—you end up with this almost arithmetical, dead, dry belief in what justice is. Justice is often something that happens because you have given somebody the chance of some education, some social training, some culture and some arts along the way.
I declare my interest not just in that I used this cultural system to become who I am today but in that I am a VP of the Local Government Association—I think we are all VPs of the LGA; there seem to be a load of them. I am fascinated by the fact that we have an industry that is bigger than the automobile or aerospace industries, oil and gas or life sciences. It is called the cultural industry and it brings in circa £111 billion a year. That is where we need to spend our money. Pre-Covid, it was growing faster than any other industry in the United Kingdom.
What is so beautiful about culture, the arts and sport is that they create social mobility. We know it is not fashionable to like social mobility, largely among people who have social mobility. However, I assure noble Lords that if you do not have social mobility, what you need is social mobility—then you can say, “I don’t like social mobility, because I’m now socially mobile.” Is that not brilliant?
I want the House to recognise the role of local authorities. They are the bedrock— they are the libraries and galleries. They are providing the necessary services that grow this enormous tree in the United Kingdom called the creative industries.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the great oratory of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who I have not had the pleasure of hearing in person in this Chamber before. I think we are all very much looking forward to hearing more of that in person, rather than down a video link. On the subject in question today, I was really struck by the level of ambition and scale in the scope of the legislative agenda outlined in the gracious Speech—it certainly is a packed programme, as the late Mr Ronnie Barker might have said. Despite the breadth of the subject matter, I find myself following pretty closely in the footsteps of my noble friend Lady Fullbrook and, indeed, of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I compliment my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her most excellent maiden speech. It seems that our arms will be closely linked in various provisions of the upcoming police and criminal justice Bill.
I will concentrate my remarks on the criminal justice area. It is imperative that at all times we ensure that legislation in this field aligns closely with the legitimate expectations of society to be properly protected and for the police to be given the authority to deliver common-sense, pragmatic solutions supported, in large part, by the general public. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, we are extremely fortunate to be served by highly trained, dedicated police officers who operate under tremendous pressure and, in these days, under a quite extraordinary level of scrutiny. The role of the police and the breadth of the areas in which they are now obliged to become involved often puts them in the unenviable position of having to act as umpires in very delicate fields which were previously not their preserve, but the public expect be protected, whether at home or online.
At home, burglary has an exceptionally low clear-up rate: I understand it is in the order of 3% or thereabouts, and it would be a matter of huge regret if the impression were to be given that this was not a high priority. Similarly, there is a perception developing that certain crimes are now just tolerated and treated more as an irritating part of modern life, rather than as the fraud, intimidation and theft they really are. I am talking now about crimes that are delivered through online, digital means. I do not think they should be referred to as digital crimes; they are not, they are fraud or theft that happen to be delivered through a digital medium, be it automated text messages, automated voicemails, emails or other methods of communication.
As I was writing this speech, two text messages came through to my device purporting to be from high-street banks advising of suspect transactions. Other members of my family at the same time, and other friends I checked, had received the identical approach for theft, essentially. I think there has to be a change of mindset around this. There must be hundreds of millions of such attempts at fraud happening every year in the UK alone. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that we should not tolerate this level of attempted and, no doubt, successful fraud. He is very much more of a technical and industry expert than I am, certainly, and very much of that activity may well originate from overseas, but this is a technologically enabled crime and I believe it is time that the UK authorities and their agencies took a more aggressive, technologically enabled approach to prosecute, disrupt and close down these gangs. I noted what the noble Lord said about the role of the banks in all this, and that is certainly an area where I would favour closer attention. Of course, I welcome the work of the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and Action Fraud, but it is clear that an epidemic of digitally enabled fraud is under way and a new approach is required.
Finally, before I close I want to comment on the provisions of the reintroduced Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It is very clearly wrong for groups of people to be able to commit trespass with vehicles, to drive on to land they do not own and do not have permission to be on, to set up camp, with associated very often serious criminal behaviour, doing what they want, disrupting the life of the law-abiding majority and sheltering behind the knowledge that legal powers do not exist to deliver a swift resolution. If ever there was one, this is a classic area where the public are bewildered that these powers do not currently exist. The Bill would correct this and give the police the powers they need to restore the peace, which would be a clear win for common sense and for justice.
Lord Bach (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on an excellent maiden speech and, secondly, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount.
This is the first time in five years I have not had to declare an interest when addressing the House. I stood down as Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland only last week, and from now I look forward to once again playing a slightly greater role in the House’s debates, not least on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which I suspect will take up quite a lot of time later this year.
Given the recent publication of the Home Office’s first report into police and crime commissioners, and, of course, in the context of the gracious Speech, I want to speak a little about my experience as a police and crime commissioner—perhaps setting out a few early thoughts on leaving the role.
PCCs, police and crime commissioners, are now an established part of the policing scene: after all, they have existed for eight and a half years and have been through three sets of elections. Their role is probably not what the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, had in mind when he persuaded the then leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, to introduce them. However, they clearly play a significant role in every police force area.
On the whole, PCCs have shown moderation and good sense whatever political party—or none—they belong to. The Home Office and the police have always been concerned that this would not be the case. Thankfully we now have an association that is worthy of the name. It is now well lead and provides an excellent service to all its members. However, I have concerns that now, for the first time, there are no independent PCCs and one party has many more police and crime commissioners than the other. There may be something of an outbreak of party-political grandstanding. I hope noble Lords agree that that would be a grave mistake. It would put the police in obvious difficulties as they are, of course, politically neutral, and members of the public—to put it mildly—would not like it.
While it is obviously the principal role of a police and crime commissioner to hold the chief constable in their force to account and to ensure that the force is efficient, effective and legitimate, there are other major roles that PCCs must treat as seriously. There is the requirement to protect all from harm, to make people feel secure and to care for victims of crime. This exciting and crucial responsibility can be done only in partnership with other public bodies: the police, local authorities, probation and the health services—not least the mental health services. Partnership is great and it is our best hope.
However, what makes this task so much more difficult than it needs to be are the bad decisions taken year by year by the coalition Government to dramatically cut the money the police had and that local authorities have. Of course, the present Government have changed their view as far as the police are concerned, but I have to end by saying that one can see the damage those early decisions did every day.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. I was sorry to see the gracious Speech did not mention anything about the health and well-being of injured police officers, especially as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is being considered by Parliament at the moment and was touched on in the gracious Speech. For many years I was a trustee of the Police Rehabilitation Centre at Flint House in Oxfordshire, following which I was invited to become president of the Police Treatment Centres, which are in Harrogate and Auchterarder in Perthshire. So, I declare that interest and also my other interests as set out in the register.
The PTCs are a two-centre police charity, founded 120 years ago, delivering first-class treatment to police officers and retired officers who have been injured on or off duty, or who need special support. Attendance on the psychological well-being programme alone has increased 87% in five years—an indication of the increasing need for such support as our police officers face ever more serious and traumatic incidents. The PTCs cost about £5 million each year to run, and 90% of those costs come from individual officer donations. The rest of the money comes from commercial activities run by the charity and fundraising. Of course, it has been extremely difficult this year. Some forces also give us grants, and I would particularly like to mention the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which gives large grants to us every year, again from its own officers. However, we estimate we have lost income of around £400,000 since 2020 to date.
The Government do not give any grants or provide any financial support to the PTCs, unlike that which is given in huge amounts to the military charities, running into tens of millions each year; nor does the NHS give us any money, unlike that given to Combat Stress or Help for Heroes. Yet we save it considerable amounts of money by providing treatment that it would otherwise have to provide for these officers. Independent reports by Robert Gordon University on the efficacy of the PTCs, in 2017 and 2019, suggested that they delivered a cost benefit of £3.80 for every £1 spent, in terms of value back to taxpayers, which translated into a saving for forces and taxpayers of over £16.7 million. In 2019, we treated 3,777 police patients, of whom 2,935 were serving officers and others were retirees or day patients.
Our excellent CEO, Patrick Cairns MBE, a former senior army officer, has commented that from his personal experience, and speaking to thousands of police patients every year, he believes we deliver career-, relationship- and life-saving treatment. Some officers who contemplated taking their own lives have been helped so successfully that they have credited their stay as a turning point in their battle, after suffering extreme psychological trauma. Officers and patients who are entitled to treatment come from all over the United Kingdom. The demand for support from the centres increases every year, with a 7% increase in attendance from 2018-19 alone. The Government should be putting regular funding into the PTCs, so I hope the Minister will recognise that this is an exceptional charity which enables the return of more police officers to the front line as a result of the intervention and support given. I hope she will take this proposal back to the Secretary of State for consideration.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I want to say something about refugee policy and add a few words, perhaps at the end, about the press and electronic media and, if time allows, a little bit about delays in the courts.
I hope when we get the borders Bill that, as a result of the consultation going on, it will be much improved compared with the policy statement of last March. My first point is that the Government propose to discriminate on the basis of how people make their journey to find safety. I believe firmly that the method of travel should not determine the right to asylum. I further believe that such discrimination would be illegal and a breach of the 1951 Geneva Convention. I am assured that this is so by many people, NGOs and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In any case, the policy would be unworkable. Is there any reason to think that European countries would accept the return of asylum seekers who, according our Government, have travelled here by the wrong route? Can we see the French Government accepting people who have come over here on dinghies or in the back of a lorry? I do not think so. If that policy—which our Government want—was adopted by all countries, the accident of geography would mean that Greece, Italy, and Malta would have had to accept thousands, indeed millions, of people who reached those countries for safety.
Obviously, we in this country cannot take all refugees. I argue, however, that we should take our share of responsibility along with other European countries. The Government have closed the two main routes for child refugees in Europe, both under my amendment to the 2016 Act and by not seeking to negotiate the continuation of the family reunion provisions of the Dublin treaty, which expired at the end of December when we left the EU. It is important that the Government ensure that there are safe routes to the UK for refugees. Of course, the Government are right in wanting to undermine the traffickers, who cause so much misery and so many deaths on the seas. It is the absence of safe routes that ensure that the traffickers are kept in business—it is a godsend to them. Clearly, we need safe routes for refugees to come into the UK.
Secondly, we should give priority to the family reunion rights for refugees. What could be a more fundamental right than the family reunion of people who have fled danger in their country?
Thirdly, what is to happen to the child refugees who are now in northern France or on the Greek islands? We cannot just say no to them and say that they have to take a legal route to the UK. In effect, we are saying, “There is no legal route for you and you have to take your chances on the back of lorries or in unsafe boats and dinghies”—something the Government have been anxious to prevent. The way to prevent it is by opening the doors again to safe and legal routes. That has been put very clearly by a British writer born to Somali parents in Kenya called Warsan Shire, who reached the UK at the age of one. She wrote that
“no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land”.
That seems a clear summary of what we should be about as a country.
I turn briefly to the internet safety Bill and related measures. It is ironic that at a time when the future of local and national newspapers is in doubt, many are struggling to survive because online giants such as Google and Facebook are paying nothing for news content. It is the social media or online platforms that should pay news providers for the news. In 2019, Google and Facebook took 80% of the £14 billion spent on digital advertising, and national and local news titles took only 4%. The Australian Government have shown the way to do it; we should do likewise.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her wonderful maiden speech today, and my Front-Bench colleagues on the way they have introduced this debate.
I will focus on—and make a plea to my Front Bench that in bringing these Bills forward they look at—knife crime. I had a failed attempt to bring a Private Member’s Bill to look at knife crime monitoring; it did not get into the ballot. I hope that I can use these Bills to ask the Government to consider making sure that those who have gone to prison and have been released and those who have been cautioned for carrying a knife are monitored for at least six months after they have been released or cautioned—I think we will get cross-party support. I say this on behalf of all those families whose children have been murdered because of knife crime.
I bring this to the House after speaking to a mother who lost her 16 year-old son because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. A person who had been released from prison and was carrying a knife—he had been in prison for knife crime—decided to stab this 16 year-old in the heart, and he died. That mother and her bravery in trying to find support for not just herself but other families has moved me to plead with my Front Bench to have a look at this.
I do not know how it would work; I am sure that the clever people that work with Ministers will be able to find a route. I hope it will not be a huge cost on resource. However, we owe it to the victims and their families to be able to assure them that people who have committed a crime are at least watched to ensure that they get the support that they sometimes need, or that the public are protected from another incident like the one that this lady in Leicester experienced. I am from Leicester, and Leicester has a high rate of knife crime. So I plead on behalf of all the families undergoing this kind of experience. This lady herself has reached out to other parents to see how she could support them. We should not, however, let people undertake this support among themselves without providing support ourselves. That is my plea.
I was not going to touch on this, but having listened to a few other speeches I will finish with a few comments on migrants. Most migrants do not make the dangerous journey because they want to. Nobody would want to leave their families behind and come across dangerous waters. The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we need to deal with this issue. However, I firmly believe that we keep looking at this the wrong way round. Let us help the countries build their own infrastructures so that people feel safe to live in their homes in their own countries. That applies to economic migrants. Where there is war and risk to life, the argument is very different. I hope, however, that in the 21st century we look at the levelling-up agenda not just in the context of the UK. Covid has taught all of us that we are only as safe as everyone else is, so we have to help level up not just in our own country but globally.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I had the privilege of being on the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry, which reported in July 2020. I draw attention to my declaration of interests in that report, in particular to my work as a barrister in the field of claims by problem gamblers against gambling operators. I also sit on the executive committee of Peers for Gambling Reform. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, as the chair of that body. What I will say now is a coda to the powerful speech that he made a couple of hours ago.
The Select Committee report—and, for that matter, just about everyone who has considered gambling in the online age—identifies the scale of the problem that we now face. The liberalisation of the statutory regime that occurred when the Gambling Act 2005 came into force went too far, even at that point, but in any case online gambling was at an embryonic stage then. Some noble Lords, but probably not all, may know that it is now possible to turn one’s smartphone into a casino within seconds and gamble on virtual slot machines, poker tables, roulette tables, whatever takes one’s fancy. The only limit, in practice, to the amount that you can wager is the amount that you are able to deposit by debit card. You can play multiple tables or machines. The speed of play is far quicker than anything available in the physical world. The games are artfully designed. Most people can resist the temptation and gamble safely and enjoyably—and the liberty to do so must be protected—but many cannot. It is not an easy thing to measure, but one not implausible estimate is that there are 2 million problem gamblers in the UK.
Realism is required, it seems to me. It is unrealistic and unfair, really, to expect gambling operators to take effective steps to minimise problem gambling. There is an obvious conflict, which can be briefly expressed as, “The bigger the problem, the bigger the profit on the bottom line”. The stakes are high for the operators. Gross gambling yield in the UK, which is defined as the amount retained by the industry after the payment of winnings before payment of operating costs, is now a little over £14 billion a year. It might have risen over lockdown; we shall see.
Fundamental changes are needed and they will have to be enforced. Some changes certainly require primary legislation. Many important and necessary changes do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said. The Gambling Commission has extensive powers and it can be required to use them. It is able to control or prohibit the use of so-called VIP schemes and is beginning to develop provisions based on the difficult but important concept of affordability. The 2005 Act itself provides machinery enabling the imposition of a statutory levy that could fund research and treatment. Inexplicably, that has not happened yet.
Primary legislation will probably be required to create a gambling ombudsman. This is essential. The ombudsman will have powers to call for documents and information that will bring to light any improper exploitation of problem gamblers. The operators will then be very strongly motivated to act appropriately.
To my mind, it is a little troubling that it seems the online safety Bill will have nothing at all to say about gambling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I hope that the Minister might be able to address that omission in her closing remarks.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech, and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, because this is the first debate I have spoken in since he joined your Lordships’ House and has been sitting on the Front Bench. I will focus my remarks on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and the contentious measures in it about protests and demonstrations. I support the Bill and those measures, although I regret that they are necessary. I will explain why.
Over the past five years, we have experienced a series of shocking political events that have exposed how divided our society has become. For me, the most graphic illustration of that division was the demonstrations and protests in April 2019 that brought parts of central London to a standstill for several days. To be clear, I am talking not about the subject of the protesters’ demonstrations but about how they went about their protest.
Until then, I think most of us assumed that it was not possible for people, in the name of any cause, however noble or important, to block other people’s rights of way and to get away with it. The inconvenience and cost of the disruption that the protest caused was reason enough to be angry, as was the inertia of the police in the face of such disruption. But what dismayed me was the realisation that common consensus among law-abiding people was breaking down—the common consensus that nothing justifies one group of citizens wilfully and deliberately obstructing other law-abiding people from going about their business.
One thing that has always united the vast majority of us, regardless of our differences, is what is acceptable behaviour in public, including when it comes to how we protest and demonstrate in support of things we believe in or are against. My regret is that we now have to legislate to make something that never used to be in doubt undeniable in law.
Of course, one thing that is still uncertain is whether there will be prosecutions or convictions in the light of this legislation. Only a month ago, a jury acquitted protesters who had caused criminal damage to private property, even though the judge directed the jury that there was no defence in law for their actions. I would welcome the Minister’s reaction to that.
That brings me back to what has caused this fracture in society and why I believe that Parliament has no choice but to act. As hard as it may be for some noble Lords—and Members in the other place—to accept, the political realignment we are seeing in Britain is in part because many voters cannot be sure that people such as parliamentarians and political and social campaigners, who may have different views, stand for and share the same belief in upholding common standards of behaviour which unite all law-abiding people. As regrettable as this legislation may be, it is necessary because these same citizens need us—Parliament—to stand up for them and what unites us with them.
The gracious Speech said that the Government will legislate to
“level up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom”.
I believe that all sides of this House support this goal but, if we really want to achieve it, we should keep in mind that the inequality and unfairness that people feel is not only about lack of economic opportunities. It is also about the erosion of standards which all of us must uphold if we are all to have an equal opportunity to succeed.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
It is no surprise that there was no mention of the arts and creative industries in the Queen’s Speech, yet I wonder if we have not reached a critical juncture in their future. This is not just about Covid and the effects it has had on the arts. Organisations are struggling, and many freelancers have still not received any support, despite the welcome—if necessary—recovery fund. This is also about the longer-term effects of Brexit, alongside the Government’s stance on the future of skills in this country.
The Government should urgently reconsider the proposed 50% cut to the funding of higher education courses in arts subjects. This would be not only disastrous in its own right but destructive in ways the Government may not yet fully appreciate. The arts sector has been unanimous in its condemnation. Andrew Lloyd-Webber has rightly called the proposals “idiotic and short-sighted”. They are so for a number of reasons, not least because, as a society, we should not have to make a choice between science and technology on the one hand and the arts on the other. As the Incorporated Society of Musicians says in its helpful briefing, it is “a false dichotomy”. To say that such courses lead to dead-end jobs, as Gavin Williamson put it last week, is quite simply wrong. Apart from anything else, the arts and creative industries are of great financial worth to this country. They are—and should be—considered a significant aspect of its future.
There is too the incalculable, central importance of innovation and creativity of design, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, discussed in his excellent speech last week. This has also been mentioned by other noble Lords today. Design is both the bridge and glue between the arts and sciences. It gets no mention in the build back better plan. I raised a concern about design in education in an Oral Question on industrial strategy on 26 April. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, replied,
“design and innovation are going to be key and crucial”.—[Official Report, 26/4/21; col. 2065.]
I agree. If so, there should be greater opportunities to study art and design in schools and beyond, not fewer. This is a strategic priority.
We still need a government-backed Covid insurance for live events, even at this stage, in mid-May. Festivals are still being cancelled. Hundreds will be cancelled without insurance. This will continue beyond the summer, for events both large and small. In response to my Oral Question on 27 April the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said,
“we need to be absolutely confident that any scheme would result in an increase in activity”.—[Official Report, 27/4/21; col. 2146.]
With respect, is that not why we need insurance, because of the uncertainty which may yet persist? It is required until some form of commercial insurance can be made available. This is what Governments are for.
I raise again, as I did last year, the concern over whether new planning laws, which will encourage housebuilding and allow freer rein to developers, will also lead to the closure of community and arts buildings and spaces, including studio spaces, arts centres, theatres and music venues, as well as discouraging new spaces. We need to keep an eye on this.
With the continuing destructive effects of Brexit, the performing arts urgently need a bespoke visa waiver agreement, additional to the TCA, to be negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, alongside much else that needs to be resolved, including work permits, cabotage and carnets. These are not teething problems but a direct result of us leaving the single market. The Carry on Touring campaign has its online summit on these concerns on Thursday, and I hope that many Members, especially Ministers, will attend that important event.
Finally, as recommended in a new report by the Writers All-Party Parliamentary Group, we need a creators’ council, whereby many of these concerns can be directly communicated by artists, including freelancers, to government. This is an excellent idea which has growing support, and I hope that the Government take note.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in response to the gracious Speech, I shall very briefly look at some issues concerning the police. I know only too well that policing is an area of public service that is rarely absent from the headlines; whether it be in reality or depicted on film or television, people will have their own perception of what policing is really like in the real world. I am often asked whether “The Sweeney”, “The Bill” or “Line of Duty” are true to life. I can put your Lordships’ minds at rest: murders do not get solved in an hour and junior officers, as much as they would like to, do not arrest senior officers, handcuff them and march them to the cells through the office past all their colleagues. It may be good for ratings, but it is not the real world.
It is sometimes said that a country is judged by how it treats its prisoners. I believe that it is also judged by the way in which the police treat the public. In the UK, thank goodness, we are policed by consent. This is demonstrated—to the astonishment of visitors—by the fact that in Britain the police are largely unarmed, apart from a baton and sometimes an unlethal taser. In my days on the beat, other than in large metropolitan areas perhaps, police officers lived in the areas that they policed; we lived in police houses in villages and towns, and local people knew who we were and where we were. There was often an office attached to the house, and we would get to know the locals, particularly the villains. There were no computers then, of course, few cars and a paper-based intelligence system, provided by an excellent relationship with law-abiding members of the community, who often tipped us off. It was epitomised by that excellent TV programme a few years ago, “Heartbeat”, which many of your Lordships will have seen.
Before I am reduced to tears, I shall explain the point that I am leading to. Policing is not about being an occupying army exercising force; it is about citizens in uniform acting on behalf of the community to keep order. I appreciate that society has changed, but I hope that our values have not. We need to get back to community policing where possible, but that requires feet on the ground, visibility and, most of all, approachability. I therefore welcome the previous commitment to recruit 20,000 more officers. When will that undertaking be completed? In modern Britain, police officers should also be representative, so could the Minister also comment on whether ethnic or racial minorities are applying to join in sufficient numbers?
Finally, as a training instructor I used to jokingly tell recruits that our customers were always wrong—but seriously, unlike in many other organisations, serious complaints are quite rightly dealt with independently. “Who polices the police?” is an important question. It is essential that such matters are seen to be dealt with fairly and appropriately, and above all speedily, for the benefit of the complainant and of the officer involved. Some of those investigations can drag on for years to the detriment of the complainant and the police officer concerned. In the interests of fairness and justice, can the Minister assure the House that the Home Office will try to ensure a far quicker turnaround in the complaints procedure?
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her fine maiden speech.
I will touch on four areas in her Majesty’s gracious Speech. First, I share others’ reservations about the online safety Bill repealing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act: despite its limitations, this would have prevented children inadvertently seeing online pornography on commercial sites. I understand that the Government wanted to cover user-generated pornography, but much work had already been completed on the planned DEA protections, which could have been in place for the last 18 months.
This new Bill must deliver, as a minimum, all the Digital Economy Act’s child-protection measures—yet it leaves unmentioned pornography or age verification. Can the Minister assure the House, first, that the clear and unambiguous research showing considerable harms to children of easy access to pornography will be given paramount consideration in this legislation; and, secondly, that cyber-libertarian ideology, which holds that internet regulation is impossible, unworkable and unwanted, will not hold sway?
Secondly, will the Government’s legislation to ban conversion therapy extend beyond uncontrovertibly cruel and coercive efforts to change someone’s sexuality or gender, risking criminalising faith leaders, parents and friends approached by those who are ambivalent and confused, say, about same-sex attraction? In Victoria, Australia, it is illegal to engage in prayer that does not affirm same-sex attraction. Yet, ironically, this discriminates against gay Christians who, for deeply held faith-based and other personal reasons, want to remain celibate but are, in a cruel twist of coercive liberalism, denied support to uphold a freely made decision. Ed Shaw, pastor of Bristol’s Emmanuel City Centre church describes how the only people exerting unwelcome pressure on him to change his beliefs and behaviour have been
“gay Christians who have rejected orthodox church teaching—and the wider culture that thinks I am crazy to embrace it.”
Thirdly, as a co-founder of the Family Hubs Network, I welcome the Government’s commitment both to ensure that children have the best start in life, including by rolling out family hubs, and to address lost learning during the pandemic so that every child’s education enables them to fulfil their potential. Speaking as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for 22q11 Syndrome, the second most common genetic syndrome after Down’s, I ask the Minister how educational catch-up will be achieved where learning difficulties associated with genetic conditions such as 22q make this far more difficult?
Finally, I welcome the integrating imperative of the health and care Bill. However, integration cannot mean overmedicalisation. If hospitals become the default hub for integrated care systems, this could make integrated services less, not more, available to those who struggle most to travel, such as those on low incomes and those with significant childcare responsibilities. Hospitals are not best placed to deliver social provision with significant health implications, such as family support. In Essex, local family hubs enable prevention by integrating paediatric health with all the other support families need to thrive.
Parenting impacts greatly on children’s health and is a recognised public health issue; well-functioning couple relationships are associated with many health gains for adults and help to make families safe, stable and caring for children. In summary, to be effective for people rather than systems, integration needs to include local support for good-quality relationships and nurture these health assets.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly about a DCMS issue that I hope will lead to legislation in the current Session but was not in the Queen’s Speech: the outcome arising from the Government’s decision to establish a fan-based review of football, chaired by Tracey Crouch MP. Noble Lords will remember that this was prompted by the furious reaction of supporters to the monstrous plan by the six wealthiest clubs—the majority of them foreign-owned—to break away from the FA Premier League to form the European Super League.
That episode demonstrated the inability of the English game to reform itself. It has been given plenty of opportunities to do so over the past 30 years, with numerous reviews of the governance of the Football Association, and inquiries into racism, hooliganism and so much more, but little has happened. The power balance within the game is flawed, and there is chronic financial disparity and deep-seated unsustainability, with clubs driven out of business and much-loved community assets destroyed, as greedy owners have been allowed to profit from the sale of stadiums, with supporters ignored or treated with contempt.
The European Super League was the latest attempt to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a small number of owners regardless of the disastrous effect on the remaining clubs, but there have been others, such as Project Big Picture and the proposed expansion of the UEFA Champions League. In the face of all this, the organisation which is supposed to be the governing body of English football, the FA, has appeared weak and divided, its credibility shot to pieces. Vested interests have prevented football speaking with a united voice.
I mentioned the succession of reviews that have attempted to solve these issues. I declare an interest as I served as vice-chairman of the Football Task Force 22 years ago. We attempted to tackle the issues which alienated supporters, such as hyperinflating ticket prices and exorbitant prices for merchandise, as clubs declared themselves businesses and made fortunes for their shareholder chairmen by floating on the stock market. The Football Task Force published two reports which were broadly accepted, on racism and disabled access, but the third and final commercial report, which addressed issues ranging from replica shirts and ticket pricing to the involvement of PLCs in the game, and aimed to deliver a fair deal for supporters, was strongly opposed by the Football Association, the Premier League and the Football League. In that final report, the majority of us made it clear that if football could not reform itself, the Government should legislate and introduce statutory regulation.
Therefore, I welcome the inclusion, in the terms of reference of Tracey Crouch’s review, an assessment of the need for an independent football regulator charged with implementing regulation and compliance, backed by legislation. I am sure that one of the documents that she will study will be Manifesto for Change, published six months ago by a distinguished group that includes the former chairman of the FA, David Bernstein, former Sports Minister Helen Grant MP, who is promoting a Private Member’s Bill in the Commons to establish a regulator, Andy Burnham, the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, and Gary Neville. I conclude with a flavour of what they say:
“Clubs take excessive financial risks to achieve promotion, particularly incurring huge salary commitments. Relegation leaves clubs with parachute payments that temporarily meet unsustainable wages. Competing clubs consequently have to match such wages, creating an inflationary spiral … Stadiums have been sold off for commercial exploitation, fit and proper person tests are carried out in a weak and inconsistent fashion, fans, the lifeblood of the game, feel let down and neglected.”
This has not changed.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I confess that I felt a frisson of excitement at seeing the long-awaited Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill in the gracious Speech. At last, free speech is on the agenda. The Bill is a valiant attempt by the Government to counter the chilling effect of censorship on campus and to strengthen the legal duty to uphold open debate—hurrah for that. I have some reservations. Will it lead to an overly litigious framework that interferes in institutional autonomy? Can you really use fines and threats to guard academic freedom? I am always nervous of outsourcing political battles to lawyers, especially when the problem is less procedural and more cultural.
To those who insist that free speech on campus is hyped-up reactionary scaremongering, tell that the Lisa Keogh, a law student at Abertay University, facing a career-threatening disciplinary action for discrimination for merely arguing biological facts about men and testosterone and women and vaginas in a seminar on feminism. Or say it is exaggerated to the teacher training student at Manchester Metropolitan University who has been threatened with a formal fitness-to-practise panel after raising the disgraceful lack of educational solidarity shown to the Batley Grammar School teacher suspended and forced into hiding, and branded Islamophobic, for showing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad in a lesson on religious tolerance.
Campus cancel culture is a real and present danger, but I have chosen to speak today because if the Government posit themselves as a champion of free speech on campus, I am worried that aspects of two of the Bills listed here seriously threaten free expression off campus. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill gives the police enormous new powers over public space and threatens, I would say, the very purpose of protest. It is most likely playing on the popular irritation with the undoubtedly anti-social, nihilistic and misanthropic tactics of groups such as Extinction Rebellion. It focuses on the noisy and disruptive process that may cause distress and may inconvenience public services. In other words, the police could stop any protest if assessed as a risk of being too noisy or disruptive. The police already have an armoury of draconian powers that frankly, it seems to me, they fail to enforce consistently. Is it because of a seemingly more politicised or partisan police force, or is it confusion about when or how to intervene? The police do not need more laws, but better leadership. What the public need is the freedom to demonstrate dissent—from Black Lives Matter supporters to anti-lockdown demonstrators—however unpopular their cause to some.
Parts of the online safety Bill have united civil libertarians across left and right, described as
“a frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech.”
The Bill imposes a duty of care on big tech providers to remove content that is lawful for adults but said to be harmful—harmful not in the JS Mill sense, or meaning physical harm, but using concepts stolen straight from the campus safe space canceller’s playbook. Harmful is anything assessed as risking
“a significant adverse … psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities”
—whatever that is. This vague and subjective diktat will inevitably mean Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram being empowered to double down on removing controversial or offensive views even quicker, and invites platforms to snoop on users more routinely. All of this is to be enforced by Ofcom, the state regulator that this year enlarged the number of protected characteristics, in its hate speech guidance for broadcasters, from four to 48—a catch-all so large that many speeches in this place would fall foul of it—creating ever more people who say they are a victim. That same Ofcom has shamefully elided gender critical feminism with transphobic hate speech too often. The Bill also gives Ofcom the power to police disinformation or misinformation. That should at least give us some pause, if not chill us. In a democratic society, citizens should be free to make up their own mind whether they trust what they read, sources and so on.
The Government boast that the online safety Bill will make the UK the safest place to go online. The danger instead is that it makes the UK a world leader in monitoring and sanitising dangerous views online. I have heard many eloquent and passionate speeches from my noble friends here, opposing laws used to criminalise protest and free speech, but usually they are talking about other countries, such as Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. I hope to hear equally compelling opposition closer to home, and that the Government will resolve their split personality approach. Are they free speech champions or world-beating censors?
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on a fine maiden speech. I am sorry that we will have to wait for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. Congratulations too to the Chancellor on the initial financial interventions he made to try to keep business and the arts still standing, but there is pitifully little in the Queen’s Speech on that desperately challenged creative industries—in particular music, in which I declare my interest as listed in the register.
The decision to concentrate the Chancellor’s resources on existing and proven organisation— understandable in many ways—has left many individuals to fall through the support net. I of course accept that one cannot please all of the people all of the time but, sadly, a confluence of government policies means that we now have a profoundly worrying outlook for the creative industries, despite the fact that the Government are always at great pains to point out that they value and acknowledge the billions of pounds that these industries generate for the Exchequer.
I have a quick question for the Minister. If 20,000 football fans can sing “Abide with me” at Wembley, why can a socially distanced choir still not sing together? If, indeed, real value is given to what creativity has brought to this country—not just financially but socially and aesthetically—surely we ought to be securing its future by investing in the opportunities and training that we give to succeeding generations. Yet we seem to be doing quite the reverse. First, disastrously, the arts came off the national curriculum and, while hubs do a certain amount for music, once again many fall through the system. Now we are told that there is to be a 50% cut in higher education for arts subjects. What are we to make of that? What do the Government think that says about their priorities, in particular for the less privileged—those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and who we are keen to see level up?
My noble friend Lord Bird potently made my point: social cohesion improves when people are given the creative means of self-expression. The number of children and young adults who find their way into music, art or dance because of enlightened exposure at a tender age is remarkable. Whether it is the London Symphony Orchestra, a string quartet or Radiohead, the ability to learn an instrument or read music at school had led to our having the musicians and composers who have brought this country worldwide admiration and income.
So what of these artists? Frankly, the post-Brexit agreement, or lack of agreement, on touring is disastrous. We are told that the DCMS is in consultation with representatives of our cultural organisations, and that advice will be offered on how to deal with visas and work permits for the 27 countries involved. However, that is shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted. We were assured by the Prime Minister that the problem would be sorted, and recent legal scrutiny commissioned by the Incorporated Society of Musicians suggests that it could and should have been. In fact, no visible progress has been made at all. Oliver Dowden’s statement to the Culture Select Committee last week did not, I am afraid, encourage me that we were about to see any significant change. The rules still vary from country to country. Some only allow up to 14 days’ stay and we still have no prospect of a solution to the road haulage problem. The Government seem to be paralysed, unable or unwilling to help.
I believe, and have been assured, that the truth is that the EU wanted this vital exchange of ideas and performances much more than our Government did, or do. Let me put it another way: in order to preserve the Government’s absolute obsession with their immigration red lines, the creative industries and musicians in particular were sold down the river—a river flowing now towards the open sea where they will doubtless meet the fishermen who feel that they too were sold unfulfilled promises.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am enthused by the fact that the online safety Bill will have pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, I am so enthused that, if the Whips are listening carefully, I am prepared to offer my services to sit on such a Joint Committee. One of the reasons for that is because I see a weakness in the Bill, not in its wording but in its structure. It is missing enabling powers to allow civil society to take action over online hatred. It has often been posed that we need the police to do this or that. Frankly, that is a logistical nonsense when it comes to online abuse and hatred.
I cite the example of football. If the perpetrators of the racist and other abuse that footballers receive had to have their identity provided by law, the banning orders that football could bring in would be a far heavier sanction, in terms of their impact on the behaviour of many individuals, than the fines the courts could apply. The football banning orders legislation of, I think, 1989 could be tweaked to add the concept of online harm so that, where there is a criminal conviction for football-related online crime, a football banning order for six to 10 years could be immediately added. That would have a huge impact on the behaviour of football supporters, both spectators and those online. Sky television and others, using their own civic powers, could well be persuaded to join in by removing the ability of the online abusers even to watch from a distance the football that they would be banned from attending. That is one example of how civil society could assist.
On the issue of football, I am hearing a lot of talk from politicians about how, with the European Super League, we could potentially emulate Germany. I spend a lot of time working with German football and have done for many years. I fully understand the tripartism that has been in Germany post-war, but it is not as simple as people think. People think that there is a 50+1 procedure in German football. If we take the 18 clubs of the Bundesliga, Volkswagen owns Wolfsburg, Leverkusen is owned by Bayer, and Red Bull owns Leipzig. Hoffenheim has a wealthy individual who has put in a vast amount of money. That has not been fan ownership. Bayern Munich is the classic example: every major German multinational is on its board. That is where the key decisions are made, not on the supervisory board. That is an illusion that some, in particular in the other House, are running on at the moment.
It would be far better to give powers by law to football supporters—I would deem the best definitions to be in the football banning orders legislation, which gives definitions; I would use season ticket holders as the empowerment group—to allow 75% of football season ticket holders in a particular club to veto new competitions the club goes into, shifts in location and changes in the registered colour of the club. That would give fans what they want. I am sure that could be tagged on to some legislation during this Session.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests, particularly as chair of 5Rights Foundation and deputy chair of the APPG on Digital Regulation and Responsibility. Like others, I welcome the long anticipated online safety Bill and the provisions it will make for children. The change in the Bill’s name from “online harms” to “online safety” reflects the journey the Bill has been on, and the widespread acceptance that we must stop arguing over what is and is not acceptable after children have suffered harm, and instead seek to tackle risks inherent in the technology they are offered and make it safe from the get-go.
Less welcome is the change of language from the promised “duty of care” to a list of “duties of care”. It is the expectation of parents, teachers and children up and down the country that the Bill will introduce a duty that, both philosophically and legally, requires the tech sector to think first before it puts its products and services in the hands of children. While specific duties can improve the safety, transparency and fairness of digital products, it is dangerous to set a path in which each special interest or expert group fights to include or omit every potential risk. Risks are interconnected and cumulative; they impact on different users in different ways; and they can expand and contract across different services and across time. We have been promised an end to the “Move fast and break things” culture of the sector, and the Bill must introduce a duty to care as a matter of principle, not a laundry list of pre-circumscribed duties.
As drafted, the Bill spends the bulk of its pages on rules that pertain to content. This undermines the stated ambition to tackle risk at a systemic level, as it leaves only cursory mention of the algorithms, functionalities and operating practices that drive user experience. No doubt we will revisit this, but before we lose ourselves down the rabbit hole of how to police content and who owns the truth, we must first ask whether companies are responsible for recommendations that they monetise. What is the legal status of a company’s published terms and community rules? What oversight does the regulator need to identify manipulative nudges, dark patterns or unfair practices? Or—my own personal favourite—if a company can confidently identify a 14 year-old child to target them with a Home Office awareness campaign on child abuse, should they simultaneously be able to recommend to the same 14 year-old self-harm content or extreme diets, or enable adults to direct message them with pornographic material? If the Bill does not take a systemic approach to curbing what have become industry norms, then children will continue to suffer the lack of what in every other industry is simply the price of doing business.
We have many months to scrutinise every line of the Bill’s 145 pages, but some things cannot wait. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I believe that the Government must ask regulators to bring forward minimum standards and codes of practice on urgent matters such as age assurance, safety by design, child impact assessments and algorithmic oversight, with the stated intention that they will be absorbed into the Bill, just as they are planning for guidance for video-sharing platforms. We need this Bill badly, but it is cruel to make children wait years for protections they could have now.
There are some startling omissions, some unwelcome exceptions and some shifts in emphasis that we must contest, but ultimately the biggest work of Parliament will be to ensure the Bill’s enforceability. The current matrix of duties and responsibilities of the regulator are neither fully independent nor properly enforceable, and this must change. I understand that there are pressures from all sides, but the UK delivering systemic change on behalf of UK children that will, over time, become the new normal for children the world over is a great prize, and it is my sincere wish that that is the prize Her Majesty’s Government have in their sights.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this important debate and I begin by congratulating my old friend and now noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her excellent maiden speech—I know she will make a fantastic contribution to your Lordships’ House. I also refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. My speech will be in two parts. In the first one minute and 40 seconds, I intend to cover culture, and let me say how grateful I am to the Government for the support they have given culture during the pandemic, including the £1.57 billion they have invested in our many cultural institutions and, indeed, for taking a wider definition of a cultural institution, such as a music venue—something that I have long supported.
I have followed with interest my good friend the Secretary of State’s comments on the anti-woke crusade that he and the Government have embarked on. I noticed his interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph, which provoked some thoughts in my head about levelling up. I think he made a valid point about having more and varied trustees of museums, but my sincere yearning is that he and our cultural institutions use the lessons of the pandemic to really lean in—if I can use that colloquial expression—to digital. Digital is no longer an add-on, and the opportunities for our cultural institutions to provide fantastic, in-depth content for a wide variety of audiences, not just in the UK but all across the world, are almost infinite. The UK has a huge opportunity to take a lead here, because very few, if any, cultural institutions around the globe have seized this opportunity.
That is my one ask of the Government on the culture front, although I note the excellent remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which resonated because of his enormous, high-tech microphone, both about touring in Europe, which really needs to be sorted out—we have gone backwards to the situation that still exists with touring in the USA—and about the bizarre attack on the arts and humanities in schools and universities.
Having run 16 seconds over my allotted time on culture, I now turn to technology and note the online safety Bill, which is due to come to this House. The Government have already received an offer they can barely refuse: to have the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on their pre-legislative scrutiny committee. They may well take up that offer, if only to keep the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, from scrutinising the Bill in the way she has scrutinised previous legislation.
It is quite clear from the remarks made during this debate that this Bill will receive a great deal of expert attention, not least in your Lordships’ House. I say simply that this is novel, new legislation in which the Government are attempting—quite rightly, in my view—to put in place a regulatory structure that is very much needed. It is so much more complicated than anything that has ever been done to regulate content. Regulating broadcast and radio content has been relatively simple up to now. As the impassioned speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made clear, there will be some extremely complicated and grey areas.
Nevertheless, we should not resile from applauding the Government’s ambition to introduce what, in very simple terms, I think we all want: clear terms and conditions for the people who use these platforms and clear protection when they are assaulted and attacked on them. To be assaulted, attacked and taken down is very different from people expressing their views in an open society. It is quite right that protections are put in place by the platforms and that government and civic society have a role in policing how the platforms go about that.
Those are my two simple points, and I apologise for going 17 seconds over my allotted slot.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her excellent maiden speech. With her wide experience, she will clearly be an asset to your Lordships’ House.
For a time I was privileged to be the president of the Howard League for Penal Reform. That and other experience, including my 50 or so years as a criminal lawyer, have left me completely unpersuaded that increasing sentences and the population of prisons in general, and filling an ever more challenged prison estate, achieves any public good whatever.
When I was in another place in the 1980s, many of us were horrified that the prison population had passed 35,000. That horror attracted people in all parties at the time. It has now more than doubled, without any obvious sign of the country facing less crime, whether serious or not. Is the United Kingdom a better place because there are now more than 80,000 people in prison? I confidently say no, and there is no intellectual basis for saying that it is.
I urge Her Majesty’s Government to focus not on building more prison cells but on creating more and constructive opportunities for offenders to achieve a lawful life without serving time. I commend strongly the work already done by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who spoke very eloquently in that regard.
I will add something that I and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, agree on—that young offenders should be able to graduate out of their criminal records. We heard a wonderful speech earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has been able to reach your Lordships’ House, which I suppose is some height of achievement, despite having had a record as a youngster. But most youngsters do not reach your Lordships’ House. They cannot even get a job because when they apply for a job—for example, in the public sector—their old prison record is available to those who wish to employ them. Should that really happen to a 30 year-old found guilty of possessing cannabis when he or she was 15 or 16? I think not and I am astonished that the Government have ignored this device over a long period.
I turn next to treason, which has not yet been mentioned in this debate, but does arise from the gracious Speech. The Government wish to restore the law of treason in some amended form. It has not been used since the conviction in 1946 of William Joyce—Lord Haw-Haw, as he was known, although he was not a Member of your Lordships’ House. The motive for reintroducing treason is completely oblique and disreputable and the Government must recognise this. It is to avoid—to circumvent—the necessity of proving a specific crime or criminal intent by foreign terrorist fighters, such as the likes of Shamima Begum.
I regard as extremely serious and reprehensible the decisions and actions of British people who become foreign terrorist fighters. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned a somewhat eccentric jury decision. It will be nothing compared with a jury faced with the option of convicting someone for treason who has been a foreign terrorist fighter. Indeed, I have heard it said—I may even have said it myself to juries over the years—that the most democratic thing most jurors ever do is serving on a jury. They are not going to let it happen in cases like that.
As a coda I will add this: both the noble Lord the Minister who opened this debate and the noble Baroness the Minister who will close it are very good listeners. I think we should listen to them. During the past year we have had the luxury of voting in huge numbers against everything, but we have seen the mandate the Government have. I urge your Lordships that we should now be responsible and go for the art of the possible, not the luck of the improbable.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, it is always good to follow my noble friend Lord Carlile, even though it does generally make me feel boringly understated. Before touching on judicial reviews, as I hope to have time to do, I want to say a little about the proposed penal legislation. I have time for only one or two headline points, really.
First, on the question of terrorist offenders, let me say this: I recognise that they pose particular problems. Unlike all other categories of offender, terrorists are driven ideologically; their very purpose in life is to commit murder and mayhem and on entering prison their sole wish is to be discharged so that they can resume those activities. They have absolutely no intention of being reformed or rehabilitated so their tendency is to feign reform, and we have seen an appalling illustration of that recently. In their case, therefore, life sentences and indeterminate sentences seem to be altogether more acceptable and logical than in the case of other offenders.
That said, like others, I say that the UK imposes far too many indeterminate and long sentences overall. We impose more indeterminate sentences than all the other countries of the Council of Europe put together. The most egregious of these, as I have said many times in this Chamber, are the IPP sentences. That scheme was abolished and discredited in 2012 and yet there are still nearly 2,000 people detained under it, almost every one of whom is years beyond their tariff terms, and ever larger numbers of those released are now being recalled. To those who have not read the Prison Reform Trust report No Life, No Freedom, No Future, recently published with a foreword by myself, I say please do so.
My last headline point on crime is to deplore, along with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and many others here, the Government’s almost invariable reaction to any public concern about some offence, which is to increase the statutory maximum. They often introduce a statutory minimum and then what follows is always inflation; the sentences and the prisons get ever more overcrowded, with all the problems that that creates. The result of all that is ever less opportunity for rehabilitation. In the longer term, these longer sentences will produce more crime, not less. What a crazy system that is.
I will say a word or two on the proposed rebalancing of the relationship between legislature, Executive and the judiciary. Although as a retired judge I am of course jealous of the judiciary’s role and independence, I take a rather less jaundiced view of the Government’s proposals following the Faulks report than some of your Lordships who spoke earlier in this debate and last Thursday. It seems somewhat absurd to regard the setting up of that review and the response to it as a power grab and revenge for Miller 2. Surely everybody accepts, as I certainly do, the two specific legislative proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks: to reverse Cart—I am afraid I was one of the seven unanimously making that mistake, as shown by what has happened since—and to introduce suspended quashing orders, which are such a good idea because it is the inflexibility of judicial review that has proved a real problem over the years. The basic position has long been that if any impugned decision is found unlawful for whatever reason, then it is to be regarded as a nullity—nothing done under it has any effect. That has caused real problems.
I find nothing intrinsically objectionable in the sort of proposals that the Government are now contemplating in this consultation process, for things such as prospective-only overrulings, but that, alas, is for another day.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her eloquent maiden speech, and look forward to future debates with her. In winding up this wide-ranging and challenging debate, I will concentrate on the proposals on justice, with some points on home affairs, although I will not try to add to what my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lady Bonham-Carter and Lord Clement-Jones said on culture and digital media, and their great importance to our well-being and economy.
Summarising the philosophy of our response to the Government’s proposals, today’s speeches from these Benches have been marked by a commitment to security and safety through freedom, the rule of law and compassion. As a society, we are more secure and safer if we respond to crime with a strong emphasis on prevention, real support for victims and the reform and rehabilitation of offenders. We are better governed if the Government are accountable in the courts for unlawful action; we are protected from abuse of power by our right to protest—witness Myanmar, Hong Kong and many others.
This approach is at the heart of the widely applauded Domestic Abuse Act, and the draft victims Bill, ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, has the potential for a similar achievement. We have long campaigned for the victims’ code to be given the full force of law, and we are heartened by the commitment to address violence against women and girls.
However, we do not approach the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill with the same confidence. Hostile reaction to date has largely focused on the proposed restrictions of the right to protest. Even the language of the government briefing has sinister overtones:
“Balancing the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered, by enabling the police to better manage highly disruptive protests.”
The danger is that passivity and compliance may be encouraged by a disciplinarian Government at the expense of legitimate, if noisy, protest against injustice or abuse of power. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, forcefully supported this position. At best, the Bill is an overreaction to occasional unacceptable behaviour by protestors, which is probably illegal at present anyway—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
In the Bill, the Government’s consistent emphasis on the so-called tough crackdown, longer sentences and increased police powers never falters. But there is nothing in the Bill to improve our national performance in preventing crime or on reform, rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, except for a dubious commitment to a new form of secure schools, which is unsupported by solid evidence or the necessary resources. There is also nothing to address the de facto discrimination against black and ethnic minorities, particularly young men. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester made these points eloquently, and my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, the noble Lords, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, all spoke of the inhumanity and overcrowding of our prisons and the disgraceful state they are in. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also spoke of the desecration of our probation services. A number of noble Lords mentioned the welcome commitment to a police covenant report on police welfare, including my noble friend Lady Harris, who spoke of police treatment centres.
We wanted a commitment from the Government for a strong and wide-ranging anti-fraud measure to attack online fraud and scamming, as recommended by the Government’s economic crime plan in 2019. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, concentrated on this point, and it was covered by my noble friend Lord McNally and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, the limited U-turn on this issue in the online safety Bill goes nowhere near tackling this scourge of contemporary life—an epidemic, as the noble Viscount called it.
Turning to the judicial review Bill, the Queen’s Speech promises to
“strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution”,
and promises legislation to
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
However, the Bill now proposed is limited to introducing suspended quashing orders and to ending Cart JRs in which the High Court reviews Upper Tribunal decisions. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that suspending quashing orders will sensibly allow time for government to correct irregularities before implementing decisions, rather than quashing them immediately. My original reaction to the proposal to reverse the Cart decision was sympathetic, but I now rather doubt that the Government’s evidence on this stands up, so I look forward to debating the issue further in due course.
However, our greater concern, persuasively expressed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Woolf, my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Beith and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is that the language of the Queen’s Speech heralds a far wider reform of judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and his distinguished panel carried out a thorough and principled review of administrative law and effectively found that, in general, our system does not need radical overhaul, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, confirmed today. An attack on JR would threaten the rule of law and would be an unacceptable political response to a mistaken criticism of alleged judicial overreach, largely fuelled by the Government’s reaction to the Miller decisions.
On the proposed sovereign borders Bill, making asylum claims inadmissible for illegal entrants sounds, at first blush, justifiable. It is not. This proposal ignores the fact that many who run untold risks, sustain all manner of hardship and finally manage to find their way here, albeit illegally, have had no possible means of securing the visas that they would have required to enter legally. Without a workable and humane proposal for safe and legal methods of entry, as called for by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, this proposal would erect a barred gate against many who deserve our compassion and our welcome. We have a long tradition of offering sanctuary to the persecuted and to refugees. We are not talking only of justifiably outlawing people-smugglers but of making the grant of asylum dependent on authorised legal entry. On this issue, I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, whose passion on it I share.
As we witness the horrifying rise in anti-Semitism here and abroad, we should remember that welcoming the oppressed demonstrates our civilisation and our compassion. By shutting our doors to the oppressed we side with their oppressors. I would add that, for all the elegance of his language and his clearly good intentions, we profoundly disagree with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, to immigration and changes in the ethnic make-up of our society, which we believe do not weaken this nation but enrich and enhance it, just as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, described.
The Government’s plans for reform of the Mental Health Act are welcome, particularly the proposals to reform the process of mental health detention, to deal more humanely with autistic people and to improve the management of offenders with mental disorders. This is all in line with concerns long expressed from all around this House.
Finally, I add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said last Wednesday on the subject of criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour by charlatan counsellors or so-called psychotherapists who peddle their services to take over the lives of troubled young people, implant false memories of abuse by parents and families during childhood and create a dependence on themselves, alienating these vulnerable young adults from their parents and families in a damaging cycle of coercive control over their lives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, highlighted many years of parliamentary endeavour on this subject, thwarted not by principle but by the “wrong Bill” argument—an argument that we should abhor. We also want to see a professional register that would support genuine professionals and their status, and encourage potential clients to seek help only from properly registered professionals. This is, perhaps, a small issue, but it is one on which this House has a great contribution to make. The Government should be in no doubt that many, throughout the House, feel strongly on these issues. This will give rise to amendments to the proposed legislation, and will not go away.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, one that has included many speeches that are thoughtful, inquisitive and questioning of the Government. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her excellent maiden speech. She speaks with experience of the other place and of local government and I look forward to future debate with her. In a debate that addresses the safety and security of our nation and its citizens, I pay tribute to the police, the other emergency services and all those who keep us safe in their many jobs and roles in these vital areas of work.
In my contribution, I intend not only to look at home affairs matters but to refer to contributions that noble Lords have made on a number of other issues today. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly drew attention to the lack of support for artists and musicians, and the failure to get them proper access to the European Union. That is damaging for our economy and for a sector that brings billions of pounds into the UK.
I agree with every word of the contributions by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bull, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall. We have wonderful arts and cultural offerings here in the UK. I am proud that, when I was a young councillor in 1986, my first vote on Southwark Council was to end the ridiculous dispute with Sam Wanamaker and get the Globe Theatre built. Anyone who knows the Bankside area knows that it has been transformed by the arrival of the Globe, with the plays of our greatest playwright being performed where he himself performed them in the 16th century.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, spoke about the number of young people who have learned to read music and to play a musical instrument and who have had their eyes opened to the wonderful world before them. I was not good enough to play professionally, but I learned to play an instrument and to read music, and that has given me a lifelong love of classical music. I walk past the Royal Festival Hall every night on my way home. As a kid from a council estate, not only have I attended concerts there but I have played there many times. That was thanks to a wonderful teacher at a school I went to, Franz Busuttil.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, when he draws attention to the plight of freelancers. This is a group of people who have not been looked after at all in the pandemic, and lots of them have now gone into other areas of work. We run the risk that they will never be able to return to their professions, in which case we, the country and our economy will lose. It really is not good. Noble Lords’ contributions about the insurance cover for live events are also something that the Government need to listen to.
I was interested to hear the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. He spoke about proposals for postal and proxy voting. I am afraid that I take the view of my noble friend Lord Blunkett on these matters. I would be a bit more convinced of the intention of the Government if I had heard what we are going to do about the 8 million people who are not on the register, but there has not been a word about them. I want to hear how the people in our country who do not have a vote are going to get one, so when that Bill comes here we are going to look carefully at that issue.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, carried over from the last Session, contains provisions that the Labour Party not only supports but has campaigned for. That includes the police covenant—but the covenant must mean a real step change in support and protection for police officers—and the increase in sentences for assaults on emergency workers. We support the measures in the Bill on causing death by dangerous driving and on the extension of protection for young people under the age of 18 against those who want to have sexual relations with them. We will want to explore how we can widen the scope to maximise the protections for young people. We welcome other elements, such as the recognition that the remand of children must be used as a last resort and the reform of the criminal records disclosure regime. However, there are elements of the Bill in respect of protest and the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities that we have considerable concerns about, and we will seek to examine them fully and possibly amend them when we debate them in the House.
On the counter-state threats Bill, we on these Benches want to see measures in place that give our law enforcement and scrutiny agencies the tools that they need to keep us safe. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, that we need laws that are balanced and fit for purpose in order to combat the threats that we face from hostile states. We have a serious problem here that needs to be tackled: dirty money flowing into London; property being bought from states, despots and other individuals so that they can hide their money, their ill-gotten gains, in a safe jurisdiction; attempts to undermine our democracy, which the Government have done very little about; and people poisoned and murdered on our streets. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia exposed the weakness of the Government’s approach, illustrating how badly the Government have done in underestimating the threats posed and the response required.
My noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Mann raised the issue of football. We need to give fans much more influence and power regarding their local football clubs. Local clubs are the lifeblood of their communities—I have supported Millwall my whole life and the Millwall Community Trust is a fantastic organisation; Sean Daly’s team has done really good work there. Football club community trusts all over the country are key parts of their communities, and we need to support them in the work that they do.
The Government’s announcement of a strategy to combat violence against women and girls is welcome, but there is no timescale and many of the measures listed have already been brought into force so it would be good if the Minister could tell us more about what is proposed and give us some sense of the timescale that the Government are working to, because that is not very clear from the papers released so far. We on these Benches want to support the Government in tackling this huge problem in our society.
We support measures to give victims stronger rights, although I note that the Bill coming before us is a draft Bill. While it is good to carefully consider proposals, this is taking a very long time. I hope that in this Session we can make some real progress.
I have lost count of the number of immigration Bills we have had since I joined this House in 2010. Their frequency seems to be one in every Queen’s Speech. It is matched only by the frequency of planning Bills. What this tells me is that we have a Government who talk tough but who fail to deliver on the pledges they have made, and who preside over an incompetent and chaotic system, all of their own making. No one can suggest that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is going well. Look at the dangerous situation we have in the English Channel. Where is that comprehensive deal they keep talking about with France? What about the closure of the Dubs scheme, where only a few children have been beneficiaries? This is not the way to tackle these issues. I accept that they are challenging, but the solutions should be underpinned by agreement, firmness, fairness, competence and compassion, none of which is on display if we look at the proposals from the Government today.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made reference to the need to update the law to combat modern slavery. I agree with those calls for change.
I further add to the calls made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, who is not in his place, to do more for victims. That is exactly right. When that Bill comes forward again, I hope that the Government look at those calls. If we can only match what has been done in Scotland and in Northern Ireland on these matters, we will be doing a good job. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who is also not in his place, made a great contribution to improving the laws there in Northern Ireland.
In terms of legacy issues, the Government must honour their commitments made to families and to victims. People need to learn the truth of what happened to their loved ones. The process must be rooted in the rule of law and based on support for victims and communities in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will be able to set out what the proposals in the Queen’s Speech will deliver. We need some clarity there. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made reference to the Ballymurphy families, who fought for justice for five decades. His description—that they received the official government apology from the Prime Minister by email—is appalling, and contrasts poorly with the way David Cameron apologised to victims following the publication of the Bloody Sunday inquiry reports.
The online harms Bill is very welcome as far as it goes, but it has taken a long time to get this far. We are still talking about only a draft Bill, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede made reference to. I very much support the aims of the Government to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, with no safe space for criminal conduct or activity, to protect children from abuse, to protect us all from scams, to protect us all from fake news, misinformation and disinformation, and to make platforms face up to their responsibilities. Every time action is called for, the missing piece is the platform—the host not doing enough to tackle the menace that is the awful, corrosive, illegal and criminal side of the internet.
As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, the decision of the Government to hold back on criminal sanctions for directors is most regrettable. The most direct way to get powerful executives to take some action is to place responsibility firmly in their laps.
Look at the damage that has been done to people’s health and safety by conspiracy theories—the absolute rubbish that has undermined the Covid vaccination programme around the world. The reality is that vaccination is the only way out of the pandemic, not just in the UK; we need the whole world vaccinated. That is the route of safety to get us all back to something that represents the normality that we were used to.
We need urgent progress in this Session; we need a bold vision for safety, security and the protection of our citizens, putting measures in place to give people the confidence to thrive. What we get from the Government falls far short of that; it is particularly frustrating and disappointing to see proposals that are welcome but where the pace of change and reform is so slow. The draft victims Bill and the draft online harms Bill are two examples of where the Government have dragged their feet on proposals which we all agree are urgent and necessary.
In conclusion, there are measures that we support but where we want the Government to go further, and there are others that we have grave concerns about. However, as we always do, on these Benches we will work constructively with the Government to improve the legislation that comes before us.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all, I think, 69 noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. It covers three ministries —Justice, Home Affairs and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—and naturally I shall not be able to cover every detail of every last question. However, I shall cover the majority of the themes debated.
I join noble Lords from across the House in commending my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her maiden speech. The two of us go back a long way; we are that rare breed, still—former women who have been in charge of local government. Sorry, we are not former women—we are women. [Laughter.] We are still women, but we used to be in charge of local government. Sorry, it has been a long day.
Before I respond to some of the points raised, I emphasise that at the heart of this Government’s agenda is an unwavering commitment, including to delivering for the public, ensuring that we have a world-class justice system that works for everyone in society, enriches lives and keeps the country safe.
I turn first to the theme of the police, courts and victims. The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby, Lord McCrea and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Chakrabarti, all talked about the PCSC Bill, its unintended consequences, police resourcing and protest. I say right at the outset that the right to peaceful protest is fundamental to us as a society and should never be in question. I assure noble Lords that the measures in the Bill will not suppress the right to peaceful protest but will enable the police better to manage highly disruptive protests—we all know examples of them—which infringe on the rights of others. These very disruptive tactics are a drain on public funds and require police officers from around the country to step away from their regular responsibilities to police a protest instead. The measures in the Bill have been endorsed by the independent policing inspectorate, which has said that they would
“improve police effectiveness without eroding the right to protest”.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about stop and search, and I have heard concerns about disproportionality and the impact of stop and search on members of the black community. Our aim is for these orders to enable the police to take a more targeted approach, specifically in relation to known knife carriers. Data from 2018-19 indicates that young black people are 24 times more likely to be victims of homicide than young white people. It is vital therefore that we build an understanding of the impact and effectiveness of the new orders, so they will be piloted before being rolled out across England and Wales.
My noble friend Lady Verma talked about people convicted of serious weapons offences and how the police can monitor them. The measures in the Bill build on the Government’s record to date, including putting an extra 8,700 police officers on our streets and making £130 million available to tackle serious violent crime, including murder and knife crime. The new serious violence reduction orders will give the police powers to stop and search those convicted of offensive weapons offences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, talked about injured officers. Through the consultation, we have identified three focus areas in the police covenant: health and well-being—encompassing a wide range of issues including both physical and mental health—physical protection and support for families. We will establish a robust governance structure, made up of key policing representatives who will work with us to develop a well-defined programme of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, talked about offenders referred to the Parole Board under PSCE powers, who will have to prove that they did not commit an offence to a lower burden of proof and not through a court. There is a small number of prisoners convicted of non-terrorism offences who would present a threat if released. The power contained in the Bill addresses this gap in legislation. It will mean that the Secretary of State can prevent their automatic release and take available evidence to the Parole Board for them to assess the risk independently. Where this power is used, these offenders will be detained lawfully, pursuant to the authority of the original prison sentence imposed by the court.
My noble friends Lady Fullbrook and Lord Goschen talked about unauthorised encampments. Let me make it clear that enforcement will not be based on ethnicity. As my noble friend Lady Fullbrook fully outlined, the new offence and the amendments will apply to anyone residing in a vehicle without permission and causing harm within the conditions specified.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned a position of trust. This was of most concern during our review of the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, talked about the criminal justice recovery plan, including the courts backlog. This Government had begun to increase sitting days in the criminal courts to address rising demand. Covid prevented us making this change and brought its own challenges, particularly in facilitating jury trials. Having invested more than a quarter of a billion pounds on court recovery, we have expanded Crown Court capacity and opened 60 new Nightingale courtrooms. We are also determined to build confidence in the system, which is why we have increased funding for support services. We are also working with partners to reduce the time spent at each stage of the criminal justice process. An end-to-end review, exploring how the criminal justice system responds to rape is to be published shortly, along with an action plan to drive improvement for rape victims.
At this juncture, I thought I might respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on a VAWG timetable. We have a continuing commitment to tackling violence against women and girls and domestic abuse. We will publish new strategies this year to help drive a step change in the response to these crimes, building on the existing landmark legislation in this area—the Domestic Abuse Act and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester referred to the victims Bill and particularly the extent of female offender provision. We are making good progress in delivering the female offender strategy which includes piloting at least five residential women’s centres. We have invested £5.1 million in 30 different women’s community services across England and Wales, supporting service provision and the development of new women’s centres.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Beith, and my noble friend Lord Faulks talked about judicial review, the courts Bill and the different views on it. Our constitution is a noble thing which must be preserved. In our manifesto this Government committed to examining in depth how judicial review was working. Having done so, we believe there is a need to restore the right balance between our institutions of state—Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks QC, and the panel produced an excellent report and it is the Government’s opinion that the analysis in the report of trends in judicial review gives cause for concern. There are areas where there is a balance to be struck in terms of how judicial review operates. As the Lord Chancellor set out in the judicial review consultation document, the Government are committed to upholding the rule of law. This means the courts should and will be able to hold the Government to account in the manner set out by Parliament, and the proposals set out in the Government’s response to the review bear that out.
The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonsby and Lord Thomas of Gresford, questioned the use of ouster clauses. The Independent Review of Administrative Law panel concluded in its report that while Parliament should not exclude judicial review generally as that would be contrary to the rule of law, it could in particular circumstances oust or limit the jurisdiction of the courts if there was
“sufficient justification for doing so.”
As such, the Government felt it was appropriate to consider this point further in their consultation and to see whether it may be possible to add clarity to the circumstances in which ouster clauses may be upheld or how they may be interpreted. We will set out the contents of the Bill in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, suggested that the royal commission was going to be scrapped. Establishing the royal commission on criminal justice process remains a priority for the Government. An independent review provides a meaningful opportunity to explore some of the key challenges affecting the system and to consider how these can be addressed to ensure the effective delivery of justice for victims, witnesses, defendants and the general public. We are considering the precise scope, terms of reference, membership and timing, and we will of course update the House in due course.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about jurisdiction shopping for judicial review in Scotland. The Government are committed to respecting the devolved Administrations and we will work closely with the devolved Governments as our thinking develops.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about the provision of interpreters and asked to meet my noble friend Lord Wolfson, which he is very happy to do. Court interpreters should be appointed only from the national register. We are absolutely committed to continually improving performance and ensuring the highest standard of language services for those who need them. All interpreters provided to the courts are registered and regularly assessed by the quality assurance provider, the Language Shop, and will be removed from the register if they fail to reach the required standard.
On culture, media and charities, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bull, my noble friends Lord Moynihan, Lady Stowell and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about cuts to arts and higher education funding. We are not cutting overall arts funding by 50%, as some have suggested. The Government have asked the Office for Students to reform the strategic priorities grant for 2021-22, which will help to correct discrepancies that have seen, for example, media students funded at a higher rate than mathematics or history students. For providers losing funding due to this reallocation, the income lost would account for approximately 0.05% of their estimated total income, based on the latest data available.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, talked about touring performers. The UK’s creative industries are the finest in the world, and this Government are determined to support them. Touring is a vital part of musicians’ and performers’ careers, providing not only a vital income stream but enriching opportunities for cultural exchange across the world. Being outside the European Union does not change this, but it means practical changes on both sides of the channel, which will require understanding and adaptation. As the Prime Minister has said, we are working flat out with the industry, including through the DCMS-led working group, on plans to support the creative sectors to tour in Europe. The Government are committed to supporting our world-beating creative and cultural sectors through these changes.
My noble friend Lord Black talked about journalists’ reporting. Again, press freedom is an integral part of the UK’s democratic processes. However, the Act is in need of legislative reform, as identified by the Law Commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that the right balance is struck between protecting press freedoms, the ability of whistleblowers to hold organisations to account when there are allegations of serious wrongdoing and adopting measures that protect the UK’s most sensitive information.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about governance, in reference to the charities Bill. These reforms will enable charities to use their money and resources more effectively to promote their charitable causes. This is just one of many measures that have supported the charity and voluntary sector, including an unprecedented £750 million funding package specifically for the sector and access to cross-economy measures, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. These changes are not cutting regulation but refining and rebalancing it so that it works better. In developing these proposals, the Law Commission has ensured that important safeguards are retained to protect public trust and confidence.
On online safety, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the delay to the online harms Bill. I agree that it is taking a long time, but it is important that the Government get it right. We have taken a deliberately consultative approach with a wide range of groups, from children’s charities to the platforms themselves, to ensure that the legislation is as effective as it can be. We are working closely with Ofcom to ensure that the implementation period that will be necessary, following the passage of the legislation, is as short as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others talked about the freedom of speech element in the online harms Bill and determining what is harmful content. One of the overarching principles of our framework is to protect users’ rights to freedom of expression online. Both companies and Ofcom will have duties to protect free speech, for which they can be held to account. This Bill holds platforms to account for their significant influence over what content appears online. Platforms must consider and introduce safeguards for freedom of expression when setting out their safety policies.
The Bill will define three categories of harm to individuals: illegal content, content that is harmful to children and legal content that is harmful to adults. In secondary legislation, the Government will then set out priority harms on which companies must focus their efforts. These will be determined based on evidence of harm to individuals: Ofcom will advise government on which priority harms should be included in legislation, based on research and consultation with a broad range of stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others talked about child pornography. The strongest protections in our online harms proposals are for children. All companies in scope of this regulation will need to seriously consider the risks that they may pose to children and take action. Pornography sites will be subject to the duty of care if they host user-generated content or facilitate user interaction.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and others talked about fraud. We are deeply concerned about the growth and scale of online fraud and the devastating societal, financial and psychological impact that it can have on so many people. We have engaged extensively with a broad range of stakeholders, including the financial industry, consumer groups, law enforcement and other public bodies. We have listened to their views very carefully and decided that online fraud should be included in the scope of the online safety Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath, Lord McNally and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, asked about online gambling. The online harms regulatory framework will not seek to tackle gambling-related harm online. We have committed to a review of the Gambling Act to make sure that it is fit for the digital age and have received around 16,000 submissions to the call for evidence ahead of a planned White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about data governance. The UK now controls our own data protection laws and regulations in line with our interests after the end of the transition period. We will continue to operate a high-quality regime that promotes growth and innovation and underpins the trustworthy use of data.
The noble Lords, Lord Green of Deddington, Lord Paddick, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Dubs, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked about immigration. Through our New Plan for Immigration, we will reform the system so it is firm but fair. We want to welcome those who come to the UK through safe and legal routes, and to crack down on criminal gangs that facilitate dangerous and illegal journeys. An asylum system should not reward those who enter the UK illegally while other vulnerable people, including women and children, are pushed aside.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pressed me on where we are with the Dubs scheme. That scheme was defined and is now complete; it is not the only route, by a long shot, by which people can get safe passage to this country. We cannot help all the estimated 80 million people who are displaced worldwide, but global Britain will continue to show global leadership, welcoming those most in need. We will prioritise resettling refugees from areas of conflict and instability, rather than those who are already in safe European countries. We will maintain clear, well-defined routes for refugees in need of protection, ensuring that refugees have the freedom to succeed and the ability to integrate and contribute fully to society when they arrive in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about our international obligations and returns agreements. This legislation will be compliant with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 refugee convention. We will continue to pursue returns agreements and arrangements with our international partners as part of future migration partnerships. We expect our international partners to work with us on facilitating the return of their nationals to their own country where those nationals have no lawful right to remain in the UK. This is an established principle of any functioning migration relationship and it enables us to maintain public confidence in our immigration system. We are very proud of our record on providing refuge to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It has seen 29,000 family reunion visas issued in the last five years, with more than half of those issued to children.
I am aware that I am probably over time, but I assure noble Lords that I will be finished very shortly. I want to mention a final point supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, about countering hostile state activity. As they both said, it is vital that the security services and law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to disrupt state threats. It is something we have been looking at for some time, to ensure that we have the powers we need to tackle future threats and evolving tactics. A significant proportion of the Official Secrets Act dates back to the early 20th century, with roots in an 1889 Act. They are not suitable for the modern world, as the story of the squirrels in the tree that the noble Baroness told us demonstrated.
I will stop there because I am well over time. I absolutely support the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made on conversion therapy; and that my noble friend Lord Pickles made on voter fraud and identity at polling stations. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and my noble friend Lord Arran that assisted dying is one of those things on which there is a free vote in Parliament, and I am sure there will be another debate on it soon.
I apologise for going almost five minutes over time. I thank all noble Lords. There are issues that I have not responded to—such as the Northern Ireland issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned—and I will do so in writing.